Armstrong on Worth
June 6th, 2009 at 10:37 am by David FarrarWhere to now for Richard Worth? The MP may yet face criminal charges in a court of law. He will as likely not.
There may be more information to come out, but I tend to agree with John that what is known at this stage does not indicate a criminal offence.
Regardless, there can now be little question about the verdict of the court of public opinion. And that verdict is driving the politics towards one inevitable conclusion – that Worth at least be suspended, if not expelled from the National caucus in reasonably short order.
The publicising of separate and detailed accounts from two women of alleged sexual misconduct on his part have tipped the political scales to the point where National MPs have little option but to eject him.
If he does not resign, it seems inevitable – unless Worth can make a case that he has behaved appropriately.
Putting as much distance between National and Worth is now the Beehive’s priority. However, the two weeks’ grace offered to Worth also gives Key some breathing space – as does the fact that Parliament is not sitting next week. That means no question time for Labour to try and score points over Key’s handling of the whole sorry episode.
It needs to be resolved by Caucus next Tuesday.
Tags: John Armstrong, Richard Worth
June 6th, 2009 at 10:52 am
DPF, here is my analysis of the backdown by Goff I have posted on “the standard” on providing texts (TV1 news last night) and the womans statement. I think it could be worth a bit more analysis on your part:
I can see precisely why Key is getting cold feet over meeting the woman. A careful analysis shows that either the woman, Goff, or both have been lying.
To start with lets look at Goff:
Firstly, when it was reported there were e-mails and phone calls from Worth.
Then it was downgraded to texts and phone calls.
Then last night on TV3 news Goff was saying that the texts themselves do not incriminate Worth. Only the phone calls do.
Now lets examine the womans statement in some detail:
She said:
“the texts were carefully worded but need to be read in context with the phone calls”
That would seem likely. Someone would be incredibly stupid to put this sort of stuff in writing. This would explain why Goff also seems to think that the texts in themselves do not explain anything, and why he thinks it is unreasonable for Key to demand the texts before seeing the woman.
However, the woman contradicts herself:
“Around this time he started ending his texts with xxx…”
and
“There were also texts asking when we were going swimming together.”
So, the woman has clearly contradicted herself. She says that the texts were carefully worded implying that no adverse inference could be taken from the texts themselves. But, on the other hand, she gives examples of texts that clearly would do just that.
Further she says that:
“I am happy to provide copies of the text messages which I still have and phone records to Mr Key and meet with him if that would help.”
So, according to the womans own statement she should have copies of texts that clearly implicate Worth, even though she denies it in her own statement. Goff backing down on supplying the texts suggests that he does not believe the texts exist even though the woman explicitly states that they do exist. This is all getting very murky. No wonder Key is getting suspicious about it all.
Further more she has offered in sequential order to:
1. Supply the texts and phone records.
2. Meet with Key.
Key is simply asking her to do in sequential order what she has promised to do.
Vote:June 6th, 2009 at 11:18 am
If Goffs great plan is to take out National with one left wing ho after another setting up dumass philanderers… hes going to have have to get some much more atractive left wing chicks than he currently has.
God the thought alone of Sue Bradford is enough to give a man massive soft on. [shudder]
But what a class act you are Goff.
Vote:June 6th, 2009 at 11:35 am
Apart from mis-use of a telephone normally dealt with by telecom rather than the Police it is difficult to see what other offence Worth could be guilty of in respect to the GOFF complainant.
Vote:June 6th, 2009 at 11:36 am
I think Goff-Labour’s new plan to prevent another incident like the Worth one recurring is really praiseworthy. Please read this precis of it before you fly off the handle.
There will be an officially sanctioned form which must be used by men who wish to initiate potential romantic contact with women. This will be in paper format and must be signed by a JP and comply in format, wording, and length with regulations to be drawn up. Before a second message can be sent in any format – written or otherwise — the man must receive from the relevant woman a completed Form B in response and permitting further communication. This completed form must also be signed by a JP.
All text messages on these lines will conform to this format under agreements to be negotiated with Vodafone, Telecom NZ, and any future cellphone network providers.
Voice calls from cellphones will be allowed only after caller has received a completed Form B for each call, and must be made on a hands-free phone.
Landline phones will also require receipt of a Form B.
Thus to comply with the requirements all approaches by men to women must be initiated by written, paper communication using Form A. This can be faxed, as can Form B. All approaches by men to women following the first must always and in each case be preceded by the male’s receipt of Form B.
Both Form A and Form B will be subject to regulations provided by the empowering bill, and thus will be subject to change.
The regulation and general format of the new rules will be known as the Goff Protocols.
Vote:June 6th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
“It needs to be resolved by Caucus next Tuesday”
At first glance I thought you wrote “It needs to be resolved by Cactus next Tuesday”, yes they should call on her expertise in sorting out dirty old men!
Vote:June 6th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Just a correction to my first post. It was actually TV1 news, not TV3 news. Here is the link:
http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/worth-faces-further-allegations-2770275/video
Notice that Goff claims it is unfair to have to provide the texts as evidence because the sexually explicit stuff is in the phone calls. Yet as I pointed out, the womans own statement gives several examples of sexually explicit material. One of these examples was “texts” not just one text, enquiring about when they could go swimming together.
Someone is telling porkies here: Goff, the woman, or both.
Vote:June 6th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
The government has become Worthless.
Someone had to say it…
Vote:June 6th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Several already have.
Vote: