Goff knew back in November 2008
I speculated this morning that Goff may have known about the earlier complaint for as long as 75 days. I was wrong. It seems he said on Morning Report that he was alerted way back in November 2008 – within days of the alleged harrassment beginning.
So in fact Goff knew about this for six months – including most of the period where the alleged 100 phone calls and texts occured. And then three months after they stopped, then raised it with the PM.
Cactus Kate also raises issues around why was Worth not told to stop early on.
I don’t think any of this excuses the alleged behaviour though.
The hypocrisy from Labour on this issue is quite stark. They are saying Key should not have taken Worth’s word for it, and investigated further.
Now Worth not only denied the allegation, he wrote that he was prepared to sign a statutory declaration that they are false. This is a sworn oath on penalty of perjury – Jeffery Archer got a long jail sentence for making such a false oath. So you had a barriaster and solicitor of the High Court, an MP, and the Associate Minister of Justice saying he will sign a sworn statutory declaration, against a second hand complaint with no supporting documentation.
Sure with benefit of hindsight you can argue one should have asked for the text messages – but the complainant herself has said the text messages by themselves prove nothing without the phone calls.
Now for the hypocrisy compare Labour’s position on Owen Glenn’s donation to Winston Peters legal fees.
Helen Clark admitted that she had known for over six months that Glenn said he donated to Peters. She phoned Peters who denied it, and she left it there – saying it was not up to her to investigate – depute this being a breach of the Cabinet Manual.
Now Peters did not, as Worth did, offer to sign a statutory declaration. He did not state in writing they were false. He did not say he was so convinced they were false he would sue anyone repeating them.
So the double standard from Labour is immense. In Helen’s case she had direct first hand testimony from Owen Glenn, on a mater of absolute fact (did he donate to Winston’s legal fees or not – can be proven within minutes), and a mere verbal denial from Winston. And Labour says Helen was right to take Winston at his word, even though this was a simple factual matter that could have been proven by a request to Glenn for a copy of the bank transfer.
And here we have a PM who has an anonymous allegation from a Labour Party activist, who will not be named, who has not supplied any documentary evidence – against a Minister who denies it in writing, and says he will sign a statutory declaration at risk of perjury if false.
Now sure a reasonable person can say both Clark and Key should have inquired further. And a reasonable person could say neither Clark nor Key should have inquired further – you trust a Minister unless there is direct written proof. Also one can very reasonably say Key pushed as far as he could (given the offer of a statutory declaration) but Clark did not (as it was a simple factual matter which could have been proven in minutes)
But how can anyone reasonably claim Clark was right not to inquire further, while Key was wrong not to do so?
I’m sure some of the commenters will give it a good go though.
![](http://a1.twimg.com/profile_images/438707532/highcontshirtcolor_normal.jpg" rel="image){kind=small}
June 5th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
You are really expecting the lefties to actually take those facts into account?
Have been away somewhere, maybe a swedish lady kept you otherwise occupied?
maybe a few days on Great Barrier without any communication?
It must be something, because those facts has been underlined, underscored, proven
reproven, links provided and yet the lefties yap on and on about how bad key has handled this.
I have more chance of getting a group of Sunday school parents to allow their 17 year old daughters
to go away to a camp run by the Cronulla Sharks!
June 5th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
As I said on another thead if Key took it seriously he could have said this
““Thanks for that Phil, I’ll look into this issue right away, firstly I’ll personally meet Dr Worth to get his side of the story, and perhaps you can ask the complainant if she would be willing to meet me or my chief of staff. Also if you have any copies of the mails or texts could I have a look at them”?
He not only took Worth’s word for it, he did not even ask him personally!
Tell you what I’ll do though David, I’ll happily stipulate that Helen Clark was wrong over Winston. Now thats done we can now move on to discussing why John Key does not take allegations of selling jobs for sex seriously enough to do anything other than ask, through a third party, the alleged offender if it was true?
The issue of when Goof knew is a big fat red herring, telling Key earlier would only have meant he would have done nothing about it earlier, nice try in muddying the water David but it aint going to stick I’m afraid.
[DPF: But Sonic did you at the time say you thought Clark was wrong over Winston?
June 5th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
The fact remains that it is entirely reasonable and in fact probable
that the PM said “Serious allegations, I’ll take it up with the member, but can you provid
me with any more information (evidence)”
There is no adult with half a brain that would just take information like that at face value.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Sonic
Prove to me that
1) Key did not say that.
2) He did not discuss it with worth in person
3) He did not ask for more information
4)That Stating that if he did not resign he would have been sacked – is not taking it seriously.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Kinda explains it
June 5th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Bok keep up, listen to this
http://www.radionz.co.nz/__data/assets/audio_item/0012/1968609/ckpt-20090604-1710-Prime_Minister_defends_his_handling_of_the_Richard_Worth_affair-m048.asx
It’s all there.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
bok
That explains why the lefties are all over it.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
“DPF: But Sonic did you at the time say you thought Clark was wrong over Winston?”
I don’t recall David, but hey it’s all done now so we can all move on to today’s issue.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Catatonic/Sonic at 1.45pm: “…As I said on another thead if Key took it seriously he could have said this…”
Now this leftist troll is duplicating his incoherent burbling across threads.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
It hasn’t yet sunk in for Sonic and Tuija that they are witnessing at first hand the beginning of the end of Phil Goff’s political career. The bloodhounds are baying and the sharks are circling and it’s not John Key’s blood they can smell. Its the scheming little short arsed liar from Mt Roskil electorate who tried to set up a sting on Richard worth on order to damage the PM.
Trouble is it didn’t work because Worth was actually just too plain stupid for the lot of them
June 5th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
sonic
The issue of when Goof knew is a big fat red herring,
Now thats a typo!
June 5th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
the end of Phil Goff’s political career.
Dont you mean Phil Goof’s political career.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Adolf still has to tell us why if this was a setup they only told John Key in Private rather than the press (or a favourite blogger)
Come on Columbo, explain that to us!
June 5th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
I hope they’re paying you for this silliness DPF. Whatever it is it can’t be enough.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
I don’t recall David, but hey it’s all done now so we can all move on to today’s issue.
Lets see, the title is: Goff knew back in November 2008 .
The issue is what DPF posts about, not what you decide it is.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
“The issue is what DPF posts about, not what you decide it is.”
I’m not telling him what to post Bevan, merely commenting on it. You may have missed it but this is called a comment section.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
What a pathetic attempt at misdirection.
Every ‘Leftie’ on the planet could post on here stating that HC ‘got it wrong’… So what have you gained… proved some hypocrisy in politics? Big fucking deal.
Nothing refutes the fact that Key has completely fudged this from start to finish, that National has been harbouring an utter disgrace as an MP and that Key’s integrity is nothing but a thin layer of nothing.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Sorry proof
You suggesting that it was just one phone call and that was it?
I did not hear Key say :
“I did not ask for evidence”
“I did not bring it up again after the initial call”
“I did not as Geoff for more details”
“I though it was not serious enough to act”
Proof, not yapping. – I tried to not have a crack at you, but hey, you started with the keep up, so.
Stop yapping, mate, you are starting to sound desperate and just a bit pathetic.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
David can we entice a slightly higher level of intellect in opponents on this blog.
Sonic and MNIJ is boring.
Maybe Russel Brown or some-one
June 5th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
So john Key’s own words not enough for you Bok?
None so blind as they who will not see, or in his case listen. Did you call that number I gave you BTW?
June 5th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Of course this is a stuffed up Labour sting.
Why else would Goff encourage it to continue since November???????
Labour just didn’t count on Worth being more stupid than they though and Key being much more decisive.
A great opportunity for Labour stuffed up by Goof.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
jonkey is an illeducated dipstick, and shows NZ in a very poor light.
Is this the best that the national Socialists can come up with? A man who creates new words for old? On radio last night he referred to the complainant in the worth case as “the allegator” and text (txt) messages as “textas”. Add to this his total inability to pronounce the name of our nearest neighbour and largest trading partner. The man is a buffoon!
June 5th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
If some high ranking official was abusing their position in phone calls and texts to me and I felt uncomfortable about it, long before I had received 40 texts and 60 phone calls I would have;
(a) made sure that I had Caller ID so that I did not have to answer the calls and get recorded messages
(b) started recording the calls as evidence
(c) started keeping records of the texts using a digital camera if necessary
(c) considered getting a new unlisted number
(d) considered the possibility of reporting the person to the police if I considered it to be a very serious matter
.
.
.
the one thing I would not do is report the incident to the leader of the opposition
June 5th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
MyNameIsJack/Sonic (and other twisted socialist dim-bulbs)
It’s clear what Worth should have done – hold a big sign with “NO” on it. Then all you dim-bulbs would defend him and claim Key was valid for not revealing what he knew.
You guys are very very sick – it’s OK when your side do it and you defend it to the end – but when the other side do somethign half as devious and corrupt – the sky is falling. Get over yourselves – National won – Labour lost – eat that.
Oh, and test the case in court – new concept I know but it could catch on. Well it could catch on till such time as the corrupt lot (Labour) are back in power then it will be back to “move on” supported by lovers of corruption.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
As she’s a Labour Party member going to Phil Goff makes a lot of sense.
So why didn’t Goff act sooner? Well maybe because SHE DID NOT WANT HIM TO. Goff could have made this into a big political scandal but he didn’t, because she wanted it kept secret. That’s pretty big kudos to Goff more than anything else. Turning down the opportunity of a political scandal and all.
Surely if John Key was interested in properly investigating the original complaint then he would have asked for evidence beyond just asking Richard Worth whether it happened. Why didn’t he do that? I guess he hoped it would just go away.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
burt, did lunch disagree with you? I think key was wrong to sac worth and to say what he did when there is currently only an allegation. Unlike the lynch mob here, I believe in innocent until proven guilty, a concept that appears to escape Key.
Further, i have a really odd belief, that no one should lose their job unless their proven malfeasance was directly related to their job. Makes a change from the useual baying for blood, so i do hope you understand,
June 5th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Goff is the proverbial Irish mine dector: STAMP STAMP STAMP BOOM… found one.
Meanwhile his best supporter is chronic the myopic. Jesus who’d be signing up for Team Goff With Skipper McChronic at the helm.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
MyNameIsJack
I don’t expect you to understand that testing allegations in court is the process. I don’t expect you to understand because you supported a govt that retrospectively validated their actions and killed a standing court case to save the PM from political embarrassment.
Saying “move on” is a corruption of the process. How you equate a call to see charges laid and testing in court as being a lynch mob – I don’t know.
Sure the Labour way to do it is to deny, delay and denigrate but that is not how alleged breaches of the law are supposed to be dealt with. Well not in a democracy where MP’s are accountable under the law.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
So John Key took a week to review the (second) claim and then fire his minister for conduct unbecoming.
Meanwhile Phil Goff took six months to raise the matter with the PM.
And the question from CloseUp is “what did John Key know, when did he know it and what did he do about it?”
Can you spell ‘b-i-a-s’, TVNZ?
June 5th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
burt (3103) Vote: 0 0 Says:
June 5th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
MyNameIsJack
I don’t expect you to understand that testing allegations in court is the process. I don’t expect you to understand because you supported a govt that retrospectively validated their actions and killed a standing court case to save the PM from political embarrassment.
Burt – this is an out right lie. IF you can find proof, $100 to a charity of DPF’s choice AND I’ll run naked the length of Colombo St. If you can’t, then perhaps you’d be a MAN and 1 appologise and 2 make a similar donation.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Did Goff ask Key to investigate an allegation of trading sex for jobs (in which case one would reasonably expect the Prime Minister to ask for evidence) or did he simply bring to his attention the fact that there were unwanted advances that should come to an end in which case, it seems, that outcome came about and there was probably no need to pursue it. I think that the most that can be said is that neither Key nor Goff thought that either the information available at the time or the inclination of the complainant (or lack of it) was such as to warrant pursuing the matter. Is evident that on the second complaint, there are identifiable facts and I would hardly have thought a period of one week to be unreasonably long in dealing with it. Particularly given that there was a budget and public holiday on the agenda.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
MyNameIsJack
Can you clarify what you think is the lie; You supported Labour? Labour killed a standing court case? The process of testing allegations of breaking the law should be the court?
June 5th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
…because you supported a govt …
Now, put up or SHUT UP.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
MyNameIsJack
If you did not support Labour then I apologise.
June 5th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
So why didn’t Goff act sooner? Well maybe because SHE DID NOT WANT HIM TO. Goff could have made this into a big political scandal but he didn’t, because she wanted it kept secret. That’s pretty big kudos to Goff more than anything else. Turning down the opportunity of a political scandal and all.
Indeed. And it would have likely stayed that way had other events not occurred recently.
June 5th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Let’s see. Worth harasses at least two women and it is Goff’s fault for not stopping him earlier or reporting it publicly even though the complainant wanted it kept secret?
WTF?
As John McEnroe used to say “You cannot be serious??”
June 5th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Mickey:
No, it was not Goff’s fault for not stopping him when the extent of his authority of disclosure was so limited.
Yes, it was Worth’s fault that he engaged in this conduct if in fact it is established (which seems evident).
No, it was not key’s fault for not taking action on the first complaint when it was probably evident that Goff was hamstrung by the extent to which he was able to divulge information.
Easy to have a poke at both Goff and Key if the political motivation to do so is there. Concentrate on Worth. It is his conduct that is at issue.
June 5th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
You do realise this kind of desperate spin only works on the already converted don’t you? The nats centre vote is leaking away as we speak.
Oh and English, by the way, will be loving his leaders handling of this trainwreck, he didn’t even try during question time did he… Before the years out expect a few tasty leaks from the upper beehive floors.
June 5th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Oh look at the impotent howling of the usual lefties, and the recently joined ones. .Impotent because all the man in the street sees is that Key sacked him in 5 days after an very quick investigation and managed to do it during a budget week.
All this quibbling about detail is irrelevant. Whats worse, the more detail which keeps coming out seems to show Goff up increasingly badly.
Key was right to sack him, but I wonder why Worth is so adamant of his innocence? Maybe he has kept copies of those texts and emails.
June 5th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
From Stuff:
“Goff said while Key claimed to have acted swiftly against Worth, in reality he had sat on crucial information involving his minister for weeks.
“It was something that could have been acted on much earlier, given the other question marks around Dr Worth’s judgment and behaviour.”"
Pot; meet kettle!
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2009/06/six-month-phil.html
June 5th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Let’s see. Worth harasses at least two women and it is Goff’s fault for not stopping him earlier or reporting it publicly even though the complainant wanted it kept secret?
So you expect John Key to go public and sack Worth over something the complainant wants to keep secret?
As John McEnroe used to say “You cannot be serious??”
Right back at cha.
June 5th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
There are two strands to it aren’t there? One is alleged harrassment that the woman wanted to stop and the other is the probably sackable alleged offences of harrassment, offering jobs for favours etc. Key has already said that if he had seen the txts and they were as described Worth would have been sacked. If Key had got evidence on Worth he would have to fire him and that would inevitably be public because sacking a minister attracts a lot of questions from the media. The woman did not want to go public, fair enough, but how does one then pursue an investigation beyond what actually happened and to what purpose? Presumably contact of any kind from Worth stopped, so the outcome the complainant wanted was achieved, if not one would think Key would have been contacted by Goff with more information. At that point there is an impasse: accusation, denial, no way to continue… unsatisfactory all round but kind of over. We are only hearing about this now because another matter has come up.
June 5th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Pot, meet kettle all right. Labour had 9 years of poor judgment, bad behaviour and worse. Worse, as in systematic duplicity, blatant rorting and deliberate law breaking.
June 5th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Bevan
“So you expect John Key to go public and sack Worth over something the complainant wants to keep secret?”
Of course I do. The fact a complainant does not want details splashed over the papers does not excuse what is totally unacceptable behaviour by a Cabinet Minister.
I feel like I am in a parallel universe where common ideas of decency and appropriate behaviour have somehow changed.
June 5th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
So you are saying that an accusation ought to be enough to sack a minister, even when the accuser doesnt have any physical proof and refuses to make the accusation publicly?
How would you know that the minister is in the wrong?
June 5th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Of course I do. The fact a complainant does not want details splashed over the papers does not excuse what is totally unacceptable behaviour by a Cabinet Minister.
Oh I see, your objective is solely to make Key look like a knob and get sued by Worth for defamation!
Oh yes cause Im sure Goff would have backed Key regarding the secret hush hush accusations in court.
Pass me a fucken Tui.
June 5th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Glad to see we’re refocussing on what really matters – the hypocrisy of last year’s Labour gummint, not what Worth may or may not have done wrong in the present!
June 5th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Goff released his info because he was tipped off by the police they were going to announce their investigation into Worth. Goff knew his sting would then be old news, so he shouted it out to the media and gained a headline. From the first approach back in November the Labour party orchestrated all the contact with Worth. Unfortunately for the Labour party Worth stopped of his own volition in Feb, so they were left jilted and lost there opportunity of a real sting.
June 5th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
How would you know that the minister is in the wrong?
Wish mickey had this sense of rightuousness during the Peter’s/Field/Benson-Pope/Samuels affairs. Oh no wait – those are different, they are cases of innocent until proven guilty!
I find it ironic that for Labour, a minister must either be found guilty, or state they will stand as an independant before their leadership acts, but expect National’s leadership to act on an unsubstatiated accusation that the complainant wants to keep private.
June 5th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Mad as March hatters
June 5th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Details are still a bit hazy but it sounds as if Key’s Chief of Staff is the person who dropped the ball. Goff approached Key off the record – which is appropriate – Key delegated to his Chief of Staff Wayne Eagleson(Key does have a country to run) and the Chief of Staff failed to go back to Goff to get more information and satisfied himself with Worth’s denial. Eagleson then went back to Goff and gave him the impression that Worth had been dealt with, which doesn’t seem to have been the case.
There has been a perception for a while that the government has strong political leadership and great media management but no internal coordination and no one making sure it all pulls together; no Heather Simpson in other words. Maybe Eagleson is actually doing a great job and the problem lies elsewhere but it looks to me as if both Goff and Key did everything right but that the PM was let down by a staff member whose competence was already under question.
June 5th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Glad to see we’re refocussing on what really matters – the hypocrisy of last year’s Labour gummint, not what Worth may or may not have done wrong in the present!
Ratbiter, like you said we are discussing what may or may not have happened. This very much has a lot to do with how the previous goverment acted when faced with a similar accusation. The same ministers and supporters who screamed ‘Innocent until proven guilty’ or ‘waste of the PM’s time’ are displaying a great level of hypocrisy when they are critical of Key and National’s handling of this issue.
June 5th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
That’s easily the weakest attempt to reverse spin an issue I’ve seen from you David.
June 5th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Captain Crab
I think Worth is saying that he may be a schmuck but he is not a criminal schmuck
June 5th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
I agree that perhaps I am prejudging Worth’s behavior. Maybe nothing happened and both women are dreaming it all up.
But Worth has not denied the texting or phone calls. Publicly all he has said is that he has done nothing criminal and that there has been a “rush to judgment”. Using the OJ Simpson line is not a good look.
Perhaps he should be given the opportunity to respond specifically as (gosh) whaleoil has proposed at http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/content/so-many-question-about-5th-march
(This is the first time I have ever agreed with Whale!)
Perhaps also this should have been the first thing that Key should have done once Goff did the entirely decent thing of tipping him off.
June 5th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Why did Goff wait until the contact had stopped for 3 months before he contacted Key to ask for the contact to stop ?
June 5th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
FFS – Goff has opened the door on this, the allegations are public. Possibly the woman’s identity might remain a secret but I doubt it. To clear the matter up will require scrutiny of text messages (which will still be archived with the phone company) and phone logs to see if it was one-way or reciprocal. She (and Goff) has made accusations, let’s see the proof. It could turn out that she has been leading him on for the purpose of trying to get a job, or even that this is an outright set-up. It stinks too much – it will likely turn into another h-fee for Labour.
June 5th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
mickey – the rush to judgement is more accurately a line from the infamous Duke La crosse team scandal in which Nifong the DA actively went on a witch hunt for his own political gain in the face of overwhelming evidence that the accused were actually innocent and the accuser was a drugged out stripper with very loose morals. We should keep digging into the similarities actually, so far you are most likely to be cast as one of the faculty who pre-judged the accused because they were all rich and white and the accuser was neither. Goff is looking good for the Nifong role too.
June 5th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
“Goff has opened the door on this, the allegations are public”
No he did not. Key did.
Source is at http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10576273
Goff’s behaviour has been exemplary. The right wing should be grateful.
June 5th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Apparently the alleged criminal event occurred in March. If Goff had contacted Key earlier it is possible Worth might have moderated his behaviour and an alleged crime could have been avoided.
June 5th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
mickey, Key referred to the incident Goff talked to him about, but didn’t give the details of it. Goff since saw fit to bring the details to light, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10576544
June 5th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
I agree that perhaps I am prejudging Worth’s behavior. Maybe nothing happened and both women are dreaming it all up. Blah blah blah
OMG, you are nimrod NO ONE IS DEFENDING RICHARD WORTH.
Seriously, I know you wish us righties were following the Clark method. I guess it pisses you off that now it prooves the Nats have more morals than Labour and that righties wont defend someone for the sake of it… You’ll just need to get over it.
June 5th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Hey guys we are seeing Parliamentary priviledge used to destroy a man. The first female complainant’s statement (unsigned and with the name erased) has been tabled in Parliament by Phil Goff and is now being quoted in the Press as if it were true, and Worth has no recourse to defamation to defend himself. No doubt Worth is a buffoon- the ‘Danny Crane’ of the National party – but this abuse of priviledge has more serious implications than go beyond Worth. The man is being put in the stocks woithout trial purely for some political advantage.
PS Key is not going to meet the complainant but will have his lackey meet her to establish if she has evidence. We know she hasn’t. John Key has an unfortunate tendency to make off the cuff decisions and have to draw back from them later – lack of political smarts I guess.
June 5th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Now if we are going to sack every hetro male from cabinet for shagging some one other than who they are married then there are a few incumbents that need to out their hands up.
If we are looking at cabinets past on either side of the the divide then there are one hell of a lot more that transgressed.
If we are looking at the other sexes then the last nine years of party time would make a newspaper full of stories.
If we are looking at favours for sexual favours then the last lot have a long list.
If we are considering Cabinet Ministers at a loose end after a lot of netball games then there is another chap who would be at the top of the list.
Provided that you say a few hail Mary’s and toss some coin in the plate, Don’t really care cause you like this sort of thing, are Maori where it’s share and share alike, green with a couple of tokes to help dull the pain or from university where liberal rights are fundamental, its ok. Just don’t make publicity.
There is a lot more bullshit to this than meets the eye and Cactus is absolutely right. I would guess the lady made a fuss when her husband found them out. Saving face is more important than a bit on the side.
June 5th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Heard Goff on Newstalk ZB – inferred Key was a liar.
Nice.
June 5th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Oscars Grouchy Mum :
He didn’t “infer” any such thing, he flat out called Key a liar. (Though, I guess I shouldn’t be too harsh because Key — and everyone else — apparently doesn’t know the difference between deny and refute.)
Sonic:
I don’t know about you, but I don’t actually want the Prime Minister’s Office investigating allegations of workplace sexual harassment because someone else tipped him a “gentlemanly” wink. I believe the State Services Commission and/or Ministerial/Parliamentary Service is not only entirely competent, but absolutely politically independent.
June 5th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Sorry Craig – grammar was never my strong point.
June 5th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
If we’re going to be pedantic about deny and refute then I should point out that Goff inferred nothing as inference is an action of the listener, not the speaker.
June 5th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
OGM:
Nah, just pulling your chain — and to be perfectly honest, I’ve been known to confuse imply and infer myself. Law of nature.
June 5th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Mr Goff as pooped in his own nest big time, the lefties should get rid of him now if they wish to progress to not looking like a bunch of brain doners…..
He is an embarrassment to be called the leader of the opposition…..