Double Standards?
July 18th, 2011 at 10:00 am by David FarrarDanya Levy at the Dom Post reports:
Prime Minister John Key says the Government was powerless to stop disgraced former minister Richard Worth being re-appointed as Monaco’s honorary consul to New Zealand.
Worth was reappointed to the position last October.
In 2009, he resigned from Parliament after sexual allegations against him by two women. He was never charged over the alleged incidents.
Key said Worth held the position before becoming a minister in his Government but resigned because of conventions protecting potential conflicts of interests.
The government of Monaco had approached New Zealand to have him reappointed when he was no longer a minister.
”The important point here is that it is nothing to do with me, it’s who do the people of Monaco want to represent them here in New Zealand and the answer is Richard Worth,” he told TVNZ’s Breakfast programme.
Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully had sought a legal opinion over whether the Government could prevent his re-appointment, Key said. However, the Government was advised it had no grounds to stop it.
Richard Worth was the Consul for Monaco for many years before he became a Minister. It is no surprise they asked him to resume the role after he left Parliament.
What I find interesting is the massive difference in reporting around Darren Hughes and Richard Worth. Both men were accused of sexual crimes, and in both cases no charges were laid. In the case of Darren Hughes, the media report that he could stand again for Parliament in a few years
Yet when it comes to Richard Worth, the reporting suggests there is something wrong that he has got on with his life after Parliament and assumed one of his former roles – a role far far less publicly significant than standing for Parliament again.
July 18th, 2011 at 10:10 am
>In the case of Darren Hughes, the media report that he could stand again for Parliament in a few years
Said he could doesn’t equal approval or disapproval of that possibility.
>Yet when it comes to Richard Worth, the reporting suggests there is something wrong
Er???
>Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully had sought a legal opinion over whether the Government could prevent his re-appointment, Key said.
Seems like it was the government suggesting there is something wrong.
>the reporting suggests there is something wrong
If Hughes stands, maybe there’ll be a similar suggestion. Time will tell. Possibly.
Vote:July 18th, 2011 at 10:13 am
Non-story. It seems as though the government would prefer Worth was not in this role. Nothing to do with the reporting.
Vote:July 18th, 2011 at 10:16 am
I have always been a bit hazy on exactly what Worth was supposed to have done. But he hasn’t been prosecuted and nobody has sued him, nor has there been any other sort of action taken against him, as far as I know. So – assuming that is right – you have to wonder whether he has been treated fairly by the media, or by the Government for that matter.
Vote:July 18th, 2011 at 10:20 am
How one is portrayed by the MSM depends to a large degree on which side of the political divide one is.
Did anyone here notice the stark difference between the Police announcment that Hughes would not be charged:
( ” insufficient evidence to reach the threshold necessary to sustain a prosecution”) as compared with my case: “no criminal offending, and therefore no reason to proceed with charges” ? Not one MSM journo noted that the two statements were utterly different: the first statement can be paraphrased as “something happened but we havent got enough evidence to get a conviction” The second can be paraphrased as “nothing happened, and it would therefore be unjust to charge the man”
And yes, I am pretty pissed off about it… And before anyone reminds me, yes, I remain guilty of the passport scam 27 years ago, and I have no-one to blame about what arose from that but me.
Vote:July 18th, 2011 at 10:36 am
Aint that the sad truth, Mr Garret.
A middle aged heterosexual white male who finds himself in the spotlight doesn’t stand a chance – just ask Alasdair Thompson
Vote:July 18th, 2011 at 10:36 am
The public doesn’t know what happened (or was really even alleged to have happened) in either case.
When Richard Worth was sacked, what he admitted had happened to the PM was so serious that the PM couldn’t bear to let the public know about it even after the criminal investigation was concluded. He was basically asked to resign from Parliament for this. Even if not criminal, the non-criminal behaviour was so serious that the leader of the Government, and Leader of the National Party didn’t want to have anything to do with this person.
In the case of Darren Hughes, this isn’t the case. If Phil Goff came out and said: “I’ve been told by Darren Hughes what has happened, and even though he says it’s not criminal, it is so serious that I don’t want him in the Labour caucus and it would be better if he wasn’t in Parliament.” Then things would be different.
The difference is simple: Everyone who knows what happened in the Worth case and who has publicly pontificated thinks Worth isn’t fit to be an MP. Everyone who knows what happened in the Hughes case and who has publicly pontificated thinks Hughes may be able to be rehabilitated.
Until we’re told what happened, this is the best we’ve got: the same standard, but not enough information to know why one fell short and the other may be okay.
Vote:July 18th, 2011 at 10:52 am
Graeme E>The difference is simple: Everyone who knows what happened in the Worth case and who has publicly pontificated thinks Worth isn’t fit to be an MP. Everyone who knows what happened in the Hughes case and who has publicly pontificated thinks Hughes may be able to be rehabilitated.
The real difference is that Labour’s minimum ethical standard for MPs is that they not be convicted of a serious crime. Although they’re willing to make an exception for Fields, who was convicted of a serious crime but in their eyes was only guilty of being a nice bloke.
On the other hand, National holds its MPs to a much higher standard.
Vote:July 18th, 2011 at 10:56 am
My impression is that the reporting is about right on this one. Basically everyone seems to think Hughes is politically competent but got caught up in something quite unseemly out of the office, possibly not for the first time. This is fixable.
Worth, on the other hand, has come across as incompetent, and this is not fixable.
Both seem to hit on far too many people, but I don’t think this explains the discrepancy in reporting.
I am not persuaded either orientation or political affiliation explains this. But as always Andrei and his Friend have all the answers…
Vote:July 18th, 2011 at 10:59 am
ben
Seems a moderate and accurate assessment. Hard to build a case for journalistic bias from this report.
Vote:July 18th, 2011 at 11:04 am
Yet when it comes to Richard Worth, the reporting suggests there is something wrong that he has got on with his life after Parliament and assumed one of his former roles – a role far far less publicly significant than standing for Parliament again.
Because, as Graeme pointed out, whatever Worth did was so terrible his leader refused to have him in Cabinet any longer and said he wouldn’t have him back no matter what. Of course, Key could always tell us what his reason for sacking Worth was, so that journalists wouldn’t keep assuming the worst – but apparently he has no interest in doing that. Don’t blame the journos for reporting accordingly.
Vote:July 18th, 2011 at 11:05 am
Oh dear lord.
Powershop is now using the image of Saddam Hussein in its advertising.
Quick question, Powershop: just how many Kurds have to be gassed to death by a national leader before you stop using his image? What a fucking outrage. Who’s next: Mao? Stalin? Bin Laden? I am a customer of Powershop but will be moving elsewhere.
Here a little image to remind you, Powershop, of what your latest figurehead did to people. Idiots.
Update: oh and now its Kim Jong Il. Among the top 10 mass murderers in history, I should imagine. Grats, Powershop.
Vote:July 18th, 2011 at 11:11 am
I should apologise for the off topic post previously – but the advertising was on this page and there’s no other place to comment, and I find the commercial use of evil men practically begs me not to buy their product. And I wanted to share.
Vote:July 18th, 2011 at 11:13 am
Unless the media have fabricated the comments from Key and McCully, it looks pretty glaringly obvious from those comments that they did not want Worthless taking that sinecure. Nothing at all to do with what the media wanted. Assuming the media wanted anything at all. Looks pretty straight reporting to me.
Vote:July 18th, 2011 at 11:20 am
ben>Who’s next: Mao? Stalin? Bin Laden?
The version I’m seeing has Kim Jong Il.
Vote:July 18th, 2011 at 12:04 pm
Jesus wept, Graeme Edgeler! Were you singing: “you spin me right round” to yourself when you wrote that tripe above?
I know that ethics is a concept that is lost on you lefties, (and lawyers) but, perhaps you should try learning about them sometime.
Vote:July 18th, 2011 at 12:09 pm
Journalistic bias is generally subtle. It is seldom “A” is good, “B” is bad type headlines…..just half page exposes of the failings of politicians of the right & waffly feel good tripe about similar socialist MP’s buried on page 13. Both are reported but the venom is saved for those sharing different points of view to the reporters.
In the cases of Worth & Hughes both are arseholes but it is the rectum of the right that gets pilloried.
Vote:July 18th, 2011 at 12:18 pm
Hughes is a homosexual and a Labourite, Worth is a heterosexual and a National supporter.
They both chased after others for sexual gratification, many people do.
That does it for the media in NZ, because
1. They are lefty liberal
2. They are mainly repeaters.
3. They are PC cowards and will not speak against the homosexuals
4. They seek to shape the news not report it.
Both in my opinion are unfit for parliament, the highest court in the land, but then, so are many of it’s present occupants.
Vote:July 18th, 2011 at 12:22 pm
What on Earth makes you think I’m a lefty?
Vote:July 18th, 2011 at 12:31 pm
Oh come on Graeme, pull the other one.
You might like to tell yourself that you’re a centrist, but, you only have to read what you write, to to see that you’re a dyed-in-the-wool socialist.
[DPF: Umm wrong.]
Vote:July 18th, 2011 at 12:35 pm
Graeme makes a valid point or more simply most people liked Hughes, no one really liked Worth. He wasn’t called Worthless just because it was vaguely amusing.
Vote:July 18th, 2011 at 12:36 pm
Double standard DPF? Shit you invented them.
You go on and on about Philip Taito every chance you get, yet I’m still waiting for a post on former National MP Gilbert Myles who has recently been in front of the courts.
Practice what you preach.
[DPF: Idiot. First of all I put the boot into Myles when his case was publicised. But you miss the glaring difference. Myles brike the law after he left Parliament and not as an MP. Field broke the law as a Labour MP, and had his party defend his actions every step of the way]
Vote:July 18th, 2011 at 12:58 pm
No, it isn’t a double standard, both cases were different in the nature of the alledged sexual misconduct and consequently attract different outcomes.
Vote:McCully had sought advice on the appointment of Worth as Consul and basically there was no argument against it, and equally the Police likewise saw no reason to pursue Hughes.
However, Worth’s suitability as Consul could be debated more fully, perhaps a younger person should of being in the mix.
July 18th, 2011 at 1:04 pm
I think you and Graeme have a very firm grip on the wrong end of the stick. It seems obvious to me that the PM’s “loss of confidence”in Worth that the issue was that somewhere early in the piece, as stuff was drip fed to the media, Worth lied to Key. I’m also willing to bet that whatever it was that Worth lied about wasn’t all that “terrible” but probably was embarrassing to him so the PM’s continued silence was the price paid for Worth to go without fuss…
Vote:July 18th, 2011 at 1:19 pm
You’re hardly right leaning yourself David, so perception is all relative.
Vote:July 18th, 2011 at 1:31 pm
If Graeme Edgeler is a “dyed in the wool socialist” he hides it pretty well…He was the only person to make a submission in my favour to the Law Society last year when the squishy stuff hit the fan….something I will never forget.
Seems to me his pronouncements on here are eminently reasonable, and certainly (nearly) always well reasoned…having said that Graeme, I am not sure you are correct with your “there is no evidence of media bias” theme viz a viz Worth and Hughes…
When the police decided not to charge Worth, I dont recall them making any kind of “insufficient evidence to reach the threshold ” statement that they made in Hughes’ case…and that statement preceded Hughes foolishly publicly accusing his accuser of having made a false complaint, at which point the Police quickly made it clear there was no question of a false complaint having been made…
If I remember correctly there was no follow up by the MSM after that….but even some commentators on that centrist organ The Standard then came out berating Hughes for blaming the “victim”…
Vote:July 18th, 2011 at 1:43 pm
From Stuff in 2009: ‘Former National MP Richard Worth will not be charged in connection with a sexual complaint laid against him. Police said today that there was no basis for charges to be laid.’
Vote:July 18th, 2011 at 1:46 pm
Precisely Mikey…rather different from the statement they made about Hughes regarding their being insufficent evidence to reach the threshold…since you are clearly a handy man with the ‘puter perhaps you’d like to put that statement up for us too…
Vote:July 18th, 2011 at 1:50 pm
Stuff again: ‘Police said this afternoon that they had decided to take no further action after deciding the complaint against Hughes did not reach the evidential threshold required to bring charges.’
I’d be reluctant to read too much into the wording, especially as the end result is the same.
Vote:July 18th, 2011 at 1:55 pm
You clearly have no legal training Mikey…there is a world of difference between the two statements…particularly given that after Hughes said he had been falsely accused, the police were at pains to quickly make it clear that that was not how THEY saw the matter…
And the end result is NOT the same…in Hughes’ case their statement makes it clear that there is at least the theoretical possibility of further evidence emerging which would justify a prosecution…not so in Worth’s case.
Vote:July 18th, 2011 at 1:59 pm
It might indicate that the Police thought Hughes had done something wrong but would not be able to bring a charge. However, the result is the same. As we won’t ever know the full details, we are left drawing inferences. In Worth’s case, his colleagues don’t want a bar of him. In Hughes’s case, his colleagues have left the door open. In my book, we are better off without the pair, who clearly have great capacities for misjudgement at the very least.
Vote:July 18th, 2011 at 2:06 pm
Anyway…to lighten things up a bit, clearly Mrs Lynne Worth is a woman from the old “stand by your man no matter what” school…or alternatively Worth has all the loot tied up in an unbreakable discretionary trust which he controls…
Vote:July 18th, 2011 at 2:08 pm
The prize winner there must be Anne Sinclair, wife of Dominique Strauss-Kahn!
Vote:July 18th, 2011 at 2:12 pm
First equal (geddit?) with Lady Archer, wife of Sir Jeffrey….she’s still there, by his side, despite Sir Jeffrey being jailed for perjury for claiming he had never met, much less slept with, a prostitute to whom he paid a large sum of money….
Vote:July 18th, 2011 at 2:40 pm
My comment was partly about possible differences between the cases (i.e. we don’t know the facts, so it may be that differences in the cases count for the different treatment of the cases), but it was also in large part about how John Key requested the Governor-General to remove a minister and years later still hasn’t tell the public why.
Vote:July 18th, 2011 at 2:43 pm
There is a huge amount of hypocrisy and bias in the way the media has dealt with Worth vs Hughes. It has pretty much come down to how many people like either of them and how politically valuable to their respective teams they were. Hughes was a rising star and a coming man (snicker). Worth is simply one of many individuals who were ridiculously successful at whatever they turned their hand to, ran for parliament on this basis, and found that parliament doesn’t operate quite the same way as the real world does. There was a small scandal, and nobody was prepared to back him up because nobody was going to miss him for not being there. Do I feel sorry for him? Not really – he was a very successful lawyer who was a crap politician, and now he is out of politics he has presumably gone back to being very successful again, and both he and New Zealand are the better for it.
Hughes, on the other hand, is being protected by the Wellington mafia (both red and blue varieties), and is unlikely to find anything successful to do outside parliament. But I feel even less sorry for him for it.
Vote:July 18th, 2011 at 3:12 pm
Why is that communist retard “the rocket man” kim jong-il on your blog? talk about a turn off.
Vote:July 18th, 2011 at 6:04 pm
I got a glimpse of Sadam the Madman.
McCully is just in a shit because he would have liked to give the Consul’s position to Mr Glen, whom you recall made a down payment to Helen and Winston for just that position.
Vote:July 18th, 2011 at 9:29 pm
They clearly got Richard Worth mixed up with a horse when they made him Consul.
Vote:July 20th, 2011 at 10:49 am
> and that statement preceded Hughes foolishly publicly accusing his accuser of having made a false complaint…
Nothing foolish if the complaint was indeed false, and of course Hughes knows whether it is false. What was silly was police publicly saying the complaint was valid…
Vote: