The Prime Minister and the waitress

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › The Prime Minister and the waitress

1 | ... | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | ... | 25

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 141
Inactive user

#1290021 23-Apr-2015 10:45

KiwiNZ:
freitasm: That story about a NZ Herald journalist pretending to be a PR person is disgusting.

This show why New Zealand media is so broken. What a bunch of low lifes.

Unfortunately in NZ it is not like rising damp, the rot is descending from the top

?? confused, as you are usually first to defend the wrongful actions of government.

Bit of horseplay from the PM vs all the other corrupt stuff and issues happening every day, if only the media put in half as much effort exposing this.

jonathan18

7415 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2850

ID Verified

Trusted

#1290022 23-Apr-2015 10:45

freitasm: That story about a NZ Herald journalist pretending to be a PR person is disgusting.

This show why New Zealand media is so broken. What a bunch of low lifes.

Yeah, I 'd always felt that particular individual is operating at the (sub?) tabloid level, but this is bad even for her...

Gavin Ellis on Nat Rad this week was talking about the quality of the NZH. While acknowledging there were some excellent journalists on staff he said something like they were oases in a desert of cr@p (my term, not his). How depressing must it be for Brian Rudman et al to be part of that machine?

Edit: The NZH writer and editor are refuting the claims:

Glucina tweeted this morning saying the claims were "utterly not true" and that she would be "responding in due course".

Herald Editor Shayne Currie told TVNZ that "none of what is stated is accurate".

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/67976208/pm-ponytail-pull-waitress-hits-out-at-journalist

mattbush

784 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 102
Inactive user

#1290046 23-Apr-2015 11:23

Sadly, this whole thing is really a farce...

The waitress is getting what she deserves now. Whilst I dont condone what the PM did, the waitress should have thought about her actions and what they would bring. If she was so concerned about the PM touching her hair she should have complained properly at the time and made an official complaint rather than accepting the apology.

It was only natural that the NZ media would seek her out and twist things deeper for their own advantage.

tigercorp

668 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 81

#1290047 23-Apr-2015 11:23

This stuff gets crazier and crazier.

It'll be interesting to if the cafe owners make a statement.
Its got to be a REALLY hard position for them now, I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to keep their heads down.

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15474

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1290049 23-Apr-2015 11:28

tigercorp: This stuff gets crazier and crazier.

It'll be interesting to if the cafe owners make a statement.
Its got to be a REALLY hard position for them now, I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to keep their heads down.

Their only way out now is to say nothing in my opinion. As I suspected and suggested all along, there is more to this story than was initially released.

Happy to take the Prime Minister at his word he meant no harm and has apologised. The Country needs to move on.

Wade

2225 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 373

#1290050 23-Apr-2015 11:28

Interesting tidbits being bandied around social media, if any of it is true, I imagine a formal investigation would conclude with Teflon John remaining squeaky clean, and an unhappy left leaning twenty something with reduced future job prospects

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

antoniosk

2384 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 750

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1290060 23-Apr-2015 11:39

networkn:
tigercorp: This stuff gets crazier and crazier.

It'll be interesting to if the cafe owners make a statement.
Its got to be a REALLY hard position for them now, I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to keep their heads down.

Their only way out now is to say nothing in my opinion. As I suspected and suggested all along, there is more to this story than was initially released.

Happy to take the Prime Minister at his word he meant no harm and has apologised. The Country needs to move on.

THIS ^^^^^^^^^^

The whole tone and nature is becoming feral and missing the original story. Its now just become a farce.

________

Antoniosk

Lias

5655 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3978

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1290061 23-Apr-2015 11:40

nakedmolerat:

In 1977, France executes people by beheading with Guillotine.

Does that mean we should still accept something similar now?

Just to totally derail, yes!

I'm a geek, a gamer, a dad, a Quic user, and an IT Professional. I have a full rack home lab, size 15 feet, an epic beard and Asperger's. I'm a bit of a Cypherpunk, who believes information wants to be free and the Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. If you use my Quic signup you can also use the code R570394EKGIZ8 for free setup. Opinions are my own and not the views of my employer.

Lias

5655 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3978

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1290064 23-Apr-2015 11:46

networkn:
Happy to take the Prime Minister at his word he meant no harm and has apologised.

Even if you trust his word, intending no harm and causing no harm are far from being the same thing. I'm fairly certain Roger Sutton didn't intend to harm anyone either, and we all know how that played out.

andrew027

1286 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 557

#1290069 23-Apr-2015 11:52

trig42:
djtOtago: My memory may be incorrect but
Wasn't John Key in Australia Saturday March 28 for the Cricket World Cup Final.
and
Thursday, 26 March was he not still in Japan talking free trade or something with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

I have just skimmed through all 13 pages, read most of it.

The above quote is something I haven't seen picked up on yet.

This happened OVER A YEAR AGO.

I think it has been happening for around six months. The chronology that I can work out is (someone please correct me if I'm wrong):

The election was announced on 10 March 2014.
The waitress says "His actions commenced during election time last year... It was election time and he was out showing his face, being seen".
It's not clear when this is, but it seems to be closer to the actual election date of 20 September 2014 than the announcement date in March.
She recounts one more specific, but undated, incident: "The next time he came up behind me and pulled my hair".
She then implies an unspecified number of other incidents: "So the game continued. He would come up behind me".
She dates the next incident: "On Saturday, 28th February (which I specifically recall as there was to be a protest outside his home the following day)".
Key was in Auckland on 28 February 2015. That was the date of the annual Leaders' Meeting with the Australian PM, Tony Abbott, and a subsequent press conference. I suppose it's possible he still had time to pop out for a coffee with Bronagh.
Then another incident: "Friday, 13th March, however, I wasn’t so lucky."
I haven't found any reference to what Key was doing on 13 March, so am happy to accept he was pulling ponytails in an Auckland cafe.
Then another: "Thursday, 26 March, and once again he was at the cafe." Key was in Korea and Japan from the 22 - 26 March. He could have gone out for coffee when his flight got home - it's only an (approx.) 11.5 hour flight, but the news items I can find say he came back and did some last minute campaigning for the Northland by-election which was held on 28 March.
The final reference is to 28 March, the day Key flew to Australia for the Cricket World Cup final on 29 March, but the waitress only says Key's security staff were in and they discussed the wine, not that Key was there. So no hair-pulling.

Dratsab

3964 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1728

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1290079 23-Apr-2015 12:12

I'm late to this thread due to work commitments so some of my comments relate to things that go back a little...

KiwiNZ: Acquaint yourself with the definition of assault.... Assault consist of an act intended to cause an apprehension of harmful or offensive contact that causes apprehension of such contact in the victim.

I think you need to practice what you preach - acquaint yourself with the definition of assault. What you've quoted (from wikipedia) is NOT the definition of assault in New Zealand. For that we have to go Section 2 of the Crimes Act 1961 or Section2 of the Summary Offences Act 1981 which merely parrots the Crimes Act definition.

networkn: I think the point being made is that if this was pursued under law, it would be considered at the very smallest end of offending. I would expect the police would opt not to prosecute and even if they did, what would the likely outcome be?

Agreed. Maybe some people here would benefit from reading (and comprehending) the Solicitor General's Prosecution Guidelines - especially section 5. She could make a complaint to police but I doubt it would go anywhere as this is a technical assault and does not proceed beyond merely transient or trifling. At the extreme worst he'd be given a pre-charge warning.

Reading further, I see Handle9 has already made the call I was going to head towards.

SaltyNZ: Should he start crumpling empty Lion Red cans on the foreheads of random men he walks past and call them Bruce?

Only if he belches the name loudly.

To me, this all seems to be timed to cause maximum embarrassment to the PM, with him being in front of world media (not just local hacks) over the next few days during a very significant event.

UPDATE: I see serial litigant Graham McReady has now laid a sexual harrassment complaint against the PM. Interesting the media is choosing to label a bankrupted former accountant/fraudster/blackmailer as a private prosecutor.

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8468

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1290096 23-Apr-2015 12:21

ajobbins:
Geektastic: If this constitutes assault, the time when my wife worked in the City and a broker came up to her in a bar at a work do, grabbed her boobs and shouted "Honk honk" back in the 80's must be a hanging offence now....

Dude, not only is that assault, that's sexual assault and is not in any way OK. I'm perplexed that you are suggesting that behavior is not anything other than despicable.

There was little in the way of sex involved.

My wife slapped him (it was long before we were married or had even met) but finds the story quite amusing in retrospect. Like me, she regards the modern idiom as far too uptight and 'right on' and says it was much more fun in the not so distant past.

I'd best not tell you the story of the temp's bra that was removed and run up an office flag pole - it may cause a coronary amongst the weak constitution of today's youngsters.

andrew027

1286 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 557

#1290101 23-Apr-2015 12:28

Sexual harrassment?

From the Human Rights Act 1993:
62 Sexual harrassment
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person (in the course of that person's involvement in any of the areas to which this subsection is applied by subsection (3)) to make a request of any other person for sexual intercourse, sexual contact, or other form of sexual activity which contains an implied or overt promise of preferential treatment or an implied or overt threat of detrimental treatment.
(2) It shall be unlawful for any person (in the course of that person's involvement in any of the areas to which this subsection is applied by subsection (3)) by the use of language (whether written or spoken) of a sexual nature, or of visual material of a sexual nature, or by physical behaviour of a sexual nature, to subject any other person to behaviour that—
(a) is unwelcome or offensive to that person (whether or not that is conveyed to the first-mentioned person); and
(b) is either repeated, or of such a significant nature, that it has a detrimental effect on that person in respect of any of the areas to which this subsection is applied by subsection (3).

So Key's behaviour could contavene 62(2)(a) and (b) if McReady can prove Key has some kind of kinky ponytail fetish (which he may well have, given that I've seen video of at least two other incidents since yesterday) but I would think it would be difficult to prove it's "of a sexual nature".

trig42

5889 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2094

ID Verified

#1290109 23-Apr-2015 12:39

I guess John and Bronagh no longer get their Lattes from that café?

corksta

2405 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 382

Trusted

Subscriber

#1290115 23-Apr-2015 12:49

So the waitress calls out the NZ Herald for using dodgy tactics to get her story, the NZ Herald responds by saying it didn't happen that way. Who knows where the truth lies on that side issue, therefore how much credence can we place on the original story?

1 | ... | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | ... | 25