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 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ... | 25

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1289400 22-Apr-2015 14:46

surfisup1000:
andrew027:
I am not saying it was OK - it was definately not OK. But as I said in an earlier post, there needs to be some intent before words like assault, bully, sociopath and violence start getting thrown around.

Don't think we can win this one , people here are determined that this is some kind of brutal assault.

I give up.

You still do not grasp what constitutes assault or inappropriate behaviour

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80662 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41090

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1289401 22-Apr-2015 14:46

I don't think you understand. There's no difference between "assault" and "brutal assault".

Is your thinking that penalties should only apply to violent assault?

Should the penalties be the same?

Is this action reported today an indicative of character, is it pathological?

I think that being who he is, we need answers. I voted for Mr Key twice. I will probably not vote for him again.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

SaltyNZ

8874 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9566

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1289405 22-Apr-2015 14:48

surfisup1000: a completely different situation but you know that I think.

Well, you're right; on the one hand we have a situation where the hair-puller would get a short sharp arresting, and on the other we have the Prime Minister of New Zealand pulling the hair of a woman who works in a cafe.

Let me repeat that: the Prime Minister of New Zealand pulling the hair of a woman who works in a cafe.

In what universe is that the kind of thing we want our Prime Minister to be doing? Should he start crumpling empty Lion Red cans on the foreheads of random men he walks past and call them Bruce? Where exactly do we draw the line on what is and is not Prime-Ministerly public behaviour?

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1289413 22-Apr-2015 14:56

surfisup1000:

Were you against the antismacking legislation? The one where Sue Bradford considered a light smack on the bottom to be equal to a brutal assault?

Just curious.

That seems to be irrelevant - but if you're using that to cast aspersions against another poster, or to defend Key, then it's an "own goal" as the legislation passed it's third reading with unanimous support from the National Party - with Key as leader BTW. Vote was 113:8.

jonathan18

7415 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2850

ID Verified

Trusted

#1289421 22-Apr-2015 15:06

surfisup1000: Show some perspective, you are being a bit over the top.

You'd think he'd king hit the woman unconscious they way you describe it.

What do you want to happen, thrown JK in jail for 20 years? For goodness sake you people astound me sometimes.

Were you against the antismacking legislation? The one where Sue Bradford considered a light smack on the bottom to be equal to a brutal assault?

Just curious.

I get the sense you're falling into the same trap you accuse KiwiNZ of - exaggeration and hyperbole.

No-one here is suggesting that Key's actions are deserving of a 20 year sentence, as of course the penalty for "assault" will vary depeneding on its seriousness etc - but in saying this it appears you're generalising, conflating and simplifying the arguments being made here so you can reject the whole lot as the weird rantings of loops. Similarly, your summary of Bradford's work to repeal s 69 (which had cross-part support, BTW) is simply disingenuous.

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1289423 22-Apr-2015 15:07

freitasm: I don't think you understand. There's no difference between "assault" and "brutal assault".

Hi

You are actually wrong there are different levels of assault as defined by law depending on the brutality and circumstances.

Common Assault is different from Grievous Bodily Harm etc etc.

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?

What is it exactly you think beyond a heartfelt apology, should happen here?

Had he of punched her in the face, would you not have considered it worse?

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1289425 22-Apr-2015 15:10

SaltyNZ:
surfisup1000: a completely different situation but you know that I think.

Well, you're right; on the one hand we have a situation where the hair-puller would get a short sharp arresting, and on the other we have the Prime Minister of New Zealand pulling the hair of a woman who works in a cafe.

Let me repeat that: the Prime Minister of New Zealand pulling the hair of a woman who works in a cafe.

In what universe is that the kind of thing we want our Prime Minister to be doing? Should he start crumpling empty Lion Red cans on the foreheads of random men he walks past and call them Bruce? Where exactly do we draw the line on what is and is not Prime-Ministerly public behaviour?

Let's cut to the chase then, in your opinion, what should happen now? Putting aside everything EXCEPT the fact he is PM and he pulled this girls hair, what should his punishment be?

jonathan18

7415 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2850

ID Verified

Trusted

#1289426 22-Apr-2015 15:12

Whether Key "intended for it to be light-hearted and all in good humour" wasn't the point, Hornsby-Geluk* said.

"It's how it's received by the person that is subject to that kind of conduct."

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/67955124/keys-behaviour-serious--employment-lawyer

* An employment lawyer

plod

272 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 66

#1289427 22-Apr-2015 15:12

It borders predator sexual behaviour, used by people with power and influence. Think of Rolf Harris and Michael Jackson.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1289428 22-Apr-2015 15:13

freitasm:

Is this action reported today an indicative of character, is it pathological?

Treating "girls' hair" (and thus a girl or woman) as a plaything that you can just help yourself to might be excusable on it's own in some circumstances (grandpa could possibly get away with it), but for a PM (who didn't get to hold a position of considerable power because someone held a gun at his head), who can be immensely charming and likable, but at other times shows indifference and remarkable lack of empathy...
The character trait is probably far more common in our great leaders than we would be comfortable to believe.

Zeon

3926 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 759

Trusted

#1289438 22-Apr-2015 15:28

jonathan18: Whether Key "intended for it to be light-hearted and all in good humour" wasn't the point, Hornsby-Geluk* said. "It's how it's received by the person that is subject to that kind of conduct."

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/67955124/keys-behaviour-serious--employment-lawyer

* An employment lawyer

An employment lawyer who probably is looking for a PR opportunity....

And I know you will lambaste me for saying this but did she really object all the times until he was told that she actually wanted to stop? Not doing anything about it could encourage the behavior to continue - maybe she should have said no the first time if she didn't want it. Yes its not really appropriate in NZ society's eyes to do this it seems so it was unwise for him to do so.

And no I am not a middle-aged/old white male and consider myself pretty culturally progressive. I am probably younger than the waitress! I would usually call anyone up to 30 a girl, most like it. I can switch to referring to them as "middle aged women" but I think most would prefer the former....

Speedtest 2019-10-14

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

Hammerer

2480 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 802

Lifetime subscriber

#1289439 22-Apr-2015 15:28

I wonder why so many people mention the word fetish meaning that they believe John Key's motivation is to get a sexual turn on. It is a cynical (doubting his motives) view of his behaviour. I would consider a more positive motivation to be much more likely.

Touching or tugging her hair could be a positive expression for John Key. Many people and families touch each other as a sign of affection in public. Some families touch hair, some touch shoulders, some touch arms, some touch the back, etc. He might also be repeating behaviours from a positive encounter or relationship in the past. This is not to say that such behaviour is generally socially acceptable but it is a more positive context for his motivation and behaviour.

Anyway, whatever his motivation his actions were not acceptable to this woman and she's clearly not happy with his responses. But I don't find her account a very convincing portrayal of bullying or power games.

... I didn’t respond verbally, but everything about my body language screamed I DON’T LIKE THAT.

I'm not so sure that the situation was as clear as she says. Body language is notoriously difficult to interpret even assuming that John Key was focused on her response.

My reasoning was simple, I could tell him that I didn’t like it – but I shouldn’t HAVE to.

Her assumption that you shouldn't have to tell people what you don't like supports her consequent behaviour. But she needed to tell somebody who had an opportunity to change the situation. I think that her assumption is wrong and it certainly doesn't fit with what NZ children are taught about bullying. Children are taught to tell someone that they are feeling bullied and even to tell the purported bully. An example of this is on the Ministry of Education website:

first, ignore the bully
if that doesn't work, tell the bully to stop
if the bully continues, walk away
tell an adult or another child or teenager

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1289444 22-Apr-2015 15:36

Whether or not what Key way doing was assault it was definitely harassment. Below is how my workplace defines harassment and is how the ERA define it. What is problematic is that no on in her work place took steps to deal with it either.

Harassment can be defined as any unwelcome comment, conduct or gesture that is insulting, intimidating, humiliating, malicious, degrading or offensive. It might be repeated or an isolated incident but it is so significant that it adversely affects someone's performance, contribution or work environment. It can include physical, degrading or threatening behaviour, abuse of power, isolation, discrimination, sexual and/or racial harassment. Harassment is behaviour that is unwanted by the recipient even if the recipient does not tell the harasser that the behaviour is unwanted.

(NZ Human Rights Act 1993 & ERA 2000

uglyb0b

335 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 19

#1289447 22-Apr-2015 15:38

It doesn't matter if there was any malicious intent (intimidation, power play, fetish etc), or that he is the Prime Minister. What matters is that he engaged in behaviour that is socially unacceptable, and continued to do so after having this made clear to him (multiple times apparently).

His position of power is irrelevant, this behaviour would be unacceptable from the PM, from a stranger, from someone with mental deficiencies, from a child etc (one could argue John Key fits more than one category here). Anyone should know better.

Whatever his intentions were, I think he has only succeeded in showing the country how hilariously out of touch he is, and reaffirming his position as New Zealand’s lame Dad.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1289448 22-Apr-2015 15:39

networkn:
SaltyNZ:
surfisup1000: a completely different situation but you know that I think.

Well, you're right; on the one hand we have a situation where the hair-puller would get a short sharp arresting, and on the other we have the Prime Minister of New Zealand pulling the hair of a woman who works in a cafe.

Let me repeat that: the Prime Minister of New Zealand pulling the hair of a woman who works in a cafe.

In what universe is that the kind of thing we want our Prime Minister to be doing? Should he start crumpling empty Lion Red cans on the foreheads of random men he walks past and call them Bruce? Where exactly do we draw the line on what is and is not Prime-Ministerly public behaviour?

Let's cut to the chase then, in your opinion, what should happen now? Putting aside everything EXCEPT the fact he is PM and he pulled this girls hair, what should his punishment be?

If the circumstances are as presented and one could assume that given his apology they are then he should resign.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ... | 25