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 | ... | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | ... | 25

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1289905 23-Apr-2015 07:57

DaveB:
Glad to see it gave you a laugh!

Regardless, you have not answered my question. Maybe I should have rephrased my question to be a little more specific and ask "Why do you feel such a nanny-state mentality is correct?"

Only "Nanny-State" supporters would jump onto a 'perceived' bandwagon to shout "sexual harassment" in a situation like this, or, well ................. lefties.

It has nothing to do with Left, Right, Up, Down or Nanny State. It is about repeated uninvited inappropriate behaviour that is documented and admitted. This is behaviour from one of our most senior law makers and leaders
and it is totally unacceptable. You can conduct name calling against me all you like but it does not change the situation one iota.

Tradepub

Free professional, reference and technical white papers (affiliate link).

nakedmolerat

4625 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1289908 23-Apr-2015 08:00

That's interesting what the owner's said.

In her statement apparently Key was told by the manager that she didn't really like it?

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1289909 23-Apr-2015 08:00

Wade: From the NZ Herald this morning

Her bosses, Hip Group owners Jackie Grant and Scott Brown, told the Herald they were disappointed Ms Bailey - who they say has "strong political points of view" - went public rather than coming to them directly with her concerns

So despite this supposedly going on for months she didn't think to raise the issue with management first?

Did the waitress fear for her job?

Should blame be proportioned to management who allowed this to happen?

Has she made a formal complaint yet?

Whilst i don't condone the accused's actions nor subscribe to victim blame, the more information that come out the more this scenario reads as a carefully timed political battle more so than a genuine case of assault or abuse

The attitudes displayed in many posts on this Forum are indicative as to why a large number of these incidents are not reported to management or authorities.

SaltyNZ

8109 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1289914 23-Apr-2015 08:12

nakedmolerat:
SaltyNZ:
nakedmolerat:
In 1977, France executes people by beheading with Guillotine.

Are you sure about that? I seem to remember they stopped doing that once they ran out of royalty.

yes, last 3 human to be guillotined in France .

Christian Ranucci (guillotined on 28 July 1976)

Jérôme Carrein (guillotined on 23 June 1977)

Hamida Djandoubi (guillotined on 10 September 1977)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillotine

Wow, TIL...

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

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

jonathan18

7413 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1289941 23-Apr-2015 08:56

Apology not accepted?

"I contemplated the lasting effects this was bound to have on my near and not-so-near future, surely not worth it, but I made the moral decision to put myself second and tell the truth. There is no shame in telling the truth, and it’s a lot easier to keep track of than a lie. A lie would be claiming that I accepted an apology or spoke the words “that’s all fine, no drama.” Neither of these two things have happened and so it had to be said; even my mother knew instantly that I simply don’t talk like that." (emphasis added)

http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/04/23/update-the-prime-minister-and-the-waitress-part-2-dirty-politics/#sthash.YkV5Bf66.dpuf

(But, as we all know, it's not possible that a 26 year-old waitress (a girl?!) is able to write as well as her two posts would suggest... more evidence that it's a lefty/Green Party/PC-gone-mad/nanny-state-fan conspiracy, I reckon...)

jonathan18

7413 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1289956 23-Apr-2015 09:18

Wow, have now fully ready the waitress' second post, and if an accurate description of what happened it's quite disturbing. Of course I doubt it'll change anyone's mind or views, but it's worth reading; repeated in full below.

Thank you for all of the support that has been shown by the people who have taken the time to read the full account of what took place in the past few months. This is a truly humbling experience that no doubt I will never forget.

When I made the decision to publish my experience my feeling was that what transpired was not ok, and the public had a right to be aware of how poorly their Prime Minister had behaved. They could make up their own minds after that and there would be no follow-up. I have said everything there was to say and no further comments would be necessary. I had absolutely no intention of entering into discussions with any other media.

I contemplated the lasting effects this was bound to have on my near and not-so-near future, surely not worth it, but I made the moral decision to put myself second and tell the truth. There is no shame in telling the truth, and it’s a lot easier to keep track of than a lie. A lie would be claiming that I accepted an apology or spoke the words “that’s all fine, no drama.” Neither of these two things have happened and so it had to be said; even my mother knew instantly that I simply don’t talk like that.

So why am I commenting further? Earlier today, in good faith, I agreed to meet with my employers to address a side of this I hadn’t previously considered in too much detail, besides the obvious nuisance of reporters – the speculation that they failed to take appropriate action to protect me in my place of work. They asked me to meet with them at their home and join a conversation, via speaker-phone, with a concerned friend of theirs who worked in Public Relations. Their friend, Rachel, was concerned with how seriously this would effect their business, and wanted a better understanding of the situation, so that, together, we could proof and agree upon a statement to be released to the media by my employers themselves. A statement clarifying that I took issue with John’s behaviour, and that only, and not with them as my employers; that I had no intention of claiming any negligence on their part. We agreed that it would also be good to have a photo together to show that we had a good relationship and harboured no ill feelings, and for this sole purpose only.

Out of respect for my employers, and what seemed like their genuine concern for my well-being along with the future of their business (a business doing good things which I fully support), they introduced me to Rachel, by name as the employee behind the story, and Rachel said she would put together a statement for us to proof. We then waited for the e-mail she had promised so that we could look over what she had penned and discuss it further. Eventually a final statement would be agreed upon and my employers would personally forward that to any media. We waited. And waited. And waited. Questions were asked of me by Rachel, under the guise of a Public Relations expert working confidentially for my employer, and all responses given were with the effect of trying to separate clearly that the issue was a personal issue (personal, not political) with the way I had been treated by John, and not at all an issue with my employers, or their management of the situation, which they had not even been made aware of prior to Wednesday. ALL ANSWERS WERE GIVEN TO THE EFFECT OF TRYING TO HIGHLIGHT THIS DIFFERENCE.

As we waited for Rachel to e-mail the draft proof one of my employers read aloud to the other Rachel’s e-mail address. It began… RACHEL.GLUCINA and alarm bells went off. Sounded familiar, and I felt sick to my stomach – more than you’d ever imagine, a feeling I simply could not ignore. I gave in to my instinct and googled the name on my phone and one of the leading headlines that came up read “Who is Rachel Glucina and why is John Key always phoning her up?”. I questioned my employers over her name and they admitted that, yes, she works for the New Zealand Herald, but she was doing this as a favour for them for their personal use and not in her capacity as a journalist. I asked how well they knew her, if they trusted her, and they claimed they were confident in their judgement of her character, yet everything about this felt so so wrong. Rachel contacted them again and we expressed that I felt extremely uncomfortable with the discussions that had taken place as any comments I had made were made in confidence and good faith under the understanding that I was discussing an employment issue with a public relations specialist and had absolutely no knowledge whatsoever that the person my employers had requested I speak with, who was so determinedly trying to put the word “political” in my mouth, was a “feared” and “loathed” journalist from the New Zealand Herald.

Rachel’s story changed. RAPIDLY. Now she couldn’t possibly supply us with a proof because she would lose her job. She was absolutely acting in her capacity as a journalist for the New Zealand Herald and claimed that my employers had known all along, which they denied. I made it absolutely clear that all and any comments I had made were given under false pretences, not to mention completely out of context, and questioned whether her supposed story would still be published if I withheld my permission. Rachel simply responded that she would come back to us and read to us what was to be published, although she had no control over editors and sub-editors, and that she had to get in touch with the Prime Ministers office, and then they quickly ended the conversation. I later contacted my employers reiterating that I revoked any permission to use my photo or comments for any press release, and my disappointment that I had been mislead to such a gross degree whilst having my identity knowingly confirmed with the New Zealand Herald at the same time.

This must have been the “fun and games” that John was referring to; and as for the credibility of the New Zealand Herald if this is how they obtain their ‘exclusive interviews’ – no comment.

trig42

5796 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#1289974 23-Apr-2015 09:34

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.

Why has it come out now? Because Mr. Key is away overseas. The Daily Blog obviously waited on the news for the point at which it would do the most damage, and NZs media has predictably jumped all over it.

My opinion: Pulling hair is a weird thing to do. The Keys frequent(ed) that café regularly, and probably had a fair amount of familiarity with the staff and management. This action, whilst seeming weird, maybe something Mr. Key does to those he is familiar with (like family members). He thought he was being funny (like tapping someone on the opposite shoulder so they turn around the wrong way). It is inappropriate, and he has apologized for making the waitress feel uncomfortable. That is where it should lie.

nakedmolerat

4625 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1289981 23-Apr-2015 09:39

trig42:

Why has it come out now? Because Mr. Key is away overseas. The Daily Blog obviously waited on the news for the point at which it would do the most damage, and NZs media has predictably jumped all over it.

Actually, if you really want a full blown effect, it has to be done while prime minister is here - as stated by many political commentators.

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1289996 23-Apr-2015 09:56

I'm going to go out on a limb here... Play Devil's advocate if you will.

With all of the commentary that this incident is not only bullying but assault, perhaps even sexual assault, I got to thinking...

In the event of rape, there is (or at least should be) a clear understanding of two things.
1) No means No. Without exception.
2) A victim does not "have it coming" or "invite rape" by dressing provocatively, acting promiscuously, being alone & intoxicated, whatever.

If we can accept that these are two reasonably sound assertions, then what happens if we consider them in reverse?

If someone were to initiate sexual contact with another person and that person didn't like it... If it happened again and they thought to themselves, "Really?!?!? I really don't like this, I can't believe that I'm going to have to take steps to stop it recurring." So they then took it upon themselves to never be intoxicated around the other person... It happened again, so they started dressing more conservatively. It continued happening over a period of months, with one party enjoying it and the other becoming more upset, trying desperately to make themselves less attractive (less of a target) As it goes on, the recipient of unwanted sexual activity becomes angry - why should I have to actually confront the other person to stop this from happening? Surely they can see that I'm not into it!" but never bringing themselves to say to the other, "Please Stop that - I really don't like it." Telling friends and acquaintances how much they can't stand the clumsy fumbling, but allowing the misguided party to continue their 6month "relationship" without saying anything?

Would that still be rape? I think that might be a rather long bow to draw...

For me, the key point to consider in the case of the Waitress and the PM was in his second-to-last visit to the café, before she actually said to him, "Please STOP". According to her testimony, "I said “No! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!” as I wagged my finger at him and he reluctantly backed away." Clearly, at this point she has said "No", however in the context of the previous 6 months of "horseplay", (and especially combined with the potentially comical finger wagging) I can understand how this may have been misread.

In summary,
* Completely inappropriate & embarrassing behaviour by the PM, but hardly a hanging offence. Also, as soon as he was made aware that he had misread the situation, he immediately stopped and apologised.
* Completely bizarre behaviour on the part of the waitress.
* Is her behaviour because:
1) She was too intimidated by him being PM to actually say anything
2) Given her "strong political points of view" was she instead trying give him enough rope to hang himself?

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1290008 23-Apr-2015 10:23

Here is my take...prepare to be offended some of you.

26 year old female working in a cafe having to afford living in Auckland, most likely broke as. Id say she was offered money to make those blog posts. Combined with the fact she has "strong political views" most likely left wing with a good dollop of greeny and a dash of feminist.

Personally I think its great that our PM is real person \ kiwi bloke and isnt afraid to show his non political side, who hasn't initiated some horseplay at work or at a shop where you are a well known regular (in this case a famous well known regular). We used to be able to do this before all this PC nonsense....its a Kiwi thing.

All she needed to do was to talk to her manager and for the manager to have quiet chat with Key or one of his minders to pass on the message, end of story....she could then be left alone to her sad boring career as a waitress...while all her workmates get to partake in some fun horseplay to lighten up their day.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79034 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1290012 23-Apr-2015 10:33

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.

My technology disclosure

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1290013 23-Apr-2015 10:33

heylinb4nz: Here is my take...prepare to be offended some of you.

26 year old female working in a cafe having to afford living in Auckland, most likely broke as. Id say she was offered money to make those blog posts. Combined with the fact she has "strong political views" most likely left wing with a good dollop of greeny and a dash of feminist.

Personally I think its great that our PM is real person \ kiwi bloke and isnt afraid to show his non political side, who hasn't initiated some horseplay at work or at a shop where you are a well known regular (in this case a famous well known regular). We used to be able to do this before all this PC nonsense....its a Kiwi thing.

All she needed to do was to talk to her manager and for the manager to have quiet chat with Key or one of his minders to pass on the message, end of story....she could then be left alone to her sad boring career as a waitress...while all her workmates get to partake in some fun horseplay to lighten up their day.

Thankyou very much for validating my earlier post "If there is no repercussions for his actions it will be seen as tacit approval of his actions by others in our society. He chose to be the Nations Leader therefore he must act accordingly."

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1290014 23-Apr-2015 10:35

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

jonathan18

7413 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1290015 23-Apr-2015 10:37

heylinb4nz: Here is my take...prepare to be offended some of you.

26 year old female working in a cafe having to afford living in Auckland, most likely broke as. Id say she was offered money to make those blog posts. Combined with the fact she has "strong political views" most likely left wing with a good dollop of greeny and a dash of feminist.

Personally I think its great that our PM is real person \ kiwi bloke and isnt afraid to show his non political side, who hasn't initiated some horseplay at work or at a shop where you are a well known regular (in this case a famous well known regular). We used to be able to do this before all this PC nonsense....its a Kiwi thing.

All she needed to do was to talk to her manager and for the manager to have quiet chat with Key or one of his minders to pass on the message, end of story....she could then be left alone to her sad boring career as a waitress...while all her workmates get to partake in some fun horseplay to lighten up their day.

Where's the -1 when you need it!!

Joke - I've already noted I feel such a feature would be open to abuse.

Actually, I just don't have the energy to reply to this.

I was watching Media Take this morning - they had a commentator on talking about the high proportion (he mentioned 80%) of posts a user on Facebook won't get to see based on in-site filtering, and that the danger is a limiting of exposure to a variety of different viewpoints. Though I don't like FB and use it as little as possible, sometimes the idea of living in a bubble sounds lovely if it means reading fewer posts that only encourage me to want to engage in head banging or other forms of self-harm...

networkn

Networkn
32200 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1290016 23-Apr-2015 10:38

KiwiNZ:
heylinb4nz: Here is my take...prepare to be offended some of you.

26 year old female working in a cafe having to afford living in Auckland, most likely broke as. Id say she was offered money to make those blog posts. Combined with the fact she has "strong political views" most likely left wing with a good dollop of greeny and a dash of feminist.

Personally I think its great that our PM is real person \ kiwi bloke and isnt afraid to show his non political side, who hasn't initiated some horseplay at work or at a shop where you are a well known regular (in this case a famous well known regular). We used to be able to do this before all this PC nonsense....its a Kiwi thing.

All she needed to do was to talk to her manager and for the manager to have quiet chat with Key or one of his minders to pass on the message, end of story....she could then be left alone to her sad boring career as a waitress...while all her workmates get to partake in some fun horseplay to lighten up their day.

Thankyou very much for validating my earlier post "If there is no repercussions for his actions it will be seen as tacit approval of his actions by others in our society. He chose to be the Nations Leader therefore he must act accordingly."

You don't believe he had these opinions before this incident. The incident didn't cause these views, the incident is viewed this way because of his existing views.

Your claim that this validates your early claim has no validity in my eyes.

1 | ... | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | ... | 25