Although this will be portrayed as such, this issue is not about Rights vs Left. It is about Right vs Wrong.
"She uses her column in the most-read newspaper in New Zealand to give her full support to John Key and Judith Collins, and to scorn some of National’s enemies. What’s up with that? Is it journalism gone mad? Is it flat-out propaganda? Or is it some other kind of bullshit?"
"She uses her column in the most-read newspaper in New Zealand to give her full support to John Key and Judith Collins, and to scorn some of National’s enemies. What’s up with that? Is it journalism gone mad? Is it flat-out propaganda? Or is it some other kind of bullshit?"
- Journalist, Steve Braunias about the female Cameron Slater, Rachel Glucina
All's not well in the state of Denmark. Or rather, there's a rot at the centre of the Middle Kingdom.
The
last couple of days have brought to light stories that go right to
the heart, not only of Dirty Politics, but of a deep corruption that
is not only political, economic and financial - but also moral in
nature.
All decency, all reference to the Public Good, to the dignity of public office has gone out of the public debate as formulated by the mass media (let's not forget their role in the manufacture of consent).
A group of us have done our best to reveal advertisements in Singapore and Malaysia advertising New Zealand as a source of an easy investment (and easy debt-based money) and New Zealanders as a source of enrichment. We have been absolutely outraged and done our best to bring this to the attention of the media.
My own sense of outrage is scarcely any less when I hear the person in the local real estate firm, in an interview, claim that he is doing New Zealanders a favour, the interviewer let that go unchecked ("don't you think that is a little exploitive?, asks Guyon Espiner blandly) . You see it's all just business as usual. Rip off the people of Auckland wanting to buy their own home and potential investors in Singapore borrowing easy money which they will doubtless lose when the housing bubble bursts (as sub prime mortgages did in 2008.
All decency, all reference to the Public Good, to the dignity of public office has gone out of the public debate as formulated by the mass media (let's not forget their role in the manufacture of consent).
A group of us have done our best to reveal advertisements in Singapore and Malaysia advertising New Zealand as a source of an easy investment (and easy debt-based money) and New Zealanders as a source of enrichment. We have been absolutely outraged and done our best to bring this to the attention of the media.
My own sense of outrage is scarcely any less when I hear the person in the local real estate firm, in an interview, claim that he is doing New Zealanders a favour, the interviewer let that go unchecked ("don't you think that is a little exploitive?, asks Guyon Espiner blandly) . You see it's all just business as usual. Rip off the people of Auckland wanting to buy their own home and potential investors in Singapore borrowing easy money which they will doubtless lose when the housing bubble bursts (as sub prime mortgages did in 2008.
Now this morning the story of a prime minister's moral turpitude and his serial abuse of a young woman has developed into a story that goes to the heart of corruption in this country.
The New Zealand Herald has broken the young woman's name using a ruse used by their gossip columist, Rachel Glucina to extract the information. When the ruse was discovered she (through blogger Martyn Bradbury) withdrew her consent but the Herald published the story any way.
Rachel Glucina, as will become clear below, is the female Cameron Slater, described by Nicky Hager, who has hardly a bad word to say about anyone, as 'despicable'
Luckily, we still have some principled people in public life. Listen to ex- MP, Marilyn Waring talk about the issue and then listen to Kim Hill's line of questioning.
Marilyn Waring makes it perfectly clear that the prime minister's actions are, not just immoral, but illegal, under the Human Rights Act and John Key should be stood down immediately while this is investigated (not swept under the carpet)
But listen to Hill's line of questioning and to the commentariat across the board (with a few surprising exceptions).. This is just a political beat-up by a known 'leftie' and, hey, the PM has apologised, so move on. Nothing to see or hear here.
Meanwhile, I am hearing this morning that RadioActive journalist, Sean Plunkett has been collecting information about the young woman's social media contacts - presumably to blacken her name
Winston Peters was right when he said that it didn't matter if the woman was a communist - there's a case to be answered.
This corruption has to be fought tooth and nail. This is part of the struggle against fascism and the degradation of the traditional values of this society.
Make no mistake. Those who wield whatever power there is in this backwater vassal of the United States of America and its corporate masters are quite consciously corrupting this country and the media and those who help to manipulate public opinion are colluding with them.
Those who continue to be complacent and accept the normalcy are complicit in the wider actions of John Key and his corporate masters, well as those who are ripping off the people of Auckland with their advertisements in Asia.
We have an active Fifth Column in this country and they have to be outed.
PS. Although she has been 'outed' (as if she were the guilty party, as she will be portrayed - instead of being a brave woman of principle), I refuse to go along and mention her name.
I salute her for her position of principle.
Here was the blog post that was published prior to the NZ Herald releasing the name of the woman at the centre of this scandal.
UPDATE: The Prime Minister and the Waitress Part 2 – Dirty Politics?
Rachel
Glucina and Government pollster and right wing political blogger,
David Farrar
23
April, 2015
I
think the
young woman at the centre of the Prime Minister’s bewilderingly
abusive and arrogant privilege is a hero. She has shown
courage and fortitude that is pretty rare. To tell the Prime Minister
to his face to stop touching her took enormous strength when you
consider the power dynamics.
I
did not believe her bravery should be denigrated by a mainstream
media who look to get a victim blaming ratings kick. That was why I
said I wouldn’t confirm her identity to any of the media who
contacted me.
She
thanked me for this but accepted that her name might be made public.
This understood, she was determined to direct that voice and
allow it to be her narrative and her story told on her terms.
Out
of her genuine concern for the reputation and economic ramifications
her possible outing might have on her employers, she met with them
Wednesday afternoon and was left in a position she had not agreed to.
She
also challenges some of the comments the Prime Minister has made.
These
are her words. She raises hard questions about the NZ Herald.
*********************************
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.
***************
After
the young woman contacted me aggrieved about the way she
had been treated, I called the NZ Herald at 11.08pm and spoke to
their editor Shayne Currie. I told Shane that there was a dispute by
the woman and that she had been told Rachel was a PR advisor who
was helping protect the reputation of her employers and that she
withdrew her permission for the photos to be used or her comments.
If
you are reading this and the NZ Herald has printed their exclusive
interview, they did so knowing that the woman in question had removed
her consent after feeling deceived.
Here is the article from the New Zealand Herald
Here is the article from the New Zealand Herald
Waitress: 'I felt NZ should know'
This story has now been covered by Radio NZ
Ponytail woman takes a swipe at newspaper
The woman at the centre of the so-called #ponytailgate controversy, 26-year-old Aucklander Amanda Bailey, has launched an attack on the New Zealand Herald, which named her this morning.
And this background to dispicabe NZ Herald columist who used a deceitful ruse to extract information on the identity of the younng woman at the centre of this.
And this background to dispicabe NZ Herald columist who used a deceitful ruse to extract information on the identity of the younng woman at the centre of this.
Who is Rachel Glucina and why is John Key always phoning her up?
"She
uses her column in the most-read newspaper in New Zealand to give
her full support to John Key and Judith Collins, and to scorn some of
National’s enemies. What’s up with that? Is it journalism gone
mad? Is it flat-out propaganda? Or is it some other kind of
bullshit?"
---Journalist, Steve Braunias
"She uses her column in the most-read newspaper in New Zealand to give her full support to John Key and Judith Collins, and to scorn some of National’s enemies. What’s up with that? Is it journalism gone mad? Is it flat-out propaganda? Or is it some other kind of bullshit?"
---Journalist, Steve Braunias
Hager 'avoids shaming' journalists
During
the intimate Q and A, Hager talked about the Kiwi journalists named
in his book.
"If
you see a name of a journalist in the book, they are the ones I don't
think have done anything wrong, they're just incidental to the story.
Every journalist who had been taking stories in dodgy ways from David
Farrar, one of the bloggers, or Cameron Slater or from the prime
minister's office, I actually left their names out. I decided not to
do the journalists basically."
All
apart from Rachel Glucina, who Hager described as "despicable".
Whale Oil,
22
April, 2015
From
Whale Oil
"As
a hit job, this one is poorly timed. Key is overseas, and it is
launched as we work towards Anzac Day. As a result “spokespeople”
for the PM are dealing with this, and they have gone for a “he’s
already apologised back then.”, which he did. It’s an old
story, and it’s been dug up for Anzac day and channeled through the
worst blog to filter it into the main media......
*The
main media have done their part and blown it up beyond all
proportion, stumbling over each other not to be left behind on this
stellar piece of political and media history. Where are they when
John Key is allowing people who have actually broken the law to
continue under his watch? Why the silence over wife beaters? Sex
crimes? Financial cover-ups? The media are happy enough to go with
hair pulling, but they remain silent over things that are truly
serious.....
*Key
pulled her hair, that’s pretty dumb, but at least he doesn’t use
broomsticks on women to get his jollies. The real stories are
elsewhere. Real crimes. Some of them covered up using legal
protection orders, so I and others can not talk about the detail.
Imagine the real uproar if he’d hit the waitress with a broomstick!"
Finally, this Radio New Zealand's coverage of our story about advertisements in Singapore
Offshore ad says Auckland 'investors' dream'
A
property investment company does not believe its advert selling
Auckland property as a cash cow for offshore landlords is exploiting
New Zealanders
A
view of Auckland housing from Mt Eden. Photo: RNZ
/ Diego Opatowski
23
April, 2015
The
radio advert has been on air in Singapore since Monday for Property
Solutions Singapore, which is a subsidiary of Dunedin-based company
Australian Property Solutions.
It
said investors can take advantage of a lack of taxes and reap
hundreds of dollars from New Zealanders' weekly pay packets.
"If
you happen to own an apartment in Auckland, New Zealand, the high
rent returns, other people's money, around half a week's pay for most
people, could be paid to you as rent every week," it states.
"Now
many people invest in Auckland because of the high demand for rents,
there's no SAB duty, no land tax and within New Zealand generally no
capital gains tax either, it's an investors' dream and very
affordable."
The
company's director Lyndon Fairbairn told Morning Report that
was just the nature of the business and had nothing to do with the
location of the investor or renter.
"Be
it a New Zealand property investor buying an Auckland property or a
foreign investor, you're getting someone else to go to work to pay
your rental," he said.
"The
average New Zealand income's about $990 a week, and the rental's
about $500 a week so it's pretty factual."
Mr
Fairbairn said it was only selling plans for new properties and
buyers were adding housing to the New Zealand market.
"We
focus purely on the CBD Auckland property region. We don't sell big
hunks of land, beaches or existing property. I think there's a bit of
a fine line there, if you are selling existing property to someone
overseas you're adding zero value or benefit to the New Zealand
economy."
He
said it would also help create jobs for locals.
"There's
a whole building industry that relies on people building properties;
it's employing Kiwis. So you're actually contributing a lot of money
to the New Zealand economy when someone from overseas buys brand new
property."
However,
the Green Party said the advertisement highlighted weaknesses in the
country's overseas investment laws.
Its
housing spokesperson Kevin Hague said offshore investors would view
New Zealand as an easy mark and young property owners would miss out.
"Young
New Zealanders are having to pay those rapidly-rising rents, and
they're being completely priced out of ever owning their own homes,"
he said.
"Everyday
New Zealanders aren't suckers - they know this situation is wrong and
unfair."
The latest -
Ponytail saga: Sexual harassment complaint laid against John Key http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/ponytail-saga-sexual-harassment-complaint-laid-against-john-key-6298530 … via @ONENewsNZ
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.