Thursday, 23 April 2015

More on John Key's moral turpitude and that of the Media

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?"

- Journalist, Steve Braunias about the female Cameron Slater, Rachel  Glucina

There’s a rot at the centre of the Middle Kingdom


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.

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

Waitress: 'I felt NZ should know'

This story has now been covered by Radio NZ

Ponytail woman takes a swipe at newspaper

Amanda Bailey / John Key

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.

Who is Rachel Glucina and why is John Key always phoning her up?

Rachel Glucina

"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

Nicky Hager, who hardly has an unkind word about anyone reveals his opinion of Glucina who features prominently in "Dirty Politics"

Hager 'avoids shaming' journalists

Nicky Hager

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".

Meanwhile, Whale Oil, Cameron Slater of 'Dirty Politics' seems to have turned against his erstwhile friend and benefactor

The worm has turned
Cameron Slater refers to untold stories about John Key

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

Auckland housing, pictured from Mt Eden.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 -

No comments:

Post a comment