Tuesday, June 20, 2017

What was Winston's role in the Todd Barclay matter?

I can understand Glenys Dickson wanting to destroy young upstart, Todd Barclay.  But why has she (in)advertantly thrown Bill English in the deepest pile of steaming turds she can find?

She worked for him for 17 years!  Maybe she felt affronted that English appeared to back Barclay ahead of her, but man, to nail the PM like that, well, only Winston Peters seems capable of that.

Who does Glenys Dickson work for now?

14 comments:

Psycho Milt said...

But why has she (in)advertantly thrown Bill English in the deepest pile of steaming turds she can find?

I dunno, maybe because she has good reason to believe he helped cover up a crime against her and was possibly even involved in an attempt to pervert the course of justice as part of that cover-up? If I were her, I'd definitely find that somewhat annoying. And after Bill responded to yesterday's revelations by getting his pal David to write a Kiwiblog post smearing her but not mentioning the alleged crimes against her, I expect she's even less chuffed with him.

Nick K said...

Milt, I guess it's "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned".

Ciaron said...

This could get exciting, a couple of questions for those in the know:

Who convinced Key that what the media seem to be referring to as 'hush money' should/could come out of his leaders budget?

How much of the story did English hear at this 'face to face' (plausible deniability)

Will Barclay resign before 0900, 1200 or 1700 hrs?

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Makes my suggestion of a Gnats/Greens 'coalition all the more likely if Peters was involved here.

Nick K said...

Yeah, well I understand Dickson now works for one of his MPs.

English has dismissed his desire to be deputy PM or joint PM or whatever other folly he had in mind. So, Peters being Peters thinks "i'll f*** you right over mate. You won't be Prime Minister after September once I've finished with you".

I wouldn't put that past him. Not at all.

Paulus said...

Barclay has quit - she and her mates won.
She is working for the opposition now in the electorate.

Noel said...

The payout from the discretionary fund to settle an employment despute i hope is a first and last.
Seen Ministers descretiony funds use for positive help when the system has barriers to taxpwyers getting assistsnce.

Ciaron said...

Paulus,
Sounds like your not happy that Barclay is gone?
Not that I trust everything I read (doubly so for anything in Stuff) but the picture being painted rather convincingly is that he's dodgy as f**k with more than a hint of "don't you know who I am" syndrome...

Anonymous said...

If the dear lady signed a confidentiality agreement which enabled her to get her hands on taxpayer money, now that she has breached her agreement, why can't the taxpayer ( or their representatives, ) recover every cent she has extracted from us?

Gerald said...

Maybe if he has any ethics he might pay us back after he leaves.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11880280

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Gerald, the lady is a she, not a he - or at least it would seem so at first glance.

Noel said...

Ignore him Gerald.
Using a Ministerial descretionary fund to bail out another politician from an employment dispute has not occurred before and is questionable now.

Psycho Milt said...

If the dear lady signed a confidentiality agreement which enabled her to get her hands on taxpayer money, now that she has breached her agreement, why can't the taxpayer ( or their representatives, ) recover every cent she has extracted from us?


First, because that's a very big "if." There's no indication she was paid anything to keep quiet about a crime being committed against her (which is important - see item "Third" below).

Second, because you can't contract out of your rights. She could take hush money and still be legally entitled to tell people about the illegal activity.

Third, because it would involve Bill English declaring to New Zealand's voters that National paid someone hush money to keep quiet about a crime that was committed, which would mean criminal convictions all round. If she really was paid to keep quiet, there's no way in hell the government would admit it.

Ciaron said...

First, because that's a very big "if." There's no indication she was paid anything to keep quiet about a crime being committed against her (which is important - see item "Third" below).

Indeed PM. The best that can be claimed is that she was compensated for the breach of her privacy... but I'd think a lot of people would still view it as a payment to keep quiet.

Bill English to Stuart Davie: He left a dictaphone running that picked up all conversations in the office Just the office end of phone conversations. The settlement was larger than normal because of the privacy breach. (The full exchange is in the exclusive Newsroom video story.)

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/93858209/government-gives-secret-payment-to-former-employee-glenys-dickson-over-secret-recording