Did Glucina speak to PMs Office on April 22nd?

14
0

Screen Shot 2015-05-05 at 8.31.02 pm

PM denies involvement in Glucina ‘ponytail-gate’ article
The Prime Minister says he had “nothing to do” with an article which named the waitress behind the ponytail-gate saga.
The Green Party has urged John Key to front up with details about his conversations with Rachel Glucina, the New Zealand Herald journalist who wrote the story about waitress Amanda Bailey.
Ms Bailey initially detailed her story in an anonymous article on left-wing political website The Daily Blog, but her identity was revealed in a Herald front-page story the next day.
In a follow-up article on The Daily Blog, Ms Bailey said the Herald journalist, gossip writer Rachel Glucina, initially presented herself as a public relations expert, not a reporter. Ms Glucina and the Herald denied Ms Bailey’s claims.
They says it was a “grubby” piece of journalism and wanted Mr Key’s assurance he had not been involved.
Mr Key says he doesn’t detail his conversations with journalists – but he had “absolutely nothing to do with” the article.

For those who claim the hair pulling by John Key is a misdemeanour despite Key doing it at least 10 times, there is the wider question about whether women should be physically harassed in the work place.

Metiria Turei has asked some hard questions regarding Key’s involvement with Rachel Glucina’s role in outing the identity of the waitress and attempting to put words in her mouth.

According to the young woman, Glucina did contact the PMs Office on April 22nd

“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.”

…So Glucina, according to what she told the young woman and her employers on a speaker phone, did contact the PMs Office on the 22nd.

The question Metiria needs to ask now is when did Glucina talk to the PM/PMs Office on the 22nd? After she had spoken to the employers and the waitress or before she spoke to them?

Not forgetting of course that Rachel’s brother works for the company in question.

Another question Metiria should be considering is who else did Key speak to on the 22nd or 23rd.

 

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

14 COMMENTS

  1. With the help of the CLSM, corporate lame street media, JK will draw this out until the sleepy hobbits who voted for this spotless clean politician, unlike all those other grubby corrupt ones, with a lovely smile, who came up from nothing, have forgotten what it was all about and start chatting about the latest reality TV show.
    RIP NZ democracy

  2. Hit the nail on the head there Martyn,

    Of course Key talked to any slime that assists his creepy cause every time.

    It is always the same with Key deny deny deny, until one day someone will have had enough and will blow his nasty sick cover of creepy characters in his “Club”.

    • @ Cleangreen, you omitted the other “Key” deflector. Which has a beautifully ironical “possum in a spotlight” ring about it when caught in a lie, and has a Latin translation of :

      “Oblitus sum , non possum meminisse non possum meminisse me memini me nemo dixit , sic carere ”

      which translates

      “I forget, I can’t recall, I can’t remember, nobody told me I had to remember, so I forgot”

      • Yes WINNIE – Key represents = “The art of forgetfulness has reached a new milestone.”

        • You can add “I miss spoke” what ever that means? and my personal favorite ” I can always find another scientist to give you a different opinion” regarding a BBC reporter questions about our polluted lakes and rivers.

  3. This one will never be forgotten. Key for his life long days will now be known as the ‘ponytail puller’ – It doesn’t matter how much time passes, attention is paid to it or weather it gets anywhere in the courts – Key will be tainted with this one for life. This one fact puts a smile on my face.

  4. Ah, and if she did phone him, was it is his capacity as the Prime Minister, the husband of a cafe customer, a cafe customer, a local resident, or a lying weasel of a politician in the crap needing help to get out of it?

    • That wouldn’t matter – Just say it was in her capacity as a friend, not a “journalist” and NZ will smile and nod.

    • was it in his capacity as the Prime Minister, the husband of a cafe customer, a cafe customer, a local resident, or a lying weasel of a politician

      Also, was she phoning in her capacity of personal friend or as NZ Herald journalist or as a private PR consultant.

      He needs to be asked in the House, what was his understanding of the situation.

      In fact, instead of the phrase “Does the Prime Minister stand by his statements”, opening parliamentary questions directed to Key should always begin “In what capacity will the Prime Minister be answering today’s questions?”

      • Key acts with absolute impunity.

        Today in the house Key did not answer any questions he does not speak more than one word No or Yes or two words “Cant remember”.

        This must be the most negative disengaged PM in history as he never actually offers any insight into anything as if he is an android.

        So if the Speaker does not haul Key up for his lack of reasonable reply to questions that demand complex answers then he acts with total impunity.

        Perhaps we should make a case study of all recent PM answers in question period to see who was the best PM exchange between them all?

  5. He will hide behind the old “It was not me, it was my office” line. It’s worked for him before.

  6. Remember folks Glaucoma did say she needed to speak to the PM’s office and we all know from the man himself that he ain’t gotta clue what goes on there. PM’s office nothing to do with Shonkey move along nothing going on here but a bit of horse play.

  7. Unfortunately all of the above entertaining comments depend on the assumption that Ms Glucina really did intend to contact Mr Key. I would have thought that she had such little credibility, that there is no reason to believe the remark.
    She could have been simply name-dropping. When I first read that statement I got the impression that, having found herself in a very precarious situation, she came out with the first excuse that could justify her rapid exit, and John Key happened to be it. Whatever, I dont think we are going to find the truth.

Comments are closed.