The Mendacities of Mr Key #6: When apologising to a victim of violence is not considered “serious”



lying politician


The next time John Key stands up at a public meeting and states that he always carries out his promises, just remind him of this event;


PM accused of breaking word



TDB Recommends

So on 3 July, our esteemed Dear Leader was of the mind that Ms Billingsley deserved an apology,

“… in so much that I believe that she shouldn’t have had to go through what she went through.”

It was a good sound-bite for the media and made a good headline. Politician. Attempted rape victim. Bungling by bureaucrats and probably a senior minister. The focus groups that poll-driven governments use would have backed up an apology.

Nineteen days later, it all changed.  Key’s new response was,

“Because I think the Government has apologised. Both the minister and the officials have made it quite clear they’re sorry for the incident that’s taken place in the way that person left the country. I think that’s wholly appropriate.

But in the end, I think what’s far more important is that there is a proper inquiry – that’s what the victim in this circumstance deserves and that’s what she’s going to get.

What’s far more important now, actually, is that the independent inquiry that’s been established and will be run by (former Treasury Secretary) John Whitehead actually gets to the bottom of all of the unanswered questions there.”

Worse still, and this is something every woman in this country should reflect on, was Key’s astounding quip,

“I don’t make apologies unless there’s a serious reason for me to do that. As I said at the time I relied on the advice that was given to me by MFAT.”

So Key believes sexual assault (or attempted sexual assault) is not serious? Is that the message from the Prime Minister?

So if one of his family, gods forbid, went through what Ms Billingsley did – that’s not “serious”?

We’ve had an insight into John Key’s soul – backed up by his now-other-infamous quip about Internet Party Leader, Laila Harré , when he uttered this sexist and derogatory comment about her,

“… Laila Harré grandstanding about whether her sugar daddy should be extradited or not to the United States.”

So, if Kim Dotcom is Ms  Harré’s “sugar daddy” because he is funding the Internet-Mana alliance – does that make John Key Shanghai Pengxin’s “rent boy” for receiving funding from that corporation in return for favourable ministerial decisions on land purchases ?

Perhaps worse still is an insight into Key’s “moral compass” (or lack thereof), when he let slip,

“… As I said at the time I relied on the advice that was given to me by MFAT.”

Does that mean he cannot make a fairly simple decision to offer an apology to a victim/survivor of attempted rape without “advice” from a third party?

Does he really have to be told what is the right thing to do?

Why would any woman vote for a person like this?

Charge: broken promise/deflection/half-truth/hypocrisy/outright lie/misinformation?

Verdict: broken promise




Radio NZ:  PM accused of breaking word

NZ Herald: Diplomat case: No apology from PM

Radiolive: AUDIO: Prime Minister John Key refers to Kim Dotcom as Laila Harre’s “sugar daddy”

NZ Herald: Chinese cash flows to Nats

Other blogs

Seemorerocks:An honest man?

The Standard: Just say sorry John

Previous related blogposts

Time to bend over again, fellow Kiwis (part # Rua)

Doing ‘the business’ with John Key – Here’s How (Part # Rua)

The Mendacities of Mr Key #5: Has Tim Groser shown the P.M. to be a liar on the TPPA?




david cunliffe stood up on the issue of domestic violence

Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes



= fs =


  1. R.A.T.F.L………..(F)JK the Pengxin rent boy…………I LOVE your logic……..why isn’t the paid for MSM not using that line each time (F)JK is mentioned, as they were with KDC for a while?……….oh wait I think I answered my own question.

  2. The problem is that transNational voters accept his porkies, quite possibly admire his porkies as “deft political management”.

  3. I was appalled about the PM’s “sugar daddy” comment but the trouble with attacking him using the same kind of metaphor (as tempting as it may be) is that it still demeans sex workers, this kind of language having encouraged their abuse through the centuries.

  4. He is a very sick thing FJK! What does Mrs FJK think about all this crap coming from her husband? Has she been asked? Does she need help?

    The message needs to get out there to the ones who don’t access computers and online media – the telly watchers who know only the MSM unreality. They have been brainwashed by MSM.



    • I think what he is saying is that you will never be able to prove it coz me and my staff and the GCSB have got rid of all evidence!

  5. Ah but you see — women worth their salt don’t ‘put themselves’ into this sort of predicament. JK and his National cronies have over the years (as long as I have lived in NZ) made comments about rape being the victim’s fault. This is seen through police policy, comments about Louise Nicholson, etc.

    Comparing a very valuable politician and woman to a prostitute is despicable, especially since Harare was so instrumental in decriminalising prostitution.

    Women have NO value to the National party. Hence why they were in such a fit about Labour wanting to increase female participation in government.

    Who on earth would want a woman to take a job? Aren’t they supposed to be at home? You know, doing all the domestic stuff for free with little support from men or the government?

Comments are closed.