The PM and the Waitress: The Facebook post that prove National knew


Screen Shot 2015-04-26 at 9.21.55 am


  1. It has become apparent that FJK was aware of Amanda’s political leanings. I am even more incensed that the Natz are calling it a set-up, a honey trap, entrapment. I believe that FJK, knowing she supported the opposition, greatly enjoyed tormenting her. He kept it up, even when she told him NO. He is still not accepting that what he did was use his power, against someone with NO power. Charge the bullying bastard.

    • I agree with Anne. I get the feeling that she didn’t show him the deference he seems to thrive on. It is obvious that he singled her out and used this intimidatory behaviour using his wife and security guards presence for cover should he ever need it. It is a bit like stalking behaviour. This whole thing is starting to be couched in terms of One episode when we all know he did it multiple times, but only to AB. Was there no other staff our Minister of Jolly Japes could single out or were they all doting Tories? As for his security detail…pffft! Aren’t they policemen? Did they not warn him that what he was doing was assault? (Apparently Bronagh refers to them as *the boys.!!!) Kerre Woodman had a good column on this from her perspective of her years in Hospitality but there was a photo of AB with her previous employers which to me said a lot. It showed them standing (dominant)behind AB smirking and she was sitting hunched down (submissive)in front like prey that had just been caught.Not a nice photo.

      • @ ChrisM – Good analysis of the NZH photo, which when taken into perspective, is exactly as you say.

        You mention the cafe owners as being Amanda’s ‘previous’ employers. Has she lost her job?

      • I agree it was a horrible photo, the employers were smirking you could read what they were thinking..our good friend Rachael will make this go away

    • I agree. Question: was she the only one with a pony tail? Did he pull anyone else’s hair? My gut feeling is he picked on her because she didn’t fawn over him. He wouldn’t have liked that. I think torment is the right word, because he was punishing her for having the temerity not to adore him. He was using his position of power. Nasty piece of goods.

  2. FJK is a bully for sure, he thinks he can get away with anything, so as NZ’s first PM he will be marked in history as the bully.

  3. Get a REAL journalist to ask Key the hard Q,s. Not some patsy for the corporate Lame St Media, as is usual in this corporate controlled NZ, where once was real democracy

  4. This despicable behaviour of the Prime Minister who has disgraced himself and the country, nationally and internationally, should be investigated immediately and he should stand aside during the process and until fully exonerated.

  5. Jkey was flirting…. Sexually interested (under the guise of humour) …. But not getting the response he wanted frustrated him, so he continued, because he hated losing his game to a waitress. He even risked his reputation because he had to win / dominate.

    • I think there is another possibility. That it is not sexual because if it were then there would be a whole lot of other instances of this sort of behaviour.

      The other possibility is the one Martyn puts forward and that is there was some banter between Amanda Bailey and John Key over his values and his government’s policies and he could not take a cafe worker speaking to him like that so he decided to put her in her place.

  6. He acts just like a schoolyard bully because that’s all he is, with disturbing undertones of support for sex criminals.

  7. There are now multiple photographs of JK “touching” females hair, young school girls too, there must be more, there is something very wrong with this constant behaviour.

  8. Question :

    If a person who is not known except by ‘ fame ‘…..were to do this on a regular basis over a period of 7 months to someone relatively unknown …

    Say….some musician who was well known , sportsman…

    Do you not think it would make the headlines – as it so often does ?

    All Blacks overseas behaving badly springs to mind….

    Therefore do you not think that the charge of common assault – not simply being deflected and ‘ excused away ‘ – would not have been brought against the antagonist?

    As has frequently happened?

    Tell me then…why is this country making an exception and providing this man Key such wide tolerance for what is actually not only breaking our own laws – but demonstrating that ‘ some people are above the law and the law doesn’t apply to those individuals ‘…..?

    What is it about all this that smacks of favoritism before the eyes of the law ?

    And why is this country accepting this?

    Would you accept this behavior towards your Grandmother , Mother , Aunty , Wife , Girlfriend , Cousin , Daughter , Friend , Fiance ?

    So why do we accept it towards other peoples children ? Other people who we don’t know?

    Are our laws and legal fraternity so weak that law apply’s to certain individuals but not to others based on fame , social position , gender , how much wealth they have …..or political status?

    If not it certainly seems so….

    And the question is why is this?

    Was Aaron Gilmore, Roger Sutton any different?

    Roger Sutton , who like Key sustained this behavior that finally ousted him …over a protracted period of time. Like Key.

    Aaron Gilmore…who was an expendable back bencher and was drunk…and generally was guilty of only the one incident…

    Tell me….why are we making such exceptions for John Key….hes not a god – just a man.

    And a very poorly behaved and ignorant one at that.

    Other men have served prison time or community service for the same or less.

    So why is Key any different?

Comments are closed.