It’s over for Colin Craig

9
2

This has just been tweeted by Rachel MacGregor…

Screen Shot 2015-06-22 at 8.01.44 pm
…if she says that it wasn’t consensual, then it’s over for Colin.

If his advances were not mutual, then he has been totally inappropriate and those with a vested interest in his demise have all they need to end him.

If this had been a romance forged in the heat of an election campaign where attractions were mutual, Colin could have been forgiven, but if Rachel is publicly stating that there was no consent at all, then he has not only presented a very one sided version of events, he has breached all rules of responsibility and the law – he’s sexually harassed someone who worked for him and put his family and Rachel through needless pain and humiliation.

With that one tweet, it’s over Colin, you need to step down and focus on your whanau and be thankful Rachel hasn’t taken the issue to the Police.

Rich men and privilege. It’s a toxic mixture.

9 COMMENTS

  1. It was already over, with Stringer’s comments on The Nation on the weekend. Colin was forced to come up and explain himself, as too many within the party know about what happened, but due to “confidentiality” rules nobody dared speak out, until that interview Lisa Owen had with Stringer.

    That again was after Colin Craig seriously upset their Board with cancelling a meeting that had been planned, without even consulting any Board members.

    He has fallen on his own sword, as Lisa Owen said.

    This tweet does prove nothing, nor does it disprove anything, it simply looks bad and worse for Colin Craig.

    Yes, he is history, that is in politics, no more credit left, too many contradictions and desperate efforts to conceal stuff.

    He better focus on his wife and family, and also on his business, and leave his hands off politics, which is a ruthless game, as we know.

  2. I expect his is all too gateway for most readers, who are not
    (yet) privy to whatever it is that you already know, Martyn.

    I mean, inappropriate action covers a lot of possibilities. For example, I wouldn’t be surprised if he has tried to manipulate her into one of his religious practices or church rituals, or perhaps insisted she take chemtrails seriously. Maybe he strong armed her into some financial arrangement. Who the hell knows?

    Romance? advances? well they’res not far removed from sexual in nature, and maybe you are right, but it is irksome that commentators seem to presume rather than wait for, or provide readers with, real evidence.

    • To me “inappropriate” nine times out of ten means sexual.

      But let’s have a look at what we have as far as I can tell:

      1. A badly written “Love” poem signed by Craig to MacGregor.
      2. The fact that McGregor complained to the HRC about Craig although we don’t know the details as both she and Craig agreed to keep things quiet.
      3. An admission from Craig that there was “inappropriate” behaviour but implying that it was on both sides and an explicit denial that there was anything sexual.
      4. A statement from MacGregor refuting Craig but not going into any detail because of the confidentiality agreement.

      Take from all of this what you will and whether you consider it “real” evidence is entirely up to you.

  3. Key, Craig, “prominent NZer”, all coming across as predatory lying charlatans, using their positions to abuse. Seems to be more prevalent in Tories, God botherers etc, which tells you something!

    Doesn’t say much about the calibre of this country’s right wing politicians! Must be part of the conservative culture. Makes you wonder how many more will be exposed (no pun intended there)!

Comments are closed.