What the text to Key from Glucina shows
The PM was forced by the ever brilliant blogger No Right Turn to reveal the text message that Rachel Glucina sent to him regarding the smear job she and the NZ Herald did on Amanda Bailey, the waitress with the courage to tell John Key to stop touching her at her place of work.
The text reads…
‘just interviewed the waitress. Piece of work! Massive political agenda’.
…what I’d like to do is wrap some context around the text.
That text message sent by Rachel would have been the tail end to a conversation she was having with Key over the Wednesday that story broke on this blog.
Early on the morning of Wednesday 22nd April when the story broke, Key and the cafe owners spoke. At some stage after that the Cafe Owners decide to call Amanda in and tell her that Rachel Glucina is being invited into give PR advice on how to script a press release. The owners claim they never knew Rachel was secretly working for the NZ Herald despite Rachel’s brother also working for the owners.
According to Amanda’s blog, 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.”
…the text that has been released from the PM is the jubilant high five between the powerful and those desperately sucking up to the powerful. Glucina put spin on the story that because Amanda had political views, she was tainted with an axe to grind. Mike Hosking joined the feeding frenzy by denouncing Amanda for having the courage to stand up after Rachel had unmasked her to the public on the front page of the NZ Herald. This despite the NZ Herald being told that Wednesday night that Amanda had not consented to the interview and that it was taken under false pretences.
Mike Hosking received a harsh Broadcasting Standards Authority Complaint rebuke for his unnecessary victim blaming of Amanda and Glucina left the Herald shortly before one of the most damning complaints handed down by the Press Council criticised the Herald and her for the blurred lines between journalism and PR.
What needs to be investigated is what was said between the PMs Office and the Cafe owners on the 22nd and who first suggested Rachel as a PR adviser.
Manipulating the news to minimise a PM touching a young woman 10 separate times at her place of work is as breath taking as the fact that while the Broadcasting Standards Authority and Press Council unleashed fierce criticism of this manipulation, no media company was fined and no one punished other than the woman brave enough to tell Key to stop touching her.
In the interview with Key, he stated emphatically that there was no context… there hadn’t been any texts before that one! So, Jonny, you want us to believe that, out of the blue, you got a text from Glucina referring to something that you obviously already knew about, but there hadn’t been a prior conversation. Uh huh. I think you’re telling porkies.
Hm …..no texts before Rachel texted the PM with the phrase “Piece of work. Massive political agenda!” Some ways out that Farrar, Textor and Crosby might suggest for the PM.
I can’t remember anything about it.
Someone hacked my phone.
The Labour Party are running a smear campaign.
I think most people are worried about the flag referendum than a year-old text.
I can’t recall.
Someone in my office must have made a mistake.
I really think we should celebrate rugby and cricket and look to a brighter future under a National, ACT, Maori Party and United Future coalition.
I forget.
I will speak at the Earthquake Commemoration and people will forget about Rachel’s text.
I will not speak at the Earthquake Commemoration and people can’t boo me.
Does anyone know if the PM spoke in Christchurch? I live in the North Island and couldn’t get to stand firm with Christchurch people.
I watched One News at 6 and 3 news on Sky 503 and neither had the PM speaking.
I did hear a radio news report around 4pm where the PM was whisked away by bodyguards and police after the Ice Cream attack on Mr Brownlee? But nothing about what the PM said (or didn’t say).
Key’s statement that this text just came out of the blue, and that he didn’t respond, is indicative of just how secure he is in his belief that “most New Zealanders” choose to accept his stories. Imagine if he had to prove himself “innocent beyond reasonable doubt”!
“the waitress with the courage to tell John Key to stop touching her at her place of work”
But strangely she did not show the courage to take the PM to court citing Key and his wife, the guards, her colleagues and bosses as witnesses to Keys creepy behaviour. Dumb.
About the cover up, I agree the entire conversation should be revealed and not just the last few words.
Yes she did, https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/-ponytailgate-waitress-settles-with-cafe-employers-q02343
“She’s believed to have claimed a breach of privacy, among other matters, over a controversial interview she gave to the New Zealand Herald’s then-gossip writer Rachel Glucina.
She subsequently claimed she was misled into believing she was talking to a public relations expert trusted by her employers”
It’s understood Ms Bailey has decided not to take any action against the Prime Minister over the hair-pulling.
– Political reporter Heather du Plessis-Allan
That is not showing the courage ‘to take the PM to court citing Key and his wife, the guards, her colleagues and bosses as witnesses to Keys creepy behaviour’, is it?
Well, perhaps you’d care to have the courage to fund her legal defence against the deep pockets of the PM? Or would you rather just sit and throw stones at her then criticise her for trying to duck out of their way?
What’s not clear about this “Ms Bailey took a personal grievance case against the owners of Rosie café “
There are all sorts of reasons to not take someone to court. Lack of courage is seldom one of them.
Rachel Glucina’s email to John Key “Just interviewed the waitress. Piece of work! Massive political agenda”, tells us several things. Firstly there is no doubt that John Key had communication with Glucina prior to the email. Glucina had the PM’s personal cell phone number and there was familiarity with the issue at hand. Otherwise the text would have read the “waitress at the Parnell restaurant” or some other qualifier as to whom Glucina was referring to. This text was not out of the blue as Key has maintained, but in effect it was a report back after Glucina had conducted the interview. The email further portrays that Rachel Glucina assessed the waitress as to her political stance and that she was not a National Party supporter made her a hater, a piece of work. I contend that having her ponytail pulled while at work by the P.M made her extremely uncomfortable, was incredibly embarrassing, totally inappropriate, and amounted to harassment. The interview by Glucina was obtained through misrepresentation as a PR consultant, not as a Herald reporter and Rachel Glucina’s staunch National Party views, and a will to support the P.M in this self righteous email, exceeded any concern for the waitress. It shows a collusion between the Herald and the P.M’s office and that the information conveyed was really focused on political damage control for John Key. It is disturbing that the office of the Prime Minister and the media, The NZ Herald in this case, are in such a close relationship. Such a relationship is not representative of an open democracy. Glucina’s employment should have been terminated, and the waitress should have had her situation vindicated through a formal complaints process.
Well said KC – thorough reading between and on the lines.
its shows that Dirty Politics had and has a direct line to the PM not just his office.
Of course there were other, earlier communications. While the PM would probably tell the truth that he did not respond to that supposedly “unsolicited” text from Rachel Glucina, he has not denied that there were earlier exchanges of communication. It may not all have been by text, they may have talked over the phone also.
While I doubt that Key was all that involved in what Rachel Glucina wrote in the Herald, he certainly seems to have known about what was planned and what happened. The cafe owners have discredited themselves earlier, when letting the PM get away with his conduct for too long. They let down their staff member and later tried to save their own reputation by involving Rachel Glucina, and I bet they knew full well who she was, who she acted for and what she planned to write.
Like so much else we get a massive cover up again, by the government, the PM, the persons involved, and the media is also not that interested, it seems, after the wave of discussion of the hair pulling right after the publication of Amanda’s post here.
The MSM tend to move on quickly and do not bother investigating much at all, as it is easier to report on the crime or court cases of the day, the freak weather events, on petty political debate, on sports and celebrity news.
Indeed, some more light must be cast on what happened between the cafe owners and Rachel, and how much correspondence and communication happened between the gossip columnist and the PM.
why should anyone be punished for free speech
Coming soon:
“Excuse me Prime Minister, but there IS context. There are several earlier messages in which you refer explicitly to “the waitress” and collude with Glucina to mislead and expose Bailey publicly.”
“Uh, yeah, look, I don’t consider that “context.” It’s more like coincidence, and I think you’ll find that most NZ’ers are comfortable with that, me especially. But how about that game of rugby though, let’s talk about that.”