Friday, 3 July 2009

Complaint against Richard Worth withdrawn

From Stuff just before lunchtime:
Police confirmed this morning that the woman at the centre of sexual allegations against former National minister Richard Worth has dropped the complaint.

3 News said last night that the Korean woman had made the move on the advice of police. She felt the political damage to Dr Worth had been sufficient and that going through the courts would be an additional ordeal.

A Wellington police spokeswoman confirmed in a statement this morning that the complaint had been formally withdrawn, but said: "At no time did Police suggest to the complainant that she should withdraw her complaint."

The statement said police "will need to assess all the information we have to bring the file to a state of finality."

...Mr Key received an email from the complainant about the alleged incident. 3 News said it had seen the email and it described how she and Dr Worth had been drinking wine at a hotel. She felt tired and went to bed and was woken by a naked Dr Worth.

Other details in the email went some way to explaining why Mr Key lost confidence in him, the report said...
I think we should be clear here that when the woman who dropped the complaint says going through the courts would be a further ordeal I suspect she means for her, not for Worth. Given the current trial of the man who has admitted killing Sophie Elliott, I can understand why she would make that decision. I just cannot understand how Clayton Weatherston can even think any level of provocation, any at all, could be sufficient to justify what he did.

Don't even start me on the ridiculous defence argument in the trial of Nai Yin Xue. And the treatment of Neelima Choudray would also have given this woman pause. When oh when are we going to stop blaming those at the sharp end for harassment, stalking, rape, assault, even murder.

Worth made it clear he denied the accusations absolutely and that he would fight and fight. He has the wherewithal and the legal contacts to make that last a significant period of time.

Like Idiot/Savant, this doesn't smell much like justice to me.


Anonymous said...

Let's get real here, he was a married man and she knew it.
He booked a hotel room and she went willingly.

Whether anything else in what she says is true is a mtter of he said, She said.
The long and tall of it was she went knowingly.

Don't you find it a bit hypocritical writing to your little wriggly saying you hope the outdated morals of the 50's will have gone by the time she (wriggly) has to deal with it.

If the Korean woman had had some morals she wouldn't have gone to a hotel room with someone else's husband!

Suspect the event and all sides of it.

Mikaere Curtis said...

I just cannot understand how Clayton Weatherston can even think any level of provocation, any at all, could be sufficient to justify what he did.

I suspect he would, in truth, agree with you. He appears to be a vile, desperate man clutching at any straw to convert a murder rap into a manslaughter rap. He probably thinks "nothing to lose, everything to gain".

If the Korean woman had had some morals she wouldn't have gone to a hotel room with someone else's husband!

Bullshit. I've gone to people's hotel rooms to have a glass of wine plenty of times without any intention of sleeping with them. It's called socialising.

MikeNZ, has it occurred to you that your comments could be interpreted as blaming the victim of a potential date-rape incident ?

Julie said...

MikeNZ, what Mikaere said. I'm not sure The Hand Mirror is the right place for you to be commenting to be honest. We don't go in for that kind of rubbish around here. You might want to read our comment policy before commenting further on this thread or one of the others that you've ploughed into without realising the nature of this blog, i.e. explicitly feminist and thus not much into sexism, victim-blaming, racism, or being a jerk to others.

Flynn the Cat said...

Uh, anyway, I would think a 'married man' would be considered less likely to make approaches (wanted or not), surely?
Or should be.

Julie said...

Flynn, I have no idea about the Worth's marriage at all. Some people do not consider marriage to be a sexually exclusive relationship though. Frankly I don't see a problem with that as long as everyone knows about it and is ok with it.

Anonymous said...

Is that why Neelam continued this relationship with Worth for quite some time, apparently with the full knowledge of Helen, Phil and quite possibly Andrew Little - all associates of Neelam. She by all means isn't a weak, innocent women. She got far in the Labour Party which isn't easy for any woman.

Married women do not go willingly into mens hotel rooms, especially when invited by sleezy MPs. Worth was well known for his creepy behaviour and yet these women thought nothing of it.

This shouldn't be about politics Julie. This is about something far more important - commonsense. And none of the complainants, or Worth have any of it.

Julie said...

Most recent Anon your comment is a such a startling bundle of contradictions I'm not sure where to start.

Just to focus on one thing from your comment though; if Worth's "creepy behaviour" was so well known why hadn't someone done something about it already?