MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Dr Richard Worth: Entrapment?

Filed under: General — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 9:47 pm Fri 12th June 2009

On the basis of information currently available to the public, I disapprove of Dr Worth’s behaviour concerning Neelam Choudary but only because it appears he disrespected the sanctity of marriage, both his own and that of Mrs Choudary.

There have been several criticisms of Dr Worth during his political career, but before jumping to judgement it may be important to consider his side of those stories and his impressive naval, diplomatic, professional and charitable service for which he was appointed an Officer of the British Empire and was made a knight in the Venerable Order of St John of Jerusalem. I have no wish to defend Dr Worth per se but there are many aspects to this story of relevance to men in general.

The allegations by the Indian woman against Dr Worth were shrouded in secrecy concerning the accuser and all details. Where did the expectation come from that it’s ok to make damaging accusations from a position of anonymity? Perhaps from debate and changes concerning sexual offence trials that have eroded many longstanding protections against false conviction of men, one of which was the principle that an accused has the right to face the accuser. Although we finally know who Dr Worth’s accuser is, she continues to restrict the release of information perhaps to ensure that any facts that might contradict her portrayal of the story are withheld.

We now understand that Neelam Choudary met Dr Worth during last year’s election campaign and he later invited her to meet him at a café. She talked to Phil Goff about this first and Mr Goff said it would be ok to go if she took someone with her. We don’t know what Mrs Choudary’s concerns were about the meeting or why Mr Goff thought it necessary to take someone with her. But it seems reasonable to assume that both Mrs Choudary and Mr Goff were aware of the possibility that Dr Worth had romantic intentions. So she took her husband along, but left him in the car in a car park and went in to meet with Dr Worth by herself.

Why did she choose to do that? What was the point of her husband waiting in a nearby car park? If she wanted to make it clear to Dr Worth that she was not romantically available, taking her husband in at least briefly to introduce him to Worth would have been a good start. We don’t know whether Mrs Choudary mentioned her husband was there or that she had a husband at all. We don’t know how Mrs Choudary presented herself or responded to what must have been evidence that Dr Worth was sexually interested in her. We now do understand that within two weeks Dr Worth was texting her while she was in India as though she were a close friend with romantic implications.

We don’t know how Mrs Choudary replied to Dr Worth’s texts except for Mr Goff’s unevidenced claim that she “made it clear” she did not want to engage in a sexual relationship. However, Dr Worth’s texts and phone calls continued for three months. She claims she went to Mr Goff because she wanted the contact from Dr Worth to stop. Why didn’t she simply tell Dr Worth she wanted him to stop? Mr Goff claimed that he did not ask her for the content of her text replies because he did not want to invade her privacy, but surely the exact content of her replies was the single most important piece of evidence necessary before judging Dr Worth’s communications as unwelcome harassment. Otherwise, any expression by a man of romantic interest towards a woman would be too dangerous to contemplate. That is in fact the underlying assumption conveyed by Mr Goff and most media in the Worth case; that men, or at least men of high status, can be judged as harassers or sexual predators simply through expressing sexual attraction towards a woman regardless of her part in the process.

Mr Goff claimed that there were numerous texts and emails of a highly objectionable nature, although the few he initially quoted didn’t really seem so bad and would hardly be considered objectionable between romantic friends. But it turned out that even those few mildly racy texts don’t exist and neither do any relevant emails. Mr Goff’s quotes turned out to be only hearsay because Mrs Choudary claims she erased those texts. That does not seem credible. Other texts that were finally placed in the public domain seemed simply friendly and innocent. Why would she keep some of his texts but not others? From the outset she consulted Mr Goff about the relationship and she specifically took her husband to the first date, and all three must have been aware that any impropriety by Dr Worth could later be used politically.

The entire case depends upon the truthfulness of Mrs Choudary’s claims that already have not been supported by the evidence provided to date. We now learn that her husband was recently convicted of fraud through charging immigrants for finding fictitious jobs for them. At least one of those immigrants recounts that he gave his money, $thousands, to both Mr and Mrs Choudary who as a couple falsely told him about a job they had arranged for him. Although the police did not implicate Mrs Choudary, she no doubt benefited from the profits and it’s difficult to imagine she had no idea about the fraud.

We also learn that Mrs Choudary stood as a candidate for Labour in the 2008 election. This did not accord with Mr Goff’s portrayal of her as a recent Indian immigrant who was so naïve about NZ culture and language and therefore about Dr Worth’s intentions that she had to ask her husband what was meant by “xxx” after one of Dr Worth’s texts.

Can we then trust Mrs Choudary’ claims that she was “offered” jobs by Dr Worth? Neither Mr Goff nor Mrs Choudary specifically claimed that those “offers” were made in any way conditional upon sexual favours or romantic involvement, but our media and the public appear to have assumed this was so. She has only said that he told her she would have to leave Labour and join National in order to obtain those jobs. How did the topic of jobs come up in their conversation? If she was offered good jobs, why did she not accept one? Could it be that Dr Worth simply made suggestions about jobs that might suit her and that she could apply for?

Dr Worth’s morality is being called into question, but I question the morality of using a man’s romantic gestures, friendly communications and attempts to offer kind advice against him.

Mrs Choudary said that she felt uncomfortable about Mr’s texts. Does that mean he has done wrong? Since when do we have legal protection against feeling uncomfortable? However, that principle has crept into public belief and law. Recent concepts of “human rights” have encouraged religious zealots to expect legal protection against feeling offended by anyone who questions their beliefs or mentions their particular deity in the wrong way. The Domestic Violence Act allows claimed subjective feelings (in practice only for women) to justify putting a man out on the street and largely out of his children’s lives.

In my opinion, the correct Worth story is most likely to go like this: Mrs Choudary met Dr Worth, was invited to a café and immediately recognized the potential political mileage she could get from allowing him to attempt to seduce her over a period of time. She discussed this with Mr Goff and later reported what dirt she had accumulated against Dr Worth, whereupon Mr Goff kept this information for an opportune time to do some damage to the new government. Mr Goff and Mrs Choudary knew there was not much real evidence so they provided a somewhat exaggerated and dishonest portrayal behind the shroud of her anonymity, and drew out the release of information as long as possible. That’s politics, assisted in this case by feminist ideology that has promoted a view of most men as unwholesome and exploitative.

13 Responses to “Dr Richard Worth: Entrapment?”

  1. Alastair says:

    Hear Hear! very well put Hans. I am certain I heard one commentator pondering on the Labour Party dirty tricks brigade at work, simply to destroy one of the government. Dr Worth was unfortunate enough to draw the short straw.

    See a picture of her during the election campaign, she most certainly is not a recent arrival, and appeared like a good candidate for a seductress.

  2. SicKofNZ says:

    Q. How many unwanted text messages does a woman receive before she telephones her provider to block the offending phone number?
    A. ?

    Mrs Choudary is an conniving fraud in my opinion.

  3. Alastair says:

    She gets it from her husband, and her political party. Seem to remember a certain labour MP presently before the courts for a bit of immigration swindle!

  4. Jim Bailey says:

    I suspect National has been duped by HelenGRAD over the Worth affair and even more clearly in Mt Albert.
    This will continue to happen – perhaps at greater speed until John-K sees the real troubles in NZ are related to how NZ FAMILY Law and Social Policy damages our FAMILIES, the real foundation of our Nation under GOD

    While he choses to concentrate on the economy as our most urgent problem he will continue to be duped.

    GET HelenGRAD out of all aspects of NZ Law, Social Policy and local bodies.

    Enshrine Preferencial **Equal Parenting** deep with FAMILY Law, Social Policy, local body focus and rebuild the real foundations of our Nation and we will progress out of HelenGrad and Feminazism.

    Onward – Jim

  5. Scott B says:

    She works for Labour and saw the opportunity, as did Goff. Of course it came out at the time of a by-election! Worth was naiive in my opinion to even meet with her.

    As usual if he is innocent, it doesn’t matter because he is now guilty for life, and has zero credibility.

  6. Alastair says:

    A bit like Tony Veitch. If a female says it, it must be true. A man receives no justice!

  7. Scott B says:

    Yup that’s right. I have decided to stop watching the news or reading newspapers, sick of all the feminist propganda and one-eyed reporting, oh and not to mention outright lies.

  8. noone says:

    I wish the government would stay the fuck out of our lifes
    I mean really the system is nothing more then control over
    us its not right none of us are really free if you think you are
    your only kidding yourself

  9. Bruce Tichbon says:

    Hans, did you hear Mathew Hooton during the politics slot on Nine to Noon Monday. He said Goff had screwed up all the dates and exposed himself as having deliberately manipulated the Worth affair. Hooton quoted the dates and events, looked bad for Goof (I mean Goff).

    Bruce Tichbon

  10. Alastair says:

    This mornings Editorial in the Dom Post “Labour Soiled by it’s own Muck” says more or less the same thing.

  11. samantha says:

    I certainly agree there was a strong political element to this whole saga, yet I also feel that worths actions were wrong. it seems that if he had not been a minister and she truly had been ‘uncomfortable’ she could have a) told him clearly to stop, b) changed her number, it really is not difficult to stop ‘unwanted’ messages etc. but of course she (and the labour party) did not want them to stop obviously for political reasons. if this were actually a purely personal and not political situation it would have been easily resolved no harm done. yet ther reason I feel worths actions were wrong is not because he expressed interest in her but because there was also some (although how much we can not be sure) suggestion of employment assistance. however i dont think was ‘sexual harrasment’ as it was not suggesting a job in return for sex. but he should not have used his political position in his personal affairs, it would be equally bad if he did to extend the carreer of anyone in his personal life. furthermore he should have known better as this women was a labour party member after all… romantic gestures and ones professional role should never mix.

  12. Hans Laven says:

    Samantha (reply # 11): We don’t know that Dr Worth offered anyone employment assistance. We have allegations and insinuations from Mr Goff and Mrs Choudary that have not been supported by evidence. The evidence they claimed to have turned out not to exist. Now both Goff and Choudary conveniently refuse to front up with any further evidence or justification for their allegations, claiming this is because it’s no longer necessary because Dr Worth has left parliament.

    The whole nasty debacle was played by the rules according to feminism: honesty and evidence don’t matter, any woman who makes allegations must be believed, normal male sexual motivation and behaviour is treated as unsavoury and/or abusive, and men, their contribution, interests and feelings are of no importance. Phil Goff has shown himself to be a thoroughly untrustworthy traitor to men through happily using violent feminist ideology against them.

  13. Skeptik says:

    This whole thing seems like bullshit to me.
    A politician sends some saucy text messages to a woman he fancies and Goff and other PC clones get all hysterical for purely political reasons making out it’s some hieneous crime.
    Time for certain NZers to get a grip methinks.
    Worth’s biggest ‘crime’ was in being an idiot and texting to a Laborite who would shitstir with them.

Leave a Reply

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar