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

Commodore Keat is a victim.

Filed under: General — Lukenz @ 5:54 am Wed 23rd October 2013

I am offering support to Commodore Keat. This man served his country for almost 40 years. His only crime was not to tell his superiors about a private relationship he had with a civilian subordinate and not ending it. Well whip-d-do-dang.

Last time I looked “a friend with benefits relationship with a willing female” isn’t against the law. And you would expect to have some privacy in such matters.

In my opinion Judge Chris Hodson did not give enough weight to Commodore Keats his long career in the Navy serving NZ and its people. To sack him for keeping his private relationship private against his service to the nation was in my opinion unbalanced.

Today Kevin Keats probably wonders what sort of nation he devoted his life defending.
Whatever happened to the woman? I mean after all she was a willing player in this relationship too. Why doesn’t get charged? Why does she have name suppression? Would things turn out differently if Keats was the woman in the relationship? Harsh for Keats – Woman – no penalty.

Chris, I hope better legal and more balanced minds overturn your order.


  1. I think you have to be very careful here taking sides in any relationship breakup – because there is always a flip side to these situations……. – did KEAT exercise his position of power to entice the relationship – and then did he become an obsessive stalker who could not accept the relationship had ended, and did he then use his position to destroy this woman when she would no longer submit?

    Bit like – Stalker Len – who clearly used his position of power and influence to get into her pants and then would not allow the relationship to end…….crying and pleading and continuing to harass the woman after she wanted out……….what a &^$&^$^. And we all sit back and think its ok to have a confirmed “wanker” stay on to run our biggest city…….

    As MEN – here discussing menz issues, you all know these types exist in the male domain and as far as I am concerned – they are not good men – because in many cases they use their influence and position to trample over woman……. and when they don’t get their way – they become obsessive, spiteful and possessive…….and you all know this does happen when men get crazy over woman, and its usually those males – who cant pick up a woman in the normal way…….who behave like this……and have to resort to underhanded tactics to attract them and dominate them…….for as long as they can……

    Comment by hornet — Wed 23rd October 2013 @ 8:27 am

  2. Yes Hornet its good to have an open debate where all can share their point of view. However I cant see where or how you came to the notion that Keats used his position or power over this woman as it clearly says the mutual relationship was over before he was promoted.

    Furthermore you can’t just drum up and I quote you “because in many cases they use their influence and position to trample over woman”¦”¦. and when they don’t get their way – they become obsessive, spiteful and possessive” and then label Keats the same when the evidence did not show that at all.

    And then you label Len a stalker because he had a mutual sexual relationship too.

    The only evidence Keats court martial shows is he had a mutual sexual relationship and wanted to keep it private.

    Hornet you really need to stick to the facts rather than bringing in a made up stuff.

    Comment by Lukenz — Wed 23rd October 2013 @ 11:49 am

  3. I think the simple fact with Keat is that we do not know what happened and when and should leave it at that. However, we do know with Len (2 stroke) that he had an affair (i can live with that) yet in my view absolutely abused his position for the following reason. He either got employees of the hotel to drop keys back at council offices, or got council employees to pick them up. In my experience, hotels do not offer these services and thus, i can only conclude that his position enabled that to occur. His position was used to serve himself in this example, not constituents.

    I concur with Hornet-there are bad men amongst us, and in order for us to be taken seriously, i guess we have to acknowledge that and call them on poor behaviour. Did anyone note Len’s comment today that he thinks certain things should be kept out of the public domain. Well sorry Len, but when you hold out yourself as a decent family man, presumably concur with your daughter’s article in the paper about what a great dad you are (because that suited you) and THEN plead for privacy, i’m afraid you lost any ounce of respect i could remotely have had for you. He should resign and get on with life.

    Comment by shafted — Wed 23rd October 2013 @ 2:24 pm

  4. If you’re in the armed services you play by their rules. If you don’t, you either leave or get kicked out. This isn’t a moral issue – he broke the rules and disobeyed orders.

    Comment by Downunder — Wed 23rd October 2013 @ 4:25 pm

  5. I feel sorry for Commodore Keat, but I don’t agree that he’s a victim.

    As Downunder observes, he broke the rules. I think it highly desirable that people in the military follow rules and regulations – they are responsible for guns and missiles and bombs and stuff remember.

    I also think the chain of command could be seriously undermined if subordinates are in sexual relationships with senior officers. I expect that is why these rules exist.

    I think it is fair enough that senior military officers who display poor judgement be held to a higher standard of accountability than us civilians.

    Comment by JohnPotter — Wed 23rd October 2013 @ 7:31 pm

  6. Lukenz,

    Exactly why I made my first comment on KEAT – no one knows for sure what goes on between two people in a relationship and its dangerous to comment – its their problem entirely – so I posed my comments as questions which only those two in the relationship know the answer to.

    As for FACTS ……

    Some facts have been tabled in court records – and they do tend to suggest the female made complaints specific to certain behavior by Keat when the relationship broke down – again for them to sort out.

    I guess the big question in both instances is one of TRUST – and Accountability and professionalism – if you open yourself up to a situation where you could be perceived to have used your position over someone – and compromised your authority – then you should also take the consequences if that impacts on your job and what you are paid to do.

    Was lawyer smack my head lenny permitted to masturbate in his office when on private phone calls. Who knows perhaps that is a permitted activity detailed in his job description these days by council?? – probably doing this as he decides how much more to charge us all in rates…… How can he ever be taken seriously and trusted?

    I know in the police they had to bring in regulations concerning staff using their influence and position of power – to take advantage of woman – and that was required – who needs cops trying to bed anything with a heart beat when they are supposed to be out there protecting the public.

    Interesting that one professional body – the police – did take action to ensure this was not permitted within their organisation – and yet lenny wants to make changes to the rules so he can continue without anyone being permitted to enquire in the future………change the laws to suit his personal needs……….only a lawyer would think like that………

    Comment by hornet — Wed 23rd October 2013 @ 8:11 pm

  7. The Navy and other Defence divisions recognize the harm caused by certain adult consenting sexual liaisons and relationships, and are allowed to make their own laws to make those sexual relationships illegal. In enforcing such laws the Defence forces are not resorting to surveillance in bedrooms, and the process of enforcement does not appear to be overloading their enforcement processes or Courts Martial.

    While military responsibilities are important so are many others. The responsbility to drive a petrol tanker safely and competently, to maintain the power grid and to keep a hospital running are all very important to society’s safety. Those and most other important tasks are jeopardized when their operators are emotionally impaired due to extramarital sexual relationships and resulting family breakdown. The task of raising children including providing nurturing and stable families for them whenever possible, is surely one of the most important tasks imaginable. That task is seriously damaged by extramarital affairs and other breaches of relationship contracts.

    The sky will not fall in if we as a society act more effectively to discourage family breakdown by legally requiring some degree of adherence to marital contracts and respect for others’ marital status. On the contrary, our children will experience better upbringings and our society will become more stable.

    Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Thu 24th October 2013 @ 8:52 am

  8. A Court Martial ‘found’ that Commodore Keat had maintained a consenting adult sexual relationship of a nature that was disallowed under military law, that he had lied about this, that he had failed to obey an order from a senior to end the relationship and that he had used threatening language to the woman he had the affair with. He continues to deny all the charges, claiming the affair ended well before he took up a position senior to the ‘other woman’ and that he is the victim of her vindictive actions as a woman scorned. News reports on the case don’t give us sufficient information to evaluate the reliability of the Court Martial’s findings. Unfortunately, feminist-influenced law has long allowed men to be prosecuted and convicted on the basis purely of a woman’s claims without any other convincing evidence, and it may well be that Commodore Keat has been the victim of such injustice.

    What does seem clear is that the matter came to be Court Martialed because the ‘other woman’ told on Commodore Keat. She as a competent adult participated in a sexual relationship with a man she knew was already married, then compounded this immorality by harming Keat’s wife and family through making the affair public and intitiating the Court Martial knowing and probably intending this would wreck Keat’s otherwise highly esteemed career. Yet she has escaped all punishment. As with Bevan Chuang vs Len Brown, she probably found it convenient to believe that the man was responsible for her own decisions, this belief especially tempting when she felt rejected by him.

    Women who have sex with an alpha male and hope they might thereby obtain the lifestyle he could provide them seem to become very angry and blaming when that hope is not fulfilled. This, rather than the alpha male’s ‘abuse of his position of power’, is most frequently the source of any problem, but feminist ideology has convinced many that a male who is older, richer or higher in status to a woman is somehow totally responsible for that woman’s decision to have sex with him. As if her star-struck irrationality is somehow his fault. Of course, when the age, wealth or status difference is gender-reversed, the man will still be seen as exploiting the woman.

    Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Thu 24th October 2013 @ 10:04 am

  9. The Navy and other Defence divisions recognize the harm caused by certain adult consenting sexual liaisons and relationships, and are allowed to make their own laws to make those sexual relationships illegal

    Is there a suggestion here that the military acted out of concern for the families of military personnel. I would suggest that military law is concerned with the preservation of security and internal discipline, not family life. By ignoring this reality and suggesting society could employ the same social standards as the military doesn’t make much sense to me.

    Like the transport official who recently resigned for drink driving, this was a standard of conduct relevant to their job.

    The responsbility to drive a petrol tanker safely and competently

    Show me a tanker driver that doesn’t pass his six monthly medical and I’ll show you a driver that doesn’t have a job; his family is not relevant to that decision, yet they would still be harmed by it.

    These decisions are operational and administrative, not moral outcomes.

    The sky will not fall in if we as a society act more effectively to discourage family breakdown by legally requiring some degree of adherence to marital contracts and respect for others’ marital status.

    A marital contract is a minority choice these days with many more people in varying degrees of relationships. Is MoMA suggesting that there should be a punitive law relating to the marriage contract but not other relationships?

    Comment by Downunder — Thu 24th October 2013 @ 10:58 am

  10. Hornet (#1 and #6): The ‘questions’ you raised did not reasonably arise from any information published about the Keat case and appeared to be based on your own male-blaming, misandrist beliefs that men exploit child-like women incapable of making informed choices. In fact, women who want something can be every bit the equal of any man in persistent stalking, persuading or pressuring. One could equally suggest ‘questions’ such as “Did she plan to usurp his wife in order to meet her need for a man?”, “Did she entice him into unfaithfulness by flirting and showing off her physical assets in the most inviting ways?”, “Did she keep at him, turn up at places he would attend, pretend to care about him and to listen empathically to his problems in order to get him into her bed?”, “Did she manipulate him emotionally by, for example, getting him to feel sorry for her neediness or life hardhships?”, “Did she suggest she might accuse him of impropriety unless he went along with her, paid for things or gave her money?” and “Was she a woman scorned when he ended the relationship and did this bring her to blame him for her choices and to set about wrecking his life and that of his family?”. All those questions reflect common scenarios just as accurately as your questions, and may well fit more realistically what we know of the Keat case.

    As for the Bevan Chuang – Len Brown affair, you disposed of the facade of questions and simply portrayed it as a case of the mayor exploiting a poor little child-like woman. That was completely at odds with almost everything we know about the case. Bevan Chuang herself made it clear she was somewhat star-struck but she participated with full consent and awareness in the relationship. Her claim that Mayor Brown initially declared his interest in her and actively courted her may or may not be accurate, but even if true it is unlikely he would have pursued the matter in the absence of encouragement from her, and she could easily have said “no” clearly and made a decision not to fuck a married man. Her vindictive, family-wrecking actions in taking the matter to public media show her to be especially morally repugnant.

    We don’t accept your male-blaming formulations for either of these cases. While there are cases in which men use positions of power, for example an employer threatening consequences in order to pressure women into giving sexual favours, there are now laws and regulations around sexual harassment that can readily be used to deal with such cases. Women also abuse power in such ways but men are less likely to get a fair hearing if they complain. And it is now too easy for women to cry sexual harassment or exploitation when the situation was simply one of a man honestly expressing his interest in her when she was completely free to make an informed choice whether to say “yes” or “no”, any ‘power’ differential between them acting only to make him seem more desirable to her. Her feelings of attraction and her choices about those feelings are not his responsibility.

    Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Thu 24th October 2013 @ 11:04 am

  11. 10. This somewhat stubborn inflexible defence of males – without consideration to BOTH sides of a story are never going to help your cause.

    I see you are very quick to persecute the women in this instance, while steadfastly defending the men.

    I am certainly NOT male blaming – but I do know how males can behave – because I am one.

    To refuse to accept that some men do use positions of power to take advantage of woman is somewhat naive. It is a concern – it does happen – and I am sure the same is true of women in positions of power.

    If the male – menz movement is to be taken seriously, you have to acknowledge the failings of men in some circumstances – rather than defend every position – with no acceptance of responsibility or consideration that a male could also be at fault – because taking such a position – is NOT the real world.

    There will always be blame on both sides, and as I stated – who knows what goes on between two people – no one other than those involved in the incident know the truth and the facts. Their lives have been directly affected as a result.

    But don’t you agree that people ( man or woman ) in high places, in positions of power and influence have a duty to behave a certain way?

    Or are you in this diatribe here suggesting that we should whitewash all males, they can do no harm, ever – and behaving this way by these two men of power and influence – is acceptable best practice according to the ministry of mens affairs?

    Thats going to be a hard sell if you want some respectability, credibility and you want to be taken seriously……….in defending men into the future.

    Men can do no harm, we are impervious to horrendous behavior – we are MOMA – its all the fault of the women…..yeh that will go down well………..

    Comment by hornet — Thu 24th October 2013 @ 12:01 pm

  12. Hornet (#11)

    To refuse to accept that some men do use positions of power to take advantage of woman is somewhat naive. It is a concern – it does happen – and I am sure the same is true of women in positions of power.

    You must have missed the bit where we wrote:

    While there are cases in which men use positions of power, for example an employer threatening consequences in order to pressure women into giving sexual favours, there are now laws and regulations around sexual harassment that can readily be used to deal with such cases. Women also abuse power in such ways…

    It’s disappointing to be accused of something so clearly in contradiction of what we actually wrote. What’s that about?

    We do not appreciate you referring to our writing as ‘diatribe’. Your advice about ways to increase respectibility and credibility cannot be taken seriously when you indulge in such cheap denigration of others’ contributions. We are getting really sick and tired of such rudeness.

    I see you are very quick to persecute the women in this instance, while steadfastly defending the men.

    There has been no persecution (how could we persecute them anyway?), only fair criticism based accurately on what we have been made aware of in these cases. There also has been no ‘steadfastly defending the men’. We disapprove of men who cheat on their wives or husbands as much as we disapprove of those who would disrespect another’s marital status, and we would like to see both parties prosecuted although in a fair process based on evidence rather than only on allegations. We disapprove even more vehemently of men and women who use their positions of power to threaten or manipulate others into sexual activity, but contrary to your implication that was not a factor in either of the two cases considered. However, in the Brown-Chuang case Ms Chuang in our opinion merits additional criticism for her vindictive actions to subsequently blame and to harm Mayor Brown and his family. And from the little we have gleaned about the Keat-(name suppressed) case the same probably applies.

    Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Thu 24th October 2013 @ 1:05 pm

  13. Lukenz: Thanks for making this post. I commend your restrained and logical comments and replies, and I happen to agree with your views. Well done.

    Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Thu 24th October 2013 @ 1:11 pm

  14. Think we are getting a little bogged down in semantics here.
    Would be fair to say that there are men who abuse their position
    Fair to say that there are women who do the same.
    Fair to say that there are certain standards of bahaviour that most thinking people find unacceptable. If any of us can put our hands on our hearts and say that (if true-and i suggest it probably is)it is ok to have a senior politician behaving as he has, then i am afraid we are collectively full of shit.
    I also happen to think that MOMa is guilty of a somewhat patronising “diatribe’ and your writings are becoming more like decrees for the rest of us ignorant minions to applaud, as opposed to thought provoking or intelligent debate. Perhaps MOMa is following the same path as our politicians-not listening to the very people they claim to represent.
    A civil war serves no purpose. We are largely of an accord in thinking, inside of this forum. Can we collectivley attempt to work on simlarities rather than indulge in pseudo intellectual putdowns????

    Comment by shafted — Thu 24th October 2013 @ 1:37 pm

  15. Shafted (#14): We don’t claim to represent you or anyone else. We are a small group who try to promote awareness about men’s issues.

    Thanks heaps for your insults, very helpful stuff. Nice to feel appreciated for our efforts. What efforts have you made?

    Sorry you don’t find our contributions intelligent or thought-provoking. Perhaps that’s more a result of the reading than the content.

    We keep getting attacked rudely and unfairly. You have just done the same. We have never defended Mayor Brown regarding his infidelity. What evidence do you have of ‘decrees’?

    Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Thu 24th October 2013 @ 1:50 pm

  16. #15. …..thanks heaps for the insults……..perhaps that’s more a result of the reading than the content…” I rest my case.
    If you don’t claim to represent me or anyone else (and i certainly don’t in any way shape or form want you representing me) why then do you go on to state “nice to feel appreciated for our efforts”. If you are representing no one, why should you be appreciated? At least that’s how an ignoramus like me reads the content of your epistle to the bromans.
    I also struggle with you “promoting awareness about Men’s issues” These are issues that you deem to be of importance to men, not issues necessarily shared by collective “men”
    If you perceive that you are getting attacked “rudely and unfairly” i suggest you resign the ministry and take a concrete pill whilst you are at it. Just a suggestion.

    Comment by shafted — Thu 24th October 2013 @ 2:22 pm

  17. Oh yeah Shafted, really intelligent and thought-provoking opinions. Our understanding of men’s issues has certainly been advanced considerably by your contribution.

    Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Thu 24th October 2013 @ 2:26 pm

  18. Like i say-a concrete pill is in order. As always, in awe of your intellectual superiority and forever in your debt as our (chortle chortle) “understander of men’s issues” These are your issues, not mine. Some we share, others we don’t but get off your high horse and perhaps take the time out to read your patronising posts.
    I guess that you don’t like dissent from those that won’t get with your programme.Good luck in your endeavours but PLEASE don’t suppose that we collectively share your attitudes, beliefs or opinions. I for one do not. Here endeth “shafted’s” engagement with you.

    Comment by shafted — Thu 24th October 2013 @ 2:35 pm

  19. Dear MOMA,

    The acronym stinks.

    However, you have our gratitude for dedication that is continually forwarded in both virtual and physical activities promoting to the general populace of the issues faced by men in society today.

    It is a shame that shafted people, people stung, and a gentleman espousing from Southern Hemisphere, off the hip, shoot the messenger and do not engage constructively.

    No Fault Divorce, I believe is the elephant in the room that affects the general public to its detriment as it would apparently seem to encourage infidelity.

    Your comments welcomed.

    Note to JP (Misandry is not found in the WordPress Vocabulary and is highlighted as a spell check).

    Kind Regards

    Paul & Opal Catton
    South Auckland Refuge for Men with Families
    (09)269 4411
    021 221 9192

    Comment by Paul Catton — Thu 24th October 2013 @ 10:34 pm

  20. Firstly thank you for your comments MOMA. It’s good to be notice.

    I want to explain why I think Hornet sneaked in a false scenario and fabricated evidence against Commodore Keats. Also calling Len Brown a stalker when he is not.

    Hornet if you could just for a moment put aside your zero tolerance for married men who have affairs and focus on the evidence that clearly show it was a 2 year mutual romance that he kept secret from his boss.

    It bothers me none that you think this way because you are a Christian or if you just think married men who fall for another woman should be the sole blame.

    Regardless you still have no right to bend your opinion into bearing false witness against Commodore Keat or Mayor Len Brown.

    Hornet, I totally respect you have a problem with married men having affairs. It’s in your DNA and you can’t be altered on it. And do you know why I respect your opinion? It’s because you have the right to live your life the way if you choose too.

    Most people think the right to speech is only fair or just on the condition it’s the same as your opinion.

    Funny enough Hornet, Commodore Keat just spent the last 40 years defending your right to have fair speech.

    I maintain that to give your whole working life of 40 long years of service against a having a secret and mutual affair. A public sacking is an unbalanced decision and it should be challenged.

    He defended the right to a Just and fair court system but did not receive it for himself. A blight solely at the feet of the Judge.

    Hornet, if you have any logical thought process and any sense of credibility or honesty you should withdraw your fabricated evidence against him, agree that it was a mutual affair.

    Hornet, can I ask you? Are you a woman? Did your man run off with another woman? The reason why I ask is you made it the man’s sole fault and you didn’t call the woman a slut. You seem to be showing all the hallmarks of a woman scorned.

    Comment by Lukenz — Fri 25th October 2013 @ 12:53 am

  21. Jeepers. I thought the Commodore was in charge of personnel as opposed to being in the trenches “defending our right to free speech”
    I guess the two erudite contributor’s above have an inability to recognise that criticism of the attitude of intellectual superiority adopted by MOMa, is of itself, a major contribution and furtherance of issues regarding “men”
    Personally speaking (as a result of the right to free speech that Keats so bravely fought for) i am of the view that it is MOMA that has attacked Hornet (with the able assistance of Lukenz), and not the other way around. I ascribe to the theory that MOMA is blinded, and not Hornet. There is a continual assumption in MOMAS writings that men require defending in virtually all circumstances.There is a mantra , as evidenced in Lukenz writings that i find damned unhealthy. ….asking questions like ‘are you a woman’ etc. Perhaps MOMA and Lukenz should look at their own attitudes and belief systems and learn to support free speech,even if it involves criticism of others views. I would also really appreciate cessation of the overused pseudo intellectual word “misandry”. It continues to be lame. Any way. I am off to seize the day in the comfort that i can say what i want due to Keat’s selfless fight for my right to free speech. At least in the real world.

    Comment by shafted — Fri 25th October 2013 @ 8:13 am

  22. Hey shafted if you look at order of the posts (that’s looking at all the posts in order) it would become clear this is what happened.

    1. I announced my support for Commodore Keats, questioned why he should lose his long career over a mutual affair. I also questioned why the other equal party to the affair (a woman) had her name suppressed.

    2. Ms Hornet with her own woman scorned opinion blamed the man 100% at fault in a mutual relationship and went on to invent things that were not part of the evidence.

    3. I objected against Ms Hornet not sticking to the facts of the case. Criticised her for introducing stuff that never happened because she had a sole belief men have all the blame in a mutual affair and woman should have none.
    Pointing out about someone bearing false witness against Brown or Keat is not an attack on that person, its an attack on them using personal beliefs to bring baseless untruths.

    How would you like it if someone told porkies against you just because they had a certain set of ideas?

    As for my own altitude and beliefs – I will only rely on evidence in a trial and not bring in made up evidence based upon religious or prejudices thoughts I might have.

    Putting aside all what has been said, would you agree that the woman should share some of the blame for a 2 year affair?

    The way I see it is the law allowed the scorned woman who didn’t manage to fully pry her target man away from his wife, suppression, to get him public humiliated, fired and to share none of the blame for her 50% part she played.

    Imagine the woman who lost her dream of a better life with Keat or Brown and missed it. Just think how scorned she would be. Enough contempt and hurt to set him up for as much damage as possible.

    I can assure you someone with the rank of Commodore would have been at the round table of defending this country and its citizens against countries that would have you executed you for your personal opinions if they did not conform with the state.

    Hornet and Shafted – I look forward to hearing you next round of make-believe.

    Comment by Lukenz — Fri 25th October 2013 @ 11:00 am

  23. Bugger I missed plenty = rest assured I am male, least I was – last time I checked, come meet me any time you want to find out – 6ft 2…. 120 kg – significant hair in all the right places, full beard, balls, etc…….

    No wonder this movement never gets anywhere – the infighting, the self righteous defence of a cause – at the exclusion of being open minded and refusing to accept any of mens failings in some circumstances – IS NEVER GOING TO HELP MEN.

    To start claiming that because I write some critical questions of men – I MUST BE A WOMAN – are you lads that pathetic????

    The critical problem facing us ALL – as PARENTS – as Men and Woman – is this – the principal of Divide and Rule…… those in power……..and those taking away our rights to see our kids everyday, while forcing us to pay for that privilege so they can leverage massive borrowing againt PARENTS under the guise of child support is the most critical concern.

    That is where MOMA needs to put all there energy…….

    I could be an idiot and start asking – are these MOMA contributors, lukenz and the like – GOVT trolls looking to stir up division within the MENZ movement…….but that would be pathetic, divisive and just plain insane if we are trying to UNITE a cause and get improvement for PARENTS – men and woman.

    To be perfectly honest I wish I had never commented at all on the happenings of these people – I usually never get involved in other peoples relationships – because as I stated right at the beginning – its their problem to deal with …….

    I do still have concern that we hold those in public office to some standard – although it seems that today its acceptable for politicians to lie…….cheat steal and basically do what ever they like to us all, because they can – they are NOT accountable and they are never going to have to accept Facts, truth and honesty……..while we in the public have to…….with dire consequences if we do not…….double standards everywhere…… can I say that MOMA????????

    Comment by hornet — Sat 26th October 2013 @ 2:33 pm

  24. Keats appeals decision.

    Comment by Downunder — Sun 10th November 2013 @ 7:31 am

  25. Keats Appeal Heard

    Comment by Downunder — Wed 30th April 2014 @ 12:14 pm

  26. Navy Officer out of Work

    The most senior military officer court martialled since World War II has been jobless since being dismissed from the navy last year in the wake of an affair with a civilian subordinate.

    Kevin Keat was a commodore earning more than $220,000 and in charge of personnel for the Defence Force when he lost his job last October.

    He says he should not have been convicted, let alone dismissed, but a Crown lawyer said yesterday that the guilty findings were properly made and anything less than dismissal would have been “woefully inadequate”.

    Keat is now unemployed and, at 56, fears he won’t find another job at the level at which he could operate, a Court Martial Appeal Court was told.

    Keat and the woman he had the affair with, whose name was suppressed, were both in court yesterday. She left abruptly when Keat’s lawyer Michael Bott suggested that she had “set up” Keat in putting a telephone conversation on speakerphone in the presence of two witnesses.

    Keat was found guilty of using threatening, insulting or provocative language as a result of the incident.

    The Court Martial Appeal Court reserved its decision.

    After the hearing, Keat said he would not comment while the court was still considering his case.

    Earlier the court was told Keat was now in financial difficulty, has had to rearrange his mortgage and will have to use at least part of an $80,000 “nest egg”, because he and his wife could not live on her earnings from a part-time job.

    Keat’s lawyers asked the court to overturn his convictions on five charges or, if the convictions stand, to reduce the sentence.

    One of his lawyers, Steve Taylor, said a severe reprimand, a halt to his seniority or reduction in rank or seniority, or a fine would have been enough in the very public circumstances of Keat’s case.

    Keat was 14 weeks away from the end of his contract when he was dismissed. He has maintained that the affair with the woman had ended by the time he was asked about it. She said it had not.

    Much of his appeal centred on the words of some of the charges he faced, about whether he had a “close personal relationship” with the woman once he said they no longer had sex.

    The charges included failing to disclose the relationship when asked whether he was having an affair, and maintaining it in circumstances where it should have stopped.

    Comment by Downunder — Thu 1st May 2014 @ 9:13 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

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