Comment of the Day


Whaleoil commenter Mick Le wrote:

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Are the Feminazis so full of blind hate when it comes to WO (ie right wing) they are prepared to ignore the public smearing of Rachel McGregor’s private and professional reputation by her high profile, male ex employer.

The poor girl is being thrown under the bus from all angles due to everyone else’s personal agendas.

I was sitting outside the court while the court was “in Chambers”, and someone turned up who didn’t know who I was.  He made a few comments making it totally clear he was quite to the left of left.

He relished the fact that two “right wing pricks” were beating each other up in this case.  From his perspective, he couldn’t lose.

I spent some time talking with him, and will keep our little informal interview to myself.  But it goes to show that even when right-wing women are being allegedly sexually harassed by their right wing bosses, don’t expect any help from the usual suspects.

When it comes to Rachel McGregor, there is no sisterhood.  She doesn’t deserve the same support.

In the end, it was Jordan Williams that stood up for her.


  • shykiwibloke

    Such dilemmas will short circuit the feminazi’s and their enablers sooner or later. The effects will be as obvious as the cross-eyed picture of Hillary on Drudge right now.

  • Huia

    The Feminazi’s were very quick out of the starting blocks when they believed Scarllette
    was being abused, so I have wondered why they are now so quiet when clearly Craig has been using his position to push his attentions onto someone who didn’t want them.
    What angers me is the utter gall of the man to blame the victim, it is obvious Ms McGregor had an employment goal and was working towards it, only to run up against the oldest problem in the work place for some women.
    I imagine this young woman could do with some support while Craig does his best to destroy her reputation, so where are the women’s support groups? Dame Susan Devoy, Jan Logie and Louise Nicholson all very vocal recently when a stripper was squealing about not being paid, but for McGregor a real victim they are all absent.
    I would like to see more support for this young woman, she is clearly devastated by Craig and his manipulations, but the silence is deafening from the woman’s support groups and the race relations office.
    Their main goal in life seems to be trying to bring men down, not supporting real victims.
    Cannot help but wonder what distress’s was caused in the home life of the rugby players following the wild accusations by those in high places recently, when all the time it wasn’t the players at all.
    The outrage was clearly misplaced.

    • JEL51

      You’re so right Huia. Those “I AM IMPORTANT” voices are no where to be heard. Hypocrites !!

    • Duchess of Pork

      It’s not all men Dame Devoy et al think below contempt remember Huia. Just the White, innovative, hard-working members of society that create the bulk of the country’s revenue, are politically right of centre and are concerned that an increasing number of immigrants do not share our values.

    • Ruahine

      Colin Craig is not a rugby player.

  • Mrs_R

    I read an article at the beginning of this court case in the NZ Herald and without me really knowing anything about either of these two people, and with the only the article to give perspective, I came away with the view that Rachel McGregor’s sexual harassment complaint was only lodged because of her dissatisfaction regarding remuneration. The article stated how a discussion was had in Colin’s vehicle whereby Rachel asked Colin how well he had slept the night before, he then gave a sexual response. This in itself did not warrant or cause Rachel any outrage, she just continued with the conversation. The fact she even asked him how well he slept indicated familiar territory for her. What caused the outrage and her leaving the vehicle was when the conversation turned to money talk. This prompted Rachel to get out of the vehicle and leave Colin. Later that day she filed a sexual harassment grievance. The article left me in no doubt what had triggered that response. Maybe the wrong impression was given in that article, but it didn’t show Rachel as an uncomfortable victim of unwanted sexual banter. In fact, she started it by asking him how well he slept. It’s not just the feminazis who are a little skeptical about the whole by-play between these two.

    • MaryLou

      I have to agree, to a degree. Not willing to draw conclusions yet, but do wonder why the sexual harassment was allowed to continue for so long (years, I think) before laying the complaint, which as you say, was at the same time as the financial disputes. Not saying that he didn’t do it, and not saying he wasn’t wrong to do it, and not saying she didn’t have just cause. Not really saying much of anything right now, except that it’s possible to intensely dislike CC and still think that there’s possibly something less than pure “pureness” in Rachael’s version.

      • Mrs_R

        You said it exactly :)

      • Intrigued

        I disagree entirely. In my reading of this situation it was one where a close friendship had formed via working closely in a common goal – to get CC into parliament. She admired him, he knew that and he took advantage of it by taking it over the line with his advances and innuendo. At the same time he had her in a vulnerable situation because he’d been refusing to confirm her new pay rate and she had been unable to submit an account for payment of her work. “MacGregor had told her then-boyfriend about the alleged harassment and he was encouraging her to make a complaint, however she was reluctant to do so while she was still working for Craig and while she was still awaiting payment.” Read Anna Leask’s account again ( and think about what you would have done in that situation? She’d batted away his advances before, and was focused on trying to get him to talk about her pay rate. Her light-bulb moment during this exchange appears to have been the final straw when she realised he was being “manipulative” and had apparently no interest in paying her but was more interested in her legs and is quite understandable when you read her account.

        • MaryLou

          It may well be that you’re right – there’s certainly nasty stuff going on, I’ve just read the latest WO post about security at the Courthouse. I get that everyone’s different, and that careers are important – I just don’t know if I could stand years of that kind of behaviour before bailing. But as you say… if it was infrequent, then maybe she kept thinking she’d managed (this time) to put an end to it.

          Nothing about this is showing CC in any kind of good light though.

          • Intrigued

            I agree. I’ve also been in a position myself doing work as a contractor for someone who was very adroit at delay tactics in paying my fees and although there was no sexual overtone at all, for my part there was a conflict between my anxiety on the one part as to whether I’d ever get paid and whether to cut my losses and walk away, and on the other hand a need to stay “in the tent” to ascertain how things might play out and keeping on-side with the person holding the purse. I put up with a lot of b.s. and lies from that person in the meantime. But ultimately I lost. I never got paid. The company folded and I was left out of pocket by tens of thousands of dollars in fees for my work. I feel a lot of sympathy for RM and her situation with CC. I hope she gets to a point soon where she can put this nasty saga behind her and that what lies in her future is really positive and makes up for the dreadful injustices done to her in the past 2-3 years.

  • XCIA

    The enemy of my enemy is just another enemy.