Face of the Day


The face of a woman who has forgiven her husband for an “emotional affair”.

“Not long after that Rachel rang me directly and confessed she had been having an emotional affair with my husband.

“She admitted they had kissed and that he had touched her breast. She agreed to come and meet with me about that, but I have never heard from her since.”

Helen Craig spoke about finding out MacGregor had made a complaint to the Human Rights Commission alleging she had been sexually harassed during her employment.

“It was shocking for both of us,” she said.

The couple had “many” discussions about the claim and “did a lot of soul searching”.

“It was obvious to me that Colin and Rachel had become too close and that lines had been crossed on occasion.

“My husband has apologised to me for that and I have forgiven him.”

Good to know the Craig’s are back together.

How this is relevant to allegedly defaming Jordan Williams for having exposed this behaviour by the leader of a Conservative party, a Christian and a man who stood for conservative and family values remains a mystery.


– NZ Herald

  • Cadwallader

    Colin Craig: It is amazing to look back to a time, (only two years ago!) when this fruit-loop was seen as a credible potential coalition partner for National. New Zealand dodged a bullet but Craig may slip nicely into the Greens gang at the next election. (If this happens I wager he won’t kiss Materia.)

    • Keeping Stock

      I agree Cadwallader. Yet there were those who were begging John Key to cut a deal with Craig and gift him East Coast Bays, because they thought Craig was the new political Messiah. History will show that he was just another false prophet, and that John Key displayed the wisdom of King Solomon in keeping a safe distance from the CCCP.

    • Mags

      Jk seemed to always know he was not suitable to cosy up yo. He didnt seem to entertain the idea one iota from memory. Well done jk.

      • Paul Marsden

        Key would have had a heads up on this nonsense long before the unsuspecting public.

  • Genevieve

    Forgiveness is all very well but regaining trust is a completely different matter.
    Voters looking for a principled Christian Conservative leader will be looking elsewhere.

    • Keeping Stock

      Quite right Genevieve – forgiving does not mean you have to forget. And voters are not going to forget how duplicitous Craig has been. Politically, he is toast.

    • Mother of ten

      Yes the look Helen Craig is giving her husband in the above photo speaks volumes – “One more slip up mate….and you’re toast!”

  • hookerphil

    The relevancy is that Mrs Craig is painting a picture that Rachel was the driving force behind “the affair” and will destroy her if she can. The judgement may well come down to whether the jury believed Rachel.

    • Cadwallader

      You’re absolutely right. This is reminiscent of Hillary’s joy in blaming the young women who fell prey to the attentions of Bill Clinton who used his office (in both senses of the word) to impress and overwhelm them. These are never relationships on even terms.

  • LesleyNZ

    Question is – is Colin Craig’s wife telling the truth? I feel so sorry for the Craig’s daughter – this will be on the internet in cyberspace – forever.

    • hookerphil

      The wife can only report what has been said to her, Rachel can only state what happened to her. To believe the wife, first they must believe Craig.

  • Rebecca

    I’m glad for Mrs Craig that she has found it in herself to behave as a good Christian wife. But this legal action is not about impressing your congregation or electorate. Mr Craig was both employer and party leader, with special responsibilities in both roles.

    By way of example: John Key was pilloried for tugging on a pony tail, but he didn’t accidentally kiss his secretary and then send her yearning poems before scorning her, which is Craig’s version of events. Imagine if Key had done that. This is the sort of mirror Craig needs to hold up for himself rather than tortuous tales in which he was only a little bit naughty (and is forgiven) unlike all those others who were very naughty indeed.

  • shykiwibloke

    I’m suspiciously cynical at the strategy here. Are they looking to get soooo much dirty laundry out in the public area with this case, that it prejudices or eliminates all pending cases? I can’t see how this is possible, but in the words of Sherlock Holmes – when you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains, no matter how improbable….”

  • metalnwood

    It’s all taken a left turn that I had not expected. I don’t think anyone expected the Craigs to roll out a story that MacGregor was the now scorned pursuer of a relationship.

  • Big_Al

    Craig and his wife have clearly orchestrated this story to discredit Rachael. From what has come out in court so far, he obviously had an obsession with Rachael and has abused his position as her superior to try to satisfy his lust. Now that the brown stuff has hit the fan he is dumping on Rachael big time to try and save his own backside. He is a disgusting creature. I also cannot see what relevance all this dirty laundry has to do with the original defamination case that is being brought against him by Stringer.
    In the public eye, he just appears to be digging the hole bigger every day.

    • Rebecca

      The real victim here is MacGregor as these males indulge in their peeing contests. It was revealed in court yesterday that she already had to bring an injunction against a Craig henchman who is a professional counselor, after private matters revealed to that person appeared in an anonymous attack blog.

      Mr Craig said in court that he is unsure who the blog’s Mr X is this time, but the Judge was sufficiently convinced to grant the injunction and the blog was duly removed. The injuncted party is the same person who “moderated” Craig’s pamphlet sent out to 1.6m households and I understand he was in court to support Craig except when MacGregor gave evidence when the injunction presumably denied his presence.

      Talk about dirty politics. Even if Craig’s version is entirely true, she is a young woman who didn’t want publicity, who honored a non-disclosure agreement and now finds herself accused of poor behavior in court after she gave evidence so she can’t even defend herself against presumably new and unfamiliar allegations. Yuck.

      • Mags

        I think back at some of the company I kept when I was young and naive; it wasn’t always perfect company but thank goodness it didn’t lead to having all my mistakes being aired in public.
        I hope she (RM) has found some new people to hang out with.

  • Karl

    I am surprised that, if Rachel with the driving force as they are painting, they haven’t quoted her poems to Craig!
    Surely this scorned woman would have responded in kind …. if any of the current story was true.
    I’m not buying Colin and Helen’s story at all.

  • Mother of ten

    So after Helen and Colin had some deep soul searching they sent some relationship guidelines to Rachael – implying that only Rachael needed these guidelines. He apologised and admitted his part but the actions taken only targeted one party. Based on this Helen took a key role in managing a Conservative Party workplace matter. Quite a few boundaries blown to pieces there! It’s all completely implausible and I would bet the farm none of it happened. I find Rachael’s account far more realistic – that she spoke to Helen who put it in the too hard basket and ignored the situation. You have to feel a little sorry for Helen Craig – she appears to be stuck with a master manipulator who gives her a script and wheels her out when required. Very sad for her. Colin on the other hand doesn’t seem to have the slightest idea about how crazy and sleazy his behaviour has been – he keeps admitting to things and trying to put a innocent slant on them. How many bosses write their employees gooey poems…or any poems. Completely delusional and the public see it.