People sometimes say jerky things in e-mails

August 17th, 2014 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

Yesterday there was some excitement over some e-mails from the Hager book which made it look like had published ’s address so the Chinese triads could kill him, over his work exposing money laundering.

I know Cactus well and she is an unlikely assassin.

The reality is that people sometimes say jerky things in private e-mail conversations. I suspect most of us have done it. I’m sure I have. Go through what must be over 100,000 e-mails from me, and I am sure you’ll find some where I have said offensive and jerky things.

Cameron often says things in e-mails about how the Headhunters are going to deal to this person, and the triads to this person. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve seen a reference to this. People often boast and skite in e-mail, and that doesn’t mean it represents what actually happened. With Cameron the proportion is perhaps a bit higher than for most of us. Rodney Hide writes in the HoS on how it took him just 10 minutes to check and verify the claims about him being blackmailed were false. Basically a couple of people heard some gossip, talked about using the gossip, but of course never did.

Hence it is easy to take a few dozen of the worst e-mails from someone, and make them sound like they are a major criminal figure, or the such.

Take for example, me. I’m generally not a vengeful person. But if you were tape recording my phone when I worked out that someone had planted a spy into my office (and one that appears to still have been there maybe just three weeks ago), then you would have heard me swearing and promising bloody retribution.

Then 24 hours later I was fine, after going for a run, which is a great way to calm down. But if you had hacked my phone and heard my initial thoughts, I’d look really bad.

I can’t recall if I ever say the e-mails talking about Hager and triads or something. But if I did, I wouldn’t have been taking them seriously. Its preposterous.

When a threat is real, I will take action. A few years back there was a nasty guy who made death threats on his blog against Sue Bradford. His blog was hosted by Google, so no way to work out his identity. I realised he had once or twice commented on my blog, so I proactively went to Sue Bradford’s office and told them I had info which could help identify him. They told the Police who contacted me, and I gave the info to the Police. Sue’s politics are not my own, but I despise political violence. But people mouthing off on e-mail about the triads doing “chop, chop” is not the same.

There’s also been some focus on the case of Simon Pleasants, a former Labour staffer who worked in Ministerial Services, who some thought might have leaked details of ministerial housing. I do remember that exchange, and I said that I knew Simon well, regarded him as a good guy, and do not think he would have been involved  in any way. My advice was not followed, because well Cam doesn’t tend to be the advice taking type.

But also worth putting this in context. It was unfair to blame Simon just because he was a former Labour staffer. But when a former Labour staffer leaks cabinet papers from MFAT to Phil Goff, then people get suspicious of all former political staffers. When people stick spies into my office, I wonder if I need to start vetting my staff (I won’t). What I’m saying is that because of the actions of a few extremists, people like Simon do get suspected because of their former political role. If you know them, like I did, then you’ll say Nah would never be him. When you don’t, and some information has been leaked, then they do become the number one suspect – unfairly. Blame the former Labour staffer who leaked the MFAT cabinet paper as much as you blame others.

So again, people say jerky things in e-mails. I am one of them. I can’t recall anything horrendously jerky from me, but I’m sure if you go through 100,000 e-mails you’ll find some, and they will get published somewhere someday.

Meanwhile it appears the spy may still be in my office. A closer reading of the book reveals stuff from barely a few weeks ago. So he or she has been stealing scripts for many months. Is he or she just stealing scripts? Is he listening to conversations and passing it on. Is he or she trying to access the office computer? Are the scripts going just to Nicky Hager, or being shared with other political parties? How much of my company’s information has been stolen by this person? What fun questions I’ve got to grapple with.

Tags: , ,

89 Responses to “People sometimes say jerky things in e-mails”

  1. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    Rodney Hide writes in the HoS on how it took him just 10 minutes to check and verify the claims about him being blackmailed were false.

    The book does not include a claim that Rodney Hide was blackmailed.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. radvad (767 comments) says:

    A good and sensible post David.
    Surely this a classic case for a legal claim to force the faux “journalist” to disclose his source or sources.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Cactus Kate (551 comments) says:

    “she is an unlikely assassin.”

    Of anyone currently or in the past but Whaleoil, yes.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. FeralScrote (220 comments) says:

    Jeepers Graeme,the leftwing attack MSM made something up? Say it `aint so…

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Redbaiter (9,123 comments) says:

    Its more important to behave correctly when people are not watching than when they are.

    Slater and his boys (and girls) are social progressives bringing the traditionally conservative National Party undone.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. mjw (396 comments) says:

    There are certainly things that are overblown in all this. People are entitled to private lives, we should not mistake their private lives for action in their official capacity. There are other things that are more worrying, and should arguably be further investigated.

    But, I think the overall point is pretty well proven now. The National party has an underhand attack machine that smears opponents. This should not really be news, as it has been obvious for some time now – $100,000 bottles of wine, OIA correspondence from the leader of the opposition, etc etc. Nicky Hager’s genius has been to somehow make it stick.

    John Key has played right into Hager’s hands, smearing Hager, smearing anyone who doesn’t support National as somehow being an associate of Kim Dotcom, and deliberately misleading the press gallery on Friday.

    All this is pretty serious for brand Key.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 5 Thumb down 27 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Redbaiter (9,123 comments) says:

    Rodney Hide writes in the HoS on how it took him just 10 minutes to check and verify the claims about him being blackmailed were false.

    This is one hell of a weird statement.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. chrisw76 (85 comments) says:

    In the roughly translated words of Cardinal Richelieu: “If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.”

    Personally, I always try to write my e-mails with the view that no matter how private, one day they might be disclosed to some third party who might have an axe to grind against me. Its one thing to have a private conversation in a pub where a bad taste joke is made, but if you write it down and e-mail it out, then it is the height of stupidity. Unencrypted E-mail is NOT private and shouldn’t be treated as such.

    I suggest that if the actors in this circus, which may well end up with us all suffering under a dysfunctional government, don’t want to look like sociopaths then they should stop writing stupid things.

    Cheers, Chris W.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. NK (1,244 comments) says:

    Graeme is technically correct. The allegation in the book though is that by joining dots Hide know it was coming (of sorts) and so resigned. Neither is true.

    We should be careful of joining dots.

    For example, Mark Mitchell had a run in with Kim Dotcom in August last year. Then in September, his parliamentary office is broken into and in October, his electorate office is broken into and his laptop stolen along with two mobile phones. His personal email was then hacked.

    But we shouldn’t, and mustn’t, join the dots. This is just an example.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    There are some interesting things coming out about Hager’s stolen emails, such as the role of Dozy Doug Graham’s son as a lobbyist.

    However, it seems to me that Hager the Horrible does an awful lot of extrapolating from very thin bases. For example, from this report today in the Sunday Herald Hager extrapolates what John Key allegedly said about the West Coast woman after the car crash on which Whale made deplorable posts about the fatalities.

    In Slater’s words, Key had told him that the dead man’s mother “was the same feral fucking bitch that screams at him when he goes to Pike River meetings”. It seems unlikely that Key would have used such language, but it is clear he had rung to reassure Slater he should not feel bad about upsetting the mother. When the rest of the country was feeling appalled by Slater’s offensiveness, the prime minister of New Zealand was calling to show his support.

    The quick reader will likely assume these were Key’s actual words, even though Hager adds a brief qualification. He also extrapolates to an assumption that Key phoned Slater to support him. That’s a big jump.

    The whole smear on Key is not only on hearsay, but on extrapolation from hearsay.

    If the rest of the book is like that, Hager is really spinning things.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Redbaiter (9,123 comments) says:

    “Personally, I always try to write my e-mails with the view that no matter how private, one day they might be disclosed to some third party who might have an axe to grind against me.”

    How about you just write them according to your own code of civility, or like Cam Slater, don’t you have one?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Linda Reid (415 comments) says:

    Cactus Kate – pretty sure if you were an assassin, someone would be dead by now.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Hugh Pavletich (225 comments) says:

    General Email sent out this morning …

    New Zealand Property Investors Federation (NZPIF) appears more interested in restoring feudalism … turning their fellow New Zealanders in to rental serfs …

    Housing ‘just as affordable’ … Rob Stock … Sunday Star Times / Fairfax New Zealand

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/10387818/Houses-just-as-affordable

    … and … a tremendous article on China and its diaspora, from the Wall Street Journal …

    The Great Chinese Exodus … Andrew Browne … Wall Street Journal

    http://online.wsj.com/articles/the-great-chinese-exodus-1408120906?tesla=y&mod=djemITP_h&mg=reno64-wsj

    … and … The Nicky Hagar Fiasco … of the National Party’s own making … read Pavletich comments on Kiwiblog thread … fast work required by Prime Minister John Key Monday …

    Garner on dirty tricks … Kiwiblog

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/08/garner_on_dirty_tricks.html

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. mjw (396 comments) says:

    Jack5 – Cameron Slater categorically stated this morning on Q&A that John Key did not phone him. Susan Wood then asked if he had communicated in any way, and Cameron confirmed that he had – by text message.

    Have you noticed the tone of some of these denials. “There is no phone call … ” etc etc etc. Deny something closely related so that it has the ring of truth about it. And hope the questions don’t get any more direct.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    The MSM is not interested in the criminal behind the hacking of the emails given to Hager the Horrible.
    Hager looked into the barrel of the camera on TV this morning and denied it was Herr Dotcom.

    I’m sounding like a cracked record, but: look for a leftist gone rogue in the GCSB, or who has been in the GCSB.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Hugh Pavletich (225 comments) says:

    The amusing thing is that most of the lively discussions and debates are occurring on the Centre Right / Right. The problem for the Left is they do not have solutions that work

    The Left’s problems run much deeper than just current New Zealand Labour Leader David Cunliffe and the Labour Party.

    There is a deepening sense internationally that Government is not the solution … but is instead is the problem … as Allister Heath explained some time ago in the UK Telegraph …

    Voters have had enough of bloated and dysfunctional Governments … Allister Heath …. UK Telegraph

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10844203/Voters-have-had-enough-of-bloated-and-dysfunctional-governments.html

    … and as a recent NBC / WSJ poll in the United States found …

    Americans Fed Up … NBC / WSJ Poll

    http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/americas-fed-obama-approval-rating-hits-all-time-low-poll-n173271

    Clearly … the Left needs to reinvent itself.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    Re Hugh Pavletich at 10.25:

    The Great Chinese exodus article in the Wall Street Journal (Asian edition) that Hugh points to is an interesting read, and highly relevant to New Zealand. The article seems to be outside the pay wall so if you click on the link you can access it. Here it is again.

    http://online.wsj.com/articles/the-great-chinese-exodus-1408120906?mod=WSJAsia_hpp_LEFTTopStories

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Andrew (84 comments) says:

    DPF! Check your polling data for interviewer variance. That may help you track down a rogue. The stats don’t lie.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Redbaiter (9,123 comments) says:

    “Voters have had enough of bloated and dysfunctional Governments”

    Why then would they support the National Party that is bigger than any Labour govt has ever been and spending and taxing more?

    There is no difference worth spit between the Nats and Labour. The problem is the principle of small weak govt so many of us believe in has been betrayed by the National Party in NZ.

    As it has in the UK by the Conservatives, in Australia by the Liberals, and in the US by the Republicans.

    If you sincerely believe in small weak govt then you have to do something to bring the above parties back to their original founding principles.

    Continuing to blindly support them as they exist today is just futile.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    Back on topic:

    Why isn’t the hacker hunt on in earnest? It is highly likely the same source that torpedoed Don Brash.

    Does anyone know any Lefties who may have infiltrated the GCSB?

    Why hasn’t someone put out some bait and trapped the thief?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Hugh Pavletich (225 comments) says:

    Jack5 @ 10.34 … Many thanks for providing the open link. Any problems accessing, just google search title.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. flipper (4,084 comments) says:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
    chrisw76 (84 comments) says:

    August 17th, 2014 at 10:19 am

    In the roughly translated

    ************

    Apropos this discussion, less than two (2) months ago Whale’s site had this advice for folks using email…..

    Death by E-mail
    by SB on June 20, 2014 at 3:30pm

    We have all experienced it. That moment when you read an e-mail and react emotionally to it. Some of us immediately send off a reply while still in the throes of anger. Others sit on it a while and carefully craft a reply. Very few of us pick up the phone or go to the person directly and ask them if our interpretation of what they were implying in the e-mail was correct.
    The problem is tone, as we have no way of telling what it actually is from the words on the screen. It is left to us to add the tone and depending on our mood at the time and many other factors we can easily get it wrong. In my personal experience when that happens it is all downhill from there. People feel free to say things in an e-mail when they are angry that they would never ever have the balls to say to your face.

    In the past I had a relationship seriously damaged because the only way the person would communicate with me was by e-mail. Once the flame war started there seemed to be no way to put it out. No matter how carefully I crafted my replies I was perceived as being hostile and to be fair I felt that the replies to me were incredibly hostile and nasty as well. Eventually I decided that I would only make matters worse by continuing so I just stopped.

    Two years ago my Manager pulled me aside and expressed her upset at the tone of my e-mails to her. I was aghast as I had no such tone in mind. I am a blunt person by nature and thought that I was dispassionately stating facts but that was not how they were received. I was very relieved when she talked to me about it and from then on added a smiley emoticon to almost every e-mail to her just in case.

    More recently despite a smiley face and loving words a relationship was badly damaged over an interpretation of the tone and meaning of my e-mail. It was so bad I am now scared to communicate by e-mail with this person and have sworn to never do so again.

    So how on earth do you and I protect ourselves from this kind of reaction? Connie Dieken has some advice in her article, The Tone Gap: How to Prevent an E-mail Disaster
    Ever received an e-mail response that struck you as the communication equivalent of Whac-A-Mole? Maybe you got a curt “see below” when you sent a question to a peer in an e-mail chain. You felt clobbered by your peer’s abrupt, dismissive tone. Instead of getting clarification (you already knew the answer was not below), you felt hammered by Ms. Snippy or Mr. Ever-rude.
    Now let’s reverse the scenario. YOU’RE the one who sends the response. You know your peer is under deadline, so you reply pronto (mid-meeting from your Blackberry, to boot). You don’t intend to be abrasive – you believe the answer they’re seeking is in the e-mail chain below and you’re trying to guide them to the right spot in a timely manner.
    See the difference? It’s the tone gap.

    There’s often a profound difference between the tone you intend and the one the receiver experiences. It can be critical because your tone can be an influence maker or an influence breaker. That’s because when you receive an email, you assign the tone. You interpret whether the sender’s tone is helpful, dismissive, playful, snide, warm or cold. Now reverse it. When you send an e-mail, others do the same thing to you. As a result, you may be ticking people off left and right without realizing it. As an executive coach, I’m hearing tonal gap issues playing out with alarmingly increasing frequency.

    Good people are damaging relationships and being held back from leadership advancements because they’re unaware they’re alienating their bosses, peers and clients.
    Here’s the thing: e-mail communication lacks the three human signals that indicate tone. 1) There’s no warmth of voice. 2) No body language. 3) No facial expressions. Faced with a lack of tone, people often assign your words the worst possible tone – especially if you happen to catch them when they’re under stress or in a grumpy mood. It’s particularly important when e-mailing people who don’t know you well enough to “hear” your voice accurately.
    How can you prevent a tone gap? Make it a connecting habit to add intentional warmth. I don’t mean to pour on the syrup with fake, sticky-sweet e-mails. That would defeat my Talk Less, Say More mantra. Instead, three tiny tweaks can make an enormous difference in how people interpret your typing tone and boost your ability to influence.

    Here are three quick tips to add intentional warmth:
    Start with the person’s name. A simple personalized “Hi Les” or even just “Les,” signals that you’re thoughtful and respectful and don’t intend to cop an attitude.
    Add a warm connecting sentence to the top such as “Good to hear from you,” “Thanks for your quick response,” or “I appreciate your input.” Make a habit of re-reading your e-mails before hitting “send” and adding a connecting sentence. This can prevent your tone from coming across as blunt or dictatorial.

    Sign off in a friendly manner with your first name, such as “Best regards, Elizabeth,” or “Thanks, Elizabeth.” Insert this before your signature file which generally contains your full name. Inserting your first name suggests a more personal, friendly tone.
    The bottom line is this: we judge ourselves by our intentions, but we judge others by their actions. Make adding warmth an intentional connecting habit and you’ll tame the tone gap, come across as you want and achieve the results you desire.
    In the relationship that I unintentionally damaged recently I used only 2 out of the 3 tips above. I failed to add the warm connecting sentence. I wonder if it would have made all the difference ….. ”

    Source – WOBH

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Fisiani (1,040 comments) says:

    The extreme Left will stop at nothing to to win this election. Their hatred of National and John Key goes beyond rational. They foam at the mouth when they speak. I would not be surprised if it emerges that Crim Dot Con has financed a large hit squad to hack computers, steal laptops, burgle,bug offices and be a spy and a thief. After all it took just 4 people each paid $100 to start the FJK chant and the drunken mob joined in like sheep to make an Internet Mana advert.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    How much of my company’s information has been stolen by this person?

    Since DPF says that he doesn’t read GD I’ll repost for him:

    As most of you are no doubt aware I’ve been going on about the difference between theft and copying for a few days now. Initially I described the motivation for this as being to the copyright industry’s desire to increase the size of their catch via US fair use doctrine. However there is a more important reason for the abuse of the English language the the media trots out: control of the judicial process.

    Evidence is information, and information is typically obtained by copying it from the original source. When copying is misrepresented as theft, it appears that the evidence has been obtained unlawfully and is therefore inadmissible in judicial proceedings.

    This is significant given the corporate media’s role of defending the status quo: in the corporate world the state is the final arbiter of justice. Also given the association between Judith Collins and Cameron Slater, Slater’s correspondence as described in Nicky Hager’s book the issue of controlling the evidence has serious implications for the National party.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. chrisw76 (85 comments) says:

    “How about you just write them according to your own code of civility, or like Cam Slater, don’t you have one?”

    To me being civil, means reading what I have written and attempting to understand how it could be interpreted by others before hitting send. I’d rather spend a couple of minutes doing this than days rebuilding fences.

    Cheers, Chris W.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Rodney Hide (62 comments) says:

    Graeme Edgeler writes in the first comment:

    “The book does not include a claim that Rodney Hide was blackmailed.”

    I am not a lawyer but here’s what Hager wrote (p.70):

    “The documents do not contain the texts and we do not know that they exist. There is also no evidence that a direct threat to Hide was made. Nonetheless, Slater and Lusk’s planning and the thinly veiled threat on the blog post go far beyond normal politics. They feel more like blackmail.”

    So he doesn’t “claim” I was blackmailed but it “feels” to him like I was!!

    Fairfax Political Reporter Tracy Watkins (along with all other media) reported: “One of the most explosive claims in the book refers to former Act leader Rodney Hide being blackmailed into stepping down from the Act leadership.”

    I didn’t see Hager jumping up to correct the interpretation to say it was not what he was claiming but just a feeling he had.

    But my bigger three points are these:

    1. I wasn’t blackmailed. I would have gone straight to police and won the leadership battle.
    2. Williams never had or saw any texts.
    3. Brash never employed Lusk.

    Hager is wrong on three key counts. He calls himself an investigative journalist. A quick phone call would have evaporated his “feeling”. Instead, he published his feeling in his book and made it a big part of his claim of dirty politics.

    The only credibility he has is private emails that everyone agrees were stolen. The emails veracity has not been established.

    It’s not Lusk, Slater or Williams who have publicly accused me of sending an inappropriate text. It’s Hager.

    Dirty Politics, indeed.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Scott1 (552 comments) says:

    NK,
    This is not a court of law,
    the standard of proof for me thinking that the greens would be bad for the economy is not proof beyond doubt and neither should be the proof I require to think that Cameron Slater or Judith Colins have dubious ethical standards.

    So we should join dots where possible unless we are willing to accept being uninformed.

    Anyway there is a reason why Cameron Slater has got caught – and that is because as I imagine we all accept – he does it more than the normal person. That is clearly the system working. those who do it less often if politically savvy should put a barrier between themselves and such a person as John Key would seem to have done from the fact that there is no direct connection in evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Sporteone (43 comments) says:

    Just watched Q&A. I think Hager might have just identified KDC as the supplier of the information or am I drawing a long bow here, like Hager. Hager just admitted that he has gone back to his source asking if he can release the information, but the source has said that he cannot as he wishes to use the material himself. Hasn’t KDC publically stated that he is going to use what is in the book to take legal action. More smoke and mirrors but I think the first crack has just emerged.

    Hager then went on to say that he categorically denied KDC had nothing to do with it and if the information came from him he would not have accessed it. Hasn’t Hager been noted at the DotCom mansion. When he answered that question he looked away from the camera. Body language tells a thousand words. Sorry, long bow again, but as a trained interviewer, me thinks not.

    The sooner Cameron Slater makes a complaint to the Police the better. And also I think he and DPF should get an injunction to stop any further disclosure of the hacked documents from Slaters computer.

    It is also of interest, as I have mentioned previously in posts, that Hager was only given 8Gbytes of selective documents from your computer. Why are there none of the communications between Slater and other government officials in that data dump. There is only one reason. Oh that’s right, he doesn’t want to disclose the names of other party members who feed him information.

    Just as an aside, I still do not think Hager has written a lot of this book. He tried to explain how he came to the conclusion that certain people had got into the back end of the Labour web site. He mentioned that in his “OPINION” the staffer from the National party had stated that he had used a changing IP address so he could not be identified. Hager obviously has not knowledge or understanding of the difference between ‘STATIC’ and ‘DYNAMIC’ IP address. That is why the IP address changed, not because he changed it to hide. The IP address constantly changes for the vary reason to avoid HACKING.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Reid (16,516 comments) says:

    DPF! Check your polling data for interviewer variance. That may help you track down a rogue. The stats don’t lie.

    That’s a really good idea Andrew. Someone who does this is likely also to regard sabotaging Curia’s poll accuracy as just another little bonus of his or her stinking “mission” so it’s quite likely they would have done that on the side.

    Obviously DPF will be looking at those employees who’ve recently resigned in the last few weeks as part of the candidate pool and the start and end dates from Hagar’s earliest and latest published material gives him a timeband when the employee must have been there. Not to mention those particular polls which ran would allow a further narrowing although it’s possible the guilty party simply printed off the material without being involved in those particular polls. However the printer logs might give further clues but you can’t rule out the photocopier option.

    But analysis like that would possibly narrow the candidate pool to a manageable size. And that interviewer variance if s/he’s been sabotaging would show up like dogs balls if the guilty one suddenly stopped their sabotage which they’d almost have to because it is of course highly dangerous for them now to continue it. And they can’t suddenly resign either, because of course all the people who have resigned in the last few weeks are automatically in the prime suspect pool as will be all of those who resign until the little creep is identified.

    Too bad really s/he’s been working inside a company that makes its living from statistical analysis part of which is variance management and outlier identification, isn’t it. Talk about being hoisted by one’s own petard.

    I am of course deliberately attempting to cause the little creep to suffer sleepless nights and anxiety because said little creep is almost certainly gloatingly following this blog to perv at the upshot of their miscreancy and I bet the little creep will be reading this post probably within the next half hour. Aren’t you, little creep.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    ” Aren’t you, little creep.”

    Or it could be the big fat creep..
    …………………..I know nothing!

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Nostalgia-NZ (5,221 comments) says:

    If there are 7 years of emails information will keep surfacing. Writing about things being taken out of context or said in tongue in check way is all very good – though how does that apply to Slater, or Ede if we ever hear from him. Slater has been clear about his thoughts, he’s also been fictional about death threats and other type of threats, attended with marching off to the police from which nothing happens – so how are the public meant to draw the line, between tongue in cheek, humour, people being scum and feral because they live in ChCh and so on, will they even bother? Though the question remains how is sound Government attended by this sort of dialogue, ‘paying back twice,’ ‘make them fear you’ from a Minister no less – there are no denials of this, no condemnation just vague talk about what people may write in emails. Why is chrisw76 comment at 10.19 on what is contained in his emails beyond Government at the highest levels, how is that Collins ‘feeds’ and discusses highly confidential opinion of her own colleagues with a blogger who revels in the death of a West Coast man and laments the failed suicide attempt of someone he has been asked to ‘punish.’ How does that stuff work? I understand what DPF is saying, I understand when PG told us Peter Dunne (or was it Peter Dunne himself?) about writing by hand letters for constituents on immigration matters so that he would remember them in detail and therefore presumably be responsible for what he had written – however, I need a little more help with boasts that Slater can organise prison transfers, get OIA replies within hours and after the ‘office is closed’ – when it takes media or the public weeks.

    This stuff will keep on giving, it’s not going to go away post election. There are several litigants, and likely litigants who will be arguing in the High Court for access to those emails, and others not only interested in Mr Ede and others. but looking to verify the misuse of confidential information by Ministers – I expect quite a number of those will be in the National Party because Slater and his ‘feeders’ are not representative of the National Party, and I doubt the image the party wants to be associated with in any enduring way. Time will tell of course, and I once again display my admiration for the guts that Rob Muldoon showed when faced with tough decisions – there would have been a few punches flying possibly, but things would not be unequivocal or vague.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    The only credibility he has is private emails that everyone agrees were stolen.

    No, everyone does not agree that they were stolen, since Slater did not lose the emails.

    What is LARCENY?

    In criminal law. The wrongful and fraudulent taking and carrying away by one person of the mere personal goods of another from any place, with a felonious intent to convert them to his (the taker’s) use, and make them his property, without the consent of the owner.

    (Black’s Law Dictionary)

    Conversion: Any unauthorized act that deprives an owner of personal property without his or her consent.
    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/conversion

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. niggly (830 comments) says:

    Remember folks, mjw confirmed here on Kiwiblog previously that he is campaigning for the Labour Party. Perhaps in the interests of political transparency (as he is using Kiwiblog as a vehicle to attack National in the lead up to the election) he should disclose his campaign links. After all we don’t want anymore “dirty politics” now do we?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    This is not a court of law

    It doesn’t matter. The same principles can be applied to get an idea of what the actual substance of the case is.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Rodney Hide (60 comments) says:
    August 17th, 2014 at 11:01 am

    It’s not Lusk, Slater or Williams who have publicly accused me of sending an inappropriate text. It’s Hager.

    And yet you write that:

    I am not a lawyer but here’s what Hager wrote (p.70):

    “The documents do not contain the texts and we do not know that they exist. There is also no evidence that a direct threat to Hide was made. Nonetheless, Slater and Lusk’s planning and the thinly veiled threat on the blog post go far beyond normal politics. They feel more like blackmail.”

    So he doesn’t “claim” I was blackmailed but it “feels” to him like I was!!

    In context, the planning and threat felt to Hager like blackmail. If you read page 70, you’ll find that Hager mentions that the “threat” was made via a post on Whale Oil [13]. No reasonable reader would infer that you had actually read the post and considered it to be a threat of blackmail. The inference is that Slater was into blackmailing you, not that it actually took place.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Reid (16,516 comments) says:

    When he answered that question he looked away from the camera.

    I just checked my Q&A tape Sporteone and unfortunately he didn’t do that, he looked straight down the barrel. I wish he had, but he didn’t.

    However, what’s going to happen about this matter in my view, is this.

    Cam as he’s said is going to lay a complaint with the police the day he lands back here. The police are going to go to the GCSB who will identify the computer which did the hacking which probably has Eastern European origins because guess which prominent NZ citizen resident knows how to get in touch with lots of those sorts of characters. You know, the ones who specialise in DoS attacks for hire…

    For the GCSB, I would be very surprised if the NSA isn’t fully on board with cooperating in this little investigation given the benefits to the US prosecution case if said prominent NZ resident can be linked to such an illegal activity because that means his residency would be immediately terminated as it can be if any resident commits a crime. And if you have the NSA on board with all of their resources I’d be very surprised if the identity-masking tools used by said Eastern European hackers for hire presented any major difficulties.

    Obviously said prominent NZ resident is no idiot and (in my view obviously…) Hagar has been dealing with someone entirely different. But the question is: where did the person he’s been dealing with get the material from?

    It may be the investigation proves whoever this person is (and Hagar said HE so it’s a guy, will be identifying himself soon), did the hacking himself. That’s quite possible, it’s not rocket science. But if he did that then in identifying himself he’s effectively pleading guilty to a crime, so my guess is he’ll say he got them from someone else, who he’s not going to name.

    But either way, someone’s going to go down for this, and I’ve got lots of popcorn just waiting because I can’t wait for it all to unravel before our eyes and for a number of people to look very sad indeed as the chickens they so carefully hatched come flying back home.

    And since we’ve got an election very soon, I doubt the politicians are going to tolerate the usual months and months of delay as the police and the GCSB dawdle along.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Scott1 (552 comments) says:

    I don’t think that a smart politician would go up to Rodney and say “do X or else”. That seems completely unnecessary, unless it is some sort of Ego trip.

    All the ‘blackmailer’ (quotation marks because it is probably not technically illegal) wants is for the other party to be aware that the information is out and that to contest the leadership vigorously would make it significantly more likely that information would come out.

    This could easily come in the form of a friend notifying the person that they have a rumour going around and that they should therefore make the (convenient to the speaker) decision to reduce the risks.

    Of course it might be rash to say if even that discussion ever occurred or if there would be substance to the rumour itself.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Hugh Pavletich (225 comments) says:

    New Zealands Cancer : Local Government … excellent article by Bernard Hickey of Interest Co NZ …

    Bernard Hickey fingers the Local Government sector … Interest Co NZ

    http://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/71469/%E2%80%8Bbernard-hickey-fingers-electricity-and-local-government-sectors-inflation-culprits-un#comment-785416

    … the problems …

    Public sector inertia at a council office where employees take six-month sickies | Mail Online

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1289702/Public-sector-inertia-council-office-employees-month-sickies.html

    Suffocating Bureucracy & Failed Institutions | Scoop News

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1307/S00134/suffocating-bureucracy-failed-institutions.htm

    … the solutions …

    Christchurch: The Way Forward | Scoop News

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK1206/S00251/christchurch-the-way-forward.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. adze (2,126 comments) says:

    @Sporteone

    That is why the IP address changed, not because he changed it to hide. The IP address constantly changes for the vary reason to avoid HACKING.

    Not quite. Dynamic IPs are just a way for ISPs (and LAN servers) to manage one or more limited pools of allocated IP addresses, usually via a DHCP server.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. David Garrett (7,318 comments) says:

    I did a bit of a straw poll on this at a social gathering out here in the rural sector…no-one gives a flying fuck…As some journo said yesterday, the only people Hager’s “revelations” are going to mean anything to are the 5000 odd who live, or at least work, “inside the Beltway” …

    Phil Goff’s talking about this being “equivalent to Watergate”…what utter hyperbolic nonsense…the only physical breaking in seems to have been a Nat MP’s office, and the only thing that could remotely be described as “hacking” by the Nats was walking in through an open (cyber) door into their unsecured website and reading stuff. I am trying hard to find the criminality in that. Walking past a window at Socialist HQ and reading the stuff on the blackboard through an un-curtained window perhaps? Nick K will know better than me whether his former employers could have crafted a charge out of that.

    As for blackmail, during my time someone within threatened to make the most outrageous accusations against one of our MP’s public. They were so outrageous that Hide and I pissed ourselves laughing about them. The response was “make our day”. My memory is a little vague now, but there were some hints dropped on blogs. The MSM wouldn’t touch the allegations with a pole because if they had they would have instantly been sued.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    Rodney – thanks for the reply. The bit I was referring to was in the bit you quote:

    There is also no evidence that a direct threat to Hide was made.

    This is an explicit disavowal of a claim of blackmail.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Yoza (1,879 comments) says:

    David Garrett (6,600 comments) says:
    August 17th, 2014 at 12:08 pm

    I did a bit of a straw poll on this at a social gathering out here in the rural sector…no-one gives a flying fuck…As some journo said yesterday, the only people Hager’s “revelations” are going to mean anything to are the 5000 odd who live, or at least work, “inside the Beltway” …

    Hager book selling ‘like wildfire’

    The publishers originally printed 4000 copies of the book released yesterday morning, but by midday the office was fielding calls from bookstores all over New Zealand requesting more.

    They had another 3000 to dispatch to stores through New Zealand today.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    Hager is wrong on three key counts. He calls himself an investigative journalist. A quick phone call would have evaporated his “feeling”. Instead, he published his feeling in his book and made it a big part of his claim of dirty politics.

    He doesn’t even make the claim in your first count, and the other two are denied by the people involved, which is not actually the same thing as “wrong.”

    Yes, he could have phoned you. That would have been it for his book, as it would promptly have been buried under an avalanche of injunctions and perhaps finally seen the light of day a couple of governments from now.

    And suppose he had phoned you, and you’d said “No I wasn’t blackmailed.” So? He’s got messages and a blog post that look like conspiracy to commit blackmail – whether the conspiracy went ahead or not isn’t clear from the evidence, but it’s the evidence of conspiracy that he’s writing about. Your thoughts on it are irrelevant.

    How about clearing it all up for us and telling us why you did suddenly change your mind after days of standing firm and looking like you were going to have every success with that? End the speculation, if it bothers you that much.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. V (720 comments) says:

    Forgive me if I think David Garrett shouldn’t be the arbiter of ethical standards in this matter.

    But my count at least Judith Collins and Jason Ede have valid questions to answer, but lo and behold they’ve both gone to ground while the National party spin machine winds up. What a coincidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. adze (2,126 comments) says:

    Hager book selling ‘like wildfire’

    The publishers originally printed 4000 copies of the book released yesterday morning, but by midday the office was fielding calls from bookstores all over New Zealand requesting more.

    They had another 3000 to dispatch to stores through New Zealand today.

    And just for some sense of scale, 7000 is just 2.8% of the number of people who voted Greens in the 2011 election.

    By contrast, The Luminaries (by a NZ author) sold 42,000 copies last year alone.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Phil Goff’s talking about this being “equivalent to Watergate”…what utter hyperbolic nonsense…

    Well, there’s the intent to corrupt the political procesess.

    the only physical breaking in seems to have been a Nat MP’s office, and the only thing that could remotely be described as “hacking” by the Nats was walking in through an open (cyber) door into their unsecured website and reading stuff. I am trying hard to find the criminality in that.

    Law looks to the intent. You should know that, being a laywer and all, right?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Reid (16,516 comments) says:

    That would have been it for his book, as it would promptly have been buried under an avalanche of injunctions and perhaps finally seen the light of day a couple of governments from now.

    Which says a whole hell of a lot about both the book and the motivations of its author, doesn’t it, given such injunctions are not granted for no reason whatsoever and that if the book did have substance beyond libellous innuendo it could be published under fair comment.

    But that wouldn’t suit the hysterical narrative people like you and the media are trying to whip up, would it.

    One thing about the left is they’re good at propaganda, they have to be because their policies are so lousy massive lipstick is always required. And one of the most commonly used propaganda weapons is the accusation against opponents of that which you are yourself most guilty.

    Personally I’m finding it terribly funny. You guys have been as frustrated as a gay shipwrecked on an Amazonian Island. Nothing you’ve done has given you any traction at all. You’ve changed leaders (giggle), you’ve thrown mud (chortle), nothing’s worked. Now, you bring out the big gun, the king hit, the crowning glory of your desperation. A limp-wristed balding scrawny little liar whose such a girl he can’t even bring himself to make actual allegations but rather populates his book with carefully worded innuendo and cleans out his house lest the big meanies make him do the right thing and back up his own libelous bullshit. And you guys sit back and tell the public with a straight face that you’re playing a positive campaign!

    Sadly PM, you and your fellow travellers are going to find the NZ public aren’t quite the dullard fools you arrogantly assume them to be, you’re also going to find out you’ve played the wrong ball this time because sadly, for you, Whale loves this sort of shit, he revels in it, this is heaven for him and the only people who don’t enjoy it are all the rest of the people who get covered in the shit that’s definitely going to start flying in copious quantity very soon indeed. And last time I looked, girly lefties like that sort of shit least of all.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Paulus (2,633 comments) says:

    I am aware of somebody saying that they have been “given” a signed copy at the launch.
    It looks as though they were giving out a number of copies for free, presumably to be able to say that it is going well and more are being printed. 3000 more copies I learn.
    I wonder how many copies have been given away free to get the right PR ?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @David Garrett (6,601 comments) says:
    August 17th, 2014 at 12:08 pm

    The first point I would like to make is that an ex-MP for ACT, I think it is unlikely that anyone would express any negative feelings of disgust with you, especially if they know you, and your propensity to attack people personally that don’t agree with you.

    Secondly, I just checked with a poll posted by a national supporter on here yesterday, that asks whether people are interested in the book or not. The current results state that 24% (3258) are definitely interested, 74% (10157) not interested, and 2% (325), not sure. So going by those results, one would expect at least 24% of the people you spoke to, to be interested. Which I think supports my point above, that circumstances may have prevented them from relaying their opinion to you.

    My third point is that the information was not just read. Slater rebuilt the civicrm file, which took him several days, which he then broke into three files to make it easier to disseminate the information which included names, addresses, contact details and credit card details etc, to other interested parties. There is no way that can be construed as ‘looking through a window’. When one looks through a window, they see, and they walk away. I am not sure what the law is, but I should imagine taking a photo through a window is regarded a little bit different.

    Finally, I believe it is about purpose. Slater insists his reason for doing this was to let Labour know there was a ‘hole’ in their curtains – as such. A simple phone call could have taken care of that. Even if Slater had wanted to shame Labour, all he had to do was let them know about the issue, allow them to close it – and then blog about it, so everyone knew what a pack of incompetents they were. But instead Slater copies that information, tells Ede the details so he uses a government computer and also copies the information, and then Slater makes sure that everyone knows he has the credit card details etc. Clearly his intention was not to shame Labour, but to make their supporters leave the party and stop donating to it.

    That is also nothing like “looking through a window”.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Slipster (177 comments) says:

    So Ugly is now openly defending theft and thieves.
    What next Ugly? Seeing as you’ve long since passed the rock bottom and keep on digging… how much deeper are you prepared to go?

    Just curious.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Johnboy (16,704 comments) says:

    When can we expect to see publication of your PhD opus Judith?

    “A world shattering expose of a thesis that lays bare all the numerous faults of the right wing conspiracy” ! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Slipster (74 comments) says:
    August 17th, 2014 at 1:40 pm

    I notice that you defend Mr Slater. Perhaps you could offer an explanation of how his accepting 28GB of data that was hacked from a business, on behalf of Slater, and used by him to attack (and later get sued by a businessman) is not the same as you are accusing Ugly Truth of?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Johnboy (15,328 comments) says:
    August 17th, 2014 at 1:42 pm

    My thesis has absolutely nothing to do with politics, blogging, or anything that I have commented on in this blog. It is on the same topic as other work that I have previously written and published.

    You may get to read it, I don’t know, nor do I wish to know if you have access to such material and the sort of database it will be accessible from.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. mjw (396 comments) says:

    niggly – yep, I am transparent about campaigning for Labour this time, although not to the point of abdicating thought or principle. But In 2008 I did my best to campaign against Labour.

    Regular changes of governments are the best guarantee of our freedom.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Which says a whole hell of a lot about both the book and the motivations of its author, doesn’t it

    All it says is what Psycho Milt thinks about it.

    given such injunctions are not granted for no reason whatsoever

    AFAIK there is no reason for an injunction against publication, the issue of public interest is pretty straightforward.

    and that if the book did have substance beyond libellous innuendo it could be published under fair comment.

    It could, but the implications of a connection between the fiction of theft (i.e. no conversion of the owner’s property) and judicial process regarding admissibility of evidence to the relationship between Slater and Collins mean that it would be better for the evidential value of the material to remain unaffected.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. thedavincimode (6,803 comments) says:

    Well, I haven’t read his silly book; just like I haven’t read the others.

    But is that what it boils down to – (Rodney Hide above):

    I’ve gotta feeling …??

    Good grief.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    So Ugly is now openly defending theft and thieves.

    No, I’m showing that copying is not theft, and that there has been a lot of false accusations flying around lately.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Johnboy (16,704 comments) says:

    By jove Judith. Nothing quite as arrogant as the born again psuedo scholar I see! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. UpandComer (537 comments) says:

    Ugly keep up the Swahili legal advice mate you’re doing good

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. jawnbc (87 comments) says:

    It’s actually even simpler: Cameron Slater is a vile piece of work. All the post-hoc analysis and “context” won’t change that. The right should curb him with next week’s trash.

    Unless they’re afraid of him now. I would be, if he knows their dirt. And I suspect he does. Deal with creeps; expect to be creeped.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Nookin (3,361 comments) says:

    Judith @ 1.40 pm

    “I notice that you defend Mr Slater. Perhaps you could offer an explanation of how his accepting 28GB of data that was hacked from a business, on behalf of Slater, and used by him to attack (and later get sued by a businessman) is not the same as you are accusing Ugly Truth of?”

    Slipster did not mention Slater. There is absolutely nothing in his comment that suggests that he endorses Slater’s behaviour. He is attacking dishonest behaviour. Your conclusion is an unwarranted and unacceptable distortion of what he said.

    I have to assume that your reference to the 28 GB of data somehow accessed by Slater relates to the Hells Pizza series undertaken by Slater a year or two back. I am not aware of the circumstances in which Slater came across that information. If it was hacked (and there is probably every reason to believe that to be the case) then there can be no distinction in the condemnation of each case. I say that subject to the possibility that the disclosure could have been properly made pursuant to the Protected Disclosures Act.

    Your argument, and it is a valid one, is that once the principle has been established, it must be applied across the board. If, by way of example, it is in the public interest for a Minister of the Crown to access private briefing notes between the leader of the opposition and US officials and to disclose those notes for the purposes of establishing that the leader of the opposition is making one statement in public and something entirely different in the “private talks” then surely the same public interest justifies a Minister of the Crown pointing a blogger/journalist in the right direction in order to demonstrate that the leader of the opposition might well be telling untruths, publicly, about his knowledge of the existence of issues over certain Israeli tourists. You cannot approve one and not the other.

    It is facile and disingenuous to advance the, in my view, spurious argument that copying is not “theft”. There is a point when the mode of acquisition of information goes beyond acceptability and crosses boundaries of integrity and honesty. There is also a point when the use of such information goes beyond public interest.

    The articles to which I have linked below demonstrate the cogent need for protected disclosures (leaking). Equally, they demonstrate the overriding need for there to be a very clear and universally accepted standard of ethics applicable to disclosures. In the absence of an acceptable standard, the Machiavellian standard will inevitably apply.

    Disclosure of information in the employment arena is protected if
    • the information is about serious wrongdoing in or by that organisation; and
    • the employee believes on reasonable grounds that the information is true or likely to be true; and
    • the employee wishes to disclose the information so that the serious wrongdoing can be investigated; and
    • the employee wishes the disclosure to be protected.
    “Serious wrongdoing includes any serious wrongdoing of any of the following types:
    • an unlawful, corrupt, or irregular use of funds or resources of a public sector organisation; or

    • an act, omission, or course of conduct that constitutes a serious risk to public health or public safety or the environment; or

    • an act, omission, or course of conduct that constitutes a serious risk to the maintenance of law, including the prevention, investigation, and detection of offences and the right to a fair trial; or

    • an act, omission, or course of conduct that constitutes an offence; or

    • an act, omission, or course of conduct by a public official that is oppressive, improperly discriminatory, or grossly negligent, or that constitutes gross mismanagement,—

    In the context of journalism, there are no such parameters. Journalists are on a pedestal as far as the flow of information is concerned. They cannot be obliged to disclose their sources. As evidenced by the articles to which I have referred, they see themselves as the public’s protection against corrupt, dishonest and improper government. Unfortunately, they see these matters as the rights of journalists. “Source protection” is not the right of the journalist. It is the right of the source. It is there to encourage sources disclosing information that might not otherwise be disclosed. By looking at “source protection” as the right of the journalist, the behaviour, motives and bona fides of the source are not examined.

    The pedestal on which journalists stand is not placed because of the right of the journalists. It is placed because it is a right of the public. Sometimes journalist don’t see that and want to impose their own view on us without carefully considering the options ( and sometimes without having the ability or inclination to see them).

    The problem today is that we live in the information age. Information is king. For the most part, we rely on the press or the news media for the dissemination of that information. Yet, there appears to be no empirical standard of ethics relating to behaviour of journalists apart from what I would refer to as the very limp bus ticket sanctions in broadcasting standards or the press association.

    The public has no input whatsoever into the character, qualifications, talents or abilities of the persons upon whom we rely to protect our freedoms and our rights. Market forces are our only real protection from unacceptable bias, slant or manipulation.
    Slater holds out that he is a journalist. He is now being very publicly held to account for his personal views and motives. To be fair to him, he has always said that he is what he is and makes no pretence otherwise.

    Can we really say that about other journalists? The term “advocacy journalist” is becoming more commonplace – journalists who have a predetermined view or predetermined outcome that they wish to achieve based on their own very subjective worldview.
    Here are my criticisms of Nicky Hager
    • His article (see below) on “leaking” focuses in detail on methodology and the issue of ethics appears to me to be a footnote at the end and should be at the very top of the article.
    • He has written a book about “dirty politics” but focuses on only one colour of the political spectrum.
    • He appears to have conceded that his information was derived from, at the most favourable, unethical or dishonest behaviour and, at the least favourable, criminal activity – exactly what he is condemning in government.
    • There is nothing that I have seen that suggests that he has carefully examined the motives of his “supplier” and whether his “supplier” or his “supplier’s supplier” is not simply doing exactly what he condemns the National party for doing.
    • There is an element of unfairness about his approach. As I have said, there is a narrow focus. That will simply create divisiveness and polarity and will exacerbate and not diminish dirty politics. He appears not to have consulted any of the accused persons or given them any opportunity to comment in advance.
    • The book was released as an ambush. There can be no other word for it. It comes right before an election. Its launch was planned for the greatest adverse effect on the national party and had nothing whatsoever to do with eliminating dirty politics.
    If David Cunliffe really wanted to focus on the issues that people want to hear about; if he really wanted to turn this election on its head he would release this statement:
    “While not condoning any of the alleged activities of National Party supporters, the Labour Party most certainly does not condone criminal activity and does not condone using the fruit of criminal activity for commercial, political, social or personal advancement. For that reason the Labour Party is not going to talk any more about “Dirty Politics” – either the book or the practice. Here are our policies…”.
    Nothing about “gotcha” politics helps add value to New Zealand. It is divisive and polarising. It engenders ill will – even hatred. Neither political party appears to have the motivation to reject gotcha politics. They simply engage in it in different ways. If we want a standard of behaviour from our politicians and our journalists that we can accept then
    • We probably need clear guidelines on what documents can be leaked or not leaked without repercussions.
    • The guidelines must be apolitical. It cannot be acceptable for an employee to breach the statutory obligation of trust and confidence because the employee disagrees with the employers policies.
    • There must be repercussions for abuse – not only by leakers but also by those who use those leaks (whether it be other politicians or journalists).
    • There must be a body independent of the government entrusted with enforcement.
    The problem is that probably none of the foregoing is achievable and human nature is such that even if there could be consensus, those determined to do so will always find their way around the rules. This may leave us with the status quo. And maybe there is nothing wrong with that. Did not the latest polls suggest that only a minority were going to take any real notice of the revelations? It is not a situation that I am particularly comfortable with because of the deceit, hypocrisy and ill will engendered. The only answer to that is to talk about it.

    http://www.nickyhager.info/a-brief-guide-to-leaking/
    http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/11sa/Flynn.html

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Fentex (986 comments) says:

    The reality is that people sometimes say jerky things in private e-mail conversations

    I think the point is that the expressed thought, on it’s own meaningless, was backed up by action – the publication of personal details that was an apparent attempt at intimidation.

    It doesn’t really matter how well you dismiss harsh and, or, rash words when the objectionable behaviour was action not so blithely dismissed as inconsequential. The act makes the speech revelation of character.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Yoza (1,879 comments) says:

    adze (1,923 comments) says:
    August 17th, 2014 at 1:02pm

    And just for some sense of scale, 7000 is just 2.8% of the number of people who voted Greens in the 2011 election.

    By contrast, The Luminaries (by a NZ author) sold 42,000 copies last year alone.

    That figure of 7000 is within a few days of its release, it will be interesting to see how many copies are sold before the upcoming election.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. IC5000 (114 comments) says:

    Anyone think that Slater’s going to pull the mental illness card and try to put his abuse of Christchurch residents as cunts who deserved all they got in the earthquake down to depression?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. goldnkiwi (1,319 comments) says:

    UglyTruth (4,509 comments) says:

    August 17th, 2014 at 11:25 am

    No claim of right defence either, nor do I think that there is any ‘public interest’ defence. It looks to me like there was a fishing expedition and they caught a minnow not a whale.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Richard (82 comments) says:

    I’ve never said a jerky thing in an email. Only jerks say jerky things.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. IC5000 (114 comments) says:

    “Richard (20 comments) says:
    August 17th, 2014 at 5:52 pm
    I’ve never said a jerky thing in an email. Only jerks say jerky things.”

    or rather only cunts says cunty things in emails.

    First time I’ve seen Cactus Kate’s visage and she’s not that hot. As for the triad thing she seems more that at little batshit crazy. Maybe that what living in Hong Kong does to you when you find all the eligible expat guys suddenly catch yellow fever and you don’t even register on their radar.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. publicwatchdog (2,624 comments) says:

    Think your ‘jerky’ comments as published in Dirty Politics show that you are ‘fit for duty’ as a lawyer Cathy Odgers?

    I don’t.

    Penny Bright

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. adze (2,126 comments) says:

    “it will be interesting to see how many copies are sold before the upcoming election.”

    It will be interesting to see if they release figures at all, I couldn’t find any for any of Hager’s previous scandal rags.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. publicwatchdog (2,624 comments) says:

    Wouldn’t you think that Judith Collins as MINISTER OF POLICE would have some understanding of LAWFUL DUE PROCESS when it came to dealing with suspicions of alleged leaking of documents by a public servant?

    Any ipredict ‘best bets’ on how long it’s going to take PM John Key to stand Judith Collins down as Minister for not ‘exhibiting the highest ethical standards’ as required under the Cabinet Manual?

    The longer PM John Key prevaricates – the worse it will look for him – in my considered opinion,

    Mind you – when it comes to enforcing the ‘highest ethical standards’ – what more do you expect from an ex-Wall St banker?

    Penny Brigjt

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. KevinH (1,229 comments) says:

    Cam Slater hasn’t denied that he referred to Christchurch tenants displaced by the earthquake as scum, a truly unfortunate slip of the tongue, a faux pas that may get him an ass kicking. The email was reproduced in full in The Press:

    Writing to his friend Peter Smith (not his real name) after the February earthquake, Slater says: “The place is f****d, they should should just board it up and close it down.”

    Smith: A real tragedy, but it will f***k Labour for the election.

    Slater: Yep blessings.

    Slater: What i can’t believe… is how we have to bail out those useless pricks in the sth island, again.’

    Smith: I said to someone today National should let them rot, after all they are useless scum Labour voters especially in the areas where the earthquake hit..well hopefully more scum will labour voters will piss off to Australia (and) at least the uninsured get (f***ing) nothing.’

    Slater: Those suburbs are hard core Labour…the owners will be Nat voters though and the voters tenants, so the houses are gone and the scum are gone too, and they should get nothing.

    The public reaction has been as expected:

    instanta21 day ago
    It would not be a good idea for Cameron Slater to set foot in CHRISTCHURCH any time in the next twenty years or so, or has he got a denial ready

    1phantomindapit2 days ago:
    That one thing that everyone will remember him for

    HilaryD1 day ago:
    His sister lives not far from me (Redcliffs) and yes, she must also be considered “scum” along with my neighbours (who are still waiting for repairs/settlements by the way).

    joannie22 days ago:
    Christchurch residents ignore this nasty man he will get his as we all do in time,

    Almag2 days ago:
    We should not ignore him. We should do our best to see he gets his deserts now.

    mattierulz2 days ago:
    Just send him some sand from New Brighton Beach – he can make his own desert

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. David Garrett (7,318 comments) says:

    How many people turned up to your meeting in Helensville Penny? I heard there were four, not counting the lady doing the catering…Care to revise your confident prediction of taking the seat from Key?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Scott1 (552 comments) says:

    IC5000,

    Taking this to be in any way about Cactus Kate’s looks I think would qualify as being a jerk.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. David Garrett (7,318 comments) says:

    Judith, Judith: when are you going to learn some basic rules of English grammar?

    “..people WHO disagree with you..” when you are referring to people ..never say: “..those THAT you disagree with…”

    But –

    ” a pile of sand THAT or WHICH got wet…” an inanimate object

    I know, I know, you have an editor to “fix it all up”…but where’s your pride woman? Even a thesis on “psychological factors affecting prisoners’ (the apostrophe comes after the “s” because we are talking about more than one) criminogenic needs” or whatever bullshit it is surely deserves to at least be written properly? And you supposedly a Masters grad…

    Oh well…some schools have different standards I guess…

    But having said all of that, you may well be right…there is certainly likely to be a factor of “tell him what he wants to hear”…but it won’t be a strong factor…people pretty much say what they mean in country pubs…might be a bit too robust an environment for you though flower…

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. David Garrett (7,318 comments) says:

    Adze: No, fair do’s, 3000 is a sizeable second print run in NZ…mind you, Hager is apparently – like Harre – a “trust fund baby” so probably has the dough to have a second printing and then quietly dispose of them..or most of them…printing doesn’t cost that much…by the looks of it the print quality is not high…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    …probably has the dough to have a second printing and then quietly dispose of them..

    I know people who don’t read books find it difficult to grasp the idea of other people actually paying money for them and reading them, but I assure you they do. The fact that none of your non-reader mates haven’t bought this book isn’t a reflection on the number of books Hager’s likely to shift, it’s a reflection on the fact that your mates are non-readers. The first run’s sold out, and the second one will too, provided it comes out before the election – shelf-life after that will go downhill rapidly, but that’s in the nature of non-fiction current affairs titles.

    To which we could add, my copy’s an e-book so isn’t reflected in the print-run figures, and the same goes for plenty of other people.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. David Garrett (7,318 comments) says:

    Psycho: I have at least two books on the go at any one time…one something light, one non fiction… I think you’ll find many of us old righties are just the same…

    What does an “e-copy” of this latest Hager opus cost? I don’t think it will supplant Churchill’s “History of the Second World War” (now up to volume four) on my bedside table though…Michael King’s “Death of the Rainbow Warrior” to follow that…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. IC5000 (114 comments) says:

    Retraction:

    I incorrectly referred to Slater calling the citizens of Christchurch ‘cunts’ when he in fact called them ‘scum’.

    “Scott1 (478 comments) says:
    August 17th, 2014 at 8:46 pm
    IC5000,

    Taking this to be in any way about Cactus Kate’s looks I think would qualify as being a jerk.”

    Hopefully she’s a buttaface though. There must be some physically redeeming qualities about her?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. publicwatchdog (2,624 comments) says:

    Thank you David Garrett for asking about my electoral chances of taking John Key’s Helensville seat of him on 20 September 2014.

    I’m thrilled with recent developments and am looking forward to making history, with the help of the voting public of Helensville who vote strategically and sensibly, and give me their ELECTORATE vote.

    Just had a lovely day today – went out to the Kaukapakapa monthly market and spent a very productive day mixing and mingling with future constituents.

    Only 3 people refused to take a leaflet from me.

    The response I got from the overwhelming majority of locals was very positive.
    Some had been to the candidates Helensville meeting and many had heard about it.

    I’ll be having a public meeting on Saturday 30 August 2014 at the Helensville War Memorial Hall from 2 – 5pm where I’ll be providing some politically explosive exposure of corruption at local and central government level and how to fix it.

    Kind regards

    Penny Bright

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Nookin (3,361 comments) says:

    More fool you for asking, David Garrett!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. David Garrett (7,318 comments) says:

    But Penny…as usual you fail to answer the simple question asked of you…in this case “How many people turned up to your recent Helensville meeting?”

    Is my information correct that it was FOUR ?

    As regular readers know, I am a betting man…I am prepared to accept a wager of any amount you choose – or anything you choose (within limits of decency – that come September 21 you will NOT be the MP for Helensville…Since you are so certain of your prospects I imagine you will happily accept that wager…so what’ll be, Penny old gal? $1000? A case of Pol Roger perhaps? A box of chocolate fish even?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Nostradamus (3,346 comments) says:

    David Garrett:

    How about this:

    – If Penny becomes the MP for Helensville, then you pay her outstanding rates account (plus all associated costs incurred as at 20 September 2014).

    – If Penny doesn’t become, the MP for Helensville, then she pays her outstanding rates account (plus all associated costs incurred as at 20 September 2014).

    Of course, because Penny is so confident of her electoral prospects, she’d be silly not to have you underwrite her rates…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    What does an “e-copy” of this latest Hager opus cost?

    $21 from Amazon, although I presume that was US$. I don’t normally buy Kindle editions of things because I hate corporate DRM that locks you into their products, but haven’t seen any other versions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Black with a Vengeance (1,865 comments) says:

    Though doth protest too much, methinks!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. berend (1,711 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt: I don’t normally buy Kindle editions of things because I hate corporate DRM that

    You were not clear, so in case you didn’t know: DRM is always requested by the PUBLISHER. Amazon is happy to sell without DRM, and many books are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Matthew Flannagan (76 comments) says:

    Another thing that is missed with e-mails is context. I might sit down with someone and have a face to face conversation, two days latter I facebook message that person and have a brief discussion where background information from the previous conversation is assumed. I don’t when communicating online rehash every issue and reframe the context again with my correspondent.

    This means that simply taking the brief face conversation and “redacting” it can radically change the meaning or appearance even though its verabitim accurate. That’s one reason why people should approach the people in question for comment before you write to ensure something is not missed, and also why having the source material available so the context can be seen to verify the summary did not omit anything.

    Hager omitted to do either, meaning we cant really tell the context except how he frames it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Mr_Blobby (178 comments) says:

    People may say jerky things in emails.

    But nobody is denying any of it.

    Nobody is acknowledging the content.

    They are all pointing the finger.

    The Whaleoil blog is a shadow of its former self with nothing but self serving posts trying to divert attention away.

    I always thought the rule was “Explaining is losing.”

    My question. Is it true.

    Take away all the distractions and diversions.

    What are the facts. What is the truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Wouldn’t you think that Judith Collins as MINISTER OF POLICE would have some understanding of LAWFUL DUE PROCESS when it came to dealing with suspicions of alleged leaking of documents by a public servant?

    You might well think that, but her job primarily involves civil process rather than due process.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    No claim of right defence either, nor do I think that there is any ‘public interest’ defence.

    Defence to what, exactly? Everything is permitted, which is not forbidden by law.

    It looks to me like there was a fishing expedition and they caught a minnow not a whale.

    We’ll see.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote