Cameron Slater says he knows he sells newspapers, so now he’s ready to sell pay-per-view television – even if he knows the viewers might be switching on to watch him get knocked out.
The controversial Whale Oil blogger and the subject of the Dirty Politics scandal will make his ring debut in Christchurch on March 28, against former New Zealand test cricketer Jesse Ryder.
Good to see Cameron following his political hero, Bill English, into the celebrity boxing arena!
Slater said he had limited boxing experience, but “it’s a good way to lose weight, a good way to get fitness up and these days with the death threats and people wanting to hate on you online, it might be useful to know how to use your fists”.
Slater admitted he would be the underdog against Ryder, who knocked out radio presenter Mark Watson three years ago in his only bout.
Ryder will be the clear favourite, but good on Cameron for giving it a go.Tags: boxing, Cameron Slater, Jesse Ryder
The Herald reports:
Blogger Cameron Slater has claimed in texts to Prime Minister John Key that senior Labour staffer Matt McCarten was involved in hacking his emails and that Labour even tried to kill him.
To put that into context, it is referring to an alleged conversation among some of those involved in the Dirty Politics saga that they hoped the pressure would lead to Cameron killing himself. As far as I know, no one is saying Matt McCarten is an assassin
Cameron Slater: gave it away to me…Goff leaked SIS report
John Key: It’s a joke isn’t it. They will attack Jason for talking to u and they break the confidentiality agreement. Classic lab.
Slater: Yup…I’m very angry over it…Goff is the one who leaked oravida stuff too.
Slater: They still have standard bloggers on staff
Slater: And Mccarten was involved in hack
Key: Hopefully it will all come out in time
Slater: I wish they would hurry up…they played the real dirty politics…even tried to kill me…I have evidence of.
I had confirmation from two journalists that Phil Goff was the one who briefed them about the report and the source of the leak.
I texted John Key, and informed him of the source of the leak. He thanked me. No discussions of the content of the IGIS report were held, it was a brief exchange.
I did not text Judith Collins and have not texted Judith Collins for some months. We had no discussions regarding the content or otherwise of any report.
In my conversation with Josh Forman I got suspicious because of his intense interest and so fed him some information that wasn’t strictly true so that it could be easily verified by cellphone records.
I repeat. I never had a text conversation with Judith Collins on Monday night. Cellphone records will clearly show this.
The following day Josh Forman continued along that line of inquiry and was imploring me to out the txt with John Key, I couldn’t work out why.
That is until this afternoon.
Josh Forman is a man who lacks integrity. In good faith I was willing to coach someone from the other side so they could have a better voice in the blogosphere.
I now know that his request for coaching was a subterfuge, at the behest of the Labour party in order to gain my trust.
I thought the campaign was weird enough, but this has now reached a new level of weirdness. The biggest issue of the moment is Cameron Slater – he was mentioned 124 times in Parliament this week!
I suspect 90% of the public are confused or bemused or both – or just change the channel when the latest politics story comes on.
Tags: Cameron Slater, John Key, Josh Forman
Cameron Slater blogged on Saturday about problems with cellphone coverage and how he was considering swapping telcos to get better coverage.
Cameron blogs how soon after that he got a call from the CE of Spark Home, Mobile and Business (Chris Quin) asking if they can help find a solution. And Quin phoned him from Singapore!
The following day, a solution had been installed.
Obviously Cameron got preferential service, as he has the most read blog in NZ. But that makes the response even smarter. A phone call from the CE has led to great publicity for Spark, and shows their senior management to actually be in touch.Tags: Cameron Slater, Spark
This is the e-mail released by the PM’s Office. Obviously it has impacted Judith Collins, but if you read the whole thing you’ll see it backs something I have said consistently.
Cameron deals with a huge range of people, including Labour MPs, Green MPs, and almost every media organisation in NZ. The book only showed you his interactions with people associated with National, but this e-mail includes media contact with no less than four different journalists. One specific quote:
I am maintaining daily communications with Jared Savage at the Herald and he is passing information directly to me that the Herald can’t run and so are feeding me to run on the blog.
Now let me say again that what Cam says in an e-mail is his interpretation of events. I regard Jared Savage as an excellent investigative reporter. But the e-mail does lead to questions being asked. How is media giving Cam stories, different to a press secretary doing so?
Now again what Cam has written is his interpretation. It may not be the literal truth of what Jared was doing. But here’s the thing – you need to be consistent. If you accept everything in the e-mails written by Cam as the literal truth, then the NZ Herald was feeding stories to Whale Oil, which they could not run in their newspaper. If you do not accept those e-mails as the literal truth, then why would you accept the ones about interactions with people in National as the literal truth?
Is the Herald going to say that everything Cameron wrote about his dealings with us is incorrect, yet everything else is correct?
Will other media subject Herald reporters and editors to the same level of inquiry that they have subjected others named in the hacked e-mails to?
As I said I have high regard for Jared Savage. The point I am making is consistency.
Tags: Cameron Slater, Jared Savage, Media, NZ Herald
Yesterday there was some excitement over some e-mails from the Hager book which made it look like Cactus Kate had published Nicky Hager’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: Cactus Kate, Cameron Slater, Nicky Hager
The Press editorial:
A recent decision by a District Court judge that the well-known, some would say notorious, Whale Oil blog is not a news medium highlights the difficulty. …
In a paper on new media published last year, the Law Commission observed that bloggers are often highly partisan, can be offensive and abusive and are not accountable to anybody.
The commission later modified that view to note that some of New Zealand’s 200 or more current-affairs bloggers have become a rich alternative source of information and commentary.
The Whale Oil blog run by Cameron Slater certainly fits the commission’s first description. His commentary on a wide array of topics is heavily tendentious and often gratuitously rude.
His campaigns can also be wrong-headed, the most notable being a wildly irresponsible campaign a couple of years ago against name suppression that resulted in his incurring convictions and stiff fines.
But he also attracts more than 1 million visitors a month, more than the next five New Zealand bloggers put together and he has broken stories that have been taken up with gusto by other media.
These facts, Slater argued in the District Court recently, were sufficient to make him a journalist and his blog a news medium as defined in the Evidence Act.
He made the plea in order to be able to claim a protection provided by the act so he would not have to reveal his sources in a defamation action that has been brought against him. The judge rejected the submission.
While Slater’s blog is miles short of what most people would think of as a responsible medium that should be entitled to the protection of the law, the decision is almost certainly wrong.
Very good of The Press to argue that blogs can qualify for media protection. An unthinkable view from them a few years ago.
The Herald editorial agrees:
Blogger Cameron Slater has been told by a Manukau District Court judge his “Whaleoil” website is not a news medium. This will surprise everybody aware of the Len Brown affair. Whaleoil broke that story and was almost alone among news media in covering the seamy details. Muckraking to that degree might not be to everyone’s taste but if anybody wants to rake it or read it, they have a right to do so. The ruling by District Court Judge Charles Blackie will not stop them but it denies Whaleoil a right asserted by all news media to protect their sources from discovery in court.
The case has nothing to do with the Brown affair. Slater is defending an action for defamation on a different subject. The judge’s ruling is important for its general application to news and comment online, and possibly for the future regulation of mainstream media too.
The ruling does have wide ramifications.
The right that Slater seeks is not particularly generous, or final. If a case goes to the High Court, news media may be forced to betray a confidential source to the judge, who will decide whether confidentiality overrides other considerations in the case. Other jurisdictions give media freedom higher protection. A blogger might not have the means to challenge this ruling in a higher court but it should not stand. News comes in many and varied forms and the courts should recognise it when they see it.
Again, very welcome to see the Herald take this view.
Maybe the Newspaper Publishers Association Media Freedom Committee could consider assisting with the appeal?Tags: Cameron Slater, defamation, editorials, Media, Whale Oil
Media lawyer Steven Price blogs at Media Law Journal:
As the NZ Herald reports, the owner/operator/author of NZ’s most widely read blog is being sued for defamation. The plaintiff has formally asked him whether he knows the name of his source. (You might have thought that the answer to this might simply be “yes”. But I guess there’s an obvious follow-up). Slater has refused to answer on the grounds that he is a journalist, writing for a news medium, and therefore does not need to reveal his source. This rule is contained in s68 of the Evidence Act 2006.
Note a couple of things. First, in order to get this source protection, Slater has to show that his blog is a “medium for the dissemination to the public or a section of the public of news and observations on news.”
Second, even if he is a journalist, that doesn’t guarantee that he won’t be ordered to reveal his source(s). The judge can order him to identify his source on the grounds that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the negative impact on the source and the general impact on the flow of information to journalists. This rule applies to all journalists.
So if you are recognised as media, it does not mean you will automatically not have to reveal your sources. It means the threshold for you to be forced to reveal them is higher.
The Judge ruled:
Whale Oil is a blog site. It is not a news medium within the definition of s68… of the Defamation Act. It is not a means for the dissemination to the public or a section of the public of news and observation on news.
The judge gives very little reason for this conclusion. It seems a very questionable one. Whatever you think of WhaleOil, it’s hard to deny that he breaks news stories, and that he writes commentary on news. When you factor in the requirement that the courts are supposed to have regard to rights of freedom of expression under the Bill of Rights Act when interpreting statutes – and there’s a respectable argument that protecting sources facilitates the flow of important information – then there seems a powerful argument that this section ought to be construed widely enough to encompass at least some bloggers.
It is a pity the Judge gives no reasoning at all. As Steven says, the conclusion is questionable – at a minimum.
Yet another problem is that the Commission’s inclination was to allow bloggers to be included in the regime, on the grounds that it made no sense to distinguish between mainstream media and bloggers when both were serving the interests of free speech. It would have treated anyone as media who regularly published news and opinion of current value to a public audience, providing they agreed to be bound by an ethics regime. This last element is problematic for Cameron Slater’s case. But in the end the thrust of the report is the need to recognise the valuable news-role played by at least some bloggers.
So in the end, the judge’s conclusion is simply not convincing.
Basically the Law Commission actually said blogs should be able to qualify as media, so long as they had a code of ethics and were subject to an independent complaints process like other media.
It gets worse though. The judge goes on to consider the High Court rules. He cites a rule that says a defamation defendant doesn’t have to disclose sources before trial when pleading honest opinion or privilege. The judge says this rule doesn’t apply because Cameron Slater didn’t argue a defence of “honest opinion on a matter of public interest.” This reasoning seems particularly weird to me. The defence of honest opinion no longer requires that the comment be on a matter of public interest. He doesn’t need to plead public interest: it would be superfluous. It seems to me that this rule surely applies to a defendant who pleads honest opinion, which Slater did. So I think the judge is wrong there too.
All sounds ripe grounds for an appeal.
UPDATE: Russell Brown blogs on this issue also:
But this is really to misread the Commission’s overall perspective on blogs and similar internet publications – which is that they can and do play an important role in public debate. It ultimately proposed a new news media regulator, which blog publishers could opt to join and be subject to.
He also declares that Whale Oil fits the definition in the Evidence Act:
Whatever you think of Slater’s personal style, I don’t think you can reasonably argue that Whaleoil does not do this.
Brown looks at the wider ramifications:
On this site we do not and are not likely to attract defamation actions in the way that Cameron Slater does. But I was threatened with such action this year. I was aware at the time that a discovery order was a possibility if it went ahead – and also confident that discovery would not reveal anything harmful to my defence. Sources weren’t really an issue. But had things been different, it would have been extremely undesirable to have had my rights ruled out on the argument offered by Judge Blackie.
Anyway, Slater is appealing the decision and I don’t need to defend his work in this instance to hope he succeeds.
Maybe people can help donate to fund the appeal.
UPDATE2: Greg Presland at The Standard also blogs:
It may be that for the greater good Cameron Slater must succeed in his appeal.
Rare agreement across the political spectrum.Tags: Cameron Slater, defamation, Steven Price, Whale Oil
Normally I call these posts winners and losers but in this case there are far more losers than winners. Let’s take them in approximate order.
- Len Brown. May keep his job but not his credibility or dignity. If he holds on he is a lame duck Mayor who will face three years of people tittering about him at public events. No real chance of winning a third term. Faces weeks or more of investigations into whether there was improper spending, his providing a reference to Chuang etc.
- Luigi Wewege. Exposed as a liar, and someone who uses a romantic relationship to pressure his partner into political favours. Now a household name in a bad way. Political future is non-existent.
- Bevan Chuang. She’s had her criminal history exposed, her love life, and her employment history, Worse, she did it all voluntarily with a giggling tape recording of her exploits with Brown, and a sworn affidavit. While she attracts a lot of sympathy as being somewhat naive, she also has no political future.
- Jock Anderson. Fired as NBR Chief Reporter for writing an editorial supporting Brown keeping his job against alleged instructions for NBR to take a neutral line on the issue.
- John Palino. Palino has done nothing wrong, and I do not believe for a second he knew anything of this. However the actions of Wewege have created a perception that will leave doubts with some. An unfortunate victim, who might have been Mayor if the affair had been exposed before the election.
- The threatening texter. The person who sent the threatening text to Chuang pushed this issue into the open. A huge backfire. Will their identity be revealed, and who may they damage by association when it comes out?
- The voters of Auckland. They have to wait three years (unless Brown resigns) to have their say on whether they found the behaviour acceptable.
- Cameron Slater. As the Civilian points out Whale likes nothing more than page views and visits. He’s had 750,000 page views in two days. He not only broke the story, but covered himself by insisting on tape recordings and sworn affidavits. Cameron doesn’t want to be liked – he wants to be relevant, and this week he has set the news.
- Cameron Brewer. Brewer wisely didn’t contest the 2013 Mayoral elections. He must now be a front-runner for 2016.
- Penny Hulse. She doesn’t want the job, but if Brown resigns she is the most likely candidate for the left, and could well end up Mayor. Will depend who stands against her.
In terms of the story itself, the Herald reports:
Bevan Chuang is confident Len Brown will be cleared by a spending inquiry in the wake of their extra-marital affair, saying he paid for everything out of his own pocket.
However, she believed that some of the rooms he booked for the pair were offered free of charge by hotel managers. …
Ms Chuang said she met Mr Brown three times at the Langham, SkyCity Grand and Hilton hotels for sex after collecting the keys to the rooms from reception at the Town Hall.
A spokeswoman for the Hilton said the hotel would not give complimentary rooms to Mr Brown, while a spokeswoman for SkyCity Grand would not comment on guests for privacy reasons. A spokesman for the Langham did not return a phone message. …
The 32-year-old former mistress said: “He sometimes takes some time off and goes to hotel rooms, and quite a few times managers would tell him ‘it’s fine,
it’s on us. We can organise somewhere private for you’.
“He often feels uncomfortable and wanted to go down and pay but usually the manager would [insist] ‘no no, it’s on us’.”
The rooms also came with antipasto food platters and nuts, she said.
Ms Chuang believed the rooms were offered free to Mr Brown so that he could “talk about” and “recommend it” for council patronage.
I think the only thing which might be worse than having had the Council pay for hotel rooms for the trysts with your mistress, was if the hotels were providing free rooms for the trysts. It’s like he’s the Prime Minister of Italy.
Just imagine if Sky City were providing free hotel rooms for Mayoral trysts, at the same time as Len Brown was backing the convention centre deal with them? Hard to argue that is not a public issue.
Mr Brown would check-in at the hotel himself and then arrange for a spare room key to be delivered back to the council in an envelope addressed to Ms Chuang.
Ms Chuang, who also speaks Cantonese and Mandarin, claimed Mr Brown used the mayoral car and driver to pick up and drop her off on two occasions when he took her to council dinners as his interpreter.
Again, hard to argue that this isn’t use of Council resources.
In another story the Herald reports:
Auckland Mayor Len Brown and council chief executive Doug McKay are refusing to answer key questions arising from the mayor’s extra-marital affair with Bevan Chuang, including whether he breached the council’s code of conduct.
The two most powerful figures at the council have stonewalled the Herald for two days on whether Mr Brown has broken council rules and what the rules are for council staff having sex in the workplace. …
Mr Brown and Mr McKay also refused to say if Ms Chuang had a council contract at the New Lynn market. She claimed to be paid $500 a week by the council as a co-ordinator at the market.
So if I have this right:
- Chuang was a Mayoral appointee to the Ethnic Panel – personally appointed and re-appointed by the Mayor
- Chuang gained a job at a Council CCO after the Mayor provided her with a glowing reference
- Chuang has a Council contract as a market co-ordinator
Again, makes it very hard to argue this is entirely a private matter.
Len Brown and council chief executive Doug McKay have yet to answer the following:
• Did [Mr Brown’s actions providing a reference for Bevan Chuang] comply with the Council Code of Conduct, including the Conflicts of Interest Policy and the guidelines of the Office of the Auditor-General?
• Did the mayor seek advice from the chief executive or the Office of the Auditor-General before deciding to provide a reference or act as a referee?
• Did the mayor provide any other references/act as a referee for Ms Chuang on other occasions?
• Has Ms Chuang been contracted by the council in any other capacity, including the New Lynn market?
• What are the rules around council staff having sex in the workplace?
Len’s now cancelled all appointments for two days in a row. The story will not go away until he fully fronts, and these questions are answered,Tags: Auckland Council, Bevan Chuang, Cameron Brewer, Cameron Slater, Jock Anderson, John Palino, Len Brown, Luigi Wewege, Penny Hulse, Whale Oil
The Herald Diary notes:
Last week’s radio survey results yielded little groundbreaking news with both networks spinning their own positive picture about their commercial and talkback stations.
MediaWorks announced RadioLive increased its listeners by 14 per cent nationwide and golden boy Duncan Garner had a 141 per cent increase on his drive show.
That’s a huge coup. However, Willie Jackson and John Tamihere, whose show precedes Garner’s, made few gains.
Sources in radio circles say their afternoon talkback show is likely to be rejigged now Tamihere is plotting a political comeback.
RadioLive bosses told The Diary there are no immediate changes afoot, but “it’s no secret John has never got politics out of his system and who knows what could happen down the track”.
So, who could fill the void alongside Willie? Here are our picks:
1. Cameron Slater – He’s polarising and partisan, but can cross-pollinate via his widely viewed website.
2. Linda Clark – Her school ma’am whip-cracking is TV gold, but she’s unlikely to forgo Chapman Tripp responsibilities.
3. Paul Henry – If he actually liked talkback he’d be a welcome return. He’s in the MediaWorks stable and his TV show is yet to have a start date, so maybe he can be persuaded.
4. Mark Sainsbury – He wants a job in media and is already a contributor to the station.
5. Grant Dalton – Does he have a job? He’s certainly got plenty of opinions, mostly sporting, unfortunately.
6. Anna Guy – She’s desperate to be a media star, but with a fifth kid on the way and limited views beyond motherhood and Feilding farming she’s an unlikely contender.
7. Rachel Hunter – She’s a bona fide media star with a big TV following. But can she make the transition to radio?
Cameron Slater and Paul Henry would be a great combination. They’d also keep the BSA in full-time employmentTags: Cameron Slater, Paul Henry, Radio Live
So Labour have refused media accreditation to Cameron Slater to report on the open sessions of the Labour Party conference, despite the fact he is the editor of a newspaper. At least Muldoon only banned cartoonists!
It’s a strange decision, when you consider how much space Slater as Editor is giving the left in Truth. He has four left columnists:
- Former Alliance MP WIllie Jackson
- Former Labour MP Stuart Nash
- Former Labour candidate Josie Pagani
- Left commentator Chris Trotter
Truth has announced:
Internet shock jock goes mainstream
“Wellington, you’re on notice – be afraid.”
New Zealand’s number 1 news and opinion blogger Cameron Slater has today been appointed Editor of the Truth.
Truth is New Zealand’s last remaining Kiwi-owned national newspaper which this year turns 125 years old.
Slater has been brought on board to fundamentally change the way newspapers deliver to their audiences. Newspapers worldwide are in decline, due, Slater says, to a tired old business model that no longer works.
“We’re not going to spend $4 million on a paint job and then deliver the same tired old paid-for shit.
“Most of the media in this country is weak, and it’s paid for. The integrity in news went ages ago.”
Slater is adamant that the backbone of New Zealand – the people who work – are not getting a fair shake from government or the system. He aims to change that.
“Each and every one of us has got an investment in NZ Inc, and the majority of the people in charge of the place are taking the piss out of our investment.
“We’re going to keep the buggers honest. There’s no better disinfectant than sunlight.
“To use a tired phrase – if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear, so Wellington, you’re on notice – if you’re having a lend, we’re coming for you!”
Changes will be rolled out over a period of months and will include both print and a 24 hour news website to support the paper. Slater aims to alter the approach to news presentation significantly.
“We took the pulse of the nation, and it had nearly bloody died.
“No bastard wants to read old news – they can get that online. We’ll be more of a views-paper that promises to deliver REAL news, REAL opinion.
“The people are numb from the eyes down with the diet of PR’d crap they get now. I will not do it to them anymore – it’s not right.
“I assure you – the little paper that could still can!”
There will be further announcements regarding contributors and editorial direction.
Slater’s first issue will hit newsstands on Thursday 8 November 2012.
Congratulations to Cam. That is a huge vote of confidence in his abilities. He hasn’t become most read blogger by accident, and he will bring his tenacity to his new role. A blogger becoming a print (and web) editor might be a first – at least for New Zealand.
I’m looking forward to the first issue..Tags: Cameron Slater, Truth
Peter Burns has e-mailed to say it was not him, who made the post on Cam Slater’s blog about his mother’s death. A search on the IP address shows it was an IP address never used by Peter, so I apologise to Peter who is a victim of malicious impostering. This means Peter is not banned for life, but he is still suspended until December for other comments.
The IP address, 22.214.171.124, has been used three times within 24 hours of the post on Cam’s blog by the commenter Luke Mutton here. The e-mail address “Luke” uses” is email@example.com. It is impossible to prove it is “Luke”, but it is very rare for two strangers to use the same IP address within 24 hours – and both be blog commenters.
A domain name lookup on yourvet.co.nz shows the registrant to be Flair Web Works Ltd, firstname.lastname@example.org. That company was deregistered in 2007. It’s shareholder and director was David Brindley. The fact Brindley is the registrant for the domain does not mean he is “Luke Mutton”. But it does mean he knows who “Luke Mutton” is – at least.
One of our commenters has posted on Brindley in the past.
The e-mail address email@example.com used to be used by My Name is Jack, who has been suspended four times from Kiwiblog. Luke Mutton is now banned. I think the same person was also Billy Borker who has also been suspended four times. He has a history of very abusive behaviour.
It is possible that “Luke Mutton” was not responsible for the impersonation of Peter and that awful comment on Cam’s blog, just as Peter wasn’t. If “Luke” wishes to get his ISP, Adam Internet, to contact me and certify that his account was not using that IP address at the date and time the comment was made, I’ll consider that.
I am not saying David Brindley made the comment. I am saying the comment was made from an IP address used within 24 hours by an e-mail address at a domain Brindley controls.
Personally I regard such malicious impersonation to be the despicable. Bad enough to make such a comment, but even worse to try and set up someone else to be blamed for it. Again my apologies to Peter.Tags: Cameron Slater, David Brindley, Peter Burns
Tomorrow I have a special treat for readers.
John Pagani and I will be hosting an hour of morning talkback at NewstalkZB Wellington.
Sean Plunket is away and so we are doing a filler spot for him. It will be no holds barred crossfire from the two of us with talkback.
Unfortunately for Auckland listeners you will have stream it live if you want to listen to me smack up Pagani…again. Wellington listeners can tune in on 89.3FM 1035AM.
Whale and Pagani on air for an hour together should be like sticking a mongoose and a rattlesnake in a small container and watching the mayhem.
Highly recommended listening. They are on from 11 am to 12 noon tomorrow (Monday).Tags: Cameron Slater, John Pagani, NewstalkZB
Pat Brittenden used to be on NewstalkZB and is now a host on Radio Rhema. He blogs:
Let me start by saying this, I am not anti union. If you look at my record I have supported Union’s causes more times than I have criticized them as can be seen in a post I wrote about the NZEI and National Standards 18 months ago. The interactions and opinions I share now about the Unions and the Ports are solely based on this issue and not a a past of blindly supporting either the Left or Right of this, or any other conversations, about Unions past, present or future.
I wrote a post last week about an interview I did with Garry Parsloe from the Maritime Union but as most talkbacks listeners will be aware this conversation has continued on. Prior to this conversation I had no position on who I believed was right in the debate, and to be honest to this date I would still say that I don’t believe there are any innocent parties here, I don’t believe either side truly bargained in good faith and through obstinate belligerence from both sides we are now at an impasse. For me though the case set before the public now has demonstrated that the Ports in this case are ‘closer’ to being correct that the Unions without the ‘rose tinted glasses’ idea that they have done no wrong.
And now to the specific issue:
Subsequent to yesterdays show we received a call to my producers cell phone from Helen Kelly from the CTU.
Couple of things about the answer phone message. If there has been a slandering of a Port worker I would of course retract and apologise, but from listening to the audio I don’t believe there has been. For me to ‘give [Cameron Slater] space’ on the station being a concern for Helen Kelly is ironic as we have had on Garry Parsloe so many times the news room jokes about giving him his own slot. The opinions and spokespeople for the union position have had far more airtime on my network than the counter view which you heard via Cameron Slater and for Ms. Kelly to say we needed to‘rectify’ the situation implies that we have done something wrong, which I don’t believe we have. I also got the feeling that there were threatening undertones when Ms. Kelly informed us that ‘[we] were liable for that as well’.
Pat has a recording of the phone call at his site.Tags: Cameron Slater, CTU, Helen Kelly, Pat Brittenden
Did my $1,000 donation today, as promised for the Mallard-Slater race. I said I’d donate $1,000 to CCS if Mallard won or $1,000 to the Mental Health Foundation if Slater won. So CCS Disability Action got the donation.
Sadly it looks like there won’t be a sequel boxing match for me to sponsor/donate toTags: Cameron Slater, CCS, Trevor Mallard
Congrats to Trevor Mallard who won the 60 km bike race against Whale Oil by several kms at least. He’s just crossed the line. Trevor has done a very good job of downplaying expectations, and exceeding them on the day.
I did note earlier this month:
I’d have to say that Trevor would be considered the favourite and Cameron the underdog.
Trevor is basically a professional full-time cyclist, an amateur part-time blogger and an occasional MP. He did the 160 km Taupo cycle race in under 5 hours in 2009. Off memory he was in the top 5% of cyclists for his age group.
Cameron got on a bicycle around three months ago for the first time in 10+ years. Now Cameron has been training pretty hard, doing 20 km rides most days. But Trevor used to be able to do 20 kms in around half an hour. Whale does have a slight advantage with the course being local to him.
Now of course the big factor is Trevor’s bike crash and broken bones. If Trevor had not had his injury, it wouldn’t even be a contest. What we don’t know is to what extent Trevor is still injured. The crash was just over four and a half months ago which normally would be enough time to rebuild some of the leg muscles etc. And I suspect his overall level of fitness is still pretty good.
I was tempted to joke about what an achievement it is to beat a sickness beneficiary who hadn’t been on a bike for 10 years, until three months ago, but that would be unfair to Trevor who did have a pretty nasty injury to overcome. Full credit to him.
In one sense I think the race has been a win-win. It gave Trevor the motivation to get back on the bike seriously, and it gave Whale the motivation to get seriously into shape and be better both physically and mentally.
Anyway congrats to Trevor and Cameron, and I look forward to donating $1,000 to the CCS far more than I suspect Cactus will enjoy donating $1,000 to the Labour Party!Tags: Cameron Slater, cyclimg, Trevor Mallard, Whale Oil
David Fisher in HoS:
In a year of mismatched and painful political races, tomorrow’s is likely to be the silliest.
The blogger known as Whaleoil will face off against the “bovver boy” of the Labour Party in a 60-kilometre bicycle race in Auckland’s eastern suburbs.
In a sport often called “chess on wheels”, the bike race between Cameron ‘Whaleoil’ Slater and Trevor ‘Duck’ Mallard will hear little mention of the word “mate'”.
There is mutual loathing.
That’s a little tough. More opponents than enemies.
The contest came after Slater goaded Mallard by calling him “cripple” over his badly broken leg.
The elder statesman of the Labour Party lashed back, calling the comfortably-padded Slater “blubber boy'”.
“I bet he is too chicken,” Mallard said.
Well, he did accept.
It is worth remembering that Trevor did challenge Whale and call him chicken. So Whale had little choice but to accept.
And Slater – known for obsessively hounding issues – has turned his compulsive nature to the race and cycled about 15kg off his frame.
Best thing Labour has ever done for Cameron.
Slater, who Mallard calls an “obsessive character”, is relentless.
“He is a cripple. And he’s running a crippled campaign.'”
Slater has been in training and, as his physical fitness improved, so did his mental health.
Slater had publicly struggled with depression, and credits getting off anti-depressants, good vitamin B levels and a good diet with the improvement.
I should see if Trevor would challenge me to a half marathon – could be just the motivation I need
Otago University zoologist Philip Seddon said whales in the wild would always be faster than ducks.
“Almost whatever kind of whale you thought about,” he says.
Seddon – who runs the university’s Wildlife Management Programme – said smaller whales were faster.
Slater’s time could, perhaps, dictate whether the blogger was truly small and dangerous.
“Maybe he’s an orca… a killer whale,” said Seddon.
I love how they went to a zoologist for a comment!
The race starts at 1.30pm tomorrow, at Musick Point reserve at Auckland’s Buckland Beach.
If you’re up in Auckland go along to view the fun!Tags: Cameron Slater, cycling, Trevor Mallard, Whale Oil
On Friday Trevor Mallard got upset that Whale Oil had called him a cripple and challenged Whale to a bike race, saying Whale would be too chicken and if he accepted he would not have a chance.
Yesterday Whale accepted the challenge so long as he can get provided a bike and that there be a second sport of his choosing – preferably boxing or shooting.
Cactus Kate has also jumped in, and offered $1,000 prize money. It goes to Labour if Trevor wins and ACT if whale wins. Kate also challenged me to match her grand.
I’m not overly keen to donate to ACT or Labour, but have agreed to donate $1,000 to charity based on who wins.
My $1,000 donation is dependent on Whale and Trevor actually agreeing to details of the competition (such as whether it is one sport or two) and actually competing. No donation if one defaults and it doesn’t happen. I’d also insist on them agreeing on an independent Judge to determine the winner.
If Whale wins I will donate $1,000 to the Mental Health Foundation.
If Trevor wins I will donate $1,000 to the Crippled Children Society, now known as CCS.Tags: Cactus Kate, Cameron Slater, DPF, Trevor Mallard, Whale Oil
Whale Oil blogs:
Trevor Mallard has issued a challenge. As is usual for the cripple he has picked the one sport he is good at it (if you can all it a sport) and he has also picked on the wrong person for a challenge.
So Trevor, I accept your challenge
Excellent, and this will give Trevor a real incentive to get back in shape.
Firstly, I need a bike, not just any bike the same bike you use. We have to race using exactly the same equipment. It is only fair. The only difference will be the riders. A Cripple vs a Whale.
Secondly, the race will be on August 15 and I pick 60kms for the distance, if you are going to go, go big.
I suspect there will be a large media contingent following the race.
Thirdly, since you picked a sport that you excel at, it is only fair that there be a counter-challenge and I choose boxing. You mentioned your “fear” of my excessive bulk. I currently weigh 105kg. You stated in the comments on Red Alert that if I got training then I would lose 30kg and you’re are probably right, therefore there should be no reason other than your cowardice for rejecting a boxing match 8 weeks after our cycle race.
I understand that the boxing match will be pay per view, and that all proceeds from the match would go towards helping the recovery in Christchurch.Tags: Cameron Slater, Trevor Mallard, Whale Oil
The Labour Party Campaign Manager has come up with a genius way for Labour to win the election.
Trevor has challenged Whale Oil to a cycle race.
Now Whale does not have a cycle, and isn’t going to buy one just for Trevor, but I understand he does like the idea of a sporting challenge between him and Trevor. He has proposed two sports, and is willing to let Trevor choose his preferred one – shooting or boxing.Tags: Cameron Slater, Trevor Mallard, Whale Oil
David Fisher in the HoS reports:
A prominent blogger is planning a book exposing philandering politicians to coincide with the election.
Blogger Cameron Slater plans to dish the dirt on male and female MPs from across the political spectrum.
He said he had kiss-and-tell stories from women who claimed to have had affairs with male politicians, including one who said she had slept with three past and present ministers.
Other sources included drivers and security staff.
“If you’re an MP and you’re partying, it’s game over,” said Slater. “The benchmark will be unethical behaviour.”
The book should be called the help keep the legal profession afloatTags: Cameron Slater
The SST reports:
Left wing union leader Matt McCarten has performed a triple flip flop over endorsing a candidate for Auckland Council’s Albany ward.
McCarten formed the website supercitypicks.co.nz to help voters select a left-leaning Auckland Council in the upcoming local body elections. …
But yesterday McCarten withdrew his support for Williams entirely.
“Originally I thought progressives should support Andrew Williams. But my leftist and even centrist mates gave me a biff on two fronts,” McCarten wrote.
“That he’s made his city a laughing stock and he’s totally self absorbed and even his own allies have deserted him. The other reason is that he knows he had no chance to win as mayor and is deliberately drawing votes away from the only other candidate Len Brown who can beat John Banks.
“Privately he claims to support Brown, yet is helping Banks by not telling voters his real position. On that basis he’s a fraud and shouldn’t be supported by progressives.”
McCarten said Slater was “the only other candidate I know in that ward with any chance of winning”. He said the blogger was right of politics but “has a social conscience, does volunteer work and has a good brain”.
Yep that’s right, Matt McCarten did endorse Whale Oil for Council. And he called Andrew Williams a fraud.
One can only imagine the howls of outrage and anguish on the left. Matt’s own UNITE staff probably threatened to picket him. And so he flipped again:
However less than 24 hours later McCarten had withdrawn his support for Slater and replaced it with a new endorsement. “My progressive advisors tell me I should be supporting John Kirikiri as the best of the rest”.
Position No 3.
But, when Stuff called McCarten today to ask why he was making constant changes to his Albany ward endorsements he said he would be removing his tick for Kirikiri and reinstating Williams as the preferred contender.
“I hadn’t done my homework but I have now read all of the candidates’ policies and have decided Williams is the man for the job.”
He said Williams had been “an embarrassment with his behaviour” but had the best policies “and policies are how we should judge the candidates”.
I disagree with Matt. Policies are important. But so is judgement, temperment, and rationality.
Following his removal from McCarten’s endorsement list Williams let rip on Facebook about the well-known union leader.
“He should know better than to make such irresponsible statements about me a sitting mayor. I don’t even know the man, have never had a conversation with him, so it’s extraordinary that he would comment like that. But very telling that he initially endorsed that disturbed psycho nutter Cameron Slater then withdrew it.”
When Williams does rants like that, the term “disturbed psycho nutter” seems like a form of projection.Tags: Andrew Williams, Auckland Council, Cameron Slater, Matt McCarten