Conservatives’ Colin Craig vows to be ‘less casual’ about conspiracies

In response to this fiasco

Click to read at NZ Herald.co.nz

Click to read at NZ Herald.co.nz


Someone on the Conservative Party website asks …

What’s the deal with all these ‘conspiracy theories’ that have been touted about in the media of late? The media are having a field day! It must be a low news week for them or something!
– Maria

“Here’s a response released by Colin Craig today;”

Ask Colin Conservative Party

Mischievous Media should not lose sight of Main Issues

Thursday, 5 December 2013, 1:36 pm
Press Release: Conservative Party
Mischievous Media should not lose sight of Main Issues

Colin Craig says he “hopes the media who have in the past few days mischievously and inaccurately credited him with a belief in conspiracy theories will not be forgetting that this Christmas there are New Zealanders who are facing major challenges.”

“I have recently returned from Christchurch where many homes are still not repaired and it’s finding solutions to problems like that that occupies my time” he said “not keeping current on the latest conspiracy theories. I realise people can get very serious about these theories but I haven’t had the time to look into them.”

“I believe I have now been asked about at least a dozen different conspiracy theories and my answer remains the same. I simply don’t know enough about theories to give comment and suggest the questions be asked of those who are better informed on them. Refusing to pass comment on these matters is not the same as believing the theories are true. “

Mr Craig said he is “taking the mischief making by media in good humour”, although he was a bit surprised when a friend contacted him yesterday concerned that Mr Craig may be in doubt about the moon landings. “I admit that surprised me” says Mr Craig

“Certainly the media are making a good story out of this and using a fair bit of licence. I have always thought man did go to the moon and said so to media interviewers but not all media chose to portray my views that way”. Mr Craig joked that he has “rejected the conspiracy theory that suggests the media are alien beings despite their unpredictable behaviour.”

In response to the Prime Ministers suggestion that Mr Craig is winding the media up deliberately Mr Craig admitted his “casual responses have been provocative”. “I shall be less casual with my responses in the future” says Mr Craig[.]


I must say, that vow to be ‘less casual with my responses’ echoes this from John Key, remember?:
John Key toughens up? “Forearmed is forewarned (sic), I’m going to change.”

How’s that working out?

– P

Part of the news media? or a “PR blog” dedicated to “destroying” reputations?

Mallard wins the race in the real world. Slater not fast enough to live up to his own hype. (Pic: Peter Aranyi)

2011: Mallard wins the race in the real world. Slater simply not fast enough to live up to his own trash-talk. (Pic: Peter Aranyi) – click for link

Apparently attack-blogger Cameron Slater is considering appealing a recent court judgement denying him a journalist’s conditional protection of sources.

The ‘whale oil’ blogger, with close links to the National government including his pick for next leader of the Party, Justice Minster Judith Collins, is facing trial next year accused of defaming an Auckland businessman through a protracted series of negative and abusive posts published on his [apparently] widely-read website.

Many of the posts (since removed) published email communications and other business documents Cameron Slater says were supplied to him on a computer hard drive. The businessman claims the hard drive was stolen, although that is disputed. While not absolutely proven, it’s claimed in court papers (and it seems possible, if not likely) that the hard drive was provided to the blogger by one or more former business associates of the target. It’s also claimed he met with the sources: “The meetings were held for the purpose of collating and providing information for the Whaleoil Website”, documents before the court claim. (see: scoop.co.nz PDF)

What’s unclear (and we’ll get to it below) is whether Cameron Slater carried out the systematic campaign of published attacks on the businessman as a commercial venture (i.e. remunerated in some form by the businessman’s estranged former associates) or whether he did it as a promotional exercise for his website (he ran teaser ads promoting advertising spots on his website in the midst of the ‘campaign’ against the businessman), or as a hobby. I guess he could also claim to have done it as a public service.

Whatever Cameron Slater says, my own observation of the campaign leads me to see it as the outworking of a vendetta — I don’t know whose. At question is: Was its motivation personal or was it ‘professional’?

Let me say up front that based on my personal experience and observations, I have come to regard Cameron Slater as a dishonest manipulator of information and ‘facts’. He has admitted lying to my face. As a result, frankly, I no longer believe anything Cameron Slater says or writes (especially any denials) unless I can verify it separately. (Sad, but there it is.)

In preparation for the substantive court trial, Judge Charles Blackie ordered Discovery of all relevant documentation held by either party. Cameron Slater has objected to supplying information which would/could identify his ‘source or sources’ — the person or persons who supplied him with the computer hard drive and any other documentation. His lawyer Jordan Williams (yes, the same Jordan Williams we discuss here from time to time) in a well-written Court filing submitted that Cameron Slater’s ‘source or sources’ should be protected since … Continue reading →

Still one of my favourite photos of John Banks

So, facing trial for offences against the Electoral Act (no pun intended) John Banks is bowing out. See: Banks shuffles towards retirement stuff.co.nz

No retrospective view of his career would be complete without mention of the now infamous ‘cup of tea’ with John Key at Newmarket’s Urban café. I was lucky enough to get a lift from Mr Banks to the event in his yellow ACT Party sign-written car. What transpired was a political stunt which became a farce when the Prime Minister refused to go further than ‘sending a clear signal’ to Epsom voters. A ‘dirty deal’ Patrick Gower insists on calling it — well, maybe he’s got a point.

I believe the slide in the Prime Minister’s popularity (at least with the media) was worsened by that event and the aftermath of the ‘teapot tapes’ investigation. Police were called to the Beehive and tasked with serving search warrants on newsrooms … and there were heavy-handed police threats to other media.

The Henry inquiry into the leaked Kitteridge report — an inquiry which trampled news media rights and protections with invasive surveillance of Fairfax’s intrepid Andrea Vance — was a clear outworking of the same Nixonian ‘media as enemy’ mindset which, sadly, seems to exist in some members of the Key Administration. Pity.

Anyway, this isn’t the time to go into all that.

Goodbye Mr Banks.

Well, it was hardly a private chat anyway ... but leaving a recording device on the table? Doh. (pic: Peter Aranyi)

Well, it was hardly a private chat anyway … but leaving a recording device on the table? Doh. (pic: Peter Aranyi)

For context see: Mystery object was a bug!

– P

You may also be interested in reading: Is John Key ‘hugging a corpse’? Does he have a choice?

“Only one blogger has the courage to tell the truth…” (Psst: It ain’t @whaleoil)

“Sometimes the blogosphere can become a Terror Dome…” (Man, I can almost hear Juana’s voice.*)

Enjoy it!

– P

* You know, “…the whole internet was ablaze with the news of him becoming the Editor of Truth.”

I’m guessing the Ports of Auckland company PAID to ‘quietly’ settle their privacy breaches

A whimper, a confidentiality agreement and a bank transfer — that seems the likely end to the Ports of Auckland’s dirty tricks PR campaign against its unionised workers [details here: Of bloggers, dogs and fleas. The Ports of Auckland’s ‘ethical and legal breaches’].

click to read at NBR

click to read at NBR

I almost (almost) feel sorry for companies who are ‘sold’ on the supposed power of ‘influencers’ like attack-blogger Cameron Slater by their PR flacks. It must sound so appealing. (Well, until you’re caught out and the NZ Herald calls your dubious actions ‘lamentable‘.)

Someone within the company had decided to hit back at unionist critics by way of the personnel filing cabinet. Someone on the industrial, human resources or public relations strategy teams, no doubt. Someone sufficiently senior to risk ethical and legal breaches to send a message to the union that fire would be met with fire.

Here’s the test: If readers don’t know the ‘influence’ is being paid for … it’s dodgy.

And on that topic, undeclared payments, I don’t believe the weasel words expressed in this inane ‘explanation’ from a year ago:


Cameron Slater interviewed by Russell Brown on Media3 Nov 2012 (MP3 file here)

(see details here: ‘As playful as he is psychotic’).

Some discussion in comments here.

– P

One day in lobbyist land …

Chorus goes to court

for Matthew Hooton and Carrick Graham.

– P

You may also be interested in: It’s only ‘propaganda’ if you’re talking about the other side, right, Carrick? and Smoke gets in your eyes, Carrick?

Movie credit: My son.

The escape of exnzpat, Part 17

The First Bait of the Innocent

Wormwood looked much the same as I had left it before I had slept.  I was wearing only my shirt and pants.  My socks and shoes were still drying on a rock beside the fire.  Becky had my jacket.  Sometime during our sleep, it had become hers.  Gently, I lifted it from her.  She rolled away but did not wake.  I skipped across to the wall of the cave to where we had piled our firewood and, retrieving an armload returned and dumped it onto the fire as quietly as I could so as not to wake her.

Of Lincoln and Lilith, there was no sight. Continue reading →

Not just a fake Facebook account, but a demeaning, pornographic one.

click to read at Salon.com

click to read at Salon.com


Not a new story, but I came across it again … disgusting.

As noted here previously, about the time I was tackling some internet marketing ‘gurus’ (and, I guess, hurting their feelings) several fake blogs were set up using my name and linking to derogatory statements about me.

That was water off a duck’s back, but read this article about someone’s experience of a nasty fake Facebook profile … all Facebook has done is get bigger and bigger, making it a slow giant when it comes to cleaning up stuff like this — and less and less ‘private’.

This author, Susan Arnout Smith, faced a more serious problem. And, bewilderingly for her, for no reason she could identify.

Read on at Salon.com

– P

“You just feel kind of satisfied with your products, and then you die.”

Nice to hear Louis CK saying these things out loud.

– P

Piercing the veil. Why I think Martyn is a bully.

Martyn Bradbury

Martyn Bradbury

A couple of years ago, in a post ‘Bradbury: Martyr or moderated troll?‘, I declared this about Martyn Bradbury:

Let me be clear about my own opinion of Martyn: I think he is a sloganeering polemicist. He is also, in my personal opinion, a devious smear artist who hysterically espouses extraordinary anti-democratic ‘positions’, [see On a collision course] and wages ‘war’ on people he regards as ‘enemies’. In my observation he seeks to denigrate and libel his political opposites (of which I am not one) while dressing in left wing, liberal, culturally appropriate ‘clothing’ as if he were a politically-switched on version of comic Te Radar (he wishes!)

Yeah, OK, that’s pretty harsh. Despite occasional flashes of cooperativeness and some good MC performances around the anti-GCSB bill campaign (pic), it seems to me Martyn has become even more shrill and, by appearances, only more bitter in protecting his ‘patch’ since I wrote that.

Last night someone directed me to a post at Martyn’s Daily Blog where he set out to attack a couple of fellow bloggers — in fact, former contributors to his latest left-wing new media project.

At times it seems to me that Martyn aims to out-oil Cameron Slater’s often nasty attack blog. These two, Cameron and Martyn, sadly appear to be two sides of the same dysfunctional coin with their (how many ways can I say ‘petulant and nasty’?) approach, often smearing and/or denigrating people one might have supposed were on their ‘side’. (Yes, the irony is not lost on me.)

Cameron Slater has a tactic (a filthy habit) of trying to reach into people’s real lives as ‘retribution’ for their online opposition to him or his heroes and heroines.

As I have recounted (details in the Bradbury post above), when ‘bested’ or even just challenged in an online discussion/argument/confrontation, Cameron will publish posters’ real names, email addresses, places of employment — their identity, in other words. (Forget any assurance his website may offer about ‘Your email will not be published’.) Cameron threatens to and has formally complained to his cyber-antagonists’ employers (or called out to his ‘army’ of perspiring keyboard warriors to do so) —  trying to impose a real world ‘penalty’ for an online disagreement. It is loathsome.

Now it seems Martyn Bradbury is doing the same thing.

Continue reading →

Won’t somebody, please … think of the editors?

I’m in the early stages of editing a book. So this made me chuckle …

typo-errorists

(I’m not saying I’m better than anybody.)

– P

Via: Jess SilverGreenberg

Apropos the Willie & JT thing, read this excellent* Metro editorial by Simon Wilson

A taste:

… That’s what makes the response of Willie Jackson and John Tamihere so appalling. They can reasonably be called role models for those young men, which meant they had a particular responsibility. Every decent-minded person the Roast Busters might have listened to was duty-bound to say, “What you do and think is wrong.” Good ol’ Willie and JT chose instead to talk about “a bit of mischief” and imply the girls in question might have been complicit in the crimes against them.

The argument that women who wear a short skirt or get drunk are asking for it is medieval: it’s one of the things we like to say is appalling about the Taliban.

Actually, it’s worse, because it suggests men believe there are times when women license them to become barbarians. Why would anyone believe that might be true?

We want boys to understand right and wrong in sexual relations. We also want girls to know they can speak up, say no when they want to and complain when they need to. Jackson and Tamihere didn’t just telegraph their blessing to the Roast Busters; they also reinforced how humiliating and pointless it might be for young women to speak out.

Boys are indulged, girls are doubted. Many women will say it was ever thus.

Read it all: The Best and the Worst of Auckland.

Good on him.

– P

* Where by ‘excellent’, I mean I agree with him.

Now, if Cunliffe had joked that Judith Collins was a ‘troll’ …

Actually, I read this introduction to a David Cunliffe blog post (apparently. I haven’t read it) as jovial, a play on words.

“The original brief was to respond to a post by Judith Collins. My post was going to be about snapper, not trout. But considering that issue, along with Judith’s leadership aspirations, has floundered, I’ll try another hook.”

But, Shock! Horror! Sexist! apparently. (Even though Mrs Collins routinely refers to him in derogatory terms, complete with a boarding school-style nickname.)

Here. Try this (below). Not even Judith “Crusher” Collins’ most sensitive wee petals could deny it.

Cunliffe to Collins trout- troll-1

Surprise! They don’t like each other. Duh. (I’m sure they have their reasons.)

Politicians can be such dorks.

– P

Philosophy and slippery ethics

Reader & commenter here at The Paepae, Ivan the Terrible, asked me last night whether I ‘fancy’ myself as a philosopher. This was in the context of my post Settlement of legal action as a ‘peace premium’ about the wisdom/risk management of settling a dispute, where possible, rather than pursuing it through the courts.

I started an answer to him but then it branched … so here it is as a blog post. (Don’t read it if you have no appetite for my occasional self-reflective meandering.)

Philosopher? Who, me? Not really.

I remember getting a great big hardback Bertrand Russell book out of my college library … which impressed my dad … but at 15, I couldn’t really make sense of it.

Later, through friends, I was led to think deeply about about ethics — the same friends introduced me to people in a cult, the Children of God, who had apparently surrendered many of their life decisions to someone else, but whose ambiguous sexual morality made them … attractive. (Perfectly understandable, when I look back. Recruiting.)

My emerging sense of what I called then ‘social justice’ — but could just as easily be described as a simple awareness of power imbalances, fairness, and empathy, rather than any political or philosophical bent — plus an event which was in effect a fork in the road (the consequences of a poor choice on my part that let me glimpse a future I did not want) led me to take care about my own morality and how I treated myself and others. I saw actions had and have consequences.

Like most teenagers, I was acutely sensitive to the nexus of consistency vs hypocrisy … and, typically, judgmental of it in others. I became quite black-and-white and, as I have noted before, vastly intolerant of people expecting others to ‘lead’ them and make the hard decisions in their lives e.g. religious ‘shepherding’ and discipleship.

I am clumsy at times, even today, and can sometimes be harsh when exasperated or annoyed. I do my best but I fail, sometimes, to live up to my own standards. C’est la vie. See also Desiderata, which I cited here: Stress kills. Some more thoughts about litigation. Especially “As far as possible without surrender be on good terms with all persons.” Note the qualifiers.

Continue reading →

You’re an activist? That shows that you care about something

Returning briefly to the subject of ‘What sort of people are involved in politics?’ (Remember, hate-blogger Cameron Slater thinks they’re dirty, disgusting, despicable people playing a dirty, disgusting, despicable game) I saw this in my Twitter timeline recently:

Twitter _ ggreenwald_ _Activist_, noun_ someone whose ...

Yeah, I can see where Glenn Greenwald is coming from, if a little defensively. It’s so easy to sling off at somebody (‘You’re not a ‘real’ journalist, you’re an activist’, was the dismissive implication in Greenwald’s recent ‘dialogue’ with the NY Times‘ Bill Keller — full article here) but that’s not how I see activists.

It is unquestionably true that people in ‘the power elite’, elected officials/office holders/bureaucrats etc and their enablers in the media routinely disparage ‘activists’ as zealots, enthusiastic amateurs or single-issue nutters, and whatever else they can think of. Same with whistle-blowers.

Indeed, it’s normal for those in a bureaucracy to dismiss, sanction or otherwise attempt to stifle or discredit the outspoken — those whom they characterize as oddballs or whistle-blowers — or far too ‘committed’.

Conformity is by definition a narrowed path, and often passionless.

In most organisations (public or private sector) sticking to ‘procedure’ is encouraged and rewarded. Toeing the company line is de riguer, obligatory. Even if, as we have discussed, sometimes it means doing the ‘wrong’ thing the ‘right way’. That’s seen as defensible.

The courage to speak up

I have always seen people who give a damn (whatever their issue) as worth something … and their voices worthy of being heard — whether I necessarily agree with them or not.

What’s referred to so readily — free speech or freedom of expression — is a two-sided coin if ever there was one.

Freedom of speech is not the same a freedom from the consequences of one’s statements of expression. I’ve copped it for being outspoken at times, and while I’m not an overtly religious person, this speaks to me:

A man dies and comes before God.
God: “Where are your scars?”
“I have none.”
“Why? Was there nothing worth fighting for?”
David Wolpe

It’s also the law of the land that some expressions, or disclosures of information are ‘protected disclosures’ which makes it a criminal offence to persecute informants. (I’ve had reason to look at this recently. See my post ‘The challenge of dealing with a whistle-blower‘ which also, coincidentally cites Greenwald.) I don’t think it covers radio talkback hosts.

Willie and JT

I am, naturally, a long way short of justifying the [corrupt] Putin-regime’s brutal persecution of band members of Pussy Riot for daring to criticise him … but I’m actually OK with the way local Radio LIVE recently removed Willie Jackson and John Tamihere from their afternoon radio slot — even though as I have said, Willie & JT’s political panel was one of the best things on that station (in my opinion).

The action of Radio LIVE’s management to sanction the two radio hosts followed fiery public debate about rape apologetics/rape culture (at its worst, characterised by offensive ‘She was asking for it’-type justification and victim-blaming). The opprobrium directed at these two ‘personalities’ and community leaders, sparked by their treatment of a young woman talkback caller, was fierce. Fair enough.

Continue reading →