“What the hell?” indeed

An assault in Auckland has been reported: Police called to home of former Hell Pizza franchisee

An investigation is underway after a high-profile Auckland businessman needed hospital treatment at the weekend.

Police were called to a property in Greenhithe on Saturday night after reports two men were fighting and that a gunshot had been heard.

Matthew Blomfield has confirmed to RadioLIVE police were called to his home and that he was taken to North Shore Hospital with facial injuries.

The 38-year-old owned a number of Hell Pizza franchises until 2008, before they went into liquidation, and has been credited as being the brains behind the chain’s controversial marketing. 

Last year, Mr Blomfield took a defamation case against Whale Oil blogger Cameron Slater. The case is ongoing.

Mr Slater claimed he had the right not to reveal his sources and is appealing a judge’s decision that his website does not have the legal protection that is given to news media.


It was a little unusual that an unrelated  case (as far as has been reported) has been included in this.

This was commented on at The Standard, with a curious series of comments followed by a post.

mickysavage at 8.17 am

I wonder how Cameron Slater’s case with Mat Blomfield is going …
And if Judith Collins is busily distancing herself from Slater …

mickysavage at 12:29 pm

Well blow me down …

NBR is reporting that Matt Blomfield, the guy suing Cameron Slater in defamation, was attacked by a male on the weekend and may have suffered facial injuries from a gunshot.

That defamation case is going to get a whole lot of analysis now …

mickysavage at 12.41 pm

Nope fair dinkum article although it seems too bizarre to believe …

lprent at 3:10 pm

This is just outright weird.

(Quotes report as above)

Bearing in mind the number and severity of attempts that have been taken against Blomfield over the last couple of years, this looks pretty disturbing. The paid for (at least that is what it looks like to me) defamation campaign against Blomfield at Whaleoil in 2012 (and by assertions by the chronically moronic legally illiterate dickheads at Laudam Finen more recently) after ‘someone’ gave Cameron Slater his hard disk and documents to make copies from. Then the crap that has been going on with a defamation case arising out of it which has been characterised by Cameron squirming to not disclose where he received those stolen materials from.

I guess the police are going to have quite a lot to go on. Hopefully Cameron isn’t involved in the vendetta campaign this time. Bad look for bloggers. Maybe he is a journalist after all?

Then at 3.44 a post appeared - What the hell?

The NBR is reporting (behind the paywall) and now at TV3 news that Matt Blomfield, the person currently suing Cameron Slater in defamation, was attacked on the weekend by a male. A gunshot was fired and although it is not specified it is understood that Blomfield suffered an injury from the gunshot.

The police are investigating and seeking the assailant who left the scene after the gun was fired.

Mr Blomfield is the person involved in an ongoing defamation case with Cameron Slater. He posted on the Standard some of the background to the dispute at When the wolf cries boy

The police may have more than a passing interest in the defamation case and with the mystery of the hard drive that came into Slater’s possession. Cameron Slater has been trying to claim that he is a journalist to protect the source of who he received these items from. Mr Blomfield has asserted that these items were stolen.

No doubt they will want to talk to anyone who has discussed the case with Blomfield.

TS wishes Matt a speedy recovery.

A curious close.

There have been some predictable insinuations in the comments. I commented:

This appears to be a not very subtle attempt to connect two things for which no evidence of a link has been provided, already with a predictable reaction.

Why hasn’t the author put their name to this? It’s kinda easy to guess what might be going on but it seems more than a bit suspect.

lprent responded:

It was from several authors (including me) and most of it is a paraphrase of the NBR and TV3 articles. We don’t put a single author on when a group of us work on something or when we’re just paraphrasing entire news articles (we’re not the “Indeed” bloggers)

The media were the people who linked Cameron Slater to it which is what I presume you you’re objecting to. As usual you are a bit too coy to actually state what you object to sigh

I added the bit pointing out the prior criminality of the hard drive and documents.

And no, there are 4 things linked in this post (not 3) because the whole thing is just outright murky. You’ll have to go and read the contents of Blomfields post to figure out the missing bits.

But if I were the police I’d be damn suspicious of both Cameron and whatever source he is so valiantly “protecting”.

That’s a more direct suggestion of who could be responsible for the attack. I’ve replied:

You’re not the police, you’re a blogger. Police are not likely to investigate by reading a political blog. If you have suspicions have you contacted the police?

Yes, the media made a connection which as far as reported is unrelated, they do that a bit. But the media didn’t go as far as pointing suspicions from one event to the other. You’ve now done that, and as you are so experienced with blogging you will know what this post would be likely to encourage.

That’s your call of course.

There’s something disturbing about the attack, whatever happened.

And something seems very odd about the response at The Standard. It could be just blog and political rivalry.

Lynn Prentice sells The Standard

Lynn Prentice has done a salesman job on his blog, apparently trying to appear attractive to advertisers. Ice cream to eskimos? Used cars?

Stop Press have done a blogger profile – From blog to brand: Lynn Prentice (The Standard).

What is the Standard brand? And what is the lprent brand?

On himself

Whenever there is self praise and lprent involved there is inevitably mentions of his own abilities.

My real job is to provide greenfield programming code for similar private sector startups who are building export businesses.

That was a task  that my operations research MBA proved to be very useful in facilitating indevelopment.

Programming is his passion, his MBA is his pride. As everyone is told, quite often.

Have you got any funny anecdotes about running a political site in NZ?

Not really. In many ways running a political blog is a bit of a drag, which consists of getting posts up every day and moderating comments.

…for my unfortunate habit of only being able to write in English when I was highly irritated.

Humourless and often showing a grumpiness that one might exhibit when irritated by a drag of a job. Except he claims to have tried humour in a self promotion of this profile that he had to point out was an attempt at humour.

There’s a funny anecdote for you.

On journalists

The most intriguing discovery about the whole process for me has been the amusing discovery about how thin skinned many journalists and columnists are. It turns out that people on blogs intelligently criticising their performance has been remarkably upsetting to them. Hopefully it will help induce a better standard of political journalist over time.

Very ironic. Lynn’s crankiness and lack of tolerance for criticism is legendary.

“Intelligently criticising their performance” does happens sometimes but it’s far more often foaming rants about how the media are puppets of the right,  how harsh they are on the left and how unfair it is.

And the height of ironing is hoping “it will help induce a better standard”. When I suggested that The Standard would be better if it was more balanced and less abusive it would serve it’s purpose better. For that I was permanently banned.

On the Standardistas

We wanted a site that it was possible to have an intelligent and robust argument on without silly organisational constraints on the discussion.

We went from having a wide open no moderation policy to one that clearly defined what type of commenters the site was interested in retaining. They were intelligent robust debaters who could argue without simplistic slogans.

There are “intelligent robust debaters” but they are frequently drowned out by nit picking abusive harassing shills.

Pompous gits citing the unnamed authorities of their navel hair and mindless sloganeers became unwelcome.

A lot of the focus of the site in on making it easy for commenters to engage with each other.

Another irony. The blog is well known for it’s resident trolls gang attacking commenters they deem (often based on scant or no evidence) to be political enemies, and this behaviour is encouraged and sometimes led by Prentice.

Four legs good, two legs bad. Prentice and his porkers do the leg counting unsighted.

The audience we have ranges from people like myself who are quite professionally affluent through to those on a benefit for one reason or another. The most common factors are that they tend to be quite intelligent, well-educated, and very active in society in one capacity or another.

“Intelligent’ seems to be a big thing for Prentice, but a repeated claim that often isn’t evident looking through the comments threads.

On The Standard

We’re a very cooperative site across the left, internally and externally. This helps keep the diversity of opinion on the left being aired and helps to induce more comprehension and cooperation across the political movements of the left and advances the labour movement.

What we wanted to achieve was to provide a voice for the Labour movement in the local blogosphere.

And if you are deemed not of the Left or the Labour movement they treat you like a scab.

But any political site needs a few polemic rants…

While “polemic” is debatable there is more than a few rants – and some of the most verbiose and abusive come from Prentice, usually accompanied by a ban so there’s no right of replied for the person being admonished.

In last Sunday’s Herald Jonathan Milne wrote In bed with the bloggers where he said:

The leading bloggers trade on one core asset: the power of personality. They are loud, they are brash and they are, ahem, manufactured. The top ones admit creating personas that are more in-your-face than the real person.

Prentice wouldn’t be regarded as a leading blogger, he’s more of a blog manager. Aside from running the nuts and bolts of the site and his heavy handed “moderation” his contribution of posts and debate is sparse.

But yes, he is loud and brash, in distinct contrast to his demeanour in this StopPress profile. Multiple personalities? Or one of them manufactured?

He has posted about this profile at The Standard – StopPress and comments.

Umm I can’t have done too badly.  Our contact at Scoop emailed me without screaming how I’d made our site unsaleable. I must be losing my touch… I usually try to ensure that people always come away wanting to avoid any further contact. It helps with balancing time between home, work, family, and the blog.

That sounds more like the Standard personality.He repeats a warning:

I’ve also started to escalate the moderation bans heading into elections. So if anyone wants to troll on the site with mindless trash or to abuse authors, then don’t be surprised if you find your comments wind up in auto-spam until after the elections.

Beware if you are judged to have two legs. For once this isn’t an exaggeration, the bans are being dished out.

He added a footnote:

*  Yeah right! You did read the categories I chose eh?  As far as I’m aware there are no public photos of me on the net. And as for my usual mood on the site, “pleasant, widely expansive and egotisical best”. If you really believed that I was trying to emulate some other bloggers then all I have to say is “suckers”….

StopPress introduced the profile with:

As would be expected in the highly partisan world of political writing, much of the left-leaning content on The Standard has invoked the ire of several commentators on the right, including Cameron Slater and David Farrar.

On another Standard thread yesterday Prentice showed that this ire runs two ways. As he likes to ensure on his blog, I’ll leave the final selling of his blog to lprent:

…Whaleoil is a win for all political blogs

I hadn’t noticed that it was a political blog. After you get past the click bait, the paid ranting, the sorry for himself posting, the blustering and rhetorical grandstanding on historical issues that Cam is too young to know about, there really isn’t a lot of politics left or right.

I’d have described it as a classic “blog” in the original sense in which a poor depressed soul pours out their sorry hard luck story. In the days of yore he’d have spent a lot of time in a pub – and let me tell you that I heard a lot of no-hopers like him when I served the public bar. Everything is someone or something elses fault and never because he is a lazy irresponsible fuckwit.

It is as predictable as a male Mills and Boon and just as tedious…

Now you were saying…

On trolls and lprent

New Study: Internet Trolls Are Often Machiavellian Sadists

In the past few years, the science of Internet trollology has made some strides. Last year, for instance, we learned that by hurling insults and inciting discord in online comment sections, so-called Internet “trolls” (who are frequently anonymous) have a polarizing effect on audiences, leading to politicization, rather than deeper understanding of scientific topics.

That’s bad, but it’s nothing compared with what a new psychology paper has to say about the personalities of so-called trolls themselves.

The research, conducted by Erin Buckels of the University of Manitoba and two colleagues, sought to directly investigate whether people who engage in trolling are characterized by personality traits that fall in the so-called “Dark Tetrad”: Machiavellianism (willingness to manipulate and deceive others), narcissism (egotism and self-obsession), psychopathy (the lack of remorse and empathy), and sadism (pleasure in the suffering of others).

It is hard to underplay the results: The study found correlations, sometimes quite significant, between these traits and trolling behavior. What’s more, it also found a relationship between all Dark Tetrad traits (except for narcissism) and the overall time that an individual spent, per day, commenting on the Internet.

And lprent has commented on this at The Standard:

BTW: Just finished reading an article about a nice study about the personality defects of trolls. It turns out that they tend strongly towards the sociopathic and sadistic. What a surprise. They certainly bring out the sadistic responses from me.

That’s not just commenting, that’s bragging. And it’s not just lprent, he’s the head troll at The Standard but openly supports Labour-friendly trolls and trolling.

And ironically it’s on a post where lprent appends:

lprent: Putting this post on moderation.
So I will personally select the comments that are allowed through here to ensure that I will personally get involved in the fun.

That’s likely to be more fun for a Labourite than worrying about the big news of the day.

Dotcom with dollops of crazy crazy

Further to Labour try diversion and counterattack there has been an avalanche of accusations directed at John Key about whether the GSCB told him about the Winston Peters visits to Dotcom’s house. Dotcom has now confirmed the visits, saying Peters didn’t admit them due to a confidentiality agreement.

Winston Peters didn’t answer questions about his visit because we agreed on confidence. I released him from this confidence now. #manOFhonor

Dotcom then followed up with his own accusations.

Ask John Key how he knew about Winston Peters visiting the mansion 3 times. Only 4 people knew about it & probably Ian Fletcher at the GCSB.

Ask John Key if he is aware of a warrant currently allowing the #GCSB or any other NZ agency surveillance of my communications.

Gordon Campbell, recently appointed editor of Scoop after Alistair Thompson resigned due to his association with Dotcom and his Internet Party, has also posted a strongly pro-Dotcom pro-Norman anti-Key column - Gordon Campbell on smear tactics in politics.

Key has been interestingly specific about how often Peters is supposed to have visited Dotcom, on three separate occasions. How could Key know this? Surely, one would hope, not through using SIS/GCSB surveillance for his own political purposes?

He then goes on to attack Key on a number of issues. This is very risky for Campbell, it won’t make repairing the perceptions of Scoop bias easy.

Then there’s some bizarre tweets from what looks like either a new account for NZ First MP Asenati Lole-Taylor:

New account as I was sick of the twittering of trolls they have all been banned good riddance I do not need this in my busy life.

Good night enough twittering time for cup of tea and then sleep big day tomorrow for me and our statesman leader Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Our statesman leader Rt. Hon. Winston Peters will ask an important question during question time today i look forward to it.

There’s no question from Peters today, it’s possible he backed out once Dotcom confirmed their meetings.

Media wanting to know who Rt Hon Winston Peters meets with are being nosey. Who do they meet with?

I am elected official u should be grateful your taxes pay me to fight this corrupt gvt

Why won’t the media say how many times they met Kim Dotcom? Why ask MPs private details if they won’t do it too. Bad media.

@matthewjpb I am real, your Nat mates hacked my other account. They are dodgy and unacceptable

Was it the GSCB that hacked my other twitter? Need the truth …

Smeone asked what I wondered:

Is the new @asenatitaylormp really her? or is it a piss take? so hard to tell!

It appears to be authentic but hard to be certain. If it’s legitimate the question is if she is flying alone or acting on advice from Peters.

It get’s crazier, but these people actually sound serious – lprent at The Standard:

So much squealing from our favourite RWNJ’s.

Looks like Mike has struck a nerve…

Perhaps we should get the police to look at Cameron’s email to find out if the GCSB staff have been leaking to him? We have no idea if the GCSB is still monitoring KDC because the warrants are sealed.

After all the security acts operate on a presumption of guilt until proven innocent

One comment “I genuinely, quite literally, facepalmed” but others support the conspiracies. lprent again:

If it is what we suspect, then John Key could get a visit from the police to drag him into court.

It is illegal to use the state security apparatus to advance a politician’s agenda.

Note the ‘we’. Both the post author Mike Smith and he are in Labour.

Fekix Marwick:

PM says spy agencies not used re Peters-Dotcom meetings “from time to time pple see things, and from time to time they tell me”

PM says Dotcom-Peters info passed onto him by an individual “I was pretty sure they were right because they often are Guess what, they were”

And Stuff:

“I can absolutely categorically tell you it’s got nothing to do with an official agency. From time to time people see things and from time to time people tell me.”

In reply to the last tweet Greg Presland (another Labourite, involved with David Cunliffe’s electorate):

An individual who works for the GCSB?

He’s a lawyer.

And now Winston Peters has publicly acknowledged his meetings and has tweeted

I met Kim Dotcom three times in the last two years. I’ve asked the PM to explain how he knew about the meetings.

This will no doubt continue.

Has Dotcom harvested emails?

There’s been several claims that while Kim Dotcom had to call off his party launch he at least ended up with a large email list. One was from lprent in an oddly titled post at The Standard – not a Party Party treat, Internet Party instead?

On the other hand 25 thousand email addresses is pretty good going. Privacy commission anyone?

This has been queried by veutoviper.

Registration for the PartyParty was through Eventfinda; not with Dotcom directly.

Presumably, therefore, any harvesting of names, email addresses etc and privacy issues would lie with Eventfinda – not KDC, the Internet Party etc.- unless Eventfinda passes this information on, which seems unlikely for a company that must harvest massive numbers of names, email addresses daily and presumably is also very up with the play re privacy of this information.

I am too half asleep right now to take in the details, but here are links to Eventfinda’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Service



That’s a good point.

Why The Standard can be nasty

The Standard is well known for being Labour and being nasty. That’s not strictly correct, it’s not just Labour, there are commenters there who support Greens, Mana and non-aligned.

But it’s reputation for nastiness, abuse and bullying is justified. It is bragged about by blog authoritarian Lynn Prentice, like this yesterday:


The only person who truly goes for full-blown nasty vilification and abuse on this site is me. Having dealt with similar dickheads for the last 30 years over many kinds of online forums, I have observed that the only way to make such fools aware of what they are doing to others is to do exactly the same back to them. Except do it nastier - a lot nastier. I've found that it causes anyone to pause and consider what they do on a site if they have to consider what awakening the site ogre is going to do to them. ]

This was in response to a comment by ‘Pete’ (not me):

I am not sure why you are surprised. I read Red Alert and The Standard regularly (as well as some of the right wing blogs), and have noted that some of the opinion pieces and the comments contained a heavy thread of personal abuse.

Personally, I find this very distasteful. I would far rather have a a robust exchange of views and leave the personality driven stuff out of it. If you read the comments then you will see that it is many of the regular contributors/commenters who engage in this stuff.

I am strongly of the view that this ‘vilification’ of people is a turn off for many left of centre voters, and definitely for those in the middle. When Clare Curran had a go at Peter Leitch on Red Alert some time ago the response was a dramatic illustration of how people feel about denigration in general.

I feel that the contributors of left and right wing blogs (but mainly left) frequently, just can’t help revealing their nasty side, and that this continual diet of attacks on people from all ‘sides’ creates an unfavourable impression of left wing politics. It definitely does not speak to values such as inclusion.

My view is that it might be a coop but it is a bit rich to allow contributors free reign and then hide behind site policies. But then, it is their blog, so that is what you get.

Prentice frequently promotes his nastiness. Especially when anyone points out the toxic nature of his blog. This has all resulted from Josie Pagani pointing it out in The left must stand up to abuse.

It’s time for the tolerant, open and compassionate left to stand up to vilification and abuse when it is practised by sections of the left.

Martyn Bradbury’s unreasonable aggression has produced a truckload of ugly incidents lately, but the pattern of reprehensible abuse and aggression is not restricted to him.

Check out the tone of comments on The Standard nearly any given day. 

I have no problem with argument – it’s why we are here. The contest of ideas is vital to progress and the only way we can tell good sense from bad.  So therefore it is important to distinguish argument from bullying, from hatred and denunciation, and from the politics of exclusion.

Calling for tolerance or decent behaviour at The Standard more often has the opposite effect.

I’ve seen it all before. In fact in Prentice’s response to Pagani’s ‘right of reply’ he used his banning of me as some sort of example – and Pete George (who got banned from here for trying to say how we should run our site) in particular.

That ban was in August 2012 but it’s worth repeating what I said then…

micky, you may not have noticed but the overwhelming majority of flame wars are one sided attempts, and often with only one aim, to attack me regardless of what I post. If you look just below here I posted something and the usual trolls attacked, and the exact same topic was deliberately re-raised and discussed.

If you want to be an exclusive club of hard lefties that harrasses off anyone you take a dislike to then you need to be more upfront.

Why “The Standard”?

The Standard newspaper – from where our masthead comes – was founded by labour movement activists in the 1930s. They used it as a vehicle to share their views with a broader audience – a perspective they felt the mainstream media was representing poorly. We think the same is true today.

Maybe the blog has evolved since that ideal. If you want to be narrow minded and nasty don’t try and pretend to yourselves you ‘re a flagship for the broad left.

Much of the active comment here would not appeal to most potential Labour or Green voters. Nor would the behaviour.

Negative attack politics seems to be the core activity, in posts and comments. I just happen to attract some of it, but it’s far more pervasive than that. If that’s how you want to be then fair enough, but it doesn’t seem to satisfy many of you, this place oozes discontent and bitterness.

You’ll attract better if you act better. If that’s what you want.

…and what Prentice said in banning me.

[lprent: Re-read what you quoted. Even after all of this time and for that matter bans for it, you appear to be trying to spin what this site is about.

We're not trying to talk to "potential Labour or Green voters". We are trying to spread the perspective of "labour movement activists". You appear to be such a political newbie that you have not realized that these are two radically different things.

We simply don't care except in general terms about getting the voters voting because we're not a political party and that isn't our task. Sure some of us do that in other roles. But this site is here to allow people on the left to play with ideas and argue. We make it public so that people can see what we're interested in and are arguing about. We rather enjoy having people of other political bents coming in and arguing provided that they can argue and follow our site rules.

What you seem to fail to understand is that as well as putting up ideas for criticism, there are objectives of the site includes pointing out the flaws of political policies, flawed economics, political idiots, brown-nosing journos, and outright thickheads like yourself. This is because those are also part of the political process, which is something that you seem to prefer that others do not do. Most people around here have long since concluded that is because you hate mirrors....

I'd ask if you get the point, but it is quite apparent that you never do think on what others say. For some reason you appear to think that examining and expressing your own unthinking and often bigoted ideas about the left is a preferable technique to listening to others or actually thinking.

Permanent ban for yet again trying to tell us what we should be doing with the site. I'm tired of it and I really don't think you're capable of either learning or holding your end up in any kind of discussion. ]

It’s a bit difficult holding up your end of a discussion when you get banned and then lectured.

And nothing seems to have changed since then. The Standard is likely to keep on shitting in the left nest, led by Prentice and supported by those who follow his example.

The Standard can be nasty because that’s how Prentice wants it, and that’s how some there make it with him.

That won’t help the chances of the left in this year’s election, but that’s their choice. They seem to prefer a nasty and divisive friend/enemy approach to politics. Ironically that’s one of the things that repels the 800,000 voters they think will win them the election.

Blog rights of reply

Lynn Prentice has made an odd claim at The Standard in a post that provides a right of reply to Josie Pagani.

lprent: Josie Pagani objected to mickysavage’s post objecting to her post at Pundit, and wanted me to publish this as a right of reply. That is something that doesn’t exist on this or any blog.

And it wasn’t just a passing comment, he said it again in the comments section:

[lprent: It isn't a "right of reply" - there is no such beast on this site or any other.

lprent is obviously able to speak for himself and his own blog, but it’s very odd seeing him claim that rights of reply don’t exist on “any blog”.

I have always been happy to provide a right of to comment or reply on this blog and that should be clear here: http://yournz.org/about/

Kiwiblog: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/about_kiwiblog

Rights of replies are always welcome also.

I’ve seen rights of reply on Whale Oil, eg:  http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2013/12/matthew-blomfield-right-reply-unedited/

Other blogs solicit guest posts and I’d be surprised if most wouldn’t at least consider a right of reply if requested.

The Standard also suggests contributions: http://thestandard.org.nz/contribute-post/

Why not contribute a guest post?

In fact I requested a right of reply at The Standard – http://thestandard.org.nz/kiwiblogs-dunne-deal-breaking-the-law-or-breaking-the-rules/#comment-705027 – and my comment was posted without any problem.

lprent can do what he likes and appear as if a right of reply is an exceptional privilege at The Standard but he has no right to make claims about right-of-reply policies on other blogs.

lprent ego overdrive

This is a Christmas present for Lynn Prentice – a post dedicated to his ego. It’s in response to a typically odd and overblown comment at The Standard in the middle of last night (1.54 am):

I’m aware that Pete has an unnatural fetish with me (as witnessed by his rants about almost anything that I have time to write). And on the odd occasion I have been known to see exactly how far I can twist him into a complete nutter state. However associating me with Theodore Roosevelt is a bit much…

Of course because of the work over the last few months, the shaving has become its usual irregular thing. But my young great-nieces and great-nephews appear to think that makes me santa claus rather the bushy dark thing that Theodore used..

(you do realise that the cadaver has no idea what I look like right?)

Lynn’s sense of self importance is legendary. As is his practice of posting extended ranting lectures at The Standard.

I occasionally mention him in posts or comments – but probably less often than he rants about me. But it’s far from his absurd claim of “about almost anything that I have time to write“. And, for example, half of Lynn’s posts as author at The Daily Blog are failed blasts at me.

Most of the lprent comments and lectures at The Standard speak ineloquently for themselves, or are adequately challenged by others who haven’t yet been banned by lprent. He doesn’t like his foolishness being pointed out so protects himself from it through his frequent blog censorship.

I did see his post yesterday, Wet Dick and the Perverts, but the inadvertent irony, like…

They should leave that kind of crap for the experts at being nuts – like Fox News and Cameron Slater..

…spoke for itself. But a different Pete did comment…

I expect the wrath of the gods will fall on my head for saying this, but I found this whole post quite vile, and most of the comments even worse. In this matter, I don’t believe the left /right paradigm is relevant or helpful.

Another reasonable and brief comment from Sacha prompted a response …

If you believe it is only ‘the right’ in Council who have been concerned about this then you haven’t been paying attention.

[lprent: Actually Pervert - yes, they do appear to have been the only ones trying to take it beyond a motion of censure. That motion of course was always going to happen. After all you'd want to know which bits of the furniture to avoid. I guess you haven't been paying *any* attention. All of the rather stupid (ie failed) other publicity stunts have been from your fellow Perverts in council.

I'd suggest that you link to something rather than simply looking like a complete dickhead mastubating with your own sputum with silly little implications and zero facts.. ]

…that is probably best describe by lprent’s own words  - an unnatural fetish … as witnessed by his rants about almost anything…into a complete nutter state….simply looking like a complete dickhead…and zero facts..

What is sad about this is that despite his promise to vote Green next election lprent’s blog is widely seen as a largely Labour activist forum with an often nasty hypocritical  .

Some of the Standard authors contribute thoughtful and interesting posts.

But lprent defines and controls the tone of The Standard – often with draconian censorship delivered with abuse. He can shit in his own nest as he chooses, but it isn’t doing Labour’s (or Green’s) electoral cause any favours.

Cameron Slater on party funding and influence

Cameron Slater has responded to allegations that the National Party fund his Whale Oil blog and National staffers provide him with information and right blog posts – Deception and integrity in politics.

Whaleoil is not funded in any way by the National Party.  Anyone with half a brain should see that.  I have a good tilt at the usual party ratbags, and you think that I would be able to do that if I was in their pocket?

I regularly get requests and complaints to remove or change material, and I tell them they get what they pay for:  nothing.

I may appear to be National Party aligned, but that’s simply because that reflects some of my politics.  Whaleoil is actually fiercely independent.

But hey, I’m wasting my time, and some of yours.  Truth is the first casualty in war, and I’m fighting dirty all the time.

No matter how many times I tell people I receive no pecuniary benefits from the National Part, directly or via free room upgrades, they will believe and repeat their own firmly held views.

Of course the National Party is a source.  At many levels.  Including the Prime Minister’s Office.  Material received goes through a triage process.  A lot of of never makes it.

But as I’ve already stated the Labour Party is also a source.  At many levels.  Right near the top, as it happens.

Is that sufficiently clear for lprent who has been one making allegations? See The Double Standard’s Stalin (including the comments).

Slater also said:

The problem is that no matter how many times you tell people the actual answer, it’s not as exciting as they would like it to be, so they stick with what they want it to be.

That’s simular to what lprent has said about Whale Oil claims about The Standard.

Will lprent accept Slater’s word? Or will he stick with what he wants it to be?


The Double Standard’s Stalin

There were stark examples of double standards at The Standard in an attack post Cameron Slater: So who pays who?

As is common there claims were made by lprent (Lynn Prentice) with no substantiation, but people questioning this or making counter claims were banned.

This looks like super-sensitivity and over-reaction to any questions being asked of Standard links to Labour (and Greens).

For as long as I’ve followed The Standard their extreme double standards have been evident. Strict rules and repercussions for some deemed to be embarrassing or questioning of the blog authors and favoured commenters, while the latter are given freedom to lie, make unsupported claims and accusations and abuse.

The orchestrator of most of this is blog administrator lprent (Lynn Prentice), and his hypocrisy was on overdrive yesterday.

So she states that the image that turned up on Whaleoil today was probably taken by Jason Ede this morning. Moreover by the sounds of it, he’d have to have deliberately taken the image to put on Whaleoil because I can’t conceive of a reason for the John Key’s long term comms person to go and take an image of the residue of a party at 7:30am in the morning.

But more importantly, at The Standard we’ve had some of our more knowledgeable beltway authors and commentators speculating about Jason Ede writing for Whaleoil and Kiwiblog blogs for a long time. Both in posts and comments back to 2010. The rumour was that Jason Ede was responsible for some of the political dirt posts that turned up on those sites, either directly or indirectly. In fact he is rumoured to be the National Party smear unit.

For instance in 2010 Zetetic said..

3News viewers were left wondering if Duncan Garner is still pissed after the long weekend tonight. Using material that has clearly come from Jason Ede in Key’s office Murray McCully, Garner played the message-bearer for National’s continuing attacks on Labour’s gay MPs.

Looks like the National parties dirty BIG secret has just broken out into the open like a lanced smallpox cyst. If you want an arsehole blogger, look no further than John Key’s office.

Claims, rumours, speculation, all unsubstantiated.

Mind you Cameron Slater does need all the help he can get because he really isn’t the most competent person I’m aware of. I wonder how much he “demands” from the taxpayer to run that shithole of a site?

And a major accusation that Slater demands money ‘from the taxpayer’ to fund his blog. No evidence.

Added in a fine print footer:

* Please please could Jason Ede get legally wound up about copyright. I really would like to do some discovery on his phone and browser history. Not to mention on the Whaleoil blog. I’m sure that given a good forensic look through some computer logs we’d be able to find out more about the relationship that these two have.

That’s bizarre. Copyright? Discovery? Forensics? The super Sysop as a Super Sleuth? Based on what?

Prentice was immediately taken to task on his claims and he immediately shut it down with bans.

TheContrarian 1

So what? JK’s photographer sent images to a blog…meanwhile Cunliffe writes over at TDB while several posters here hold positions in parliament (or actively running for seats).

[lprent: Who is currently running for a seat and who is currently holding a position in parliament?

You are banned until you provide credible proof for either of these allegations. In other words, it will be permanent.

See the policy about making claims against our authors. It is something that I don't even bother responding to these days. There have been allegations, mostly from deriving from Cameron Slater for that period of time. To date no-one has ever bothered to listen to what I have said on the topic.

So these days I simply ban the idiots who make them here. ]

He bans questioning or dissenting voices. ‘Credible proof’ is demanded and ‘claims against our authors’ when they make proofless accusations is forbidden. And the Double Standard is demonstrated again.

lprent 1.1.1

The suspicion has been all the way back to 2007 when this site (and Whaleoil) started that Ede was actually directly writing content for his blogs, and not under his own name.

Suspicious authors good, suspicious commenter bad. And another:

The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 3

This is disgusting.

Will Lprent confirm that no-one who writes for the Standard is in a comms team for a political party funded by the taxpayer?

That’ll let the Standard occupy the moral high ground.

[lprent: Read the policy. Provide me some proof of your allegation. Banned until you do, ie probably permanently. I got sick of answering that particular claim and variants of it 6 years ago. For 6 years there has never been a proof. There have just been dirty tricks allegations from fools like Bill English through to deliberately lying idiots like Cameron.

But it looks like that is where he gets his help from John Key's office directly. I guess that is why he has always suspected us eh?

Anyway I'm tired of it. I reward people making it with losing their rights to write here. ]

“Read the policy. Provide me some proof of your allegation. Banned until you do”. But “it looks like” and “I guess” is all good.

lprent 6.1

Especially since the National people around John Palino’s campaign were so active in feeding information to Cameron in that instance. It all starts to look like Cameron really isn’t much of a “journalist” (not that I thought he was) so much as a conduit for feeding dirty linen about other people into the blogs.

I guess that if you don’t have any political morals, then you talk to Cameron. It does seem to be a bit extreme that John Key’s staff do it. I wonder who ordered that? :twisted:

I wonder who has no evidence to support those claims.

Thomas 13

Urh. Is there any evidence of money changing hands? or are you just making up that smear?

[lprent: Perhaps you should look at the last link in the post and you might figure out it is a reasonable supposition that Cameron gets paid to run campaigns.


Here is Cameron admitting he takes money for dirty campaigns.

As the PaePae post says...

By Cameron’s fevered reasoning, he clearly feels there’s nothing wrong with him pumping undeclared paid ‘advertorial’ and PR propaganda through his partisan sphincter to his blog’s witless, er, half-wit, no, unwitting audience.

So long as Cameron agrees with the propaganda message, that’s Cameron’s integrity in action.

Given that admission and that the communications guru inside John Key's office has clearly passed (at least) a photo to him for a post, it is perfectly legitimate to ask who and how much Cameron "demands" for this service. ]

Asking is one thing (and fair enough). Making accusations without evidence is another, as is pointed out:

chris73 13.2

Evidence? Are you serious? We don’t need evidence (unless you’re criticizing anyone on the left in which case you better have links to back your assertions up)

Prentice continues:


Ede has apologised already for passing the photo to Whaleoil


So I guess that takes care of the means.

The question is if this is one of Cameron’s ongoing “demand” situations where he gets paid for running dirty tricks campaigns. The second question is if it is, then how long has this relationship between John Keys office and Cameron been going on?

The third question on everyone’s lips from here on out is going to be to ask Ede and Slater if they are working together for every one of Slater’s dirty campaigns.

But anyone asking similar questions of Standard authors is banished to shut them up. Over-sensitivity? That’s how it looks.

The over-reaction is even put forward (carefully) by a relatively safe leftie:

Sanctuary 14

Bit harsh on the use of the old ban stick there, just sayin’.

lprent 14.1

On that particular topic I usually am. I’ve spent a large chunk of the last 6 years pointing out that no-one has ever managed to show that we’re an instrument of the Labour party, that our authors aren’t undisclosed MP’s, etc etc. Since the people making those types of claims never seem to listen to my responses, I don’t listen to them either.

If anyone makes an assertion in any kind of framing (ie like Gormless framing it a a question) and they’ll have to wait for the next amnesty before they can comment here again. If it is a newbie then I might warn them. But these two both know the policy about this. They’ve had ample bans to read it before. If I’m not mistaken, both have had bans for exactly the same thing before. So I regard it as being a voluntary banning. They literally asked for it.

Of course they always have the opportunity to provide proof of their allegations…. :twisted:

Do they have that opportunity? There’s no way of knowing because they are banned. Any response or proof cannot be posted due to the ban, so it is fully dependent on lprent deciding. And lprent is proven to be far from balanced or reasonable.

He is The Standard’s Stalin. He shoots non-comrades from his mouth and banishes them to the Gulag (when he doesn’t try a re-education lecture).

There are serious issues with Jason Ede and Whale Oil, and questions should be asked – and should be answered. It is embarrassing for John Key and National and that should be dealt with.

There are also serious issues with Lynn Prentice and The Standard, but questions are verboten.

Note: I’m sometimes asked why I bother with The Standard. They are a significant part of New Zealand’s political blogosphere. I think it’s important to put on public record how they operate. The Standard is noteably The Double Standard.

The Standard is far from being an open and honest forum. By association that also reflects on the Labour party in particular. That’s sad. Political discourse could be so much better if it wasn’t for the power tripping of The Standard’s Stalin.

This blog is often dissed for it’s relative (small) size, comment-wise and traffic-wise. But for a public record and in Google’s search all blogs are equal.



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 184 other followers