In praising Martyn Bradbury

Greg Presland has joined the list of bloggers praising Martyn’ Bradbury’s handling of the Key/waitress/hair story.

Firstly in relation to the story I wish to praise Bomber Bradbury’s handling of it.  Unlike Cameron Slater and his attempts to bring down Len Brown with the Bevan Chuang story Bradbury did some important things.  He let the story be the story and did not inject himself into the story at all.  He let the waitress tell her own story in her own words.  And unlike Slater whose grandiose yet ridiculous plan to have Len Brown removed from office and John Palino somehow installed as mayor Bomber had no intention of achieving any particular goal.  He just facilitated the telling of a very creepy story.

He also quotes Danyl Mclachlan of Dim-Post:

[Bomber] simply published the waitress’s own account as a primary, information-rich source that the mainstream media could base their stories off. Reporters called the PM, but the scandal had already broken and the media were all matching each other’s stories. It couldn’t be shut down. And Bomber kept himself out of it all. That approach – publish a primary source and make it available to all media simultaneously – turned out to be a really awesome way to get the story out there.

I have also said that Bradbury deserves some praise for how he presented the initial post that broke the story.

But Presland and Mclachlan take a very narrow view, focussing on the first post only. Bradbury has gone on to try and link it all with Dirty Politics – his next post on it headlines this:

UPDATE: The Prime Minister and the Waitress Part 2 – Dirty Politics?

This post, about the horrendous Herald coverage of the issue – opened with a photo of David Farrar with Rachel Glucina with this caption:

Rachel Glucina and Government pollster and right wing political blogger, David Farrar

Glucina was at the centre of that controversy. I haven’t seen anyone – including Bradbury, Presland nor Mclachlan – provide any evidence that Farrar (or Cameron Slater or the Government) had anything to do with this issue.

But Presland and Mclachlan compared Bradbury extensively with Cameron Slater.

In pushing Dirty Politics links they are all playing dirty, while praising Bradbury for playing it clean. Sheesh.

I don’t think it’s deliberately hypocritical. Most likely they are blind to their double standard.

And before Greg accuses me of suggesting a conspiracy again, this is probably not a co-ordinated or planned approach.

Left wing bloggers seem so obsessed with ‘Dirty Politics’ and the narrow definition they try to apply to the term they are blind to their own mode of operation.

To keep Felix happy I won’t say they’re playing ‘Dirty Politics’ themselves (I understand what you want that term to mean Felix) so I will describe it as playing dirty to promote a political attack.

As Presland did in his post after praising Bradbury.

Rachel Glucina’s attempt at turning the story around by suggesting there was a political angle in the complaint failed miserably and only succeeded in providing an institutional target and showing that Dirty Politics is alive although not so well.

If Felix was consistent he would point out that this doesn’t fit his version of Dirty Politics.

The right had no where to go on this.  Every time one of their nodding heads in the media tried to turn the story around there was blow back.  And as the story took off and international media ran with it you could sense John Key’s credibility ebb.  Crosby Textor will have their work cut out to repair this fiasco.

I think Greg pushes the CT conspiracy quite often. And he brought Farrar into the post:

The response of the right wing bloggers has been interesting.  David Farrar obviously wanted to have nothing to do with it and his early post inappropriate if accurate was as realistically as positive as he could go.

So Farrar “obviously wanted to have nothing to do with it” but Presland said “I wish to praise Bomber Bradbury’s handling of it” – that’s in relation to the story which was Bradbury’s first post but that’s disingenuous considering Bradbury’s ‘Dirty Politics’ follow-up.

Cameron Slater  is obviously no longer running pro Key lines and is preparing to support his mate Judith Collins in a leadership battle that when it occurs will be bloody and divisive and will leave National in far worse shape.  Let’s be real here.  There is no other leader of the quality of John Key in National.  The possibility of a leader emerging from the ranks of Collins, Joyce, Bennett, Adams or Bridges is one that fills me with confidence that the the next Government will be a progressive one.  Key is their only chance.  And he has been significantly damaged.

Slater’s lack of complicity (despite Presland associating him with it) is turned into a lame leadership hit.

Slater’s line on the story, that the left had stuffed up the chance of a political hatchet job spoke volumes about his world view.  He could not believe obviously (donotlink link) that a left wing blog could publish a story with no intent other than making sure that the story was told.  Subsequent posts suggesting that the waitress should toughen up just reveal a shallowness of human understanding that has always been apparent.

So “subsequent posts” at Whale Oil are relevant but Presland tries to judge Bradbury on one post in isolation “with no intent other than making sure that the story was told”.

If Presland wishes to “praise Bomber Bradbury’s handling of it” then he is in effect praising Bradbury’s attempts to widen the issue in to another example of ‘Dirty Politics’ – which Presland also does himself. He commented here yesterday:

Basically I thought Bomber did really well, way better than Slater in his attempts to achieve similar things.

Presland has been an integral part of an attempt to tie the Herald, Slater and Farrar into the hair story as an example of ‘Dirty Politics’.

He speaks on behalf of all at The Standard:

The rest of the posts were spontaneous. We do not sit down and coordinate and plot posts as part of some conspiracy. Well intentioned individuals post about aspects that they think are important and interesting.

A number of bloggers at Dim-Post and The Daily Blog may have also been spontaneous and un-coordinated.

But they all seem to be singing the same tune – Bradbury impeccable, Key/Herald/Slater/Farrar/right dirty.

If it’s all spontaneous (and it may well be) does that just indicate “well intentioned individuals” are already thoroughly indoctrinated in the ‘Dirty Politics’ campaign?

In praising Martyn Bradbury for one isolated play they have ignored the bigger game and seem oblivious to theirn involvement in the whole dirty sport of politics.

The Standard responds

The Standard has responded to a recent post which included:

At 9.49 am on Wednesday morning there was a post at The Standard – My Little Ponytail. It looks well researched and carefully written post (not a rush job) by Te Reo Putake. He may well have been able to put that together in three hours. But he probably wouldn’t excuse a time lag between posts on Whale Oil and Kiwiblog. The concluding paragraph:

I simply don’t know if it’s accurate, but I do think we should be told Key’s side of the story. Or be presented with his head on a platter if it’s true.

So ” if it’s accurate” TRP wanted Key’s political head on a platter. And comments that followed feasted on a similar diet of downfall.

And also:

It could all be completely uncoordinated spontaneous series of attacks. And every perceived attack from the right could be orchestrated by John Key and his minions.

But both sides will be somewhere in between those extremes, despite their screams.

And amongst that there’s a bit of Dirty Politics Derangement Syndrome.

Greg Presland has presumed from that that I suggested a conspiracy:

There has been some attempt to suggest that TS was part of a conspiracy, notably by Pete George (http://yournz.org/2015/04/26/the-lefts-handling-of-keys-hair-pulling/). He wants to be able to say that the left (coordination of hit jobs) does it too.

I wanted to say that there was a variety of possibilities. I think there’s a fairly good chance some on the left have discussed how to approach their coverage of the story, including people associated with parties. That doesn’t make it a conspiracy, just normal communication.

Greg says:

But I can honestly say that no such coordination happened here.

I accept his word as far as he’s concerned. He would have to have talked about things with other authors and Lynn Prentice to be sure there was no co-ordination amongst anyone. And that discussion wouldn’t include anything about what they were going to post?

Perhaps Greg didn’t communicate with anyone else but just knows what everyone did and didn’t do.

Te Reo Putake also had a say.

That Yawn NZ post is a giggle! I would have thought it was obvious from cautionary approach I took that I wasn’t ‘in the know’.

A cautionary approach could be for a number of reasons. David Farrar seemed to take a cautionary approach and that didn’t stop many claims and insinuations about him being involved in some way, like the very first comment that said:

DPF has commented in the most circumspect way possible.

And since he is practically the online mouthpiece of the ninth floor, I think we can take his commentary as proof that the story is genuine.

TRP closely monitored his post comments and will have seen and approved of this. Back to today:

Apart from occasionally commenting at the Daily Blog, I have never had any interaction with Bomber at all. Still, nice of Pete to commend my writing skills.

The simple fact is I read the TDB piece and decided it was worth a post, so I wrote one. I’d say it was about two hours work, including selecting quotes from Bomber’s piece, finding other links and writing the summary that formed the guts of the post. I simply did not know at the time of writing whether or not it was true, so I urged caution. Shortly after I put it up, we got the confirmation from the PM’s office that the assaults were real.

I have no reason to doubt that. That’s how blogging is often done.

Except in comments TRP promotes his own conspiracy theory.

Yep, it could be that he was wearing his MediaWorks TV Producer hat that day. But if you are correct, why does he rub the child’s hair with his thumb. It’s just … odd.

Next he ignored his own cautionary approach with this fairly dirty insinuation

Word ‘o’ the Day No. 94: trichophilia.

Hair fetishism manifests itself in a variety of behaviors. A fetishist may enjoy seeing or touching hair, pulling on or cutting the hair of another person. Besides enjoyment they may become sexually aroused from such activities. It may also be described as an obsession, as in the case of hair washing or dread of losing hair. Arousal by head hair may arise from seeing or touching very long or short hair, wet hair, a certain color of hair or a particular hairstyle. Others may find the attraction of literally “having sex with somebody’s hair” as a fantasy or fetish.

But clearly this does not apply to Key because “His actions were intended to be light-hearted.”. So nothing to see hair, er, here, move along.

And again:

I don’t think Key has actually apologised a second time. His spinner has used the past tense, so I think it’s a reference to the apology he made in the cafe with the wine. Key’s in London, on route to Gallipoli. So probably asleep, dreaming sweet dreams of running his hands through the luscious locks of flaxen haired young women. Or something.

More of a common TRP/Standard conspiracy:

Yep, you can bet C/T are desperately trawling the net to see if they can find a picture of Andrew Little in close proximity to a woman with a ponytail. See! Labour did it too!

But everything he does is totally independent of anyone who might be involved with a party or a blog. It really could be.

But that doesn’t stop him making things up in his comments – he has a long history of that.

As I said in my post you can’t just take one Bradbury post in isolation. Nor just one Standard post.

In particular in seeking the motives of someone it’s worth taking their carefully worded well written post as a part, alongside all their comments.

And follow up posts. Like A Friend first, and a Boss second, probably an Entertainer third.

“Key said his casual approach had both advantages and disadvantages.”

Disadvantages may include sexual harassment and general inappropriate touching of females. (ht Idlegus!)

“I have to take total responsibility for that. I shouldn’t have done the things I have done.”

Sweet. Then you’ll be resigning as soon as you get back? Nah, thought not.

“I think it’s the opposite to what some people might think that there’s a power imbalance”

Leave John Key alone! He’s the real victim here! Of course if it literally was the opposite, the young women being bullied would have had power over John Key, his wife, his entourage and his bodyguards. That doesn’t sound an entirely credible scenario to me.

TRP the author hasn’t learnt to separate his long commenting experience of manipulating statements interspersed with insinuations to build a dishonest scenario.

I believe he wouldn’t need to collaborate to do this. He’s had years of practice. And even though I’m now absent from The Standard he uses me to try and discredit people making points he wants to shut down. Like this earlier today:

Colonial Rawshark

The claim that a sexual allegation was made against Key was very severe, therefore the meaning of the words is doubly important in my mind, even though you might write it off as mere “semantics.”

Yeah, whatever. Are you Pete George in disguise?

Sexual allegations are ‘yeah whatever’ in Te Reo Putake’s repertoire.

Rachinger versus Slater continued

In February Ben Rachinger posted a flurry of tweets thretenting to prove that Cameron Slater had offered him money to hack The Standard. See Rachinger versus Cameron Slater.

Yesterday he appeared to announce something:

Hi y’all. Watch this space.

He had a few diversions then comes back with:

Come for me Sharks. With your gang connections, your bullshit, your PsyOps and your security service corruption. I am your equal, at least.

The smartest among you have kept an open mind. I’m happy to tell you this patience will be rewarded in one way or another.

This is exactly how many people have felt. Under fire for telling the truth. Oh how far our society has fallen. We are in decline.

I will never begrudge people who don’t know how it works, hating me. I have ever fought for you.

An apparent shot at Slater:

You disgusting piece of shit. Standing on our grandfathers graves in Gallipoli and spinning your shit. Giving talks in schools. ‘Best Blog’.

Then:

This email is at the heart of why the Govt, Slater, Farrar, Hooton and the Nats want me silenced. Yeah. I had them.

RachingervSlaterEmail

Resuming this morning:

The raw hypocrisy of many, left and right, will soon become apparent. It’s not just the Govt that’s the problem. Privilege is a problem.

When people are tacitly enabled to slander, defame and bully people (on Twitter) w/out any fairness, you break people.

I’m accused of: Doxing women (False) Making net unsafe (False) Being a fake (False) Driving women off Twitter (Wasn’t me) …and so on.

Many people asked me “Why are these Wellington Twitterati going so hard on you? Why is ____ messaging everyone and anyone about you?”

It’s because SHE is an unbalanced obsessed stalker (I can prove this) and she actually prevented sunlight happening. When a media person..

… Targets you and tells everyone they can that you are scum, a danger to women and a hacker… You face a wall everywhere you turn. Fact.

But you didn’t break me ____. You tried extraordinarily hard. You and your friends who enable you to bully and target innocents are /end

Quoted for truth. If I really was a danger, I wouldn’t still be getting smeared. See what you look like after this

Via another Twitter account:

Last screenie for today. Slater hiring me for $5,000 to hack the Standard. And y’all called me a liar”

RachingervSlaterDialogue Back to Ben:

If I prove I’m not what she says I am, I prove what she says I am. Class A headfuck.

Fuck it. I’ll tell the story. Corrupt cops, government proxies and media who run their own attack lines. I’m at the end of my tether.

Let’s do this. I gave them all an opportunity to do their jobs, which we pay for one way or another, and they are CORRUPT.

You all asked “Why hasn’t the media or the cops done anything?” They’re corrupt

Even the great Matt Nippert believed what my enemies had to say.
There is no justice but what you fight for.
Allow me to school you.

While Slater gets funded trips to Gallipoli, I deal with death threats and cop harassment.
There is no balance in NZ.

So I reported Mr Slater to the THREE MONTHS AGO. They’ve done nothing. They’ve given me no protection.

Embedded image permalink

Embedded image permalink

They tried to make me an informant on my Maori brethren. I said fuck that, here’s slater being criminal. And nothing. S/O to Teina Pora.

We are living in a country where cops joke about smacking suspects with phone books to people laying complaints against powerful figures.

I can go on and on. But reality is – we have the society we want. JK? We allow it. Cops? We allow it.
You. Allow. It.
I despise that.

Having to write things by hand because the State is surveilling you? Sucks

Embedded image permalink

Embedded image permalink

“Bens a Tinfoiler” Y’all said that, after I was dishonestly slammed in Nov/Dec, make me sick. You have made me sick. You have broken me.

Let’s not forget all the beautiful people who said things like this.

(Images that don’t seem relevant and identify people as some sort of payback)

And this.

Embedded image permalink

Embedded image permalink

Embedded image permalink

Embedded image permalink

I’ve had my fill of white journalists telling me not to defend myself against white journalists. Shall we? :-)

A diversion exchange with Mat Nippert.

Yes, why hasn’t the media in NZ picked this up? Shall we discuss possibilities for that?

Oh. Almost forgot this.

Embedded image permalink

Embedded image permalink

Judge a man by how many enemies he can stand against and still laugh with joy for being in the fight.
I’ll never fall to this scum.

Not one more backward step.

I’ll be seeing you soon brothers.

I’ve tweeted this before. But this is me against the machine.

Oh she’s left Twitter because she feels unsafe! I’m not @nickdale
You will not lie about me and drive me into a grave, you despicable chic

Let there be sunlight.
Secret vampires won’t like this.
Fuck you. I’ve lost everything except my life. You stepped. This is the reply.

You smear me, issue death threats on me to my family and I, hack me, spy on me and try to drive me insane.
Sorry. I’m not weak like you.

You should have expected me.

Women like her are the reason you women do not have equality faster.
Challenge me on that. Please.

Ben can be hard to follow on Twitter and it’s hard to know if this is it or not. And I’m not sure whether it’s enough to take the ‘Slater paid to hack The Standard’ accusation any further.

I’ll keep an eye on developments, if there’s any.

UPDATE:

So let’s do a list of people and who they work for, that are attacking me without substance. It’s quite a list. I’ll include screenshots.

From to , from to , let’s have a look at these people who attack vulnerable people shall we? :)

Even Beagle of the Org has slandered and attacked me. This is why we do not have nice things. Evil, scummy people.

Alright so here’s screencaps of tweets from people about me as I WAS BURYING MY GRANDMOTHER. (1)

A series of tweets each with four images of people Ben has grievances against. At this stage I don’t see a need to post them all. Seems to be a personal campaign.

This one gets a bit heavy handed:

?/?) That’s saying I should be beaten with an axe handle.

Embedded image permalink

You’ve basically been a pack of fucking trolls attacking me. Yet I still did not hack The Standard when he asked. Should of done it.

Don’t play the fucking victim.

Hahaha whatever little boy. Your mistake in believing lies. I’ll be sure to mention your bullying to all and sundry.

At the very least, I’ll be teaching my kids not to go around doxxing women on the internet.

Do you know what doxing is? Also “women”? Are you slandering me? WHERES YOUR PROOF? Go on. Prove it. Or retract. Fuckwit.

I believe the people who told me.

You’ve got nothing. Keyboard slander warrior. Much wow. Very impress. Hahaha. What a cock. You’re an embarrassment.

What now for waitresses and waiters?

Now that John Key seems to have adequately dealt with his hair pulling embarrassment what now for the focus of the issue, the way waiting staff are treated by customers and by employers?

One waitress has spoken out, but in doing so she created a political shit fight. And she became the target of an offensive defense that tried to paint her as the problem, not the victim.

Sometimes amongst the noise and sheep herding there can be interesting discussions at The Standard.

Mandy Hager’s post Pull the other one… ponytails, minimisation and male privilege is worth reading as a fairly feminine perspective. Perhaps a bit too feminine good/masculine bad but she makes some points worth debating.

On this post is a good comment thread, started by Colonial Rawshark (who’s name is still promoting the hacking of political opponents but that’s another story).

So, after several days of ongoing disgust, outrage, screaming and shouting, what courageous and concrete steps has the Political Left proposed to empower vulnerable and poorly paid service employees and contractors who find themselves in bad work situations?

What gutsy legislation, regulation, unionisation and other changes with real teeth has the Left proposed to enable vulnerable workers to fight back hard against bad treatment by customers, employers and media organisations?

Indeed has there been anything more substantial and concrete than ‘that’s disgusting, disappointing and an indictment of entrenched male power and privilege in our society’? No?

The Left couldn’t even get its shit together in the first day or two after the original story broke to protect the young cafe worker in question. Pitiful.

And IMO it’s exactly why, despite all the quite legitimate anger and indignation expressed, the self proclaimed Left is increasingly irrelevant to voters.

Initially this was attacked in the usual way, albeit moderately to a long time Standard leftie.

Stephanie Rodgers tried to dictate what should be talked about, as she often does.

Speaking of “both obvious and unavoided”, congratulations on completely erasing the key aspect of gender from the issue. On a post about how this issue is explicitly gendered, even!

Why not get outraged about the Left failing to take concrete steps to overthrow male entitlement? What about empowering vulnerable women, wherever they work? (The Roger Sutton case rather aptly showed how sexual harassment in the workplace isn’t limited to cafes.)

But I guess that would be terrible, no-one-cares-about-your-side-issues identity politics, wouldn’t it?

And then there was a branch that attacked Colonial Rawshark for not doing enough about what he was talking about himself. A common ‘attack the messenger’ practice.

But then there was some actual addressing of the issues raised. Redlogix:

Well expressed CV. By allowing the debate to be solely framed in misogynist terms, the Right easily fences the issue off into the feminist ghetto of NZ politics.

Which is sad. It’s way more important than this.

I’ve read Mandy’s excellent OP several times now with care. It’s a powerful piece, it emphasises, not just the idiocy of the PM’s behaviour, but the sickening response of so many to not only minimise it, but to attack the victim as well.

And then like you I’m left wondering ‘what next’? Why is the Left so powerless to act? Why when even something as tiny as Cunliffe expressing shame as a man for the violence perpetrated on women – why was that so readily ridiculed and belittled?

When Mandy writes:

There are also the online comments, proof (as if we needed it) that there is a deep seething underbelly of misogyny out there – and that issues of appropriateness, sexual intimidation, abuse of power and minimization of women’s complaints are not only misunderstood but carry no weight at all to a significant proportion of our population.

I am quite certain this is a subjective truth and reality for Mandy, yet when you are effectively telling half the population that they ‘hate women’ – something has gone badly wrong. This is not a vote winner if nothing else.

After 40 or more years of feminism, why is there so much misunderstanding, suspicion, and downright loathing in some quarters, between the genders? As this incident and it’s attendant blowback has demonstrated – it doesn’t seem to have taken us anywhere constructive.

There’s a good discussion on that, but it includes more attacks and diversions:

‘freedom:

“effectively telling half the population that they ‘hate women’ ”
Quite the contrary. I find the article to be one of the more empowering messages on this blog for sometime. Reminding all of us, regardless of gender, politics or circumstance, we are all responsible and necessary as part of the solution, every day

Marty mars:

sadly what tends to happen now imo is that the discussion will be moved, in oh so reasonable and soft tones, into the other areas – this is, imo, cv and reds way of showing they care about the issues raised in the post itself /sarc and of course they get to talk about themselves and their experience which is just so riveting and important /double sarc

RedLogix:

Your attempt at silencing and shaming is disgusting.

You’re tactics are no different, and lower than those being used by the Henry’s and Hosking’s of this world.

It’s not often that the common attempts to shut up and shame get called, but as an author Redlogix can get away with it. But not without being challenged:

One Anonymous Bloke:

It’s the violence inherent in the system. You’re being oppressed!

RedLogix:

No – marty was doing the derailing thing. Oppression is something altogether different.

But make a joke of it – have a bit of a ‘horse around’ if you like.

Marty mars:

untrue red – I posted a comment to another comment not to you or cv – I did that because I didn’t really want to engage and encourage you to begin the calm dissemination of what you think – I’m not interested, I’d rather hear and learn from women.

weka:

Marty was spot on in naming a dynamic that occurs here. Thanks btw for confirming it, by misusing Bailey’s experience of sexual harrassment by the PM as if that in any way has anything to do with marty commenting to you here. It’s inconceivable to me that you cannot see the power differences, so that just leaves your politics.

The shame is already on you for how you’ve brought yourself into this conversation in the way you often do. Marty just pointed it out.

One Anonymous Bloke, marty mars and weka are frequent members of the shut up and shame brigade.

Back to Colonial Rawshark’s first paragraph.

So, after several days of ongoing disgust, outrage, screaming and shouting, what courageous and concrete steps has the Political Left proposed to empower vulnerable and poorly paid service employees and contractors who find themselves in bad work situations?

The diversions, messenger attacking and shutting up has again prevailed (so far) as that remains unanswered.

It seems that waiters are frequently the target of poor customer behaviour.

Some on the right (it’s been rife at Kiwiblog) have tried to play this down by attacking and trying to discredit the waitress.

And some on the left have failed to address an important issue the hair puling raised.

Political activists are too active trying to wreck their opponents and too often fail to do anything practical to address the problems ordinary people, like waitresses, have to deal with day after day.

What now for waitresses and waiters?

UPDATE: another word from Colonial Rawshark:

My contention is that the Political Left has come forward with plenty of outrage and disgust, but it has not come forward with concrete proposals for change for empowering vulnerable workers victimised by customers or employers (regardless of whether that change is based on gender or on class).

And weka, one of the chief derailers of threads she doesn’t approve of, responded:

I’m sure it is CV. Pity you chose to bring it up in a way guaranteed to derail the thread and track it along the class politics vs gender politics path then.

I have no idea what you mean by the Political Left, but can only assume you are referring in part to authors and commenters here on ts. I’m seeing lots of activism and response to what has happened. Besides, I’m pretty sure that some legislation already exists to protect Bailey (and was ignored by the PM), and that the left wing parties already have policy that would give even more protection.

“regardless”

So take it to OM. This post and thread is about gender.

If the gender police speak then one mustn’t stray from their narrow path of discussion. How not to achieve anything outside one’s bubble.

Another promising discussion squashed. That has happened during the time I put this post together.

The Left’s handling of Key’s hair pulling

Labour and the Greens have had a bit to say about John Key’s hair pulling but this is a look at how left wing blogs have handled the hair story.

It began with EXCLUSIVE: The Prime Minister and the Waitress at The Daily Blog, and was introduced:

This is a guest blog from an anonymous waitress about the way John Key kept touching her when he repeatedly visited her place of work.  The waitress contacted us with her story, The Daily Blog did not seek her out or pressure her in anyway to write this blog. We are protecting her identity so she is not punished by her employer or social media victim blaming.

The question to ask after reading her words is if this bullying behaviour is acceptable from the Prime Minister of NZ.

It was entirely predictable that protecting her identity and preventing social media victim blaming was never going to succeed. Was ‘anonymous waitress’ duped and used by The Daily Blog, or were they really that dumb that they thought they could protect her?

The post has a date stamp only – April 22, 2015. It shows Last Modified: April 22, 2015 @ 6:02 am. The first comment was posted at April 22, 2015 at 6:22 am.

Two days later, on Friday evening, Danyl posted The story behind the story at The Dim-Post:

The other interesting (to me) thing about ponytailgate, or whatever we’re supposed to call it, is how the story broke.

If you take it to a blogger then that check for a balancing comment doesn’t happen. Bloggers don’t play by the rules. But what they do – and I’m thinking of Cameron Slater here, as well as his homologues overseas – is insert themselves into the story. They write it up, in imitation of a mainstream media story and then accompany it with commentary and interviews on the MSM outlets they affect to despise, and attempt to frame the story and promote themselves. In Slater’s case that tends to dilute the story since the attack is so clearly partisan and motivated by malice.

Bomber didn’t do that. Instead he simply published the waitress’s own account as a primary, information-rich source that the mainstream media could base their stories off. Reporters called the PM, but the scandal had already broken and the media were all matching each other’s stories. It couldn’t be shut down. And Bomber kept himself out of it all. That approach – publish a primary source and make it available to all media simultaneously – turned out to be a really awesome way to get the story out there.

Except that this isn’t The story behind the story, it’s only the first chapter.

If Whale Oil had posted an exclusive and David Farrar had picked up on it (or vice versa) possibly Danyl and certainly many on the left would have been shouting ‘two track Dirty Politics!’.

At 9.49 am on Wednesday morning there was a post at The Standard – My Little Ponytail. It looks well researched and carefully written post (not a rush job) by Te Reo Putake. He may well have been able to put that together in three hours. But he probably wouldn’t excuse a time lag between posts on Whale Oil and Kiwiblog. The concluding paragraph:

I simply don’t know if it’s accurate, but I do think we should be told Key’s side of the story. Or be presented with his head on a platter if it’s true.

So ” if it’s accurate” TRP wanted Key’s political head on a platter. And comments that followed feasted on a similar diet of downfall.

The Standard has been busy since then. Related posts so far:

22 April:

23 April:

24 April:

25 April:

Dirty politics was a common accusation – directed at the ‘attack as defence’ from Key defenders. The left forbid calling it dirty politics when they do similar.

And Danyl is wrong when he claims “Bomber didn’t do that. Instead he simply published the waitress’s own account ” and “And Bomber kept himself out of it all.”

That may apply to the initial post but on a blog you can’t look at one post in isolation.

Bradbury posted a follow-up statement from the waitress: UPDATE: The Prime Minister and the Waitress Part 2 – Dirty Politics? While he introduced it with this…

I think the young woman at the centre of the Prime Minister’s bewilderingly abusive and arrogant privilege is a hero. She has shown courage and fortitude that is pretty rare. To tell the Prime Minister to his face to stop touching her took enormous strength when you consider the power dynamics.

I did not believe her bravery should be denigrated by a mainstream media who look to get a victim blaming ratings kick. That was why I said I wouldn’t confirm her identity to any of the media who contacted me.

She thanked me for this but accepted that her name might be made public. This understood,  she was determined to direct that voice and allow it to be her narrative and her story told on her terms.

Out of her genuine concern for the reputation and economic ramifications her possible outing might have on her employers, she met with them Wednesday afternoon and was left in a position she had not agreed to.

She also challenges some of the comments the Prime Minister has made.

These are her words. She raises hard questions about the NZ Herald.

…the use of Dirty Politics in the headline and two photos, including this one…

gluc

Rachel Glucina and Government pollster and right wing political blogger, David Farrar

…make it fairly clear that Bradbury is far from keeping himself out of it. As far as I have seen Farrar has had nothing to do with this issue, he has commented a little (two posts) but has kept out of it far more than Bradbury.

I’ve seen no evidence Farrar had anything to do with Glucina’s hit job on the waitress in The Herald. Linking them like this is disingenuous. Some would call it dirty.

The Daily Blog currently features that same photo in it’s headline post. Dirty.

The Daily Blog (that Bradbury is a very prominent part of) has also been busy with other posts that aren’t ‘keeping out of it':

22 April:

23 April:

24 April:

25 April:

26 April:

Danyl himself has also been busier than usual, beginning with this:

I’ve already printed this out and posted it above my desk

ponytail

I wonder what else he has posted above his desk. It’s easy to see what else he’s posted at Dim-Post:

Left wing blogs have been very busy on this story. The haven’t simply let the waitresss story speak for itself. They have promoted and exaggerated the hell out of it.  They have made all sorts of claims, assumptions, accusations and demands.

Like Psycho Milt encapsulated::

Which left-wing prime minister has been bullying service staff and then getting their friends in the media to do a hatchet job when the person complains?

That’s blogging.

I’ve posted a few times on this myself. But I don’t claim one side does Dirty Politics while trying to pretend the other side is squeaky clean.

There has been a concerted effort from the left to bag Key and damage him as much as possible. Some of them think that at last they have found the straw they can break the back of his Prime Minister-ship with.

As I’ve shown in Key “didn’t deliberately intend” to abuse power Key accepts that what he did was “very very silly”.

But left wing blogs – authors and particularly commenters – have been overplaying their hand, as blogs often do.

They saw blood and scratched for all they were worth.

It could all be completely uncoordinated spontaneous series of attacks. And every attack and perceived from the right could be orchestrated by John Key and his minions.

But both sides will be somewhere in between those extremes, despite their screams.

And amongst that there’s a bit of Dirty Politics Derangement Syndrome

Politicising ANZAC Day

ANZAC DAY was generally well covered on blogs.

On Lest We Forget at Kiwiblog David Farrar posted a list of names of “2,871 New Zealanders who died at Gallipoli, or during that period”. The comments were respectful – until ‘big bruv’ took a cheap shot at a not so distant past politician.

Lest we forget.

Well done to all of us who rose early and attended Dawn parade. Never forget that a former Prime Minister of this country could not be bothered getting up early to honour our war dead. Never forget that Helen Clark famously said that she ‘does not do mornings’

There is a list a mile long as to why Helen Clark is the worst PM in our nations history but her stubborn and selfish refusal to attends dawn parade is the most shameful.

I thought that was inappropriate and said so, as I do.

Crappy seeing cheap political shots on this thread.

Why can’t each of us remember as we see fit? There’s no need to all do the same thing. We have a certain amount of freedom to choose here in modern New Zealand, thankfully.

I’ve never been to a dawn service. I remember the wars, and my grandfathers, father and uncles who served and (some) died, in my own ways.

In the meantime Inandout had followed up:

big bruv : Helen was one of those gutless, despicable protestors (along with Goff) who abused and spat on our Vietnam Vets on their return, so of course she would not get out of her marital bed on Anzac Day. I was however presently surprised to see a Vietnam War memorial statue in the town of Queenstown, Tasmania; first I have ever seen one anywhere dedicated to that war.

Big bruv threw a bit of a hissy at me.

I suppose I could point out the irony in that comment of yours, I suppose I could argue the point. However, I simply chose to tell you to keep your stinking opinions to yourself. Do you ever get sick of being the self appointed guardian of the blogsphere?

I responded:

I’m not guarding anyone, just giving my opinion. I think that’s allowed here, even though some try to abuse us of that freedom to speak notion.

And left it at that, not wanting to disrupt the ANZAC thread. I thought I’d follow up later but ‘bc’ beat me to it:

Poor big bruv, unfortunately for him there’s this thing called google. There’s also this little box thing where you can type in something, I typed in “Helen Clark Anzac day”.

All sorts came up. Like this: http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/photograph/34146/helen-clark-at-gallipoli

Apparently she is the FIRST New Zealand prime minister to visit Gallipoli on Anzac Day. Oh and she gave a speech at Anzac Cove, at a DAWN service.
Here it is: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/anzac-day/news/article.cfm?c_id=773&objectid=10122448

Big bruv, master at making $*!# up.

So not only did he shit in the ANZAC thread big bruv either made things up or was ignorant of facts, but the latter is unlikely as this has been gone over before on Kiwiblog a number of times so he should know.

That’s how things are often dealt with at Kiwiblog. Some of them there don’t like being held to account but all they can do is rant back.

Big Bruv posted a similar diss  on The Standard’s post Anzac Day – 100 years. It was dealt with differently there.

Well done to those who attended Dawn parade. Those of you who did attend showed more respect than former PM Helen Clark who refused to attend dawn parade. It seemed that she could not be bothered getting out of bed early on that one day of the year. [r0b: Moved this comment from the Anzac day post to Open Mike. Also banned BB for a year on the charge of inappropriate politicisation and being a POS.]

That’s a bit of a draconian reaction. Some of the Standard troops went on to rebut BB’s nonsense. As on other blogs politicisation of things is common at The Standard.

There’s more irony down the thread. ‘Keyman’ commented:

i cant be leave how nasty the people on this site are calling the prime minister a pervert or worse where is your respect for the high office and your betters John key is leader of this nation and you should hold your noses and bow before him. just make sure your wearing protection hat or swimming cap

BB’s bullshit barbs at Helen Clark were mild compared to things that are directed at John Key at The Standard.

And there’s an oddly ignorant response from Stephanie Rodgers:

This comment is perfectly placed downthread from big bruv’s attempt to smear Helen Clark’s memory. The right do love to trot out the “respect your betters” line … as long as it’s the betters they personally agree with.

The Standard Labour Left have been in smear overdrive over the last few days. Their moderation ensures the smearing is just in one political direction.

UPDATE: a generally fair comment from Redlogix at The Standard.

BB claimed Helen Clark never attended Dawn Services. This is a repeat of a common lie – a lie that can be readily shown for the smear it is with a few seconds googling.

BB is not expressing an honest opinion. He knows he is lying, and continues to do it over many years. This is not behaviour we are obliged to tolerate.

I agree entirely.

There is a difference between ideas and opinions – and behaviour. This site has long tolerated the expression of a very wide range of opinions, but does not allow repeated bad behaviour to disrupt the debate.

Except that The Standard does allow deliberate lying and repeated bad behaviour deliberately designed to disrupt debate. Frequently. It just depends on whose side they deem you are on.

Tracey’s dirty Standard nonsense

Tracey is a frequent commenter at The Standard. She is also an occasional author.

So she can ask people “Are you a male or female?” and “Are you male or female? What age are you?”without being accused of breaking TS rules about trying to identify people. I believe it’s common for female blog commenters to not reveal their sex to avoid targeted attacks. And I think I recall Tracey speaking up for female participants at times. When it suits.

And she can use her author status to try and control and limit debate. On a thread on Key’s pony-tail pulling:

you are now seemingly deliberately dragging this off topic, take it to open mike. You are deflecting from an important issue or 2.

1. The unacceptable behaviour of the Prime Minister;
2. The tendency to deflect away from the appalling treatment of women and girls by many in NZ.

If you continue I will ask a fellow author to ban you.

An odd approach, I presume she has the power to ban too but chose to try and contract out her threat.

‘The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell; commented on the same post:

Is the Left using a blogger to smear the PM? Sounds like more of that dreadful dirty politics we need to be worried about.

There’s been quite a bit said on the post about Martyn Bradbury being used by the waitress to get her story out – and also possibly Bradbury using her to score a political hit without giving due consideration to the risks involved. (It didn’t take long for the ‘anonymous waitress’ to be outed – see Waitress: ‘I felt NZ should know’ at NZ Herald).

But Tracey responded to this:

Yes, that is absolutely the most important point about this story, that maybe TDB indulges in Dirty Politics. Nothing to do with how women are treated or perceived by the Prime minister of New Zealand. Note how when someone else writes the post it is called a guest post. On WO it’s signed by Slater as if he wrote it. You need to go to Pete George’s website where you can both bemoan how you two are the only ones who

a. don’t really understand two-track strategy with the use of bloggers; and
b. focus on the peripheral stuff to ensure nothing really changes in the appalling treatment of many women and girls in NZ

I understand “two-track strategy with the use of bloggers”.  There are some like Tracey who try to dictate a very narrow application of the term ‘Dirty Politics’ as defined by Nicky Hager.

I also understand that ‘dirty’ has been around about as long as ‘politics’ and there are many ways it can be done. John Key is not the first PM who may have used proxies for attacking opponents. Helen Clark was well known for her dirty politics. And probably most political leaders going back to the beginnings of democracy in Greece thousands of years ago.

And political activists are also known to play dirty. Forms of dirty politics are carried out at The Standard, and Tracey is an active (and hypocritical) participant.

And b. is ironic given the position I’ve taken on Key’s hair pulling behaviour.

And ironic while discussing dirty politics. Tracey may claim a higher understanding but she actively engages in and supports playing dirty at The Standard. And is blind to her hypocrisy.

It was Tracey who got very peripheral trying a cheap, uninformed and hypocritical shot at me. It may be relatively minor dirt but it’s still dirty nonsense.

Contrasting moderation styles

In contrast to the moderating shown in Kiwiblog troll is this from The Standard.

In the Colmar poll post:

Sable 5

Stupid people are allowed to vote too….

Further down the thread:

Alan W 13

hey Sable, how about a serious reply to Fisiani’s 10.30 am post – rather than your banal, ill-tempered comment at 7.41 am.
Calling 49% of the voting electorate stupid is not particularly constructive.

[lprent: Demanding behavioural changes on this site is the realm of the moderators. It is not the purview of pompous idiot trolls like yourself. You can yank on your dick/brain for pleasure elsewhere.

Sable’s comment was an exact paraphrase of the electoral act. So what was your point? That you really could do with a personality transplant?

This is your warning. Trying to usurp the role of a moderator and wasting my time again will result in long ban from this site. I was thinking of a couple of months… I figure that it’d take you that amount of time to read the policy. ]

That’s funny considering the number of times a number of participants demanded that I change my behaviour, and how often demands are made that others change their behaviour.

And anyway this was far from demanding, it sounds like a fairly reasonable query on a blog.

And lprent loads the irony on thick:
“pompous idiot”
“could do with a personality transplant”
“wasting my time again”
“So what was your point?”

Alan W13.1

Pardon???
Sable said, “stupid people are allowed to vote too”
How is that an exact paraphrase of the electorate act?????

UPDATE: since been added:

[lprent: You really are thick aren’t you? What is the basic principle of any law? Where does it say in the Electoral Act that to be able to vote you must not be stupid? There are limitations about age, coercion, residency, and prison residence. But there are none stopping the stupid from voting. Therefore they are entitled to.

That you are entitled to vote is probably a good place to start thinking from. ]
(A paraphrase is ‘a restatement of the meaning of a text or passage using other words’. Sable’s comment was nothing like a paraphrase or any part of the Electoral Act – PG)

That question crossed my mind too, but questioning authors at The Standard risks being banned.

The Act allows most kiwi citizens to vote, regardless of mental capacity. The same rule does not apply to commenting here at TS, as you may soon discover.

The brave TRP joins in under lprent’s umbrella of abuse. Also very ironic, given the mental capacity on display. And they are still blind to the self inflicted damage, even when it’s pointed out to them in black and white.

infused 13.1.1.1.2

yeah. the left wonder why they gain no traction. they’ve been saying this sort of shit now for years and still don’t see the problem.

te reo putake 13.1.1.1.3

Nope. I’m pointing out that your behaviour here can also be seen as stoopid.

One could consider how one’s own behaviour looks TRP.

And it goes on.

The lost+sheep 13.1.2

It may be a paraphrase, but that doesn’t alter the fact it displays a breathtakingly facile assumption of the intellectual superiority of The Left.

As such, and considering that Sable is willing to post it on a publicly accessible forum, it is the stupidest comment I’ve seen for some time.

But I stand shoulder to shoulder with the moderators in defending Sables right to make a complete arse of his/her self in that manner.

[lprent: You can make an arse of yourself as well and do so on a regular basis. I guess that is what happens when a herd animal like those damn wooly trolls leaves the flock.

Sable isn’t “The Left”, any more than you are the voice of the jerkoffs of the world. Sable speaks for themself, just as your sticky hands speak for you.

Just so long as they don’t cause me or the moderators any more work than is required, people can say what they like on OpenMike. Making work for me can consist of making comments that implicitly request me to look at peoples behaviour and finding that there isn’t anything to look at. You will find that listed under the self-martyrdom (or in your case the self-baatyrdom) offences. ]

That’s the standard of free speech on the Labour left.

NZ ‘right wing’ accused of terrorism

The Standardistas are baffled as to why the people are comatose – see Standard poll reaction – the people are comatose – and then post stuff like this from vto:

Meaning of terrorism: “the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.”

recent terrorist attacks in NZ;

French government on Rainbow Warrior in Auckland 1985 killing Fernando Periera
Unknown blowing up Wellington Trade Union Hall 1982 killing Ernie Abbott
Gunshots fired through Hone Harawira’s electorate office last year.
Unite Union offices attacked last week.

All terrorism

All by the right wing of the political spectrum

No evidence required by the conspiracy theorists. Vto had also posted:

John Key has caused this by sending our troops to fight some of Americas wars.

It was intentional.

This was on a post by Anthony Robins that actual made a fair point – Be afraid. Be very afraid. – the sudden surge in terror warnings when we have very little real terrorism in New Zealand is alarming.

Alongside the alleged uncovering of a terrorist plot in Australia in the weekend there may be some real cause for concern, but media scaring tactics are playing the terrorist game.

But Anthony, isn’t your recent obsession with “From the anonymous editorial” and “Stop right there anonymous editorialist” a bit ironic, given the staunch support The Standard gives to anonymity of it’s authors and commenters?

Ok, bloggers operate under pseudonyms which are different from being anonymous. Except for the likes of ‘Notices and Features’ who often seem to express opinion anonymously. And like this posted under ‘Natwatch':

Geddis spanks Farrar

Over at Pundit Andrew Geddis has a great piece – “Three signs that National knows Simon Bridges did wrong“. Geddis on the third sign, Nat spinster David Farrar running the “beltway issue” deflection, is brilliant in all sorts of ways. Won’t spoil it by quoting, but I think it’s fair to say that it’s a pretty sticky moment for DPF. Read the whole piece at Pundit, but be warned, you will need to disinfect your brain.

Who is the anonymous editorialist behind ‘I think’?

At least all the identities who could contribute to any Herald editorial are known so we know who could be responsible for overplaying the terror scares.

Standard poll reaction – the people are comatose

Reaction from the Labour left to the latest poll is blaming people for being asleep, to the extent of a comatose conspiracy.

Last week’s One News Colmar Brunton poll suggests that little has changed in national support:

  • National 49%
  • Labour 31%
  • Greens 9% (down 1)
  • NZ First 7% (up 1)

So after all the hype and hope after Northland Labour and the Greens have gained nothing – which shouldn’t be surprising, they sought nothing in Northland and have been quiet politically since..

Initial reaction to the poll at The Standard last night, first from Anne:

Have you noticed ianmac there has been virtually no political news since the byelection? The MSM has gone dead quiet. To my knowledge Andrew Little has only been ‘allowed’ one spot on the 6pm TV news since that time. Nobody from the Greens have had a look in.. to anything.

Out of sight and out of mind? I think so.

Political news from all parties was quiet over the polling period with the Easter break dominating. But Anne’s knowledge is deficient. Looking at One News:

Andrew Little featured in all of those items. The polling period was 11-15 April.

‘Paul’ can’t believe the country doesn’t notice something.

So NZ is still sound asleep.
Unbelievable.

So Anne plays the grand conspiracy card:

They are now in a politically comatose state – as planned.

That card is well worn. The Joker isn’t worth anything in this game.

And this morning ‘Notices and Features’ (the author that doesn’t want to be known as an author) has posted:

No significant changes in yesterdays TV1 / Colmar Brunton poll, with National unchanged on 49%, Labour unchanged on 31%, and all changes within the margin of error.

Certain Nats have started counting their chickens for a fourth term!

Yes, there’s a bit of that at Kiwiblog in comments on Latest poll. But looking at opponents is ignoring one’s own predicament.

And Paul continues his disbelief here:

Northland bridges.
International Milk prices.
Housing bubbles
Iraq.
Child Poverty
The TPPA
The attack on Campbell Live
Clear and present warnings from economists that NZ’s economy is vulnerable.

And 49% of NZ is still sound asleep.
Unbelievable

It’s the people’s fault. If only they would wake up and see how awful National are and marvellous the Labour-Green-NZ First fantasy is.

Whateva next?

It is, and I don’t believe that 49% of the country akshully think that National are any good.
questions can be asked to produce desired answers, just like Key can find a lawyer or a scientist to say whatever he wants.

Questions like “If a general election was held today, would you be eligible to vote?” – whatever next, perhaps wanting a question like “Do you support the fantastic Labour Party over the lying corrupt National Party?

But Paul seems to think it’s Colmar Brunton who are lying and corrupt:

Maybe they just ask property owning Aucklanders, with good savings and therefore no reliance on a thriving NZ economy. These same people must also be either unaware or don’t care about the rest of the issues mentioned.

And Sanctuary tries facts…

Time to face facts – we’ve psychologically become a third world country, where the top half of the population dominates the media and has given up even caring about the bottom half, and the bottom half have slipped into invisibility and inertia.

…with no evidence of any actual facts.

It takes a righty to suggest reality – Matthew Hooton:

For a govt to change, the incumbent needs to look arrogant, dodgy, corrupt, out of touch, out of ideas, or a combination of these; and the challenger needs to look attractive and competent.

National is doing it’s bit for a change of govt even if Labour is not!

The degree of disillusionment, despondency and dissing at the Labour left Standard does the opposite of making the challenger look attractive and competent.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,004 other followers