Stringer, Slater throw Bible back at Craig

John Stringer and Cameron Slater continue to jointly fight Colin Craig, throwing some Biblical references back at Craig.

Last Wednesday Colin Craig made two announcements. The first:

The first of the 2 major announcements today is the publication of a booklet that outlines the dirty politics agenda and what they have been up to in recent weeks.

The first false claim is that I have sexually harassed one or more persons. Let me be very clear I have never sexually harassed anybody and claims I have done so are false.

The second false claim being bandied about by the Dirty Politics Brigade is that I have made a pay-out (or pay-outs) to silence supposed “victims”. Again this is nonsense.

Again in a similar vein is the false allegation that I have sent sexually explicit text messages or “SEXT’s” as they are known. Once more this is not true. I have never sent a sexually explicit text message in my life.

The fourth false claim that we highlight in the booklet and that was being spread about by the Dirty Politics crowd was that of another alleged “victim” of sexual harassment.

The second announcement was that Craig would take defamation action against John Stringer, Jordan Williams and Cameron Slater:

The second announcement today is that we will be taking legal action for defamation against the Dirty Politics Brigade. It does not serve this country well to have a group of people who influence public opinion through a web of deceit and media manipulation.

We identify in the booklet 3 key people in the campaign against me. Each of these will be held to account for the lies they have told. Formal claims are being prepared and I expect these persons will have formal letters from my legal team within the next 48 hours.

The booklet distributed by Craig referred to Stringer as:

  • the ‘Judas’ within the Party.

CraigBookletCoverAmongst the claims against Stringer:

Stringer must have therefore thought it a “Godsend” when the allegations of sexual harassment against Craig began to emerge.

Two days later Stringer had a letter from a lawyer published on Whale Oil by Slater that said:

COLIN CRAIG: DEFAMATION ACTION

  1. We act for Colin Craig and have been instructed by him to prepare defamation proceedings against you.

Stringer has returned fire. Today Slater published this cartoon signed by Stringer:

unnamed

The Bible bashers continue to square off.

Both sides seem confident in their righteousness. They can’t all be right.

Slater versus NZ Herald and “inherent dishonesty”

When I posted Slater cleared of hacking claims yesterday I left out trivial side issues that the Herald chose to highlight, like a couple of spelling mistakes in the police report, in Dirty Politics: Police clear blogger over Labour hacking claims.

That seemed to be irrelevant to the story apart from being a dig at the police, and as was pointed out on Twitter, it’s almost inevitable that those complaining about spelling and grammar make mistakes in doing so.

. I mean, if you’re going to take a cheap crack at the Police’s spelling – don’t cock it up.

Embedded image permalink

The article now says:

NZH010815

But there was a more serious mistake according to Cameron Slater. in THE INHERENT DISHONESTY OF DAVID FISHER.

Yesterday David Fisher wrote an article in a newspaper about me.

At the bottom of the article he said this:

Slater – who did not wish to comment – has denied any wrongdoing.

There is a problem with that statement…I never said I did not wish to comment.

I saw that comment. I also noticed later that it had changed to:

Slater, who has denied any wrongdoing, said he would be seeking an apology from Andrew Little over the accusations.

Slater explains what happened:

At 4:19pm David Fisher emailed me for comment.

Fisher-email

I responded to him:

Please provide me a copy of the Police advice to the Labour party, then I will consider a response.

Little did I know that David Fisher had already published the story a mere 9 minutes after he emailed me for comment.

He provides evidence of that:

Screen Shot 2015-07-31 at 5.01.18 pm

.The article still shows that time of publication, despite at least two edits since then.

Inherent dishonesty? Or hurried and sloppy plus lax editing protocols?

Slater cleared of hacking claims

Cameron Slater has been cleared of criminal offences related to the accessing data on a Labour Party website, but not cleared of ethical or privacy issues.

NZ Herald report Dirty Politics: Police clear blogger over Labour hacking claims

Not so Dirty Politics after all.

That’s the message from police over a blogger accessing Labour Party computer systems to gather financial and membership details.

The country’s most senior detective Rodney Drew today told the Labour Party that “there is no evidence of criminal offending”.

“While the matter may raise privacy and ethical issues, these are not the domain of criminal law.”

The details revealed in the book led to the Labour Party complaining it had been hacked, among other claims. The other matters were dismissed by police last year. The reason, in a letter from Mr Drew, was that the “only evidence being relied on was contents of Mr Hagar’s (sic) book and the entities and persons named did not want to pursue any action”.

Two government inquiries into matters raised in Dirty Politics found evidence given by Slater could not be relied on – and that he had overstated his contacts and influence.

I’m not surprised by this finding. Labour had acknowledged they left data open to access, and Slater publicised how easily it was accessed and ridiculed Labour.

But I think Slater went to far with what he did with the data, allegedly copying off financial and membership details and threatening to expose them. That is the bit that looks unethical.

I liken it to finding a bunch of papers on the footpath or roadside. It’s fair enough to check them out and  criticise someone’s mistake in losing them, but rummaging through them and threatening the information maliciously is where it can get dirty.

Labour Party general secretary Tim Barnett…

… said the police conclusions were “unbelievable”. He said the party was considering further action.

He said compared to the effort being put into investigating Slater did not compare to the energy put into investigating Hager.

“I would expect to see a level of energy from the police that was equitable and we certainly haven’t seen that in the treatment of us.”

The two aren’t comparable. Slater legally saw data and dirtily threatened to disclose details but didn’t (he has a record of threatening disclosure and not delivering).

In comparison someone illegally hacked Slater’s data and supplied it to Hager and later journalists, and then Hager used that data to make money off a book and appears to have attempted to defeat a Government.

That’s a very different scale of offending and unethical behaviour.

Touting for prison business?

Cameron Slater makes some good point ion his post TIME FOR NATIONAL TO STOP REACTING TO UNION LEAKS, AND TAKE CONTROL:

This Serco hit has been long in the making, and once again, TV3 and the Herald acting as Dirty Media are at the forefront of the Dirty Politics hit to assist Labour.

It’s now forced the Prime Minister onto the stage and he’s taken a position that Serco is going to be history if it is found to be incompetent.

Just what the Union wants to hear.

Because they, and TV3, the Herald and Labour have a long list of incidents to work through.

If that happens what’s the bet they will be all targeting Serco managed prisons.

But here is the thing…if Labour cared so much about the care of prisoners why have they sat for so long on this information while more prisoners got injured…and why did they lie and make up stories when the truth is bad enough.

This could be tough on Davis, he has been trying to raise attention but was until recently seemingly ignored by the Government.

Kelvin Davis’ claims regarding one prisoner are completely false but we haven’t heard the media baying for his apology have we?

I don’t think it’s been proven one way or the other yet.

But the problem for Labour is this…no one cares. I challenge the media to find someone on the streets of Auckland who give a flying fig about whether or not some prisoner got the bash inside.

Prison welfare is a real problem not just at Serco but in prisons around the country. See Government is Hiding the Truth Behind the Serco Debate. But in that post Te Rangikaiwhiria Kemara makes these points:

  • Prisons are the way they are because the public is largely uninvolved, and is not actually interested in what goes on inside.
  • Most of the general public don’t actually care about what happens to prisoners – they get what they deserve … unless violence is put in the public face, as in the recent Serco revelations.

So Slater may well be right on that. The he finishes with:

If Serco were smart they’d be hiring their own Dirty Politics crew to counter the unions.

Sounds like he’s touting for business.

Philip Lyth versus Key, Slater and Farrar

I see Philip Lyth on Twitter quite often, he seems to be a prolific tweeter. He describes himself there as “Husband, politics junkie, psephologist. Standing Orders.”

Last night he retweeted to a John Key tweet and responded:

Philip Lyth retweeted John Key
Wow John. You lead the party which includes David Farrar & Cameron Slater who dogwhistle Muslims at every chance?

That’s a silly shot at Key, he can’t be held responsible for what all party members do – and I don’t think Slater is even a member of the National Party.

On the accusation Lyth made – it’s certainly easy to get the impression that Slater is a Muslim dogwhistler although his wife ‘Spanish Bride seems to have been doing more anti-Muslim posts lately.

But I’ve been a close observer of Kiwiblog for years and I don’t recall much if any Muslim dog-whsitling from David Farrar (DPF). A quick search shows that DPF doesn’t post very often about Muslim topics.

His last post was in March: Why are so many Australian muslims radicalised?

Stuff reports:

A nightclub bouncer who reportedly became a terror group leader. A man who tweeted a photo of his young son clutching a severed head. A teenager who is believed to have turned suicide bomber, and others suspected of attempting to travel to Syria to join the Islamic State movement. All of them, Australian.

The London-based International Center for the Study of Radicalization and Political Violence reports that between 100 and 250 Australians have joined Sunni militants in Iraq and Syria. Given Australia’s vast distance from the region and its population of just 24 million, it is a remarkable number. The center estimates that about 100 fighters came from the United States, which has more than 13 times as many people as Australia.

That’s a huge number.

Experts disagree about why the Islamic State group has been so effective recruiting in Australia, which is widely regarded as a multicultural success story, with an economy in an enviable 24th year of continuous growth.

Possible explanations include that some Australian Muslims are poorly integrated with the rest of the country, and that Islamic State recruiters have given Australia particular attention. In addition, the Australian government failed to keep tabs on some citizens who had been radicalized, and moderate Muslims have been put off by some of Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s comments about their community.

It’s pathetic to even suggest that Tony Abbott is the reason. I’m not Abbott’s biggest fan, but the hatred and bias from many sections of the Australian media towards him is appalling.

I think the first explanation is the strongest. For well over a decade there has been a significant radical element who have not integrated. Many senior Muslim clerics in Australia have said appalling things, and use incendiary speech. We’re very fortunate that in NZ we’ve never had this problem. That doesn’t mean that there are not some extreme radicals – just that the senior leadership in NZ is not radical, and in fact very well focused on integration.

That seems like realistic comment and not dog whistling.

Sure the comments at Kiwiblog are often thick with anti-Muslim sentiment, as was the case on this post, starting with:

Odakyu-sen

Duuuh!

Don’t allow people into your country who despise your culture and don’t want to integrate.

wreck1080

Just ban muslims from coming to NZ.

The ones already here will eventually outbreed us all anyway so lets delay the inevitable .

It is too bad we cannot eject the more troublesome ones already here — or can we?

David Garrett:

DPF: How on earth can you say we are very fortunate not have this problem here ? How do you know what is being preached in the several mosques around the country? The little that does leak out is far from reassuring…just yesterday there was a report of some radical being trespassed from the mosque in Avondale, and that person going to the head sharing’s house and telling him “Jihad will start here”…

All that can safely be said is we have seen little outward manifestations of Islamic radicalism here…so far. I’m afraid it’s just a matter of time.

But I think it’s unfair to blame DPF for dog whistling, this is more a result of his very liberal moderation and the fact that a number of extreme right leaning commenters have made Kiwiblog their pulpit.

Muslim bashing occurs on Kiwiblog far more frequently than DPF posts anything related to Islam. There’s virtually a daily dose from Manolo, like yesterday where he posted the first comment on General Debate:

Manolo (16,656 comments) says: 

The daily dose of Islamic love and peace: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/at-least-28-dead-in-suspected-isis-suicide-attack-on-turkish-border-town-live-10401885.html

Manolo started calling me the Mullah of Dunedin a while ago because I didn’t agree with his extreme views.

But this isn’t due to DPF dog whistling, it is due to the principle of free speech exercised at Kiwiblog.

John Drinnan had responded to Lyth’s tweet:

John Drinnan retweeted Philip Lyth

“wogs” is the term du jour.

That’s correct for Whale Oil, try a search their on ‘wog’ and there’s ample evidence.

But Drinnan is not correct regarding Farrar, his last ‘Wog’ post was in 2013 – Wogistan – that was comment on Richard Proctor’s bizarre comments. And that’s it from Kiwiblog.

So I challenged Lyth on his accusation.

Philip Lyth ‏@philiplyth 11h11 hours ago

Philip Lyth retweeted Pete George

Where’s your evidence Pete George is not a troll?

That’s a lame way of avoiding responsibility for a serious accusation against Farrar and directed at Key and National by association.

It looks like Lyth is the dog whistler here.

Philip – if you can make a case that Farrar is a Muslim dog whistler I’ll post it. Otherwise I think a retraction is in order.

Agreeing and disagreeing with Prentice on hacking

Lynn Prentice has posted a rambling and sometimes bizarre post at The Standard, and he virtually threatens the police in places. It’s another instalment in his long-running feud with Cameron Slater.

It’s titled Charge Cameron Slater or let me hack systems.

Early last week I made a statement to and complained to the police about Cameron Slater paying Ben Rachinger to try to hack into my computers on the behalf of his mysterious “funder”.

He indicated he would be doing this in a comment at The Standard last week. The Rachinger story started in late January and generally fizzled out a month or two ago.

He makes a case for why he thinks Slater should be charged, convicted and jailed

Cameron Slater should be locked away from society for our protection. He has a clear pattern of repeatably doing this kind of offense and others. About the only thing that he seems to respond to (if you look at his history on names suppression contempt of court convictions) is being told that he will be heading to prison if he persists. Since he just transfers to some other illegal activity, it is pretty clear that he desperately needs prison time to understand what that means.

I have no idea about possible or likely sentences but I agree with Prentice that based on what I’ve seen of what Ben Rachinger has posted the police should ate least seriously investigate the alleged attempt to have The Standard hacked. It’s clear Slater has done some stupid stuff with Rachinger, but it’s unclear how stupid and how provably illegal, despite Prentice’s accusations.

But I don’t think Prentice’s approach will help his case, I doubt the Police will appreciate being harangued into marching Slater off to prison.

Nor his threatened reaction, to do some of his own hacking if the Slater case isn’t progressed favourably for him.

So if the police have no intentions of enforcing those laws protecting computer systems for irresponsible people like Cameron Slater who has been so clearly violating them, then shouldn’t they tell us?

Back before these types of laws and changes to university regulations came into being, responsible hackers used to routinely test the security on systems. It was something that I did throughout my first degree at Waikato starting in 1978.

Let me be free to access the systems I want to have a look into. I have the tools, the background in security and networks. I’d love to openly and freely hack into systems without legal retribution –  just like Cam does. I am sure that there are thousands of competent people like me in NZ here who’d enjoy doing that as well. There are several who are authors on this site.

Outside of the political sphere, there are way more non-political tech-heads who’d enjoy being given Cam’s apparent license against prosecution by the police. They would also like to remove themselves from the artificial and clearly unenforced legal restrictions that we currently voluntarily observe.

If the police don’t want to prosecute such crimes done by the irresponsible amongst us, then  why constrain the responsible?

That doesn’t seem very smart, but it’s typical Prentice.

However I think it’s important the Police are seen to treat politically motivated hacking as a serious legal and democratic issue in more than just the Rawshark case.

Talking of which, it was good to see Prentice make a statement on his views on the Rawshark case.

[lprent: I have never condoned the hack on Cameron Slater’s system. If “Rawshark” can even be identified and charged, then he/she should be. But if Rawshark is prosecuted or even pursued by the police, then Cameron Slater damn well should be too for his two direct computer access offenses, and for trying to procure a hack of my systems.

However I have previously said (or words to that effect) that the information from that hack is useful, illuminating, of high public interest, and Rawshark did a great service by bringing it to the surface from the disgusting sesspool of National’s dirty politics full of intimidation, planned blackmail, and the highly inappropriate linkages of parliamentary services work time to running attack blogs. Perhaps that is what confuses your simple mind.

I don’t know of any known linkages between rawshark and Labour. My guess is that you are just repeating Cameron Slater’s well known unsubstantiated lying on the subject. FFS the idiot can’t even keep his story straight and generally refers to people who are even less technically illiterate than he is.]

It’s good to see him appearing support the identification and charging of Rawshark, if it’s not just confidence Rawshark won’t be identified.

But there’s little comparison between:

– The Rawshark hack of Slater’s data, the feeding of it to an author and the using of it to try and determine the outcome of an election.

– The alleged attempt to pay to have The Standard hacked, that Prentice is certain was unsuccessful.

The latter, if true, was very dumb but also fairly futile. It’s unlikey there was much if anything of interest to most people to be found.

But the Rawshark hack is reprehensible and undeserving of praise. No matter how much Slater et all deserved to be exposed.

“I don’t know of any known linkages between rawshark and Labour” could be just grammar lprent style, or it could be read different ways.

Calling someone an idiot and then saying “people who are even less technically illiterate than he is” is cute.

In summary I agree with Prentice’s apparently fairly strong stand against hacking for dirty politics. But I disagree with some of what he claims, and think his propensity to overstate things and his apparent attempt to verbally bludgeon the Police into doing what he wants is as dumb as Slater can sometimes be. And probably counter productive.

Whale attention seeking and self praise

It looks like Cameron Slater is trying some attention seeking, I wonder if the month’s stats are behind target.

WHY DOES IT UPSET YOU WHEN I WRITE ABOUT CHINKS, WOGS, ROAD MAGGOTS AND FERALS?

You only have to read the leftie blogs wailing about me to realise I’m labelled a racist, a misogynist, and many other -ists by those who don’t agree with me politically.

I may in fact hold the record of the most -ist labels a single person can be described with in this country.

But some of you are afflicted by the same problem:  You can’t see the difference between being funny, insensitive, or even deliberately offensive, and being an actualracist, or any other -ist.

If you follow this blog and you still haven’t worked out that I’m winding the left and their media enablers up, then there is little hope for you.

I count among my friends a number of road maggots, porridge wogs and chinks.  Even the odd Tulip Muncher and … ferals from Hamilton and Palmerston North.

And none of them are offended by what I say.  And they can’t be offended because of the -ist things that I do, because I don’t.

But the touchy feely progressive lefty sniveling save-other-people-from-that-nasty-Slater types, they go incandescent with rage.

Does incandescent rage look anything like bemusement? I feel the latter when this sort of “look at me, I’m a bad arse” crap is posted. It might get a few more clicks but it does nothing for credibility or respect, except negative.

Someone who must be one of the most loyal of the Whale Oil Army is more than a little ironic.

The left have not acknowledged any of the major changes to WO and continue to describe it to be the blog it was 10 years ago. If Cam made the changes you describe they would be ignored as well. They cannot afford to respect it as it is too powerful and their mission is to silence us by fair means or foul as we found out last year.

Still going about last year. That was, like, a year ago.

And:

Our Moderation is a major change and our moderation rules for those who comment here.Check out The Standard and The Daily Blog and compare. 
They have foul language, we do not. 
They have personal attacks and off topic comments we do not. We have high value comments only, they do not.

High value to who?

Comments that follow the rules are published regardless of their point of view…

As many who have past experience on Whale Oil will have a good laugh at that claim.

…whereas my polite comments on the other two blogs are not published generally and if they are published I am attacked personally for being married to Cam so I no longer attempt to join in their debates.

We also have articles from other writers now not just Cameron. We have guest posts, Staff posts and volunteer posts like my ones on Charter Schools and Islam.

We have also increased the volume of posts, our output is huge. No other blog in NZ can compete work ethic wise, content wise or click wise.

Depends on how you see “work ethic”. Certainly the number of posts is more than probably any other New Zealand blog – and having possibly the only full time employed bloggers in the country must help.

“Content wise” is highly debatable, quantity doesn’t necessarily  mean quality.

Clicks might help egos and attract some advertising and if that’s what they’re proud of then fair enough, but it’s not for everyone:

WhaleOilJuly15

Believe it or not that’s how Whale Oil presents the linked post.

Whale Oil is debatably the most liked (stats don’t measure levels of liking) but it is probably the most disliked as well.

Slater seems to like both extremes while pretending to have nice comments.

I guess he doesn’t like people in comments to outdo his shock and awful.

“A Whale Party would have sensible, centerist policies”

Whale Oil is still kicking over the debris of the Conservative party train wreck – Behind the Scenes of the Colin Craig Catastrophe – where John Stringer laments are quoted.

In the thread (a sparse thread, interest is dwindling) a couple of comments raise the issue of an alternative right leaning party.

Cavalier:

Now that the Conservative Party is dead, NZ needs a political party that represents voters who lean to the right. With National now firmly occupying the political centre-left, there is a vacuum only partly occupied by ACT who many distrust as being too far out.

Mainstream Mike:

Yep. And why not a Whale party? For the Auckland elections, and the general elections.

Conservatives are dead; ACT is dead; Labour is dead; NZF is a joke; the Greens are worse than a joke.

Cam doesn’t even have to run for office. The example I’m thinking of is Beppe Grillo’s Five Star Movement: built from nothing by Italy’s biggest blogger. Now it decides the government.

A Whale Party would have sensible, centerist policies: low taxes, lower benefits, gun rights, no unions, no affirmative reactions, retire public debt by selling state assets. M5S (Five Star Movement) gets 25% of the vote. A Whale Party could easily do the same.

2.5% would be challenging enough for a new party, 25% is a fantasy of Craig proportions.

Besides I suspect Slater has aims of closer to 50% by getting Judith Collins installed as next National leader. He has already begun campaigning towards this by trying to hasten John Key’s retirement or defeat.

I’m not sure the “sensible centerist” and “Whale Oil” are a natural fit, that’s about as discordant as “Colin Craig” and “conservative”.

And while ‘sensible” can be debated I’m a bit doubtful that “low taxes, lower benefits, gun rights, no unions, no affirmative reactions, retire public debt by selling state assets” are exactly ‘centerist’.

Plus it would take a lot of sales of these…

small

…to finance a serious party bid.

No evidence that Judith Collins undermined SFO boss

Transcripts of interviews released to NZ Herald under the Official Information Act don’t reveal any evidence that then Justice Minister Judith Collins tried to undermine the head of the Serious Fraud Office, Adam Feeley.

It appears the ‘over-blown’ claims by Cameron Slater dumped his friend Collins into a political shit storm.

In Champagne stunt an utter disaster: Collins the Herald reports:

An inquiry by High Court judge Lester Chisholm, which published its report in November, found no evidence that Ms Collins had attempted to undermine Mr Feeley when she was Police Minister in 2011.

Transcripts of interviews with 13 witnesses, including Ms Collins, Mr Feeley, bloggers Cameron Slater and Cathy Odgers and lobbyist Carrick Graham have been released to the Herald under the Official Information Act.

The inquiry concluded that Slater had exaggerated or made up a claim that Ms Collins had been “gunning” for Mr Feeley.

Chisholm inquiry – key players

•Judith Collins (former Police, Justice Minister): Resigned as a minister after an email appeared to show she was “gunning” for SFO boss Adam Feeley. Later cleared of inappropriate conduct but not returned to Cabinet.

•Adam Feeley (former SFO CEO): Investigated by State Services Commission after celebrating charges against Rod Petricevic by drinking champagne taken from Bridgecorp’s offices.

•Cameron Slater (Whale Oil blogger): A friend of Collins, he claimed she was “gunning” for Feeley while she was Police Minister, but later admitted to the inquiry that his comment may have been over-blown.

•Carrick Graham (lobbyist): Paid blogger Cathy Odgers (Cactus Kate) to counter negative media attention for Hanover boss Mark Hotchin, whom the SFO was investigating. Ms Odgers used Slater’s blog to get a wider audience for the campaign.

•Anita Killeen (former SFO staffer): Leaked damaging information about Feeley. Later pleaded guilty to forging an email which appeared to be sent by Feeley. She was discharged without conviction.

Feeley thought Collins overreacted to embarrassing news about a champagne celebration.

Former Justice Minister Judith Collins described a champagne stunt by fraud watchdog Adam Feeley as an “utter disaster” that threatened to overshadow the Government at a crucial time.

Mr Feeley believed Ms Collins had overreacted when the then Serious Fraud Office boss was found to have celebrated charges against Bridgecorp with champagne taken from its offices.

They seem to have since dealt with that.

Was it just bullshit bravado from Slater that dumped Collins into the shit-storm that resulted in her resignation from Cabinet?

What were he, Odgers and Graham playing at? And for whom?

Has Slater protected her by later denying his claims?

The Conservative Board bull

The battle of the two Conservative Party Boards seems to be unresolved, although Colin Craig appears to have control of the party officials and the party resources including the membership database.

So Whale Oil Media continues their campaign against Craig. Cameron Slater has posted 20 FAIR QUESTIONS FOR COLIN CRAIG which in the main seems to be a padded out list of threats of more revelations, eventually.

There are going to be a lot of people quite disappointed with him when the truth finally reaches them.   And that may not be for some time.

But apart from Stringer and the genuine board, nobody is in a hurry.

That doesn’t look like how responsible media or journalists should operate.

However one of the questions is important relating to the current battle of the Boards.

The one Board member who didn’t resign, John Stringer, appointed new interim Board members in the weekend. Colin Craig has claimed Stringer has not authority to do that because the Board had suspended him from the party on Thursday.

Slater asks:

When you said publicly that John Stringer had been “suspended” by “a duly constituted meeting of the board headed by then-board chairman Brian Dobbs” (NZHerald) why did you not disclose that it was simply a phone call between Brian Dobbs (who resigned the next day) and Nathaniel Heslop (who had already resigned)?

Unless Craig can demonstrate that Stringer has legitimately been suspended using proper and fair processes then Craig’s dismissal of the Stringer Board and his attempts to set up an alternative Board have little credibility.

Both Stringer and Craig seem to be waging a PR battle via proxies – Stringer appears to be informing Slater to promote his agenda and Craig appears to be using the party officials to promote his agenda.

But there’s a lack of facts and a lot of bull.

The Conservative Party looks far from transparent and and far from democratic. Unless the Board bull can be seen to be properly sorted out then I don’t see any viable future for the party.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,095 other followers