Slater’s first book topic revealed

After putting out some teasers last week about his first book (with many more promised) Cameron Slater has revealed the title of his book which gives a bit of an idea about the subject matter.


Screen Shot 2015-09-29 at 7.57.14 pm

This may or may not address issues around ‘Dirty Politics’.

And that may or may not annoy people who have already ordered copies of the book.

People who have followed Whale Oil over that past few years may guess about some of the possible content as unions and their finances have been covered.

UPDATE: Slater has added this in comments:

Nicky Hager told a story about me and framed me in a certain light. That was what he wanted. It became apparent to me in researching and preparing a counter book that I couldn’t do that without first exploring what it is that drives me, how I came to be who I am and so I have and am preparing numerous books that explore those themes.

This is the first one and starts where I started…my first experiences working under unions…and how I came to distrust and dislike unions and why. This is the first time unions have had the microscope put on them…what we have found is interesting.

So Slater has linked this to his promised Dirty Politics counter revelations by saying it explores what drives him and he is “preparing numerous books that explore those themes”. It could take quite a while and quite a few books to get to the actual Dirty Politics counter story then.

I presume this isn’t aimed at being a money making venture with more instalments than Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit, the box office appeal is substantially lower than  for a fantasy fight fest series.

ANOTHER THOUGHT: Commonly quote in politics – under promise and over deliver. Slater has been promising a counter to Dirty Politics for a year or more, and his first book at least seems like a major under delivery.

Threatening journalists to toe the line

In the introduction to the Dirty Politics series against Fran O’Sullivan (And so we begin) ‘Cameron Slater’ quoted Nicky Hager on Q & A”

“If you see a name of a journalist in the book, they are the ones I don’t think have done anything wrong, they’re just incidental to the story. Every journalist who had been taking stories in dodgy ways from David Farrar, one of the bloggers, or Cameron Slater or from the prime minister’s office, I actually left their names out. I decided not to do the journalists basically.

All apart from Rachel Glucina, who Hager described as “despicable”.

Although Hager highlighted the problem of media being played by Slater and others, he also said he understood the demands of the industry.

“I think that a whole lot of people had done things which were dodgy and wrong. In other words they knew that their prime minister’s office was feeding them information and you could get really easy stories.

“You were being used but it was giving you another headline in a job which is very busy and competitive, where people want to get stuff, so there’s a ton of horrible temptation to keep being an outlet for Cameron Slater and people.

The people I’m talking about are in the press gallery, senior journalists. Basically I didn’t want to humiliate them, I wanted to give them room to think again and do it differently. That was the reason. Because we’re a small country and there are only going to be the same senior journalists the year after and the year after that, so let them change their minds on it.”

‘Slater’ responded to that:

So Nicky Hager was threatening journalists to toe the line, and change, otherwise he’d out them.

Today in comments on the Fran O’Sullivan, Secret tip-offs and Bullying an OIA Requester post Whale Oil adminstrator/moderator Pete Belt responded to a comment:

Why is Osullivan digging a hole for herself, she must know what she does will leak out and hurt her.?


    The picture is starting to form of someone who has a high regard for herself (and assumes it is widely shared by others) thinking she is protected. The sad thing is that true loyalty is very hard to come by in life. In business, and media, it’s almost non existent.

    The amusing thing is that we warned her. Not only did she not stop, she turned on Whaleoil. We then warned her again to stop. She did not. Her attacks on Cam/Whaleoil increased.

    Well, you can only conclude she was comfortable with the idea of being the subject of a year-long Whaleoil investigation. It’s a amazing what you can dig up when you talk to all the people that have been left damaged and hurt by someone over the years.

    And the best bit is still to come.

  • That sounds very similar to “threatening journalists to toe the line, and change, otherwise…”

    Who versus O’Sullivan?

    When Cameron Slater’s book launch was announced on Wednesday (‘by Whale Oil staff’) –  Journalist, blogger, now: Author. Cam Slater’s new book – they said:

    It is the first of many planned books that allow Cam to explore subjects in far more depth and provide far more analysis than is possible in a short blog post. The fast pace of blogging means that thought and contemplation and detailed analysis are often missed.

    It seemed a bit odd that that half an hour before that And so we begin was posted ‘by Cameron Slater’, and an hour afterwards it was followed up by Telling the truth about Fran O’Sullivan and Dirty Politics, also by ‘by Cameron Slater’.

    Then on Thursday Dirty Politics and Fran O’Sullivan’s “Unethical Alliance” With Bloggers and later in the day Dirty Media – Who feeds Fran?

    Then today Dirty Media – a nice bit of confusion over names, and just who or what is NZ Inc?

    And Fran O’Sullivan, Secret tip-offs and Bullying an OIA Requester.

    And The Changing Hats of Fran O’Sullivan – NZ Inc. or NZME. ?

    All ‘by Cameron Slater’.

    In the meantime the book launch kept being plugged, along with the usual fare of posts each day.

    Having just said that many books were planned a detailed series of posts related to Dirty Politics were posted in parallel.

    Has anyone wondered if these posts maybe didn’t look quite like the usual Slater posts? Even the headings have a different ring to them? It’s known that he has passed off other people’s work under his own name before.

    Cameron Slater or a ghost writer?

    Anyone who’s wondering about all this Whale Oil versus O’Sullivan stuff – and serious questions are being asked of O’Sullivan which if fact based seems fair enough – can catch up with some of the back story in these two columns.

    Slater begins self harming journalist utu

    Cameron Slater seems to have always had a vengeful nature, and he has been promising revenge since he was hit by Dirty Politics. This week he began dishing out the dirt in retaliation.

    He started with And so we begin on Wednesday, with Slater saying “Remember these words from Nicky Hager?” and quoting Hager:

    Investigative writer Nicky Hager said he kept some journalists out of the dirt in his latest book Dirty Politics in hope of a cleaner future.

    “If you see a name of a journalist in the book, they are the ones I don’t think have done anything wrong, they’re just incidental to the story. Every journalist who had been taking stories in dodgy ways from David Farrar, one of the bloggers, or Cameron Slater or from the prime minister’s office, I actually left their names out. I decided not to do the journalists basically.

    The people I’m talking about are in the press gallery, senior journalists. Basically I didn’t want to humiliate them, I wanted to give them room to think again and do it differently. That was the reason. Because we’re a small country and there are only going to be the same senior journalists the year after and the year after that, so let them change their minds on it.”

    Slater then said:

    So Nicky Hager was threatening journalists to toe the line, and change, otherwise he’d out them.

    Well, here is a list of the current Press Gallery journalists…I’ve crossed out the names of those I’ve had no dealings with.

    You can work out for yourselves who Nicky Hager is referring to when he says “senior journalists”.

    Most journalists were crossed out, but twelve were not.

    His next post (30 minutes later) announced a book launch: Journalist, blogger, now: Author. Cam Slater’s new book

    It is the first of many planned books that allow Cam to explore subjects in far more depth and provide far more analysis than is possible in a short blog post. The fast pace of blogging means that thought and contemplation and detailed analysis are often missed.

    Launch:     Details to come.

    Media:       To discuss an interview or serialising a chapter of this book please contact Cam

    He has been promising a book of revelations for some time, but it looks like it could be a long form drip feed of “many planned books”.

    An hour later Slater posted Telling the truth about Fran O’Sullivan and Dirty Politics on Tuesday.

    I wasn’t invited to this left wing love fest so I thought I would contribute some documents today that show precisely how donkey deep Fran O’Sullivan really was in Dirty Politics and how like many people, used me to peddle information when it suited their personal agenda.

    The difference between Fran and the rest of those people is that none have been stupid enough to behave like she has since and have stayed very quiet. Also none have sat doing it next to Nicky Hager as though they are now his puppet. Fran has previously seen fit to publish personal correspondence to her in her columns to defend what she thought was a wrong so I weighed this up in the decision to breach her privacy likewise and publish her emails to me without consent.

    It is in the public interest, now she has hoist her own petard, that I respond to her claims and show precisely what she knew and happily participated in. She is after all now in a very senior position at the largest newspaper in New Zealand in charge of the reputation of its business reporting.

    The following is an unsolicited email as recent as 2014, just two hours after I published a short post examining Michelle Boag’s endorsement of Len Brown.

    He then published an email from O’Sullivan to himself.  So much for supposed journalist confidentiality that he is claiming for himself in a defamation case. It seems that confidentiality only matters when it suits him.

    That’s right, Fran O’Sullivan directed me to information to perform a hit job on her good friend Michelle Boag because she didn’t like her commentary.

    This is the very sort of conduct and “laundering of information” that so appalled Nicky Hager and his gushing fans. Boag and O’Sullivan’s personal grudge goes back to the Winebox days (and there is a story in that too). There was nothing in Fran O’Sullivan’s tip once I checked it out so I never ran the information on my blog.

    He folowed this up yesterday (Thursday) with more in Dirty Politics and Fran O’Sullivan’s “Unethical Alliance” With Bloggers.

    Yesterday I gave you a small taste of NZME. Editorial Director for Business, Fran O’Sullivan’s involvement.  She sent me information about my nemesis Michelle Boag seeking to discredit Boag’s commentary about Len Brown.

    As promised I can reveal that also went much further than throwing our mutual enemy Michelle Boag under a large winebox.

    This exchange follows where not only does Fran O’Sullivan encourage my work on Len Brown but confirms my sources, asks me when the EY report was due on Len Brown and then tells me when she will run it in the media next.

    He then posted a number of email exchanges between himself and O’Sullivan. He concluded:

    Sanctimonious journalists claiming the high ground really shouldn’t when they have as much to hide as Fran O’Sullivan.

    So this looks like a major revenge attack on O’Sulllivan, using a few selected emails. If O’Sullivan wanted to hit back could she quote other emails between her and Slater, or would journalist confidentiality of sources prevent that?

    Apart from that and the spat itself, this may reveal useful information about how some of the media work and how they worked with Slater. I’m not sure that that will help mend his severely tarnished reputation.

    The repercussions of this may be much greater than simple payback from Slater.

    He has complained over the last year about being isolated from the political and media gossip and leak circles.

    Now journalists and politicians know that Slater is prepared to break confidentiality and reveal information to attack people he has fallen out with, who would be willing to try and deal the dirt he craves with him again?

    The hack itself was a warning bell to those who had communicated with Slater. It was probably a one-off data leak but it showed the risks, especially with someone involved who has may a career out of making enemies.

    But now Slater has shown that he can’t be trusted on confidentiality and that he will use communications that people may have thought confidential – Slater has sought journalist privilege in court to protect sources – this campaign of utu must be self-harming for him.

    He may enjoy dishing out the dirt in the short term, but journalists and politicians and anyone involved in politics would surely now think even more carefully about having any communications with Slater.

    And businesses using Slater’s promotional services should also think carefully about this. What if they somehow got off-side with Slater? Would he dump on them? It would appear that if he is annoyed then he is a risk.

    Slater may claim to be a journalist but no one who values confidentiality should trust him now.

    And he relied on media picking up and publicising his dirty stories. Who would do that for him now?

    Slater may enjoy revenge but he also craves attention but on that this utu may turn out to be major self harm.

    A journalist who is prepared to publicly throw their sources (and their integrity if they had any left) under a bus to self promote and dish out dirty revenge is likely to fall very flat themselves.

    Collins/Slater power play or just a fundraiser?

    It looks like Judith Collins and Cameron Slater are making a power play. Or two independent coincidental power plays.

    Collins has been quietly trying to rebuild her political career after being demoted as a Minister leading into last year’s election, in no small part due to her friendly relationship with Slater.

    In the meantime Slater has been increasingly critical of John Key’s leadership with what has seemed like daily attacks and sometimes multiple attacks a day in post at Whale Oil.

    Collins has had a weekly column alongside Phil Goff. Until now she has written about general topics. But yesterday: Judith Collins: Centre voters just the core, the action is on the fringes:

    Elections are never won or lost in the centre. Yes, the vast number of voters are in the centre but they won’t bother to change their vote (much less get out to vote) unless they actually have something to vote for. Mobilising the centre to move to the left or to the right, is what wins elections. If you want to stay in power, then the centre is what keeps you there.

    Politicians of all stripes need to be fearless, creative, interested, questioning and most of all listening to the electorate. Polling goes to show the centre doesn’t really say much and therein lies the danger of the echo chamber. But the edges of the electorate are always talking.

    Winning elections is about engaging people and actually presenting an alternative. Galvanising the centre to be interested enough to vote will not happen simply by prescribing more of the same, albeit with a different coloured tie.

    Goff responded:

    Judith’s column this week is the opening shot in her campaign to succeed John Key as National’s leader.

    It’s a not-so-subtle attack on the well-known fact that John Key is not driven by strong values but rather the results of weekly polling and focus groups.

    Judith is inviting you to contrast Key’s soft positions with her post-demotion outspokenness on issues.

    You can’t blame her for that or for her antagonism towards Key. After all, he sacked her and is refusing to put her back into Cabinet.

    Goff could be perceptive. Or he could be mischievous. Or both.

    Matthew Hooton responded to a comment on this at The Standard:

    “when it came to Phil Goff’s reply, Collins probably got a lot more than she expected”

    I reckon she got exactly what she expected (and hoped for) from Goff.

    Today at Politik it looks like Collins is busy getting her message out there in JUDITH COLLINS SAYS IT’S TIME FOR POLITICIANS TO STAND FOR SOMETHING.

    She set out a summary of her views in the Sunday Star Times and one Labour politician did have something to say.

    Phil Goff said the column sounded like the start of her campaign to become National leader.

    But in a lengthy interview with POLITIK she chose her words carefully and avoided any head on challenge to the National Party leadership who have shunned her since she resigned from Cabinet over her connections with Whaleoil.

    Nevertheless her message is clear.

    “It’s better to make a difference than to sit in Parliament and occupy a seat,” she said.

    “You are actually elected to do something.

    “If you don’t do something then get out of the way and let someone else do it.”

    She worries that the general public all round the world is sick and tired of politicians who say just what they think the electorate wants them to say.

    “Actually ultimately you are never going to get anything done unless you change the status quo and you can’t do that from a position of fear or a position of let’s not rock the boat.”

    She is suspicious of focus groups.

    “The problem with focus groups is that you are asking them a question; you are defining what they can talk about and what they are interested in and sometimes I think you have just got to stand for something.”

    She says she doesn’t use focus groups but relies on knocking on doors and what people tell her in her electorate office.

    “In my electorate there are probably quite a lot of people who aren’t necessarily National voters but what they like is if you are straight up with them.”

    It’s often claimed that John Key is guided by focus groups

    Face to face contact is important but it can be self selecting – only people who want to talk will talk – and they can adjust what they say to suit their audience.

    There will be many who will scrutinise the comments here and in the Sunday Star Times column for signs of dissidence, for some hint that as Mr Goff claimed, she has begun her campaign for the party leadership.

    But what she is saying is more general than that.

    It looks more like the beginning of what  may be a long debate defining what the post-Key National Party might look like.

    Meanwhile, coincidence or not, Slater has been continuing his campaign. Yesterday his anti-Key posts continued: Losing our Religion – A letter from a reader…to John Key

    The letter may or may not have been from ‘a reader’, it can be hard to tell on Whale Oil what’s genuine and what’s part of the campaigning and what’s paid for commentary. Slater added his own comments:

    I’m not sure he is listening…but his minions are reading. Maybe the message will get through, either that or we will soon see a series of posts on cat fancier, arts, travel and lifestyle blogger, David Farrar’s blog about the stunning achievements of a John Key led government in a bid to counter “negative” posts here.

    I am no sycophant and will tell things as I see them or as my readers emails.

    Things aren’t right within National, they have allowed a cult of personality to develop and those never end well.

    More posts generally criticise National.

    He has followed that up today with specific references to the Collins publicity, first on her Stuff column in Judith Collins on Corbyn, and winning the centre.

    This is the quiet changing of religion that I speak of…people turning off and not bothering because politics has become shades of brown and as appetising as cardboar

    People get tired of the same old view of politicians and eventually they seek a change, any change, so long as it is not who we have now. They certainly don’t subscribe to TINA…that is the false hope of incumbents.

    TINA is There is No Alternative, seen as one reason for Key’s sustained popularity, but Slater has been trying to establish a meme that there is an alternative – from within National. I wonder who he thinks that should be. Note that for some time he has strongly criticised Bill English,  Steven Joyce and Paula Bennett.

    Then later today he posted on the Politik interview with Collins – Collins expands her discussion on the centre. In agreeing with Collins he said:

    She’s dead right about that and MMP has created a situation where seat warmers are the politicians of the day. If you have a look at Helen Clark’s legacy it is nothing but banal social policy. John Key’s legacy is shaping up to be not much better, with the prospect of the flag being retained that particular dream is in tatters.


    Straight shooters have always done well in New Zealand politics, and it is a shame that John Key has changed from that perception of a straight shooter to a perception that is much less than that.


    What is funny though is the left wing getting all excited that Judith Collins will attempt to do what they have failed thus far to achieve…topple John Key. They should be careful what they wish for, because I doubt such an event would go well for them and their union pals.

    So it is easy to see this as a two pronged attack on Key by Collins and Slater.

    What sort of support would Collins have in the National Caucus? I don’t know.

    But one this is for certain – she has a whale sized millstone hanging around her neck.

    Eighteen months ago a campaign like this from Slater may have been seen as a serious threat. But his political credibility has plummeted.

    I think a Slater orchestrated leadership bid is unlikely to cause anything but trouble for Collins. Sure it may damage National, and Slater has been trying to do that since he fell out of favour. But His alternative is unlikely to be looked on favourably.

    Something not covered in Collins’ column yesterday nor in her Politik interview was whether she was being invoiced by Slater for his advice and his Whale Oil campaigning. This could be as more a fundraiser for him than a serious leadership bid.

    Anyone as knowledgeable about politics as Slater claims to be (he was praising his predictive abilities last week, see the poor me/clever me post LOSING YOUR RELIGION) would know that  Slater+anything is currently seen as toxic.

    And the Slater attacks on National don’t even seem overly popular at Whale Oil. From his Saturday diss Hooton: ‘Thanks John, time to move along now’ he explains his TINA theories:

    John Key is still popular because people still believe in the false premise of TINA (There Is No Alternative).

    Logic suggests that TINA is not valid. If John Key were to be mowed down by a bus driver on Lambton Quay on Monday morning it is certain that there would indeed be a replacement. When he does finally step down or is knifed, or gets voted out there will be an alternative. There is always an alternative…whether or not an alternative is apparent depends entirely on the vision of the person stating TINA.

    The belief that TINA is real…suggests these people think John Key is immortal and can reign forever…neither are true…politically or in reality. There is always an alternative.

    But if you have a look at the upticks on the comments in LOSING YOUR RELIGION it seems clear his audience isn’t captivated or convinced by Slater’s campaign.

    Note: I’ve done a few edits and additions to this in the half hour after posting.

    Whale Oil versus Hager again

    SB (Spanish Bride) has posted the third in a series of posts at Whale Oil looking at the hacking of Cameron Slater by ‘Rawshark’ and the resulting book Dirty Politics by Nicky Hager.

    Part Three in the Nicky Hager Series: What was left out of the book?

    This time she looks at the selective use of material by Hager, and the selective use of material in the Rawshark dumps.

    Nearly all journalists are left out of their revelations and all political parties apart from National are absent.

    Slater has claimed he had wide ranging communications with journalists, politicians and parties, and others.

    Prior to this post Spanish Bride commented here (and also other comments):

    The investigation continues. My articles pose questions they do not give answers.

    I think this is fair enough. In this latest post she asks reasonable questions and i think it’s important we get answers to them.

    Slater has said he has many answers but appears to be not ready yet to come out with them.

    In the meantime SB is posing some good questions and showing some significant discrepancies in what has been claimed by Hager and Rawshark. She concludes in Part Three:

    So there you have it, an investigative journalist who instead of reporting the facts without fear or favour has chosen to only ‘ humiliate ‘ his chosen targets rather than all the key players. He is quite comfortable admitting that he has only revealed what he wanted revealed after making a personal moral judgement on who he thought should be held accountable and who should be given a chance to ‘ do it differently ‘.

    Given the above admission it is quite conceivable that if Rawshark or his paymaster had not already censored the stolen information, Nicky Hager would have felt quite comfortable censoring it himself.

    Of course journalists and activist authors have to select material to use and leave out material they think is unimportant, not relevant – or doesn’t fit with their activist aims.

    Slater has been justifiably been slammed for some of his behaviour, as have others who were involved. But so far it has been very narrow and one-sided slamming.

    We should have more sunlight on this whole sorry saga.

    I think SB’s series is a worthwhile reminder that this all hasn’t been properly dealt with yet. Mainstream media seem uninterested in more comprehensive investigations which is curious and disappointing.

    It would be good to have an independent investigation but there may not be many who are able or willing to do that.

    SB’s previous posts:

    Reference posts from Your NZ:

    Slater versus Hager/Rawshark et al revived

    It looks like Cameron Slater has started to do as promised since last year – see Slater claims detailed evidence on hacking – reveal what he knows about the hacking by ‘Rawshark’ (that may or may not be a single person), and the degree of involvement of Nicky Hager and others who may have been involved.

    (UPDATE: the post was done by SB – Spanish Bride – not Cameron, but I assume she hasn’t done it entirely independently)

    He had said he wouldn’t say anything publicly until police investigations had been completed as he had laid a complaint, but that has either gone nowhere or he has decided to speak up anyway.

    Early last year Cameron Slater was hacked and a lot of communications data was taken. Some of this data formed the basis of Hager’s book Dirty Politics, which was launched leading into the election campaign, implicating John Key and National.

    National went on to win the election regardless.

    But Slater was badly damaged – his credibility (however much he had) was shot as it was confirmed that what he bragged about he had done – politics on a very dirty scale. I have often criticised this approach to politics by Slater.

    It also isolated Slater politically, with Key and most if not all National MPs avoiding him. Even his friend and preferred National Party leader Judith Collins seems to have distanced herself. Last weekend she went door knocking in her electorate with a party supporter who appears to be from a Muslim family – I doubt that Slater would be onside with that although he didn’t slam her in an anti-National anti-Islamic post as he probably have done with many other National MPS (or Key).

    And many of Slater’s story sources dried up. He has continued with Whale Oil but has lost much of his point of difference.

    I think revelations of his dirty, manipulative and post-for-a-fee were just a matter of time. I was aware of much of it anyway, Hager’s book and the subsequent data dump by the supposed hacker Rawshark just highlighted it and showed some of the extent.

    Despite this Slater has continued to promote his preference for doing politics dirty. That has helped reduce his effectiveness.

    I have strongly criticised the hacking which appears to have been politically motivated and certainly aimed to damage Slater. In no way does Slater’s behaviour warrant a political hit job using illegally obtained data.

    I have also questioned Hager’s claims that he had no political intent in writing his book and launching it on 13 August 2014, just over five weeks before the election.

    Hager has many years of experience in activism and authoring political hit jobs. I don’t believe he didn’t consider the implications of the timing on the election. I believe he was intended to influence the outcome of the election. If not he was used by ‘Rawshark’ to try to swing the election but I don’t believe Hager is that naive.

    So Slater has started to drip feed the information he has on the hacking and Hager and ‘Rawshark’.

    Which version do you believe? Part ONE in the Nicky Hager series

    Nicky Hager has been interviewed and quoted by many different people over the course of the Dirty Politics book launch. Now a year later after the dust has settled I decided to go back to compare what he said in one interview with what he said in another.

    This details a number of variations in Hager’s explanation of how he obtained the hacked data and what he knew about ‘Rawshark’.

    I have noticed and posted on discrepancies in Hager’s claims before. These posts from last year revise much of what happened and was known.

    Since taking an interest in politics a few years ago I’ve spoken against dirty politics and abuse in social media. This has meant I’ve clashed a number of times with Cameron Slater, on Whale Oil and Twitter. I disagree with his approach to politics where he promotes and brags about it being nasty. I think political debate and campaigning should be robust but civil so we have totally different approaches.

    Having said I disagree with Slater on dirty politics I want to differentiate between that and “Dirty Politics”. There are aspects of the book and associated issues that I find potentially disturbing and in this I agree with Slater. “Dirty Politics” would appear to involve some dirty politics.

    Was the hacking of Cameron Slater’s personal data a reactive attack on Slater by one individual that happened to uncover information that happened to make it’s way into Hager’s possession that was a useful coincidence as it supported an ongoing issue of interest to Hager?

    Or was Hager a tool used by a black ops campaign by political operators to discredit Slater and bring down the Key Government?

    How much was Nicky Hager a participant and how much was he a pawn?

    If Cameron Slater follows through on claims he has made then his brand of dirty politics looks set to continue, that’s how he sometimes does things.

    Related but separate to that is what is yet to come about Nicky Hager’s “Dirty Politics”. Hager and whoever else has been involved in the illegal hacking of communications data have themselves been involved in some dirty politics.

    “Dirty Politics” both exposes and practises dirty politics.

    It will be interesting to see what SB reveals over the next few days.

    UPDATE: another post on it today: Which version do you believe? Part TWO in the Nicky Hager Series – this is again authored by SB but she says “In Part One of this series we looked at the different versions of what happened” which suggests a joint effort. She says:

    It was a journalist’s privileged information that was hacked. This is extremely ironic given that Nicky Hager has been squealing journalistic privilege in his court case. This is a case where he is on the one hand saying that he was entitled to take another journalist’s privileged information obtained by criminal activity and make money from it but that the New Zealand police had no right to look at any of his privileged information using a legal search warrant to try to find out the identity of the criminal hacker.

    It can only lead me to the conclusion that Nicky would prefer someone to hack him and then hand the stolen information over to an ‘ investigative ‘ journalist so they can write a book and then arrange to drip feed what isn’t in the book to the MSM.

    Fair point.

    Slater’s legal funding

    In a recent ruling detailed here a judge said:

    [49] I have no affidavit evidence of Mr Slater’s personal circumstances. The tenor of Mr Blomfield’s submissions is that he has backers and has access to funds. Mr Slater claimed that he had no backers and was self funded.

    The judge appears to have been misinformed or he misinterpreted what Slater said, because funding for legal assistance has been sought on Whale Oil in the past.

    And this is confirmed in a new post yesterday – The begging bowl is out. Again

    Yes, OK, I have no shame…   

    In response to readers’ comments on the Colin Craig defence/counter suit announcement, here’s the bank account for Cam Slater’s legal defence fund.

    This account is specifically set up for donations to support Cameron Slater’s legal bills. It was created back in the day when he was challenging the courts on name suppression and is not an active operating account. It is completely separate from the Whaleoil account, and never the twain shall meet.

    Your support, your continued support, is very important.  Especially when facing a litigant with financial resources so vast that a million here and a million there isn’t going to change how he lives day to day.

    Cam has spent your previously donated funds on legal advice and the preparation of court documents as well as serving, filing and associated legal costs.

    As you read before, these documents were filed and served today.

    At this point, we await Mr Craig’s statement of defence, and surprises notwithstanding, a court date will then be picked later.   Your assistance, no matter how modest, is deeply appreciated.

    Slater has sought backers before and is doing so again. He has had access to funds and it appears that he does again, donations at least appear to be made.


    Freed was announced by Cameron Slater over a year ago, when he claimed it would be up and running by the election (September 2014 presumably).

    He also claimed there was million dollar backing for it. Job applications were south in December. But it has fizzled out since then apart from an occasional mention.

    On a Whale Oil post yesterday – BLOOD ON A NEWSROOM FLOOR – Freed got a promotion from Spanish Bride:

    Pity, it will take some of the thrill out of launching Freed if the competition is already half dead. Nah just kidding… it will still be a thrill.The MSM and the twateratti like to think Freed isn’t going to happen. I do hope they keep believing that as it will make the launch that much more satisfying.

    Where are we at with Freed by the way?

    The day it launches will be the first day you hear about it.

    There is no new sign of action on Freed’s website or on their Facebook page.

    As anyone heard of anything else on this?

    “Key’s a Muslim Hugger”

    Cameron Slater has ramped up his anti-Key, anti-Muslim rhetoric at Whale Oil – OH CRAP. KEY’S A MUSLIM HUGGER.

    Not only has Key betrayed the values of our country, he’s going as far as wanting to be on public record as preferring nice moderate Muslims over Christian refugees.

    What. On. Earth. Is. He. Doing?

    John Key is channeling the liberal elite, Ben Affleck and that idiot Barack Obama. He needs to educate himself…fast.

    The problem is that he doesn’t operate from a set of principles. He just goes where the process takes him…unless it’s the flag.

    You can see the difference then, he WANTS that, so he’s staunch.

    The rest?  It’s all up for negotiation.

    He folded on exploratory mining that way.

    Now he’s gone from “no”, to “maybe”, to “let’s have muslims” in 10 days.

    This is shrill and also badly misrepresents what Key has said and done. It panders to a prejudiced minority at best.

    The chances of Slater having credibility in anything but a small sliver of National now must be as slim as his chances of a rematch with Jesse Ryder.


    Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

    Join 4,117 other followers