Prentice “lies” again

Lyn Prentice has posted an attack on Cameron Slater at The Standard – The bad blogger, which is in response to a Whale Oil post I’m alive and have something to share.

He makes some fair points, Slater does seem to be playing the sympathy card in a legal defence fundraising drive.

But there’s dark irony as well.

He has been willing to lie and walk over the legal bounds that govern everyone in this society in the process. That isn’t the actions of a responsible blogger or “journalist”. It is the behaviour of someone that I don’t want besmirching the reputation of blogging.

Prentice is not the best example of blogger reputation himself. Like Slater he often brags about being nasty, and he abuses and bullies and fosters a bullying and abusive environment at The Standard (while Slater has actually clamped down on abuse at Whale Oil).

And Prentice appears willing to lie, or at least repeat claims that have been frequently refuted and for which he has provided no evidence.

He is quoted in a Stuff article Should Left-wing bloggers just shut up?

“Unlike Slater’s or Farrar’s professional efforts on behalf of National, we don’t get paid either directly or indirectly for our volunteering to work for politicians or writing blogs and never have,” Prentice says.

“We” presumably meaning all the Standard authors. There have been claims, including by John Key and Labour member Josie Pagani, that Labour staff have had posts at The Standard. In fact the other Standard trustee (prentice is one of two) was employed in the Labour leader’s office as recently as last year.

Slater has responded to this accusation, repeating denials that Whale Oil is funded by National.

Nice of Lynn Prentice to defame me again, this time in a major publication. I have not ever, nor will I never take money from the National party. There is not a professional relationship with them, their never has been.

But that just suits Prentice’s narrative. Unfortunately for him I will start telling the truth about him as frequently as he tells lies about me. The “World’s Greatest Sys-Op” isn’t so clean either. Prentice himself wouldn’t know the first thing about serving an audience, he allows defamations to stand, if it is against an enemy, he allows hate and loathing to cloud his better judgement and he is precisely what he accuses me of being. He really should look in the mirror.

David Farrar has also denied any party funding of Kiwiblog. He provides a detailed disclosure statement (unlike Prentice or any Standard author).

Prentice will be well aware of previous denials but continues to make the assertions. Dirty is as dirty does.

Having just written that last senence I thought I’d research it – and coincidentally found a post heading that on Whale Oil.

Dirty is as dirty does

Nicky Hager reckons I play politics dirty.

He is right, I do….So what?

Slater has often bragged about doing politics dirty. While he claims to be clean in some ways Prentice is no better.

Previous Post

23 Comments

  1. So you can’t point to a single case where we walked over legal bounds. Instead you act like any other gutless coward on the net – you make groundless insinuations with weasel words and no facts. How unexpected. It is your usual slimey style.

    I see that you don’t understand what “indirectly” means. David Farrar’s polling business does the majority of its business from the National party or from the ministries of the National government. Amongst other things that means he has the time to run a blog in the way that virtually no-one else does.

    Well except for Slater who has a lot of time to run a blog as well. He appears to have built a business from contacts in the National apparently doing all of the dirty work for people like Collins, Graham, Lusk, and others. Most of the “Dirty Politics” was about that. Knowing you, I suspect you haven’t bothered to read the book.

    I suspect that they have money being fed through from National and the government. They are welcome to sue at any point in time. Discovery motions are such pain when you are trying to hide finances. I don’t have any such issues.

    We have a quite complete disclosure statement on our about about our finances. Somehow in the last seven years you appear to have been too stupid to understand it. That doesn’t surprise me. Just at present I’m paying most of the site expenses. Hopefully the minimal advertising we do will get some money through sooner rather than later. But we don’t require much to run our site.

    John Key and Josie Pagani are simply deliberately and maliciously lying. We don’t. But what I find interesting is what they claim to have as a source of information. Somehow I don’t think either has ever bothered to say. I wonder why that is? Apparently you are too incurious to look at such issues.

    Mike Smith was quite open that he was doing occasional consulting work for the Shearer leadership. Somehow when David Farrar sucks on the government and National party contracts and has a card to the 9th floor of the Beehive, it is somehow not an issue. But when Mike Smith employs his expertise as a contractor it is completely different.

    As you are a rather stupid conservative bigot, I don’t expect you to understand.

  2. So you can’t point to a single case where we walked over legal bounds.

    Slater claims this is a case. I’ve just pointed it out. There have been others – you’ve made a number of false claims about me for example.

    There was this one “Since you know that sexual predators were conspiring to get these women drunk with the aim of having non-consensual sex, i.e., to rape them, why did you not shut down your sickeningly-euphemised “Princess Parties” and alert the police to their declared intentions?”
    http://thestandard.org.nz/no-changes-for-kiwiblog/#comment-869553

    Your response was “I did read that comment and the following discussion closely for obvious legal reasons and the ban button under my finger. I have to say that it pushed my estimation of rhino up a couple of notches. ”
    http://thestandard.org.nz/hager-vs-police-suppressing-debate/#comment-916432

    Not only did you allow it, you praised it. I think that’s setting a disgraceful standard.

    Instead you act like any other gutless coward on the net – you make groundless insinuations with weasel words and no facts. How unexpected. It is your usual slimey style.

    I often provide facts. Your comment here is very ironic.

    I see that you don’t understand what “indirectly” means. David Farrar’s polling business does the majority of its business from the National party or from the ministries of the National government. Amongst other things that means he has the time to run a blog in the way that virtually no-one else does.

    You’ve made a direct claim on the key issue raised but have provided no facts. Farrar lists a number of clients in his disclosure, but I’ve never seen him disclose how much business he does with who. Do you have Curia’s financial details or are you making things up?

    Well except for Slater who has a lot of time to run a blog as well. He appears to have built a business from contacts in the National apparently doing all of the dirty work for people like Collins, Graham, Lusk, and others.

    It’s well known Slater has contacts in National and he openly admits it. And in Labour. “He appears to have built a business” is an insinuation, again with no facts that Slater is directly or indirectly funded by National.

    Most of the “Dirty Politics” was about that.
    Knowing you, I suspect you haven’t bothered to read the book.

    You don’t know me well at all, as your claims and insinuations about me show. I bought the book as soon as it was available (I actually pre-ordered a copy) and it’s open right beside me now, on page 13.

    I suspect that they have money being fed through from National and the government.

    You suspect? That’s not what you have been saying and insinuating over time – in the Stuff article this is how you were quoted: “Unlike Slater’s or Farrar’s professional efforts on behalf of National, we don’t get paid either directly or indirectly for our volunteering to work for politicians or writing blogs and never have.”

    They are welcome to sue at any point in time. Discovery motions are such pain when you are trying to hide finances. I don’t have any such issues.

    You’ve said similar before – see http://thestandard.org.nz/police-raid-hager/#comment-905466 – which seems to be a calculated risk betting on them not taking legal action.

    We have a quite complete disclosure statement on our about about our finances. Somehow in the last seven years you appear to have been too stupid to understand it.

    You have no disclosures about your authors. You have no disclosures about how any of your authors are paid. You are making accusations about how Slater and Farrar are paid.

    I’m not that stupid that I don’t understand the difference between paying for the costs of a blog and how the authors are paid.

    John Key and Josie Pagani are simply deliberately and maliciously lying. We don’t.

    Are you claiming your lies are not deliberate and not malicious? You’ve told untruths about me. You’ve told untruths about others. Are they reckless and ignorant rather than deliberate? Often the content, tone and bragging of your comments suggest malicious intent.

    But what I find interesting is what they claim to have as a source of information. Somehow I don’t think either has ever bothered to say. I wonder why that is? Apparently you are too incurious to look at such issues.

    I’ve looked at such issues a number of times. And I’m curious. Have Clint Smith, Neale Jones or Rob Egan ever authored posts or provided information for posts at The Standard while being paid for by Labour, Parliamentary Services or a Labour affiliate?

    Mike Smith was quite open that he was doing occasional consulting work for the Shearer leadership. Somehow when David Farrar sucks on the government and National party contracts and has a card to the 9th floor of the Beehive, it is somehow not an issue. But when Mike Smith employs his expertise as a contractor it is completely different.

    Where is Mike’s disclosure at The Standard?
    I don’t see any disclosure on this post by Mike: http://thestandard.org.nz/dont-panic-2/

    As you are a rather stupid conservative bigot, I don’t expect you to understand.

    You seem to have made a habit of describing me as ‘conservative’, you’re right, I don’t understand that. I’ve voted Labour more than any other party. I’m one of their many lost supporters – what’s conservative about that? It’s quite a current trend.

    And I also don’t understand why you claim that I’m a bigot. I think “a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance” sounds far more like you than me.

    Your apparent hatred and your obvious intolerance are legendary.

  3. To ‘framu’ (who posted this comment at The Standard):

    loved this from “old whiney” (pete george)

    in reply to iprents musings on wether PG had even read dirty politics

    “I bought the book as soon as it was available (I actually pre-ordered a copy) and it’s open right beside me now, on page 13.”

    so it nov and PGs only made it to pg13?

    Funny. I doubt many people who have read the book will leave it open at page 166. My latest research into Hager’s claims and motives happened to be on page 13.

  4. RRM

     /  November 3, 2014

    Lynn Prentice is a madman.

    I recently pointed out on a The Standard thread that there were a number of posts on the Standard calling David Farrar a rapist, and that he might want to clean that up as defamatory stuff like that does nobody any favours.

    Lprent immediately (and confusingly) responded that 1/ there’s nothing wrong with implying DPF is a rapist, but that 2/ I was defaming the standard by claiming these posts existed, 3/ demanded that I do his job for him by providing links to all these nasty posts so that he can clean them up, and /4 banned me from the site.

    The guy is an idiot. The way he moderates that site is bad for The Standard, bad for the labour movement and the Labour party, and therefore (at this time) it’s good for New Zealand.

    • I’ve been banned from The Standard for pointing out that the lprent regime is not a good look and Labour would benefit from a better approach.

      • Actually for trying to tell us how to run our site. It is listed in our policy as being a self-inflicted martyrdom.

        But this is a familiar lie from you. You really do have conservative grooves in your brain don’t you?

        • Who’s fibbing? I didn’t tell you how to run your site. This is what I posted:

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

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

          Why “The Standard”?

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

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

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

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

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

          Your response:

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

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

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

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

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

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

          I don’t believe I told you how to run your site. I’ve often said that’s up to you. I posted my honest opinion, that’s all. You didn’t like my opinion. You can ban me whenever you like of course, but accusing me of lying – again – is avoiding the truth.

          I think The Standard (and Labour) would be better off without you but it can’t do without you, and it’s fairly obvious you don’t want to change, so that’s a bit of a stalemate situation. A pity, Labour could do with some blogs that supported decent and open debate and opinion.

    • Karen

       /  November 3, 2014

      Well said RRM, that guy has issues.

    • RRM: That is because the statements weren’t defamatory.

      Perhaps you should spend some time reading the legal basis on defamation in NZ. As far as I could tell you were basing your opinion on a weird amalgam of the libel/slander/defamation laws as they used to be in NZ of the UK, the oddities of the laws in some American states, all interpreted through those paragons of legal accuracy – TV shows.

      What I requested that you do was to point to comments that were actually defamatory because I didn’t think that they were present. Because I suspected that you either had no idea what you were talking about, or that you were just being a jackass troll running faux concern tactic. Or both.

      So I banned you until you could prove that you weren’t doing either by locating a actual defamatory comment. You were also trying to tell us how we should run our site – something that is in the policy as being a self-martyrdom offence..

      I am so glad that you found your Pet George, because he has the same silly idea that lazy fools who don’t work on anything significiant on a site or anywhere else should run a site set up with a lot of hard work by a lot of people. I am sure you will be happy together.

      • RRM

         /  November 4, 2014

        LALALALALA, POOR LPWENT, I CAN’T HEEEEEAAAAARRRR YOUUUUUUU!

        And you can’t ban me here. And OH how that must hurt.

        ‘Cause you can make reality conform to your sick fantasies just by banning things you don’t want to hear, right? It worked for Cunliffe the way it’s been working for you for years.

        Go back to your circle jerk of a site (everyone pleasures one another in turn, but to normal people on the outside it just looks disgusting) and fabricate some smears about how I’m some kind of pedophile rapist.. ’cause that’s how you operate. It’s all you have. Deusional, nasty bullshit that only fully paid-up fellow travellers will ever believe. If it’s not illegal then it’s fine.. that’s the standard at The Standard. Wow. Aim high.

  5. framu

     /  November 3, 2014

    pete – ive considered the possible responses that i could spend days engaged in pointless circular debate with you

    but i will just ask this – how the did you pre-order a book that no one knew was being released before hand? Your a liar and a very boring one at that

    Your also a stalker

    • Why are you calling me a liar before I’ve had a chance to explain?

      The book launch was at about 5 pm in Wellington. First thing the following day I contacted Unibooks in Dunedin. They said they expected delivery later that day, so I had a copy reserved. I collected it at lunch time.

      And why are you accusing me of being a stalker?

    • framu hasn’t been back to answer, but he’s been commenting again at The Standard:

      hes back stalking this thread – and reposting that which does not met his approval

      oddly though – he chose my rather timid one liner to repost, but not anything more problematic for him to discuss (which is ood – PG can discuss anything for weeks)

      the guys a stalker

      That’s a funny accusation. They were commenting about me and dissing me at The Standard but when I held them to account for what they accuse it’s somehow stalking? How is reading a blog that’s open to anyone in the world and commenting on comments made about me stalking?

      Particularly ironic coming from someone who frequents The Standard where anyone deemed not left enough or otherwise an enemy is relentlessly stalked by a minor mob.

  6. …you’ve made a number of false claims about me for example.

    Do you mean that I think you are stupid, probably entrenched in the right wing and a self-deluded conservative. These are all my opinions based on evidence. Clearly you don’t distinguish between opinions and facts. But your post makes that quite obvious.

    …”Princess Parties”…

    My “praise” was for the way rhino carefully walked around the legal issues and avoided me pressing the ban button. But I guess you don’t understand the legal issues since you usually appear to try to create law via your bigoted instincts – reminds of talkback radio.

    That was actually a warning to rhino. If he wants my finger poised over the ban button then he could continue that line of comment and take the risk. Most normal people (ie not conservative fools like yourself) tend to take warnings from moderators seriously.

    Farrar lists a number of clients in his disclosure, but I’ve never seen him disclose how much business he does with who.

    FFS: How stupid are you. NZ is a really small country, Wellington is even smaller, and there are a lot of people connected.

    Think about who is on the other end of the phone for phone surveys, and that the survey companies are required to state who they are. In 7 years that the site has been running with the regular reporting of all polls going on, every survey from curia I have heard about was in the opinion of the recipient polling for National. They often do some interesting push-polling.

    Similarly there have been a *lot* of people who have worked for curia. They gossip that the same thing happens in all of the various types of market research that curia undertakes. There is apparently very little that isn’t something to do with National, Act, government departments with their ministers, and the odd conservative lobbyist group.

    As you pointed out, Farrar isn’t exactly up front about who pays his tab. Because the nature of his work (especially focus group messaging and push-polling) looks exactly like the kind of dog whistling that he does on kiwiblog, there appears to be no real distinction between the curia where he is working and the posts he writes while at curia.

    In my opinion as I pointed out he gets virtually all of his money directly or indirectly from his association with National. Similarly Slater seems to have had virtually all of his business arriving from PR firms and people associated with National.

    I consider that both of them are crony capitalists of the worst sort. They add no value to the NZ economy. They are just parasitical on it.

    I bought the book as soon as it was available (I actually pre-ordered a copy) and it’s open right beside me now, on page 13.

    So you are saying that you haven’t read it? It has been what – 3 months. You’re still on page 13?

    Well I did say that you didn’t appear to have read the book. Why?

    …calculated risk betting on them not taking legal action.

    You really don’t appear to understand discovery motions. I and TS literally have nothing to hide financially. I know from Dirty Politics that both Farrar and Slater appear to have quite a few things that I could prove from a discovery motion based on my statements.

    You have no disclosures about your authors. You have no disclosures about how any of your authors are paid.

    Obviously you have a problem reading. From the about

    Who pays for this?
    We do, but in the spirit of a collective endeavour we get help from time to time from a range of people from the labour movement whose technical skills we couldn’t do without. Thanks guys!

    The sysop paid for the server as part of his contribution to the site and did so since the site was started in August 2007 on his home server until we started with carrying advertisements. If you want to contribute towards the costs of running the server any donations are more than welcome.

    Are you getting rich from blogging?
    Nope. We don’t make any money out of blogging here, and until recently we didn’t even run ads. We do this purely because we enjoy it and we think the labour movement side of the story is always worth telling. Our initial aim is for advertising revenue to cover the costs of running the site. Any revenue beyond that will be used to develop the site and further the progressive left principles The Standard was founded on.

    I would think that even a illiterate idiot like yourself would understand that. We disclose *all* of our sources for income. No one gets paid.Perhaps you should try to read more rather than making your weird fantasies up.

    If you read the rest of the about and policy without waving your conservative blinders in front of your eyes to conceal the bits you don’t like, you will find that we are completely up front about why we do everything – including that vindictive arseholes like Slater and you are why we let everyone run under pseudonyms if they feel safer doing so.

    And I’m curious. Have Clint Smith, Neale Jones or Rob Egan ever authored posts or provided information for posts at The Standard while being paid for by Labour, Parliamentary Services or a Labour affiliate?

    Read the policy about privacy. Since two of these people are listed as authors I can’t comment.

    Clint outed himself, but to my knowledge never blogged on our site while working for or being paid by any of those organisations.

    We actually have a specific undertaking about that in the about that you appear to have so much difficulty reading.

    We write here in our personal capacities and the opinions that are expressed on the blog are individual unless expressly stated otherwise (see the policy). We do not write on behalf of any organization.

    But I am curious – why do you want to know?

    Is it because you are the conservative vindictive arsehole as I suspect? One who will chase people down and try to damage their life outside the blogs for opinions that the write in their own time?

    Or is simply that like all of the other conservative idiots I keep running across, you are so in love with myths that you simply cannot think outside of those deep grooves to look at statements of facts?

    Based on your repeated reprehensible behaviour in repeating Slaters lies (like Josie Pagani) I suspect the first.

    Mike Smith

    You do realise that Mike spends an inordinate amount of time on a golf-course? But read the about again. Perhaps you could show how he wrote anything when he was contracted to and being paid for by Labour or Parliamentary services rather than WINZ. But I suspect that you prefer just to lie without any factual basis.

    You appear to have some severe reading difficulties. Have you ever tried getting remedial reading? It would probably help out everyone else on the net if you could just learn to read.

    You seem to have made a habit of describing me as ‘conservative’, you’re right, I don’t understand that.

    I thought not. For some strange reason you appear to think that it is a statement about your politics. It isn’t. It is a statement about the way you think.

    I hope I have helped to clear that up for you

    • Typo.

      Read the policy about privacy. Since two of these people aren’t listed as authors I can’t comment.

    • You’ve made it clear that your claims are based on a lot of assumptions and no evidential facts.

      You’ve taken a similar approach to Hager – you’re sure you are right and pick up tidbits of hearsay to try and prove your story. You said you helped him with his book didn’t you?

      As usual your abusiveness doesn’t help your arguments at all. You just sound like a frustrated and cranky old activist

      You either have no idea about me or you’re making things up with malicious intent. That’s fairly standard practice at The Standard, not surprising with th example you set. Dirty politics.

    • “So you are saying that you haven’t read it? It has been what – 3 months. You’re still on page 13?”

      No, I didn’t say I haven’t read it. That’s a stupid assumption. I’ve read some parts several times. I’ve often read different parts of the book, depending on what research I’ve been doing. I’ve been checking discrepancies in Hager’s claims.

      Have you read the book once, from page 1 to page 166, and that’s it?

    • “In my opinion as I pointed out he gets virtually all of his money directly or indirectly from his association with National.”

      As I’ve already pointed out, unsubstantiated. Farrar discloses the following client base

      Curia’s clients have included newspapers, political parties, Government Departments, corporates, lobby groups, local body candidates and non profits. Commercial and professional confidentiality prevents clients being listed without their permission, but a commercial relationship with Curia does not stop me from expressing my opinion on a client or issue should it be relevant.

      I can list clients that have on their own initiative revealed they use Curia. Curia never objects to such release – it is entirely up to clients. Clients who have used Curia publicly are the New Zealand National Party, The Parliamentary Office of the National Party Leader, Northern Advocate, the Wanganui Chronicle, Family First, Department of Internal Affairs, NZ Association of Convenience Stores, the Republican Movement, Hon John Banks, Exceltium, Olivier Lequeux, Independent Liquor (NZ) Ltd, NZ Computer Society, Pfizer, the Bankers’ Association, Microsoft, Riverstone Holdings Ltd, Foodstuffs and The Nation.

      “Obviously you have a problem reading.”

      Have you ever read Farrar’s disclosure or do you have a problem?

      “I would think that even a illiterate idiot like yourself would understand that. ”

      Someone who was literate would normally say “an illiterate idiot”. You’ve never seemed to have understood that.

  7. PG: “…you’ve made a number of false claims about me for example.”

    LP: “Do you mean that I think you are stupid, probably entrenched in the right wing and a self-deluded conservative.”

    That’s hardly a false claim. You appear to think many different kinds of ignorant shit, lprent.

    LP: “Clearly you don’t distinguish between opinions and facts.”

    Yeah, that must be why PG quoted what was actually said rather than just presenting something based on a ludicrous interpretation of the facts, eg “you can’t point to a single case where we walked over legal bounds”. That was clearly Slater’s accusation, not Pete’s.

  8. FarmerPete

     /  November 3, 2014

    I find your post very interesting. I have been a reader at The Standard for some time, and quite simply I find Lprent quite vile. He displays a degree of arrogance, partisanship, and bile that is often quite astounding. He regularly lets totally unacceptable comments go from the regular synchophants but is quite happy to unload on others. Like you I have probably voted Labour more times than 90+% of The Standard commenters, but they just don’t want to hear dissenting voices. They just love labelling and all the weary ad hominems. Any way to conclude on Lprent the moderation over there is a joke. He seems to be a really angry, and not so bright fellow.
    On to Whaleoil. I have also been a regular reader there and an occasional commenter. Recently they ran a one sided post against KiwiBank, and I contributed to this discussion by asking what the point of the post was and suggesting that posts such as that would not help WhaleOil recover the ‘lost ground’ or words to that effect. All expressed in a perfectly acceptable way. They must be very thin skinned over there right now because that earned me a ban. I was quite shocked to be banned for something so innocuous. I wonder how many others have had the same treatment? Certainly, the suggestion that some of WO posts had been paid for by corporate interests did not sit well with me.

    • Common stories from both The Standard and Whale Oil. It’s a real shame that some of our major political blogs are so uninviting to anyone but those who will toe a particular line.

      Commenting at both involves constant risk of a hammer smashing you off the blog.

      Ironically Whale Oil is now listing a Kiwibank account for donations to Slater’s legal defence fund after the legal firm objected to their trust account being publicised.

  9. FarmerPete

     /  November 3, 2014

    Irony of ironies! I probably would have contributed but the banning woke me up!

  10. lolhats

     /  November 3, 2014

    Holy shit this post is gold. lprent being shown up for the vile prick he is.