Prentice ignores lawyer advice on suppression

Lynn Prentice has graced us with an abusive hypocritical moan that suggests he is ignoring legal advice.

You were advised that we have no particular responsibility to limit speculation. We will stop people saying that a particular person was the cabinet minister or that their brother is the subject of the charges. That is, as far as I am aware, all that the suppression order states.

I’d take a bet that you have no further information on the suppression order yourself. It is a problem with the way that suppression orders are advised.

That was advised to the commenters in the comment stream where the speculation went on, and has been conformed with. In this case the court managed to spread speculation over a very limited number of Cabinet Ministers and their brothers because they did not or (more likely) could not cover the publication of the profession of the Cabinet Minuster – which the SST published.

Basically you are an lying arsehole who has no compunction in twisting words, be it emails, legal, or site policies. But what else do we expect from such an bullshitting illiterate…

Lynn,you have a very strict rule, strictly enforced, that no one at The Standard is allowed to attack or or abuse authors. Isn’t it somewhat hypocritical that you practice what you preach against?

But ignoring your wee character tirade (which is typical of your blog manners), how are you aware of what the suppression order states? Yesterday I thought you said you had no way of knowing. Here its is:

So to conform to the reported suppression, I will just limit people saying explicitly which minister it is.

I also note that there has been nothing reported about the alleged victims seeking suppression.

You seem to contradict yourself there with ” the reported suppression” and then “here has been nothing reported”. I don’t know how you can make a legally safe stance from that.

There has been opinion elsewhere about what what speculation that media should and shouldn’t allow in publications and comments. Like:

While suppression is in place, please do not speculate in the comments.  Doing so will earn you a permanent holiday.

I’ve quite often seem warnings like that, but I presume you won’t take much notice of what Whale Oil says.

What about this blogger/lawyer?

Please note suppression orders are in place.  There should be no Speculation on who this (person) is.

They carefully edited this comment:

Ever noticed how illiterate [Please be careful] writers can be while having an air of intellectual superiority in what they write?

I was googling blogs and found this

[Please be careful] report went virile and received over 700,000 views in a few days after its release. ”

And another author on that same blog:

it should be obvious that anything that identifies the person subject to the suppression order is not permitted. You’re bordering on wasting author/mod time, bud.

They sound quite definite about it.

And when someone asks “Mods with the blog site involved currently online including a recent update what is the consensus on linking to the site concerned? The lawyer urges caution:

Best not to. The treatment of name suppression is a valid topic of discussion but reinforcing the breach is not.

And the other author:

I imagine that would be a breach of the suppression order, which would put TS in legal jeopardy. Not a sensible course of action. I also note that the post specifically asks for there to be no speculation. That should be enough in itself.

Maybe Prentice doesn’t agree with Greg Presland and ‘Te Reo Putake’ either. So what about this view?

Simply put, if we don’t know what the suppression was on, then we can’t know what needs suppressing. So we act as if all such pointed speculation is someone trying to put us in the dock.

Court suppression orders are nothing to fool with. We don’t know what evidence was placed in front of a judge to cause them to issue the suppression order, so we don’t speculate.

I have a pretty basic rule. It says that if I see anything that might make a judge look at me and think that I may have deliberately allowed the name suppression to be violated, or that causes us problems with our privacy rules (ie having to give up some persons details) – then it is a problem.

Then I will act against the person involved immediately and rather ruthlessly to make sure that they never want to do that to us again. Other moderators may be kinder and simply cut out the offending passages.

Lynn, do you agree with that? It seems to be quite different to what you are claiming now. Or do you just make up your standards to suit who you are trying to be vindictive to?

Leave a comment


  1. Mike C

     /  4th May 2015

    You’re a dumb-arse stupid shit 🙂

    • kiwi_guy

       /  5th May 2015

      Typical Standardista reaction when their hypocrisy is exposed.

  1. Lauda Finem versus The Standard | Your NZ
  2. Does Slater run Lauda Finem? | Your NZ

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s