Responding to Lauda Finem

Lauda Finem have reacted to Press gallery claim on Rachinger/Williams pics doesn’t stack up via Twitter. It’s easier to respond to them here.

“So “the entire parliamentary press gallery in fact” is not fact” – Heavy reliance on Williams media buddies @PeteDGeorge any under oath?

I have no idea if they are ‘media buddies’ of Williams but they are not connected to Mediaworks. Why should the be under oath, they haven’t been accused of anything.

I’m not aware of any Lauda Finem claims being backed by statements given under oath. They seem to want a different standard.

Would your Kiwi press gallary mates like to go on record @PeteDGeorge or are they too wanting anonymity, left to play @CitizenBomber‘s game?

I don’t have any press gallery mates. I don’t have any media mates. I operate independently outside political and media circles.

Snarky insinuations (unsupported by anything under oath) don’t help Lauda Finem’s case, it just makes them look petty.

The sources didn’t ‘want’ anonymity, I chose not to identify them. I don’t see what purpose identifying them would serve apart from opening them up to abuse.

Bottom line @PeteDGeorge, if or when @nzpolice start asking questions there is enough to put your two journo’s Williams and Rachinger to bed

That doesn’t make sense.

“when @nzpolice start asking questions” – if they start asking questions. I’m not aware of any police investigation on this. I’ve seen little more than long winded lullabies.

Where does drip feeding come in @PeteDGeorge? LF don’t drip feed a story mate, everything was in the last article, along with the photos.

The photos confirm there were photos. Little else. Scant detail given otherwise and nothing under oath.

Lauda Finem in their post:

In the end however, Alasdair Thompson, rather than giving us a straight forward yes or no answer to the questions we posed, resorted to name calling, claiming that team LF were liars and malevolent trolls, who should not be believed or feed.

That doesn’t sound much different to Lauda Finem’s reaction to my post. If they want to be taken seriously on this they need to be better than that.

Suffice to say the allegation is that mainstream media journos (the entire parliamentary press gallery in fact) had been sent these images. Further, that Williams herself had then approached those same journalists requesting that they ignore Rachinger.

I’ve shown that that is probably at best an exaggeration. Snide attacks in response don’t help Lauda Finem’s case.

There’s serious issues here. Concentrating on facts, (fronting up proof would help), isolating truth from bull, and ditching the petty attacks will help to uncover what’s been happening.

Thompson, as did many other journalists, not only allegedly received the photos, but was also allegedly then approached by the victim, Jessica Williams,(aka @mizjwilliams) and asked to ignore Rachinger and the images as he was attempting to blackmail her – having allegedly threatened to destroy her career and get her the sack.

A lot of ‘allegedly’ and little substance.

Of course the fact that Thompson had allegedly received this so-called tweet…

A fact or an allegation? Facts need supporting evidence.

Of course the allegation is that the parliamentary press gallery then colluded to shut down the story that Rachinger had attempted to promote to fuck over Williams. All very feasible stuff when looked at in light of the above images. However as aforesaid there are other just as realistic possibilities.

Allegations, ‘feasible stuff’, ‘realistic possibilities’, ‘believes that’, ‘circumstantial evidence’ with scant facts or proof.

Where does drip feeding come in?

If there Monday post is all they have then there are a lot of unanswered questions, as they admit.

Who were the photos distributed to? Were the photos used to threaten anyone? Did this have anything to do with The Nation covering Rachinger fairly favourably but looking at a narrow part of the issues? Why did the photos suddenly appear right after The Nation aired?

More questions than answers so far on this aspect of the Rachinger saga and similar on all aspects.

Leave a comment

20 Comments

  1. Kerry

     /  13th June 2015

    My humble opinion LF is whaleoil, seems to much of a coincidence how desperate LF is to take down Ben the Rat and Matt Bloomfield who just happen to be whaleoils no1 and no2 on his shit list.

    Reply
  2. BUCK WIT

     /  13th June 2015

    And here we go again – saying WOBH is LF. If you go back and look at LF you see they dont hold Slater in a to higher regard, in fact they have slagged him badly calling him all sorts of names attached to images of him, the have written about SO many other issues that WOBH has never posted about – i just see no tie up at all. Do you really think Slater would post images of himself saying “maggot” or “fucktard:?? I doubt that very much. Yes LF is interetsed in the Blomfield case – but so are many many others, as Blomfield has so far simply seen the blogs become media, and quite possibly gain source protection if Slater wins in the Court of Appeal. So far no defamation has been proven, and no doubt the lesser Courts wont make a move until the Court of Appeal has made their decision. I have read a lot at LF on the Blomfield matter and if what they have is on the mark then i do have to say that the defamation case is doomed to failure for Blomfield. There are just to many aggrieved people who have supplied content for the stories to have it all been simply “made up”. I also think, and we have seen it here as an example, from time to time various blogs align on a common theme or thread as the beliefs are the same, but that however does not constitute them being one in the same.

    Reply
    • I’ve seen plenty of accusations but no proof WOBH is LF and from what I’ve seen of both I doubt it.

      There’s a possibility of some connection but if there is I haven’t seen any proof that it’s a close connection, , or it’s there at all apart from some common interests (and some quite different interests).

      Reply
    • “Do you really think Slater would post images of himself saying “maggot” or “fucktard:?”

      From one perspective, Slater always reckons he has the true oil and tells it like it is, so would posting such descriptions preclude it being him? 😊

      Reply
    • DaveG

       /  13th June 2015

      I have met Bloomfield, on several occasions, he is the kind who looks you over thinking “are you any use for me” before deciding to move on or then use you. I believe anything LF is saying, he would be the most manipulative person on the planet, an example, can anyone find someone in business who has a nice word to say about him.

      Reply
  3. LF have just taken to Twitter showing tweets that Rachinger has been deleting at rapid pace between himself and Williams as has Presland and Prentice – i guess LF have been taking screen grabs in anticipation of this happening

    Reply
  4. DaveG

     /  13th June 2015

    In my opinion there is no way LF is or is associated with Slater, totally different writing style, and far less grammatical errors, completely different humor styles as well. I do now how Bloomfield works, and have been watching the Bent RatSinger for quite a while, he is trying to be the biggest player in the deepest pool, but he lacks the in-depth analysis of the major players or the skills to pull off what his tiny mind has hatched, or more likely been planted by Bloomfield and his mates. Yes, almost identical to LF’s opinion, and that’s been my opinion since RatSinger first popped in to WO over a year ago. I also predicted a long time ago, Bent RatSinger would crash, burn and end up a complete wreck, and as every month goes past he confirms this, how long before he is institutionalised, oh, and who introduced him to his habit? The story is interesting to watch, and let’s wait to see what will emerge! Of no coincidence in my opinion is that Alastair, iPrent, RatSinger and a few other mates of theirs seem nervous, cats on hot bricks, or still trying to pass bricks.

    Reply
    • BUCK WIT

       /  14th June 2015

      @DaveG – i tend to agree with your thinking – this stinks of Blomfield and his never ending desparation to nail Slater. Blomfields fraudulent ways have been exposed firstly by Slater, and then 1000x greater by LF – but that does not prove Slater is LF – but it suits Blomfields agenda.I still wonder why Blomfield has not taken a law suit against LF – oh wait, he cant as what they said is the truth. So why against Slater? Now that is one VERY good question !!

      Reply
      • @DaveG @BUCK WIT – i to thought pretty much what you have both said. I saw some of the Blomfield material over at WOBH, but I have to confess i have read all that LF have to offer on the guy, and jeepers it is quite in-depth. Blomfield confirmed here at yourNZ that he had spoken with Rachinger, so it does make you wonder. Word on the street is Blomfields brother Dan got taught a lesson on Wednesday that he will be a long time trying to forget – he really should have known better

        Reply
        • DaveG

           /  14th June 2015

          Huh ?? So what was the lesson, what was it about and who was the teacher? Wednesday evening was the WO DOD party so it can’t have been slater!

          Reply
  5. Reginald Perrin

     /  14th June 2015

    I wonder as to the role of Alastair Thompson in all this. After all, didn’t he defect from Scoop to the Dotcom party? I can’t escape the feeling that Dotcom is somehow involved in all of this, going right back to the attack/hack on Slater. Is Thompson some form of conduit to it all, and could that be why he seems to be circling the wagons now?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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