Reviewing comments

Things have changed markedly here over the pasty year or so, especially recently. Your NZ used to chug away quietly with quite quiet comments threads. There’s more interest in joining in now, which is great.

I want it to be as open and inviting to commenting here as possible, I see freedom of speech as important. I’ve experienced some awful forums where abuse and bullying prevails far too much. I want discussion to be able to be robust but not be repellent.

Alongside freedom to speak here is a responsibility to be fair to others, and there’s a responsibility to stay within the law.

I push boundaries at times, and I know how easy it is to get a bit lax in off the cuff comments.

Something I need to do here is be up front and open about what I’m doing.

I’ve had a phone call from Matthew Blomfield, and he expressed concern about some comments here that he feels are unfair and not factual. I’m open to anyone raising issues here and I’ll provide anyone with a reasonable right of reply.And I’m open to anyone being to have their say as long as it fits within standards.

As Matthew is currently involved in legal action he is limited to what he can say publicly. So I asked him to detail any specific concerns and send them to me, which he has. I think he has a fair point with some of them at least.

I’m going to go through them and edit comments when I think it’s appropriate. I’ll do this openly and make it clear when I’ve done it. I have a responsibility to do this fairly.

It can be illegal to make false accusations. It’s unfair to make accusations that can’t be backed by any evidence.

I’m open to anyone who thinks they have been unfairly spoken against to ask me to consider editing it. I want to keep editing to a minimum so co-operation would be appreciated.

I ask that you keep the personal insults and abuse out of it here, and stick to opinion unless you can back up what you say with facts.

One of my primary aims here is to allow the addition of facts that will help the understanding of any relevant issue. This works for any side of an argument.

Matthew has agreed to supply me with information that I think is pertinent to things that have been discussed here, when that becomes available. As long as it’s fact based I’m happy to do that.

No matter what interest anyone has with any issue you are welcome to submit it here for posting.

And I hope you still feel free to rip into discussion here – within reason and within the law.

I’d like Your NZ to be different, where anyone feels comfortable and unthreatened contributing here no matter what their political or social leanings are.

More input and more facts and evidence will improve debate here and it would also improve our politics and democracy generally if practiced more by others.

Pete George

Leave a comment

31 Comments

  1. Sponge

     /  17th June 2015

    Perhaps you could ask Pete Belt to help out with the moderation? 🙂

    He must have much less to do these days now that the WO comments have been reduced to a level of sycophancy approaching the Sub-Standard.

    Reply
    • Very funny. He banned me for saying something that didn’t fir with Cam’s narrative.

      My aim is to be close to the opposite of Whale Oil and The Standard.

      Over at Kiwiblog tonight Reid is complaining about someone persistently lying about him. A few days ago Reid thought it was humorous that I objected to someone persistently lying about me. There’s an entrenched culture there that encourages and rewards lying and abusing, and stomps on any challenging of that. Same at The Standard. Belt just stomps on virtually anything that isn’t arselicking.

      Reply
    • DaveG

       /  17th June 2015

      That’s a bit unfair sponge, overall Pete has done a great job, we Ll have differing opinions, but as Pete G has alluded to above it’s pretty difficult! Cheers

      Reply
      • Sponge

         /  17th June 2015

        My comment was intended to be flippant and not anti Pete (George). I think he made a serious misjudgment on the whole Manolo thing but otherwise does a good job here.

        Reply
        • Missed that sorry All good!

          Reply
        • Maybe, maybe not. Some more discussion on it tonight. Reid is complaining about persistent lies targeting him. When I complained the other day he ridiculed me and said it was all a joke. But he says it was worde for him and implies I’m lying about it being a problem for me.

          There’s a toxic culture embedded there. I decided to escalate things to make a point, nothing else made much difference.

          Reid is blind to what he was a part of, still, so maybe it was futile.

          Reply
  2. kittycatkin

     /  17th June 2015

    Let’s stage some abuse and slanderous remarks about each other and call in Graham Mc Greasy to bring charges 😀

    Reply
    • He can harass people to pander to his attention seeking elsewhere.

      Reply
      • kittycatkin

         /  18th June 2015

        Oh well…I had a vision of him charging in and making an idiot of himself . After which we all cry ‘Fooled you !’

        Reply
  3. Maureen

     /  17th June 2015

    What you have written is fair. There seems to be an interesting story unfolding which has emotive characters on both sides – hence the strongly for or against. Whale oil has become sycophantic to the point of don’t bother, whereas Kiwiblog has some robust debate on topical threads whereas the General Debate verges on being taken over by a number of trolls. Hope you find a good balance.

    Reply
  4. Pete be careful of MB, in my humble opinion, and in looking at his track record he is not to be trusted, and will do anything he can to ensure his narrative comes out. Before you edit this call me, you have my email, and please look at this Look at all the people MB has been associated with, and how many would have a beer with him, or go into business with him, then consider what you (or whoever is reading this) know of each if his past business partners! I have met Warren briefly, nice guy! It’s not rocket science to do a comparison. Sure he is in court, but he also does this to silence his opponents and tie them up on knots, and financially! Again, please be careful.

    Reply
    • Ps Pete Will you offer the same opportunity to MB’s opponents to put their point forward? Slater has both hands tied behind his back courtesy of MB but there are a lot of others who are not gagged, but I guess MB will strongly object to that

      Reply
      • As I think I’ve said in the post I’ll give anyone an opportunity to put their points forward, even if I totally disagree with them – as long as it’s fair and legal comment.

        Reply
    • I try to be careful about everyone. And fair to everyone. Won’t always get it right but it’s an aim.

      Reply
  5. Kerry

     /  17th June 2015

    When i google Matthew Bloomfield first on the list is the Lauda Finem story’s, is his objection related to those claims

    Reply
    • His objection is to people stating accusations as if they were factual. He’s not in position to counter them directly.

      Reply
      • Sponge

         /  17th June 2015

        The liquidators reports are supposed to be factual. There is some pretty damning stuff in them.

        Reply
        • It is my belief and knowledge of MB and the matters he was investigated for, the liquidators know a lot more, but they are limited by what they can say due to their limited scope (liquidation) and their own caution due to the litiguous MB

          My question remains if we each had a lazy 100k suddenly fall Into our lap, and a great business opportunity but needed a partner as well, would you accept MB as a partner based on the facts in the public arena ? Would you accept Pete G. Or Cam Slater? Me, no way ever with MB, better to burn the 100k, at least that’s all you would lose. But for me it’s a yes to both Cam and Pete G, both are honorable people, upfront and not into ripping people off, based in info in the public arena! What do others say?

          Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  17th June 2015

        Obviously you can’t publish false and libellous statements unchallenged. Is it sufficient merely to point out there is no evidence to support any such comments? I suspect it is.

        Reply
  6. Shagger

     /  17th June 2015

    Perhaps the best way forward is get Blomfields issues, publish them, and see what truth comes out. Don’t let your blog take the wrap for him being caught out

    Reply
    • I think if your getting anything from MB or Ben Ratsinger or their like I suggest you have them sign a Stat Dec that what they have supplied is factual, given of their own free will and they are Authorised to disclose all details etc provided. Get them to sign every page, and record every conversation. Over cautious. No, the trail of ship wrecks is long! Keep the blog as the conduit only. (My opinion only)

      Reply
      • Why should it be any different for them than for anyone else? Anything they say (or anyone says) here is on open record and can be judged at the time or later accordingly. If I am going to provide this as a forum for anyone to have a fair go and a fair say then it has to be on an equal basis for everyone.

        Reply
  7. PG – some thoughts for you and your blog

    How are you going to avoid the same pitfalls Slater fell in to?

    Is Blomfield in his usual fashion threatening you ?

    Is he actually just after you giving him email and IP addresses? He has a history of trying to threaten anyone he can.

    Do you have the financial ability to fend off legal action he will bring against you?

    If you really are a “Mr FixIT” then why do give Blomfield “Special Treatment” ?

    You say that Blomfield “can’t comment” on some issues – well if he can’t comment then why allow him a part reply? IE he will just say the bits he wants and use Court action to hide.

    My pick PG is he is out of favours in ANY other forum and now he will use you. He used the NZH, HOS, TVNZ, TV3, The Standard – and now your the last man standing.

    My thought for you PG – get ready for a claim against you in your local Court.

    Reply
  8. Shawn Herles.

     /  18th June 2015

    Hi Pete, On the chance that you may miss this post on KB I’ll repeat it here.

    I seriously overreacted to the Manolo issue and said things to you that were abusive and unfair, and I’m sorry for that. I’m not going to get into the issue of who was right or wrong between the two of you, I just wanted to apologize for my part.

    Reply
    • Thanks Shawn, I appreciate your apology. None of us are perfect and some of us (myself included) are able to learn from these experiences. I’m happy to leave it at that.

      Reply
  9. How are you going to avoid the same pitfalls Slater fell in to?
    I operate quite differently to Whale Oil and I’m not taking sides like Slater.

    Is Blomfield in his usual fashion threatening you ?
    No, he requested I look at comments he felt were unfair. We have an amicable conversation and our emails have been cordial. I don’t feel threatened by him at all.

    Is he actually just after you giving him email and IP addresses? He has a history of trying to threaten anyone he can.
    He hasn’t asked anything of me but to consider comments made. There is no way I would provide email and IP addresses unless legally required to (as per any blog).

    Do you have the financial ability to fend off legal action he will bring against you?
    I don’t expect any legal action against me. Why should I if I follow prudent practices?

    If you really are a “Mr FixIT” then why do give Blomfield “Special Treatment” ?
    I’m not giving him nor anyone else any special treatment. I’m open to any reasonable approach.

    You say that Blomfield “can’t comment” on some issues – well if he can’t comment then why allow him a part reply? IE he will just say the bits he wants and use Court action to hide.
    Everyone says just the bits they want. You’re just saying the bits you want. I’m allowing you to make part comments.

    I believe both Slater and Blomfield are legally limited in what they can say publicly.
    My pick PG is he is out of favours in ANY other forum and now he will use you. He used the NZH, HOS, TVNZ, TV3, The Standard – and now your the last man standing.
    He can use me on the same basis anyone can use me. As I’ve stated I’ll be open about anything I publish regarding this.

    He hasn’t asked to say anything here. I’ve done one previous post and that was entirely at my prompting. I asked him if he could provide me with information that’s of interest to me to make available on public record. He hasn’t asked me to publish anything for him. If he did ask I’d consider it as I would requests from anyone else.

    I’m not taking sides. I want information from any side that will help clarify issues of interest.

    If I publish anything from Blomfield that you disagree with them you’re free to respond. I’m happy to do that post for post to give it equal coverage if it’s appropriate.

    Blomfield hasn’t put any pressure on me. Your comment looks like you’re trying to pressure me.

    I believe in giving everyone an equal chance to speak here no matter which side of an issue they are on, and no matter what my opinion on it is. A difference between Slater and I is that I allow people who disagree with me to speak on a reasonably equal footing. I think that’s an important principle of free speech.

    Reply
    • Has Mr Blomfield got some sort of physical or other disability that renders it impossible for him to use the comments section like the rest of us, does that same disability or some other unknown reason make it necessary for you to announce his arrival, as you have, unlike the rest of us?”

      PG my questions were just questions – no need to make a battleship of it. As an observer and reader of the comments here, and what other blogs have written i thought it reasonable to ask. When you see the “form” of Blomfield in the past it is easy to see how the questions are relevant

      Reply
      • I’ve seen a lot of dialogue on other blogs related to Blomfield. I’ve just about completed a post relevant to this.

        I thought it was common sense to explain exactly what I was doing and why given the interest of some in related issues here. I was pre-empting to an extent the inevitable reaction that has occurred anyway.

        I haven’t “made a battleship of it”. I used your questions to make it clear where I’m coming from on this.

        Openness and sunlight are important to me.

        Reply
  10. RAMBONE of RAMBONIA

     /  18th June 2015

    Should prove an interesting read PG

    Reply
  11. Good Job Pete.. 🙂

    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 )

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

%d bloggers like this: