Journalist tweets a review of ‘Dodgy Unions’

Jessica Williams is radioLive political editor and has been described as (and she repeats on her Twitter profile) ‘Infuriatingly reasonable and honest’.

Last night she did a series of Tweet sized reviews of Cameron Slater’s book, ‘Dodgy Unions’.

OMG YOU GUYS LOOK WHAT I JUST GOT IN THE MAIL

Embedded image permalink

Alex makes a good point – is Cam allowed to use the coat of arms on his book that prominently?

Graeme Edgeler assured her that the use of the coat of arms was ok.

Yes he is. The Arms have not been used in a way that indicates that the book has eg the approval of the Government.

The law does not require MCH approval for all used of the arms.

Back to

I mean look at this just look at it omg you guys this is the best mail day evar

Embedded image permalink

That apparently is on the back cover. In fact there is apparently more than that:

Still promoting him self as a Dirty Politics thug, but still failing to deliver on his promise of a counter book on Hager’s ‘Dierty Politics’.

Anyway good grief i am SO looking forward to reading this. Wondering if I should take it with me to the crown accounts lockup.

Okay .. I’m going in.

It’s hard to go past the bit where Slater says Dirty Politics helped promote and expand his business. But I shall.

It’s also hard to believe that if Slater is talking about his Whale Oil business where he and Belt have been crying poor and fund raising to try and meet expenses since Dirty Politics was released last year.

Chapter 1. Cam starts by slagging off his old boss at LD Nathan. He was dirty, a thug and hated all the right things. Hm.

Cam was bullied bc he broke a strike. His work locker was vandalised! He was called a scab! Blimey

God this is all so quotable. Unionists didn’t mind being called dodgy but believe they were morally superior. WUT

“Unions, in my experience, are dodgy” (3rd mention. We are on p12).

Oh wait! Now dodgy in a different way, he says. This gon be a long night. unimpressed.

Chapter 1 ends with a plug for the tipline. Cam says he’ll raise questions the Union Movement needs to answer. Ok then.

Chapter 2. Unions get no scrutiny, Cam says. Except by members, shurely? He says unions “rape and pillage” members. Yuck.

This bit is SO GOOD I’m gonna photograph it. Discuss, show working, use extra sheet if necessary.

Embedded image permalink

“Even the Media and Parliament receive higher confidence ratings than unions”.

Embedded image permalink

I have no idea what that’s included for.

Chapter 2 ends saying union leaders don’t make vote winning politicians and “few” have taken seats from Nats

Big swig of tea and we are heading into Chapter 3 – understanding Union finances. This and the Crown accounts in one day!

So unions have lots of $, says Cam – $120m revenue – but don’t give much of it to Labour. Can’t tell if this good or bad

There are lots of figures in this bit. Lots of “left-wing commentators” pearl clutching. More tea

On to ch 4. Unions are not the same as the Labour Party, Cam says. Labour Party a poor cousin to the unions, Cam says.

Lots here about how Labour doesn’t get much $ from unions between elections. Fair. But then big rant about Lab’s bad fundraising record which seems a bit off topic to me. But hey, it’s Cam’s book and he’ll tangent if he wants to. It’s a fair point imho.

On to the unions’ role in Little’s election. (I’m stepping lightly over a v mean joke about a former MP btw. Family show).

Ok nah not that juicy. The unions had a lot of say over Little’s election. No outcry, says Cam. Funny, I remember some.

Now Cam is talking about why more unionists don’t get elected as MPs. This is a decent question. But it’s not answered.

“The best and brightest .. are either not wishing to run, or are absolutely hopeless”. See? No answer really.

WAIT I stand (sit) corrected. Unionists don’t get elected bc of “inherent lack of likability” and unpleasant campaigning.

Right. Unions and Labour agree on campaigning against Nats. Like the Corrections Assn/Davis against Serco. Take THAT.

See – I don’t see the big WTF about that. Nats work with business. Labour with unions. ‘Twas ever thus, no? ONWARDS.

Why is Labour so beholden to unions? Good question, no answer. But I BET I know who this MP is.

Embedded image permalink

Chapter 5 starts with a sledge about how the NZ political media are more willing to chase irrelevancies than do research.

Right. Now we are on to Little’s time at the EPMU. Cam explains how hard it is to find their accounts online. Hm

Cam reckons $6m went “missing” at the EPMU under Little. Ok let’s see.

And there’s just a whole heap of questions now. I *think* Cam is saying a loan was made to a body that no longer trades.

But no answers! Just questions and a spiel about democracy needing answers. It’s like Guess Who Don’t Sue.

Like – these are good questions, don’t get me wrong. But did Cam ask them of anyone? He should have, seriously.

That’s what a journalist would have done? But now he’s wearing his new ‘Author’ hat.

Ok, ch 6. Dodgy unions in Australia. “Begging the question” about whether NZ unions face the same problems (it says here).

I am a total arse I know, but “begging the question” is misused SO much and it pisses me off. Anyway. Onwards.

Ok TL;DR. Aus unions super dodgy. Are ours like this? We don’t know bc LACK OF SCRUTINY says Cam but tipline suggests so.

Chapter 7. Are we there yet? No. This is a list of questions for unions. Really.

Oh wait there are questions for the Nats! Which can be summed up as “why haven’t you crushed unions with an iron fist?!”

WAIT! Appendices!! That means the book itself is over! is bringing me a beer. Don’t worry I am still going.

Ok. Lots of figures. Specific questions for unions. Education unions get a particularly hard time.

OKAY SO if you are all still with me? I have ACTUAL RECKONS.

As many noted, the book is written in large type, double spaced. In a way that is good. Cam’s style can be, uh, intense.

I thought someone was joking when they said it was in large type, double spaced. It’s not quite double spaced but theires quite a bit of white space.

I did actually find it an interesting read. There *are* valid questions to ask about Labour and the unions and symbiosis.

And one would expect in a book about it, answers.

Problem is, the book asks questions in the hope (I guess) that someone else will answer them. The book should have.

Either that, or the Qs are there to cast a vaguely sinister light – there may be mundane reasons but we don’t know them.

I wasn’t expecting a right of reply or anything. But as a journo, Cam could put these questions himself. But he doesn’t.

This is how he frequently blogs – asks questions without finding the answers, or spinning things out so that if the answers ever appear the questioning has been forgotten.

Anyway. I do vaguely look forward to whatever Cam writes next. I just want substance, not rhetoric.

When announcing his first book (of many) Slater said it gave him the opportunity to look at issues in far more depth than on his blog.

This sounds like an extended repeat of past blog posts with more questions than answers – similar to a lot of his blogging.

As others have said it appears that once again Slater has over promised and under delivered.

He’ll find future books (if any more eventuate) a hard sell unless he substantially ups his authoring and publishing game.

If this was intended as another fund raiser I think he may be disappointed.

And the image of Slater as the big boy of Dirty Politics, the supreme shit kicker, is contradicted by the reality that looks like little more than skid marks in underpants – a bit of a smear but nothing much of substance.

71 Comments

  1. Kerry

     /  15th October 2015

    What ever happened to the whole Ben Rachinger thing with this lady, wasn’t she suspended for sending dirty pics to him ,that whole situation seems to have been swept under the carpet.

    • I think probably swept under the ‘personal and not really public material’ carpet but a protective-their-own media..

      • DaveG

         /  15th October 2015

        It’s typical of the rats protecting one of their own, they are despicable. Whilst I felt she was the victim, she made a bad choice of partner / FWB, and the story needed to be told.

        More to the point, where is the bent ratsinger, for all his claims, he has certainly gone to ground and no back up or evidence at all.

        • He’s just resurfaced with a new blog.
          http://benrachingerblog.blogspot.co.nz/

          • DaveG

             /  16th October 2015

            Wow. Thanks for that, probably more BS to rival the Stranded. Might pop over for a brief look and also recommend Miss J Williams posts her stuff there, as Ben has published her stuff in the past. 🙂

          • DaveG

             /  16th October 2015

            Just read his first post, he goes on about credibility, but he forgets he has zero credibility, after what he did to Miss J Williams he is nothing but a rat, and he published things he should have left private. He goes on about a dectective, did I ever mention I was a very senior detective (actually no I wasn’t, but now you get my drift) and to date not one ounce of evidence from the Bent Ratsinger He can never be trusted, how the stupid have fallen. But his blog will be read and praised by the Tiso terror gang and the hard lefties, the disenfranchised ones. He would have been better to take. 2 to 5 year working big OE achieve something and then return if he wanted to, I doubt anyone mainstream will ever take him seriously.

  2. Kevin

     /  15th October 2015

    Review of “Dodgy Unions”

    That unions are big and wealthy is not surprising and this books shows just how big and wealthy they are. What is surprising, and what this book demonstrates, is how politically dysfunctional they are.

    The author takes an anti-union stance but from reading the between the lines is not against the concept of unions as a means to protect from workers from exploitation. After all, who can argue against what unions achieved for workers and worker’s rights last century except the most ratbag of employers?

    The problem is political. Unions in New Zealand, like those in the UK, are socialist and it seems that standing up for their members has become secondary to political power. However as this book demonstrates they have been totally useless at it and the book gives examples of union candidates, while being highly successful within their union, failing in the political realm.

    The reason for this, the book argues, is that unions have become echo chambers and out of touch with the public. And the fact that the average voter doesn’t vote for union candidates is evidence of this.

    The book also quotes a number of Labour party members. As hearsay we don’t know if they have been quoted accurately but there is no reason to believe that the gist of what they say is not true. And the gist is they are frustrated with the unions, with Labour party member complaining about how useless the union candidates are.

    The book seaways into Aussie unions and corruption and asks if New Zealand unions may be just as corrupt. It doesn’t put forward any real evidence and I doubt it’s the case anyway. I suspect Australian unions like the American unions, are capitalist and not socialist, and simply suffer the same organised-crime issues as the American unions. Besides, they don’t call Australia America for beginners for nothing.

    Those looking for a retaliation to Nicky Hager’s Dirty Politics book will be disappointed. In fact this book appears to have nothing to do with Hager’s book. It’s “dirty” politics only in the sense of possibly raising friction between unions and the political wing of the unions known as the Labour party. The irony of course is if the Labour party takes the book’s message to heart and acts on it, the Labour party will end up being stronger and better off. Same goes for the unions themselves who will then start paying attention to what the public actually wants.

    • Rob

       /  15th October 2015

      I’m going to assume the comment on WO by Kevin is you. My apologies if wrong but I doubt it as you wrote a similar post here.
      “…..I thought the review was fair and balanced.” He starts by saying “Didn’t want to like it…” and then gives it 5 stars. Fair and balanced? Do you honestly believe Belts responce that he had nothing to do with the book? C’mon, pull your head out of the sand.
      Even if he had nothing to do with it he most certainly has a pecuniary interest in this venture. See (b)

      NZ Crimes Act 1961
      228
      Dishonestly taking or using document

      Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who, with intent to obtain any property, service, pecuniary advantage, or valuable consideration,—
      (a)
      dishonestly and without claim of right, takes or obtains any document; or
      (b)
      dishonestly and without claim of right, uses or attempts to use any document.

      Compare: 1961 No 43 s 229A

      Section 228: replaced, on 1 October 2003, by section 15 of the Crimes Amendment Act 2003 (2003 No 39).

      So, fair and balanced? Most certainly not.

      • Kevin

         /  15th October 2015

        Sure, putting “Didn’t want to like it” at the start was not a smart move but I still think the review was fair all things considered. I mean if it was me and I was being dishonest I would have really laid the praise on thick.

        • Rob

           /  15th October 2015

          You’re a classic example of ‘Can’t see the forest for the trees’

  3. Loki

     /  15th October 2015

    Simon Lusk compiled the booklet from scores of ancient posts written by many but not including Slater.
    It is full of nonsense claims about left wing insiders who talk to him. Nobody talks to him and never did from the left.
    There ya go.
    Reviewed it for ya.
    You are welcome.

    • Kevin

       /  15th October 2015

      Even assuming that the quotes from labour insiders are made up (for which you offer no evidence) it doesn’t change the fact that the candidates the unions have sent to the labour party have been duds.

      • Guest

         /  15th October 2015

        @Kevin

        He’s written this as a direct quote. So he was having a beer several years ago and can remember word for word what the MP said. And the MP said it without an um, or ah, or being interrupted or distracted?

        • Kevin

           /  15th October 2015

          Journalists do it all the time. It’s called paraphrasing.

          • Eh?

             /  15th October 2015

            Kevin
            Journos paraphrase quotes. They are never in quotation marks because that signals a direct quote…get that wrong and there can be trouble.

          • Rob

             /  15th October 2015

            I don’t think you’re meant to use quotation marks when paraphrasing.

            • Kevin

               /  15th October 2015

              Journalists do it. For example the story in the Herald quoting that landlord with 37 or so rental properties. Do you really think the guy said word for word what he was quoted as saying regarding tenants?

          • Rob

             /  15th October 2015

            Somehow I don’t think the journalist who wrote that was relying on memory Kevin. A piece that long and the number of people involved, more than likely recorded. You’ll go to any lengths to defend Slater and co, so in all honesty you really have very little credibility in anything you post about them. To me personally you have zero credibility when it comes to this subject.

        • Missy

           /  15th October 2015

          I am wondering what ‘senior Labour politician’ uses the word ‘ratbag’. That is a word that Slater uses a lot, but it isn’t a word that is commonly used, and I can’t imagine any senior politician using that word. In my opinion the use of that word makes the quote a little suspect. Of course I could be wrong, senior politicians could use ‘ratbag’ quite frequently.

          • Kevin

             /  15th October 2015

            Muldoon used it when describing a pommie photography who took photos of Princess Diana. When asked what it meant he called it an “Australian term”. It was also used quite a lot on Police 10-7.

      • DaveG

         /  15th October 2015

        @kevin. Whilst a good comment, can you please indicate which labour wannabe MP’s and Mp’s are not duds, yes any of them, who has experience, is strategic, intelligent, financially and economically literate, understands business and can represent NZ on the world stage??

    • Axe grinding Loki…. what has Mr Slater done to you I wonder?

      • Guest

         /  15th October 2015

        @dave1924

        Ya know, over on the WO blog, that comment would be considered ‘low-calorie’. As a result, it would be deleted and a public warning issued. Just sayin’

        • Well we are not on WOBH are we…. and given Loki is pushing it out there over the last few days its a fair question to ask ….. And your point apart from a “little toe the line” intimation attempt is?

          • Guest

             /  15th October 2015

            @davey
            Loki’s comments sound reasoned, given the evidence (or lack of in WO’s case) to date. Rather than attack the messenger, wouldn’t you be better to counteract the message, with sound and positive comments of your own, in support of your (obviously) opposing view? So where is Loki wrong?

            • Guestey westy…. since you insist on little name games…..

              No one is attacking the messenger.

              Loki is engaged in a personal attack on Slater – fine that’s his call. I’m asking you and him if you’re not the same person or little collective, what the beef is, so we can judge your and Loki’s comments in context….

              And given Loki runs around saying I’m someone I’m not – go look for the comment I am referring to on here a day or so ago, I reserve the right to niggle back… PG will decide if he think is OTT – at which time I will respect PG’s rules for this blog and stop niggling back

              enjoy your day…

      • Loki

         /  15th October 2015

        Your hero has two types of friend. Those he has shit in and those he will shit on. I fall into the first camp

        • Guest

           /  15th October 2015

          @Loki
          How do you do? We haven’t been introduced before but I like your work!

        • Mike C

           /  15th October 2015

          @Loki

          Slater has shit IN you 🙂

          Sounds horrible. LOL.

          • Loki

             /  15th October 2015

            Big thumbs. O and I are constantly tripping me up 🙂

        • Loki – Cam Slater is no hero of mine. Nice of you to confirm your a friend of his and you’ve had a falling out. Helps put all your comments in context… cheers

    • Missy

       /  15th October 2015

      Loki, you appear to be obsessed with Simon Lusk.

      • Loki

         /  15th October 2015

        He is the last enabler standing between Slater and obscurity.
        As slater would put it.
        He needs some sunlight.

        • Jeeves

           /  15th October 2015

          Let’s be clear about Lusk, particularly, and Slater/Odgers/Bathnagar in general.

          Lusk’s plan was quite simple- he wasn’t happy with the way politics and politicians were running this country and thought he could facilitate a plan to do it better. According to him, ‘better’ had an American genesis. “Better’ looked like a neo-liberal hawkish heaven where only the chosen ones, and the ones who chose to be among them -and of course the wealthy and influential- had the whole thing tied up exclusively for their benefit.

          And I want to reiterate something- this plan was not about just taking over the National Party and doing things Lusk’s way- and in fairness it wasn’t just about bringing down the Labour/Greens etc by being dirty bastards- because in politics, both of these are fair enough (at least if you live to the right of the mainstreet), but no- there was a third , far more malevolent essence to his American dream- and it was this:

          Under the guise of chaos and smear and lies- place your close allies in as many places of political influence at both local and national level- and slowly build them up over as many years as it takes- until you are in a position where you not only control the message, but you control the result.

          And of course, by result, folks- I refer to the result of our democratic elections.
          Whether you have to re-write boundaries to split opposition voting bases, smear and defame citizens who care about issues which you do not- usurp the agencies of state to do your bidding- whatever it took (and of course if it wasn’t legal- change the law) to make sure that the outcome of the elections was forever in your favour- THAT WAS LUSK’S PLAN, and still is.

          To steal any semblance of what we call democracy from all of us- and our children, and from their children.

          To make New Zealand theirs.

          Filth. And all who ride with them.
          Filth.

        • DaveG

           /  15th October 2015

          So, who are you Loki, you hide behind a name and sling mud at Slater and co, but who are you really, and why the axe, could you be a businessman, a Ex cop now PI or just another ex WO commenter with a ban for doing silly stuff?

          • That’s getting a bit close to same-old silly speculation.

            • DaveG

               /  16th October 2015

              No Pete, it’s not speculation, it was a question, lots of claims and speculation from Loki, but no evidance, just claims, so I ask. Who is he/she.

            • Poking and speculating about the identity of people using pseudonyms is not the done thing on blogs, it’s generally severely frowned on.

              It often results in retaliatory speculation and insinuations and accusations and sometimes outing of identities, not always correctly. This is not something that people with pseudonyms can easily defend.

              You have to accept that most people choose to use pseudonyms, for various reasons, and leave it at that. Please.

          • Loki

             /  15th October 2015

            I am Thors evil brother.
            I sit here astonished at the importance many give to Lusk and his occasional bedmate. They are a couple of twits whose online fantasy of being players backfired spectacularly when Hager got the data and decided it was all real and not some weird homo-erotic fantasy by a couple of lonely morons.
            Anybody that has suffered more than a few hours proximity to Slater will attest to the claim he is a boastful, bone idle mouth breather.
            He has no contacts left after he spectacularly wrecked Judith Collins career. An event we should all thank him for.

            • Jeeves

               /  16th October 2015

              Perhaps this is true- nonetheless he and his acolytes wreaked havoc during a vital election. Almost no-one who cast a vote for any party had a real sense of what the truth might be. Discussion around policy was supressed by the white noise of ad homina smear – the truth speakers (whether they were accurate truths or not) were shouted down- and effective informed democratic choice was robbed from us. This was the plan, and it was effective.
              Sure you can point to the apparent disarray within Labour, and the unfortunate accident which was the union of Mana and DotCom, and indeed the million Kiwis who chose not to enter the debate- ( and I for one blame also the comfortable spooning our great leader John of the People and his sidekicks engaged in with these ‘twits’ ) but what you cannot do is blame any or all of these factors without acknowledging the unknown quantity of damage caused deliberately by these craven cockroaches.

              So perhaps they are doomed to ignominious anonymity, and hopefully a taste of the powerlessness we all endure at the hands of the powerful- for which they throw scorn upon us relentlessly.

              But they still deserve the full wrath of our opprobrium, ad infinitum- until they are not even a footnote upon our modern history.

              Let the Few rain fire upon the masses- but the game is not over until the masses decide so.

              Filth.

          • DaveG

             /  16th October 2015

            @pete. If you look at my comment here, and another today, it is Loki who is doing it, I am merely calling on him to put up, have some credibility, and you have not called him out on that, his stating Dave1924 is Juana!

  4. Joe Bloggs

     /  15th October 2015

    Sounds like Slater would have been better off hiring Hager to ghost-write this wee pamphlet for him. Might have achieved some credibility that way…

  5. Guest

     /  15th October 2015

    Another reviewer “MrsT” has posted on Amazon, with a one star:
    “Don’t waste your money folks. If you are looking for a smoking gun expose on the New Zealand union movement you will be sadly disappointed. There is nothing in here but a bunch of allegations that the union movement does not give enough money to the Labour Party and a bunch of selective statistics that claim they have great mountains of money. There is not enough information or research in this to substantiate any allegation of financial mismanagement.
    Unfortunately it is not very well written either, if this guy thinks he is the political rights answer to Nicky Hager of dirty politics fame he is deluded. The research and writing are not in the same league”

  6. This is of course the height of comedy for Jessica Williams to review the book and parade out a bunch of put downs, given her purported linkage to Dirty Politics via a purported relationship with Ben Rachinger…

    When is TV3 doing a follow up to their episode featuring Ben and the alleged hacking of the The Standard??? No follow up with any proof would be a smear wouldn’t it?

    • Guest

       /  15th October 2015

      @davee
      It sounded like a reasonable review by JW. She made comments but always backed them up with facts about the book. It seems the book was sent to her – she didn’t buy it. Why do authors/publishers send books to journalists?

      • @Guesteee – enjoy your day, pointless engaging with you, see my previous reply to you. : )

    • Joe Bloggs

       /  15th October 2015

      There’s a whole lot of ‘purported’s in your post, dave, that might just give you a clue as to why TV3 have ducked for cover on any follow-up to Rachinger.

      There’s also a small matter of Rachinger’s fantasy life being larger than reality – that doesn’t make for credible coverage, as TV3 found out after their first effort

    • Loki

       /  15th October 2015

      Purported.
      Who writes like that. The use of big words to convey intelligence.
      Classic Slater.
      The irony of a hack (albeit with the same ten year old password across every online account) victim facing charges for trying to buy a hack will probably make the Internet break.
      The only downside is that if he gets convicted the punishment will probably be home detention.
      The though of which will send him into delirious joy. The laziest person in NZ will have a court ordered excuse to never get out of his pyjama.

      • Loki – you really are in need of a chill pill. Interesting you find the need to attack someone over the use of a word, are you that insecure??

        I’m my own person and comment from my own view point. Seeing as how i have been banned from WOBH, making out I am some how a friend or connected to Cam Slater is quiet funny….

  7. Alan Wilkinson

     /  15th October 2015

    Too much already about a damp squid posing as an incendiary device. When intelligence and competence fails, bluster is the final humiliation.

    Slater desperately needs a better class of friends but has done nothing to earn them. His future looks bleak.

    • Loki

       /  15th October 2015

      he had better friends. He shit on them all and is just now left with his odd friend, wife and Belt

  8. traveller

     /  15th October 2015

    Speaking of reviews I see that Whaleoil Staffer (Belt) has broken the 1st commandment if his mentor. The explaining is losing one. 😉

    • Guest

       /  15th October 2015

      Yes and he’s even included a screen-shot of the one-and-a-half star rating the book has…

      • Mefrostate

         /  15th October 2015

        And believe it or not, it’s top in the world in an extremely obscure category!

    • jamie

       /  15th October 2015

      Curiously, Belt insists that his review was a genuine one. Which must make things a bit awkward in the Slater household, as it said (before he deleted it) that he wasn’t even expecting to like the book.

  9. Rob

     /  15th October 2015

    A new review 5 stars
    “Great read. Outstanding investigative journalism. This book shines light on the highly questionable practices and financial status of many unions in New Zealand. Don’t be put off by negative reviews. Those from the left wing will hate this book and write anything to put people off reading it.”

    “Outstanding investigative journalism.” The author obviously doesn’t know the meaning of any these words. Wonder if this could be considered to be an oxymoron. Double oxymoron? Or maybe even a triple!

    • Loki

       /  15th October 2015

      An anonymous review I note.

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  15th October 2015

      No doubt WO’s remaining groupies could and would have written that review without reading the book. It tells you nothing about the book but everything about them.

  10. Mike C

     /  15th October 2015

    @Guest

    Jessica Williams said something along the lines of … “I got sent a copy of the book”.

    Which most likely means that Jessica forked out the $20 to get Slaters book posted out to her by Belt or Spanish Bride 🙂

    As if Williams, or any other Leftie Journalists would ever admit to buying a book written by Slater’n’Co. LOL.

    • Rob

       /  15th October 2015

      Well they say they sent copies out to all Labour MPs. Stands to reason they would send some out to journos as well.

      • Mike C

         /  15th October 2015

        @Rob

        Has anybody come forward saying that they have received the book for free from Slater?

        • Rob

           /  15th October 2015

          Not that I know off but I haven’t seen any Labour mps saying they recieved a copy either.

    • Guest

       /  15th October 2015

      @Mike

      I think we can be sure that there are plenty of freebies surfacing. This from Mr Belt:
      “The last week has been rather humourous. Many copies of Dodgy Unions have been seen at the CTU conference for example. We’ve sent copies out to all Labour MPs with special personal messages. Whenever we do something, we always try to include a good dose of humour. Annette King got one with “…at least this will last longer than the flowers”.
      I have no doubt, as a really, really humourous thing to do, team WO sent JW her copy, for free.

      • Loki

         /  15th October 2015

        Absolute and complete bullshit about “many” copies being seen at conference.
        He is a figure of fun. Everywhere but in his own head.

      • Mike C

         /  15th October 2015

        @Guest

        Until Annette King confirms that she received a free copy of the booklet from Belt … I remain unconvinced 🙂

        • Guest

           /  15th October 2015

          It won’t be mentioned/talked about, except to be ridiculed as JW did

          • Mike C

             /  15th October 2015

            @Guest

            That’s nobody’s problem except for Belts and the Slaters 🙂

            It is not in Slaters or Belts nature’s or personalitys to ever give something away for free. LOL.

            • DaveG

               /  15th October 2015

              And how do you know this Mike, how. I can BS on that, do you have proof. They gave you a ban, completely free, and I bet they are enjoying the holiday you have :).

              But seriously, you call others out on providing links or evidence, so cough, where is it??

  11. Mike C

     /  16th October 2015

    @DaveG

    Banning me from the Whale was one of the best things that has ever happened to me on the Internet. LOL.

    The way that Spanish Bride has responded to some of my comments here in Georges blog only proves that she isn’t happy with me … because if she didn’t care about what I write about her and the Whale … then she wouldn’t even bother to respond at all 🙂