Whale Oil jumping the Rawshark

If you wondered how serious to take claims from Whale Oil then see this.

In the post THE MENDACITY OF THE NZ HERALD AND DAVID ‘TAINTED’ FISHER (and note that I actually agree with ‘Cameron Slater’ to an extent in Slater versus Fisher and NZ Herald) there has been a comment by ‘Spiker’, responded to by Pete Belt (is he talking to himself?)

WOBeltRawsharkdegrees:

What a joke, but I suspect Belt is actually seriously making an allegation.

So because I happen to hold Whale Oil to account and criticise them a lot more more than I praise them they have accused me of being one person removed from Rawshark and the hacking of Slater.

This may not be a deliberate lying accusation, they probably believe their own absurd bullshit.

So I can’t take seriously their claims on any of the other people named. Nor any other accusations emanating from Whale Oil. They seem to have become seriously unhinged and paranoid.

For the record I have tried to work out who the indentity of Rawshark is, and the end result is I don’t know with any degree of certainty. Far from it.

I’m no more close to Rawshark than Belt is.

By Whale Oil reckoning there would a whole bunch of you who participate here who would be deemed compliciit in the hacking as well, because you criticise Whale Oil, and probably for no other reason.

Whale Oil seems to have well and truly jumped the Rawshark. It’s very sad to see that a blog that not long ago had a bit of potential to make a real difference in the New Zealand media landscape has dived to such depths of paranoid stupidity.

The height of hypocrisy is illustrated in this comment by Belt:

(yes, it’s the same people that are working so hard to take us down – every day – every opportunity, no matter how absurd)

When all is able to be revealed – and don’t expect Whale Oil to reveal the whole truth, let alone much truth – I’ll throw that back at Belt.

UPDATE: Belt has added:

Time is on our side. Just as it has transpired with Dotcom, in the end all their superficial arguments run out, and they’re left with having to face judgement on the facts alone.

Comedy gold.

Leave a comment

198 Comments

  1. Budgieboy

     /  15th November 2015

    Crikey that’s company you’d rather not be in PG!!!

    Any idea why they think you’re connected? Surely not because of the articles this site about WO?

    Reply
    • I can only assume it’s entirely based on what has been done in the open here on Your NZ because that’s my total involvement with anything to do with Rawshark.

      It looks like they are becoming seriously deranged. This is but one example. Another should be able to be revealed in the next week or two.

      Reply
  2. Mike C

     /  15th November 2015

    WTF !?!

    “Pete George, Two”

    What have you been keeping from all of us in here George ??? 🙂

    And I would even dare to suggest that you have also been keeping this information from yourself. LOL.

    Reply
  3. MaureenW

     /  15th November 2015

    Sounds like a precursory post to another begging bowl request. Poor us, everybody’s out to take us down, please send $$.
    An as aside, Belt’s failed to put his own name on that list – Belt – ++One.

    Reply
  4. Budgieboy

     /  15th November 2015

    You know I trust PG on this obviously but I do want to say that while I don’t hold Belt in any great regard I hope he’s right about the investigation. Whether you love or hate WO a crime was committed and I for one hope the people involved are held to account and face the legal consequences of their actions. Just because it was ‘against’ Cam Slater does not make it right or acceptable.

    Reply
    • I’ve always said that it’s important for our democracy in particular that the hacking and the people and motives behind it are exposed if possible.

      One of the reasons that make Belt’s claim ludicrous.

      My guess is that their evidence including me will be as lame as the fact that I let someone comment here.

      I’ve let Spanish Bride comment here. I’ve probably let Belt comment here. I’ve let close associates of Slater comment here undeer pseudonyms.

      That doesn’t make me guilty of any of the crap that they have been involved in.

      But I know that this is the level of some of their deductive skills.

      Reply
    • THUNDERBIRD 4

       /  15th November 2015

      There is some sentiment that the cops were looking at Hagar on another angle as well – that he was in possession of incriminating material on some cops, and was looking to also expose them, and the police just acted as they did. What I find interesting though is the length of time its taking to even lay a charge or make anything of it. Given the complexity of the case, and cyber crime, perhaps it is proving very hard to nail anyone. Maybe the only outcome will be charging Hagar with a proceeds of crime charge.

      Reply
  5. Ben Rachinger

     /  15th November 2015

    Mr George,

    It might surprise you to know that they are pretty much on the mark. A lot has transpired. For myself personally, I know that being used in powerful people’s games leaves scars. The truth will out.

    Unfortunately no one comes out of this looking good whatsoever. If you would like to question me on facts, motives and agendas… I’m happy to do so. I know many commenters here will hate me – that is fine. But the truth is the truth. It should be inviolable and not be open to political interpretation. I face no charges and I have only a cordial relationship with the Police so there are no issues that could block some sort of Q&A. I’ve visited this site most days this year. You’re to be commended on doing your best as a host and moderator. I can’t speak to your biases or perceptions.

    Regards,
    Ben Rachinger

    Reply
    • “It might surprise you to know that they are pretty much on the mark. ”

      That does surprise me, because including me in their list proves the opposite, regarding myself at least, I can’t speak for any of the others (I have no idea about them).

      It just looks like a hate/hit list to me, absent any evidence that it’s anything otherwise.

      If you have evidence that will shine some light on this then go for it, providing that publishing it doesn’t breach any laws or would be at risk of defamation action.

      My email address is in About.

      Reply
  6. Ben Rachinger

     /  15th November 2015

    I can’t do the behind closed doors thing anymore sorry. Was happy to answer questions in the open but I understand your reticence.

    We all know that things are very hit and miss with WO. There’s always some innocents chucked in with the aggressors. Also, when they are looking at things from their own perspective they may lump everyone in that is perceived to be ‘anti-WO’.

    I have no evidence of your involvement and my comment is more to reassure your readers that I know you did not have anything to do with the Hack nor the subsequent attacks on Mr Slater. You have a keen nose for the truth and you’ve been balanced.

    There’s two parts to this and always have been.

    The illegal act of hacking into Mr Slaters accounts and what drove that for what benefit.

    What the hacking exposed.

    We would all do well to keep that at the forefront of our minds.

    Regards.

    Reply
    • Thanks.

      I’m not wanting to do anything behind closed doors. I suggested email because that’s how some people like to provide information. Unless there are legal considerations I post everything unedited.

      I agree that there’s at least two parts to this issue, with conflicting considerations of both.

      I have always spoken strongly against the illegal hacking for political purposes, it sets a dangerous precedent for our democracy if unsolved and unpunished.

      Some claim the exposure justifies the means but that’s a very slippery slope. Anyone in politics could conjure up justification for exposing an opponent.

      What was exposed, now it is out, also raises important questions about how parts of our democracy have operated in the past.

      I think most of it could have been adequately been exposed without resorting to illegal hacking. There wasn’t much that surprised me from just oberving what has been said publicly over the last few years.

      So I think both Rawshark and Whale Oil are deserving of condemnation on aspects of this and some balanced exposure is welcome, as long as it’s backed by facts.

      Reply
      • Michelle

         /  15th November 2015

        The way I read it Pee-Gee, two degrees of separation… is that you don’t have direct links with Rawshark, as Rachinger somehow knows(? – how?) but you have worked against Whaleoil using the information that came from it because you know/work with people that are once removed… not necessarily in the list Belt put up. You can hardly claim not to have been on a single minded bent to get those whaleoil c###s taken down and taken down hard. Can you ?? What else is your motivation to turn this blog into a single most focused place to tear at Slater and his mates ?? Don’t get me wrong, it is why I come here, but you are obsessed by it… LOL

        Reply
        • You can hardly claim not to have been on a single minded bent to get those whaleoil c###s taken down and taken down hard. Can you ??

          That’s not correct at all. I’ve often stated I think Whale Oil has at times made a worthwhile contribution and I have made no attempt to try and take them down. I just hold them to account and point out their stupidity.

          But this is something I’ve done for years and not just with WO. I’ve had a lot of battles at Kiwiblog. And I’ve had many battles with The Standard – I’m currently serv ing a 12 month ban for suggesting they shit in their own nest. And I’ve been critical – and complementary of a number of other blogs as well.

          Whale Oil gets the attention they deserve because they keep claiming to be the biggest and best blog in New Zealand. They also happen to be the biggest and best hypocrites, and they also make things up (lie) quite a bit.

          So it turns out Slater and Belt are a bit sooky and can’t take a bit of criticism – that’s obvious on WO blog by censoring and banning – and resort to dirty attacks and alleging criminal involvement.

          I have evidence that they want to take Your NZ down, hence a variety of attacks. I have never proposed nor tried to take WO down. I’m happy for them to keep exposing their stupdity (I suspect they are beyond recovering any credibility).

          But like anyone WO are free to keep blogging and so they should be (despite their opposite views about Your NZ).

          Reply
    • THUNDERBIRD 4

       /  15th November 2015

      This all sounds a bit scripted from @ Ben rachinger

      Reply
    • Michelle

       /  15th November 2015

      To know Pee-Gee wasn’t involved in the hack means you think you know who has… mind sharing who Rawshark and the first and second tiers of involved are ?? According to you, Belts list is a good start? What is missing ?!

      Reply
  7. Ben Rachinger

     /  15th November 2015

    It’s a massive clusterfuck Michelle. There’s a common thread to all of those people that isn’t obvious to the casual observer. I’ll abstain from going into that without Mr Georges say so.

    Thunderbird, it sounds scripted because I’m clear and emotionally calm in my writing for the first time in a long time. Understand this doesn’t sit well with you. I’m far from innocent in how I went about finding out the truth of the matter AFTER DP dropped.

    I am not Rawshark. Always wanted to be an independent investigative journalist and to an extent I’ve done some good digging in all this. However I’m a young guy with my own upbringing and shortcomings. Those have long been on display.

    The reason I’m here on this site now commenting is that I believe if you are going to be politically tribal, you police your own. Rawshark et al should be policed by their own – that didn’t happen. Slater et al should have been policed by their own – that didn’t happen.

    So where does this leave us? It boggles the mind.

    Reply
    • “I’ll abstain from going into that without Mr Georges say so.”

      You can say anything you like here that doesn’t put this site risk of defamation or breacvhing name suppression or any other legal risk.

      You are free to express your opinion. If you have supporting evidence for any claims or accusations please provide it.

      What you can say here is open to the degree that you can include me in any opiniions or accusations without fear of censorship. I have a right of reply here, which I put on an equal footing with anyone else.

      Reply
    • THUNDERBIRD 4

       /  15th November 2015

      connected to the Urewera 8 as a missing thread?

      Reply
  8. Traveller

     /  15th November 2015

    I would take degrees if separation to mean exactly what we mean when we refer to it in society.

    i.e. I am once removed from my cousin or friend, but am twice separated from my cousin’s sister in law or my friend’s godson.

    Reply
    • If all it means is that I have had something to do with someone else on that list who is one degree removed then it is disingenuous to include me on the list, there must be thousands of people likewise.

      It is an accusation that I have been actively involved in the hack to some degree. That’s ludicrous, unless posting about it here qualifies.

      Reply
      • 4077th

         /  15th November 2015

        I’m pretty sure there are other lists you will no doubt appear on PG given you are the proverbial thorn in their sides. I can tell you with some certainty one list you are probably not on is their Christmas Card list! 🙂

        Reply
        • I’m already on other lists. But yeah, I’m not expecting a Christmas card from Slater or Belt, but Spanish Bride may send one to thank me for allowing her to comment here without restriction.

          Reply
      • traveller

         /  15th November 2015

        Of course it is and it doesn’t help Belt/WO integrity record at all to put you in any sort of frame. I don’t know you personally Pete, but I’d back you any day. As we know, in NZ there’s barely two degrees of separation between any of us. So, that’s you in the clear mate. 🌞

        Reply
  9. Kevin

     /  15th November 2015

    He’s not saying you know Rawshark. He’s saying you know someone who knows Rawshark. Same with McCarten, Prentice, and Tiso.

    Reply
    • There will be tens of thousands of people who know Dotcom, Hager, Fisher and Nippert. I’ve never met any of them, and I have never had private communication (offline) with any of them. So to include me in the list is nonsensical.

      Reply
      • Mefrostate

         /  15th November 2015

        According to a certain cell-phone provider everyone in New Zealand is two degrees of separation from Rawshark. I’m certainly glad to have not appeared on the list!

        Reply
        • jaspa

           /  15th November 2015

          How true that is. If Rawshark is who they say it is, then even I should be on the list as I know the judge who handed down his last sentence, and as PG says the list would be of thousands.

          Reply
    • jamie

       /  15th November 2015

      Several members of parliament follow me on twitter and vise-versa. So I guess that makes me two degrees separated from David Parker as well, despite never interacting with him in any way.

      I agree with Pete, it’s utterly meaningless to describe so-called “connections” like this.

      Reply
  10. 4077th

     /  15th November 2015

    Boy, this just got very interesting. I noticed a common theme with both Ben and Bevan after each of them being used as an insider with the promise of protection only to be used as pawns in a very different game. I expect Belt will have his eye on this post as we speak.

    Reply
    • Conspiratoor

       /  15th November 2015

      Belt may be closer to this than you think 4oh. I’ve seen young bennos angry ranty style elsewhere and this just does not look like the same person. I wonder if the good folks are being played…

      Reply
  11. Belt has added this comment:

    That’s the thing. People have already squealed. However much I dislike Mr Tiso, at least he had the integrity to walk out of that meeting when the topic if stressing Slater to the point of taking his own life came up.

    But there were others at that meeting that have fully cooperated with the police. The semi amusing/frustrating thing is that the likes of Fisher have found themselves in a hole and kept digging.

    When it is revealed who actually operated the Whaledump accounts. I can assure you Rawshark was, is and remains too smart to do something that dumb.

    He mentions “that meeting” without it being raised previously as far as I can see.

    Is he referring to a comment he has since deleted?

    Or has he slipped up and referred to something being discussed with others (or thought by himself) behind the scenes?

    Reply
    • @Pete G “the meeting” is a very old allegation from Cam and Pete at WOBH that there was a meeting of a number of individuals with connections to Political parties, media and blogs that came up with a plan to take Slater and Co out, including trying to drive Cam to suicide….. you would need to search WOBH to find the posts but IIRC it first appeared within a week or two of the DP hit occurring, so use as a timescale 13 August 2014 through Dec 2014 and you will find the posts…

      Reply
      • Ignore that Pete I see Ben R has answered below…. should have read the whole thread before commenting : )

        Reply
      • Thanks Dave. I’ve seen the claims at WO. Like many of their claims, it remains unsubstantiated as far as I’m aware.

        Some of their claims are no doubt based on facts.
        Some of their claims I know are based on assuimptions, conjecture, guesses.
        Some of their claims I believe are lies.

        It’s quite possible Belt included me on the list simply to try and flush something out via a reaction, thinking I would know something and reveal it. He may regret doing that.

        Reply
  12. Ben Rachinger

     /  15th November 2015

    Agree Kevin.

    Even so, what he is intimating is based on (in my personal knowledge though I can’t clarify that) bad facts and innuendo.

    Due to the nature of the digital skills of the hacker we can only really find out the identity of the hacker from Mr Hager. Hager has stated he met the hacker and knows his identity. No amount of digging can provide info that isn’t there. Whether I was right or not with my initial musings means little.

    This is really internecine political warfare writ large. I’ve done my time on both the Left and the Right. Neither is truly for the people in my opinion. So possibly what needs to happen is the writing of a book/story that is balanced and shines the light on all the players involved.

    Reply
    • Mefrostate

       /  15th November 2015

      >So possibly what needs to happen is the writing of a book/story that is balanced and shines the light on all the players involved.

      Bingo. And Hager would have had a lot more credibility if he had written this book instead.

      Reply
  13. Ben Rachinger

     /  15th November 2015

    Mr George,

    He’s referring to an alleged meeting where a group got together to plan how to take down the Govt by way of exposing Slaters alleged activities with the Govt. The list that Belt initially provided that triggered this post allegedly contains people who attended this meeting.

    This knowledge came to me directly from Mr Slater. I myself have no knowledge of this meeting or who attended. Just clarifying it for you.

    Reply
    • Thanks. I have heard of this meeting before, but i was pointing out that Belt brought it up in comments apparently unprompted.

      I didn’t attend any such meeting. I have had very limited contact with anyone on that list. For the record I have personally met some of those on the list.

      Dotcom, Harre – attended the Internet/Mana party election meeting in Dunedin last year (as an interested observer). I had no direct contact with Dotcom or Harre.
      Bradbury – he chaired a panel discussion in Dunedin on TVN7 and broadcasting and I was on the panel. He was late arriving and he ignored me.
      Prentice – I worked in the same company as him in the mid nineteen eighties, I took over his postion and we overlapped for several months before he left. I haven’t met him since then, although I have had many online battles with him online at The Standard, at The Daily Blog, at Kiwiblog and here at Your NZ.

      I have never been anywhere near Hager, McCarten, Fisher, Nippert or Tiso as far as I’m aware. I have had one or two clashes with Fisher and Tiso online.

      Reply
      • Kevin

         /  15th November 2015

        My guess is that you were included as you’re part of the blogging community and have a name. Basically, I wouldn’t make too much out of it. The only thing that surprises me is Prentice is listed as two degrees separated instead of one. I guess he’s not as big a player in this as I thought.

        Reply
  14. tealeaves

     /  15th November 2015

    Oh, to be Ian Rankin.

    Reply
  15. One thing that’s become apparent with Slater, Belt et al is they only seem to be able to see others through their own worldview.

    They wish harm on me so they think I wish harm on them. False assumption.
    They want to take down Your NZ so they presume I want to take them down. False assumption.
    They tell lies so they expect I tell lies about them. False assumption.
    They play dirty so they expect me to play dirty back. False assumption.
    Etc

    They haven’t worked out how to deal with someone who quietly, politely and doggedly stands up to them and their bullying and bullshit. They have picked a fight that they can’t win, because they came to this fight with an empty blunderbuss.

    And the more they don’t succeed the more they blunder.

    Reply
  16. Ben Rachinger

     /  15th November 2015

    For myself, my ‘Moment of Truth’ was when Hager didn’t provide the details on the journalists who had been working with Mr Slater. To decide that one is a god, in a way, and to control the destiny of the media or a political faction is something that no one person should ever aspire to or want.

    That’s the root problem here. Each side has, in their own and distinct ways, tried to play God with our system of governance. The clusterfuck that this represents, in that no side is clean or clear, has only exacerbated the general publics dislike of the political scene.

    That is the issue. Instead of a new flag? We should look at what our democracy really is. Who we vote for. How they work. What tactics they use. Examination of their agendas and motives is both enlightening and disheartening. Because truly, we have no champions. Just bad and worse self-styled ‘liberators’.

    Reply
    • THUNDERBIRD 4

       /  15th November 2015

      That’s why Hagar is not a journalist at all, and should not be afforded any protection as if he was. He just part pinched what he wanted to help the left. Big fail by him. And now all he has is dodgy David Fisher writing one sided pieces like he is some expert.

      Reply
  17. Ben, on 31 October 2014, according to Alister Thompson, you said “I am Rawshark”. Is that claim correct? Also how can you say that the Police are happy with your activities and you are not going to be charged? Or did you mean that you have not yet been charged?

    Reply
  18. Ben Rachinger

     /  15th November 2015

    Mr George,

    It’s not that “they haven’t”. It’s that they WON’T and truly they don’t need to. A credible and independent media is essential to combatting this type of partisan thinking.

    This is why I am commenting here and why I will shine some light. I’ve seen that you don’t censor and you have allowed all parties to comment. That is the essence of independence and should be encouraged. It is also why you are looked at frequently by everyone from Oilers to Standardnistas.

    Reply
  19. THUNDERBIRD 4

     /  15th November 2015

    I am looking at the style of commenting by the supposed “Ben Rachinger” I smell a rat.

    Reply
  20. Ben Rachinger

     /  15th November 2015

    Bjmarsh,

    Many people, both before and after me, have made the statement “I am Rawshark”. Perhaps, if you are inclined, you may want to consider why I was the one who was considered to have some credibility in saying that.

    As further context, why would Mr Slater continue to fund me and talk to me for months and months after that?

    I cannot speak for the Police. They have their own tactics and strategy. But I have always been 100% upfront with them and entirely forthcoming with devices for cloning etc. I am called a “snitch” and “informant” by many for this but in fact, honesty is the best policy when you are dealing with the Law. Anything else will land you in a heap of trouble.

    What could I be charged for? Being honest? There is nothing criminal about what I have done. I know that may irk you but we live in a great country. The so called “Police State” is more about colonial relics and what I call “rugby culture” in the Police force.

    I have family who are Police Officers, in the Army, Nurses and the like. I’ve always had the utmost respect for those institutions because of this. However, if I were to have evidence of actual criminal or corrupt activity in these institutions… I would reveal it. Independence requires fairness and balance.

    Even though, and actually especially, your ‘team’ may be impacted.

    Reply
    • As stated above:

      Many people in social media stated “I am Rawshark” in the same vein as “I and Charlie” (Hebdo) and ‘I am (some Roman dude who’s name I can’t remember right now).

      I posted about this here: Rachinger’s “I am Rawshark” tweet.

      Reply
    • So Ben… who is Rawshark? Name them and be damned. Because if you state the truth then no defamation claim can be made. Seems to be a lot of chat above but nothing of substance….

      Reply
    • Jeeves

       /  15th November 2015

      Ok Ben- Either you are just a spectator or you are an actor in this drama.
      But your penchant for using mysterious language and innuendo and half-hints, coupled with your obvious but idiosyncratic style of moralising like an older man is getting a bit tiresome. With due respect.I’m relieved to know you are in a better space than before-because you ran a serious risk of ‘boy cry wolf’ with your crafty little puzzles of intrigue that amounted to nothing really.

      Why don’t you just cut to the chase with this clear thinking of yours and tell it like it is-there should be no legal risk to you at all in telling us your story….

      Reply
  21. Ben Rachinger

     /  15th November 2015

    I’ll send a tweet from my Twitter account now to verify that this is really Ben Rachinger commenting.

    Observers of my style of tweeting may be thinking I’m being too logical or you’ve never seen me write long form. Understandable.

    But Thunder, why not ask “Verify your identity” instead of suggesting there’s “a rat”? Are you interested in sunlight? Or did you just miss that you could ask for verification.

    Reply
    • No one is required to verify their identity here, but you are free to do so voluntarily.

      I’ve seen Ben commenting in a range of situations and like anyone, his style varies depending on the situation. I have no reason to doubt Ben is commenting under his own name. My guess is that it’s a unique name in New Zealand, especially assocated with knowledge of this topic.

      Reply
    • tealeaves

       /  15th November 2015

      @ Ben
      “Butt Thunder”?

      Reply
  22. Ben Rachinger

     /  15th November 2015

    Sent you a tweet Mr George.

    It’s important that anyone who questions things is met with facts. So in that context I do not mind verifying.

    Dave. I’m of the opinion that the identity of RS is a straw man for all of us. We are missing the point. The point is A) whom was involved in the hack and for what motives.. And B) Do we want what Mr Slater is alleged to have done with XYZ people to go unchallenged? I’m of the mind that both are important points but very difficult to balance in your mind unless you’re independent. Mr Hager will end up naming Rawshark or he won’t. But his relationship with Rawshark and the how/why/where and whom is not my story to tell.

    Reply
    • on A) By naming the one or two or three techs that did the hack unravels the whole thing from a hack and use info angle

      on B) Slater has been completely exposed and the operation compromised. Yes he is/was only one vector and the deeper players doubtless will drift off and reform elsewhere and use other vectors… but that is just politics really.

      So you won’t name names makes me think you don’t know… because given what you say about exposing/challenging the underhand tactics doesn’t fit with not naming people and leaving it up to a compromised character, in my opinion, like Nicky Hager

      Reply
    • Kevin

       /  15th November 2015

      1. At the time of the hack / DDOS attacks on WO, WO was running attack articles on Kim Dotcom.
      2. Kim Dotcom did not have the skills to perform a hack of gmail or a denial of service attack on WO (you just need to research his history to see this). He did have the money, motive, and more importantly the street knowledge and mindset to know how to find and hire someone who did.
      3. According to WO, Hager met with Kim Dotcom.
      4. The release of Dirty Politics was designed to hurt both National and WO.
      5. Internet Mana wanted to get at least one MP in parliament and it has been conjectured (and something I agree with) that Dotcom wanted Internet Mana to be in a balance of power situation where they could appoint a minister of justice who would put a stop to Dotcom’s extradition.

      Reply
  23. Ben Rachinger

     /  15th November 2015

    Dave. I’m not leaving it up to Hager. I’m leaving it up to the Police. They know everything I know. I don’t seek to elevate myself above the judicial process. Nor am I going to mess with what is no doubt a very steep learning curve of an investigation on the Police behalf.

    To become a namer or to elevate myself above the Law is what Slater does when he names child offenders. You may have a prurient interest in finding out – but the process of informing you can have a multitude of effects. On the flip side, when people attack Slaters source of income instead of holding him to account for alleged hate speech they have elevated themselves above the Law too.

    I for one don’t believe the Police are corrupt. I think they probably sit there in the Police bar saying ‘What the fuck is wrong with these political people’ every chance they get. Most cops are hardworking, fair and balanced women and men.

    We should give them every chance we can to show us they are FOR us and not for either political faction. If you want to debate that, happy to.

    Reply
    • I suspect the police will never be able to prove anything – the burden of evidence for a criminal trial is very high and I believe the hacker/s were very skilled and left very little in the way of finger prints. So if you don’t name they get to walk away smiling…

      Reply
      • Mefrostate

         /  15th November 2015

        @dave1924 Given the above, wouldn’t Rachinger naming Rawshark be defamation ?

        Reply
        • THUNDERBIRD 4

           /  15th November 2015

          Only defamation if he is wrong I guess

          Reply
        • Why – its only defamation if its not true. If you name someone they can take an action against you but then the onus goes on that person to prove they aren’t who/what you say they are

          Reply
  24. Ben Rachinger

     /  15th November 2015

    Dave. Re Endarkens piece on me. I have already video replied to her smear piece. She has her own motivations and, quite frankly, she is a space cadet. My video reply is in three parts:



    It’s interesting that you are so keen to attack the messenger and not the message. That’s your prerogative though.

    There’s a reason the smears and attacks on me have been so prolonged, vicious and full of shit.

    The message.

    Reply
    • No interest in attacking you Ben – just putting an alternative side on you story….

      I’ve followed this for a long time but still have a long way to go before I sleep on it…

      Reply
      • DaveG

         /  15th November 2015

        Well said Dave1924 I too have followed this issue extensively, and see Ben as having Zero credibility, the Miss J Williams sage destroyed any smidgen of cred left. The problem as I saw it was Ben trying to work his way into the big boys sandpit, and acting as a double agent, gaining info, and offering it up to other players, and getting burnt along the way. The issue of being involved with the Torsen/Thompson rent a thug brigade, plus Blomfield has never ever been explained or fully aired either.

        Ben – if your serious, go to the police, and be brutally honest, something i don’t think you have been yet. As someone else has said many times, when in a hole, stop digging, put the shovels down, move away, sit down and have a long think.

        Reply
        • ” As someone else has said many times, when in a hole, stop digging, put the shovels down, move away, sit down and have a long think.”

          That’s advice that a few others involved in all of this would do well to heed, but I don’t expect they will.

          Reply
          • DaveG

             /  15th November 2015

            Yes Pete, easy to say, hard t oachieve as a few of those involved have been badly burnt, the Slaters for example, and then there are those heavily involved in setting this up, or in the execution – the media, Hager, possibly KDC and somewhere Blomfield seems to fit, but still unsure where, perhaps as a Slater hater.

            Reply
    • THUNDERBIRD 4

       /  15th November 2015

      in those videos your appearance hardly looks that of a “clean” person who is off the booze

      Reply
      • Mike C

         /  16th November 2015

        @ThunderB

        How’s about you stick up a video of yourself … and give all of us in here the opportunity to make insulting remarks about your appearance 🙂

        Reply
        • THUNDERBIRD 4

           /  16th November 2015

          I guess you look like the avatar you run. a fucking old cow

          Reply
          • That’s totally uncalled for and unwelcome here. In any case it reflects poorly on you.

            Reply
            • THUNDERBIRD 4

               /  16th November 2015

              Thanks Pete! – I see below others are calling Mike C ( Mike She is more fitting) out so hope you play the fiddle fairly on all of us.

            • “hope you play the fiddle fairly on all of us”

              Do you mean that anyone who suspects who you are should fiddle with your name?

            • THUNDERBIRD 4

               /  16th November 2015

              does not phase me in the least Pete.

  25. I didn’t have any reason to doubt that it is Ben Rachinger commenting here. I’ve seen him commenting in a range of situations and there was nothing that made me suspicious

    We all change our commenting styles in different places and circumstances. Check out some blogs in the evening to see how that can work.

    I have confirmed Ben’s identification to my satisfaction via phone.
    And see my next comment.

    Reply
  26. Ben Rachinger

     /  15th November 2015

    Jeeves.

    I am telling it like it is. It isn’t my responsibility to make you see the light. Nor is it your responsibility to feel “tiresome” reading my replies.

    You don’t know me and you never knew me. You’ve also never been the lettuce in a shit sandwich. Many people want to discredit, smear or block my voice coming out. It’s your prerogative. But it’s sad in general that critical thinking has plummeted so steadily in New Zealand. Thankfully we have judges and a court system that keeps everything humming along. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. My respect for ongoing court proceedings against all parties who have been involved in events including but not restricted to:

    Extortion
    Criminal Harrassment
    Name Suppression Breaches

    Means that you will never be satisfied. You don’t like me – I get it. But allowing yourself some breathing room for when the truth is inevitably outed AFTER court proceedings will save you an apology later.

    Thanks.

    Reply
  27. Ben Rachinger

     /  15th November 2015

    Thanks Dave.

    Look. I was a ranty and raving person earlier in the year. No getting past that or escaping it. Not going to make any excuses. For sure it hasn’t helped me one single bit and exposed tremendous vulnerabilities to those who like to attack or whatever. Not a very smart move on my behalf at all.

    Re Blomfield: I have had a grand total of two text message exchanges with him. In the first, he wanted info, if I had any, on why he got home invaded. In the second, I initiated it to ask how proceedings for contempt of court against Slater were going. That is it. No phone convos. No emails. No in person meeting. I know that blog (I fucking dislike them for what they’ve done to me and my family) likes to provide all sorts of conjecture but it never supplies anything real and they’ve got issues of their own.

    Thanks to Pete George for having me here and for all you commenters. Got to feed the chickens and then I’ll come back.

    Reply
    • DaveG

       /  15th November 2015

      Ben, you seem to forget. That Blog as you called it gave you an opportunity, they published a few of your videos, and whilst most didnt necessarily agree with what you said, you had some good concepts, and were well spoken. I was kind of looking forward to more. But, no more were forthcoming, was that as you had achieved your aim Ben, did one of those videos you sent to WO have a trojan horse? Was that how the hacking took place ?? I observed the interations Ben, “That Blog” was good to you Ben, so please detail what they did wrong to you, remembering what you did to them.

      Since then we have observed you at Latino’s side, posting as a big player, and then at the Standard exposing a different story, well, and at Thompson and Toresens side which is it Ben, you cant be all. The one we know is True, is you as a Love Rat, posting the things about Miss J Williams – not cool at all Ben.

      So what are we to believe Ben, is this the truth,or another tale from a differnet side, or is this Blomfield yet agai. How can anyone ever trust you again – EVER.

      PS: Why he got home invaded – he has o be totally deluded not t oknow why, he seems to be the one trying to keep it out of the media.

      Reply
      • PS: Why he got home invaded – he has o be totally deluded not t oknow why, he seems to be the one trying to keep it out of the media.

        Al I know is that in court, no motive was revealed. Other than that I have only seen speculation or assertion with no evidence. Do you know anything different?

        Reply
        • DaveG

           /  15th November 2015

          Pete – No I dont know for sure, but one can guarantee it wasnt a Pizza Delivery boy at the wrong address. There are rumours of a gang connection, a drug debt, or just plain and simple a business debt. My comment is simple, “he has to be totally deluded not to know why” My bet is he will know why, but he chosing not to say anything for reasons best known to the offender / s and himself. I do recall as soon as it happened, the standard had a comment linking Slater – we know it wasnt.

          Reply
          • “we know it wasnt”

            I don’t know it wasn’t Slater or anyone other than the persdon who was convicted, and he refused to say why he did it as far as I know.
            There is no evidence that I’m aware of. So the rumours appear to be either speculation in ignorance or attempts to smear.

            Reply
            • DaveG

               /  15th November 2015

              Pete – there was NO intention to smear, Blomfield will know why he was attacked, but wont say. Just think of the list of people duped of funds, or posessions, or the business deals gone wrong, and that is all available in the public domain. And, do you really think if it was Slater, Blomfield would not have crowed that from every point possible, and had 99 cases before the courts, good grief, if one little detail or thing about Blomfield is mentioned at WO, Blomfield has him in court.

            • “Blomfield will know why he was attacked”

              Why? He may or may not if no reason has been given by the person who attacked him.

              To anyone wondering what this is aboout see:
              https://yournz.org/2015/06/14/an-assault-revisited/
              And:
              https://yournz.org/2015/10/20/blomfield-rumours/

      • Guest

         /  15th November 2015

        @DaveG
        You’re back! So who is the “we” you keep referring to?? Not royal, I bet…

        Reply
  28. Rob

     /  15th November 2015

    Meh. More Slater and Belt trying to put the blame on others for their own ineptitude. Somebody put the supposed password in here awhile back. Even an ancient password cracker would have pulled it up within seconds. Reminds me of the old locks a lot of houses used to have where there were only about 20 different keys and you could wander into a local hardware and buy all 20. Playing a big boys game=making enemies and Slater made plenty. And what is it your enemies will do? Every opportunity to hit back will be used.

    As for “yes, it’s the same people that are working so hard to take us down – every day – every opportunity, no matter how absurd”

    Paranoia strikes deep
    Into your life it will creep

    Buffalo Springfield

    Reply
  29. Something curious going on that needs to be in the open here.

    At 12:42 pm THUNDERBIRD 4 commented (above):

    I am looking at the style of commenting by the supposed “Ben Rachinger” I smell a rat.

    Then at 12:55 pm this tweet was sent:

    Lauda Finem ‏@Laudafinem 42m42 minutes ago

    Its not Ben Rachinger commenting @PeteDGeorge , It’s Blomfield, he has access to his accounts, but then you probably already know that mate.

    So I contacted both Blomfield and Rachinger by phone who both laughed at this. I’m far more convinced that they are telling the truth than someone who claims to be in the Netherlands and his ‘team’ has nothing to do with New Zealand tweeting anonymously. If he wants to contact me by phone and confirm his identity he’s welcome.

    Some more tweets followed:

    Lauda Finem @Laudafinem
    “This is really internecine political warfare writ large” – Hardly Rachingers vocab @PeteDGeorge or has the addict had a brain transplant

    Lauda Finem @Laudafinem
    He is right about the Cluster-fuck though, that happens every time you @PeteDGeorge & your followers open your gobs.

    Lauda Finem @Laudafinem
    A copy of his passport would be ideal @PeteDGeorge 😉

    Pete George @PeteDGeorge
    @Laudafinem Why would I believe someone who is anonymous who claims to be in the Netherlands with no connections to NZ?

    Lauda Finem @Laudafinem
    We’ll @PeteDGeorge, unlike you, we tend to get things right first time, but you already know that, but your readers don’t…..not yet anyway

    And @[Deleted as per court order] ‘liked’ all those tweets (except mine) like he often does. He seems to be quite close to @LaudaFinem.

    [Edited as per court order] is quite close to Cameron Slater too, according to court documents in the Blomfield versus Slater defamation case.

    Belt seems to have inadvertently initiated a bit of attention they may not have expected.

    Reply
    • MaureenW

       /  15th November 2015

      Have to say, I agree with LF about the style of commenting and whether the commenter has had a recent brain transplant. From what I’ve seen of BR’s writing, he must be getting some help with his comprehension and spelling..

      Reply
      • jaspa

         /  15th November 2015

        In a post on Medium (now deleted) he says he was drinking pretty heavily at that time. Maybe now he is sober?

        Reply
      • traveller

         /  15th November 2015

        ” From what I’ve seen of BR’s writing, he must be getting some help with his comprehension and spelling.” Maureen W, having interacted with Ben on twitter and other SM a few times, I can tell you there was never anything wrong with his spelling, grammar or comprehension. There’s no doubting his intelligence imho.

        Reply
      • DaveG

         /  15th November 2015

        The writing today is from a far more mature / older person, not a 20 year old. Its very very different from the othe writing from BR

        Reply
    • traveller

       /  15th November 2015

      Not very bright are they Pete! 😉

      Reply
  30. Mike C

     /  15th November 2015

    LOL … I bet Belt is regretting writing that stupid “Degrees of Separation” comment that he wrote over at the Whale 🙂

    Reply
  31. ‘Dave’ has posted at Whale Oil:

    Dave Pete • an hour ago
    Pete, my money was always on KDC as the brains trust and paymaster, closely followed by McCarten as organizer and master of dark arts, and Fisher and Nippert as main support / running interference. The useful idiots follow, but the only surprise in that list is Pete George, I didn’t credit him with the smarts to know how to be involved, unless he was unwittingly dragged in. Final laugh, Tiso, even if he managed to take WO down, he still would have not won a Canon award!!

    I wouldn’t be calling a final laugh between WO and Tiso yet.

    I doesn’t take smarts to not be involved in something you know nothing about, nor would want anything to do with if you knew anything about it.

    Pete Belt has “the smarts” to know how to be involved with WO, obviously. But that is not necessarily a positive, especially as he makes it clear he’s been sucked into believing their own bull – I think that lying has become such an integral part of how they operate they don’t know the difference between facts and their own fantasies.

    Reply
  32. tealeaves

     /  15th November 2015

    Mr Rachinger has said that he will, “shine some light”, but I feel that no light has been shone. Or perhaps I’m just too obtuse to percieve it at such a wattage.

    Reply
    • Mike C

       /  15th November 2015

      @TeaLeafs

      If I was Ben Rachinger … I would be taking things slowly too.

      He was put through the fucking wringer by a bunch of arse holes several months ago … and paid a huge price.

      So why don’t we just give Ben the benefit of the doubt … and allow him the time and space to get the feel of the large variety of people that inhabit Georges blog … and see what happens 🙂

      Reply
      • tealeaves

         /  15th November 2015

        aka, what he has to say might be valuable, lets not do our best to freeze him out as he’s not just Joelle Bloggs, or a lefty.
        OK, you win, it’s your blog. 🙂

        Reply
    • MaureenW

       /  15th November 2015

      @ tealeaves

      You are correct, there was no light shone. This little pr***k has had ample opportunity (blog and twitter space) to provide his “inside insight”. From what I’ve seen, he has not done this, rather seemingly attempted to implicate or smear others.

      Reply
      • I thought he clearly said what he wanted to say and was important to him at this stage.

        Interesting you accuse him of smearing, considering what this post is about.

        Reply
        • MaureenW

           /  15th November 2015

          With regard to “smearing”, I’m referring to stuff I’ve seen written under his name elsewhere. I really have no skin in this game, they all stink; but there is something about his MO that has me checking out my olfactics

          Reply
          • So why not deal with what he says here?

            Reply
            • MaureenW

               /  15th November 2015

              Ok, he says this .. “I am solely legally focused on the potential trial of Mr Slater. Which will pale into comparison with the trials of those allegedly involved in the hack of Mr Slater to be fair. Maybe they’ll all end up in the same institution and can write jailhouse blogs in competition with each other”

              Solely,legally focused, yet he hasn’t been charged with anything, according to him. Seems a funny place to go fishing and being happy to chirp about so called inside information, when you’re solely, legally focused on a matter that is yet to go to court.

            • Plenty has been said about the Hager/Rawshark investigations that are yet to go to court. The investigation into Slater allegedly paying someone to hack an other blog is of as much interest to me. I don’t know where that invesrtiagtion is at.

            • Kevin

               /  15th November 2015

              No where. The cops basically told Prentice to piss off.

            • THUNDERBIRD 4

               /  16th November 2015

              Kevin is correct on that point.

            • Janee

               /  16th November 2015

              @ PG
              “The investigation into Slater allegedly paying someone to hack an other blog is of as much interest to me.”
              Is that because you/your blog may have been or attempted to be hacked? Is that interest related to your legal situation?

            • Janee – no.

      • And considering the smears at Ben in this thread.

        Reply
  33. Ben Rachinger

     /  15th November 2015

    The only light that needed to be shone has been. It’s obvious LF and Slaters interests are closely intertwined. [Deleted as per court order] has _____ connections. Slater faces jail for attempting to procure a hack. That all came out as it should.

    LF are some very scary people. That they’ve been allowed to operate with such impugnity really beggars belief. However, I’m sure they’re getting what’s coming to them.

    The ID of RS and the involvement of certain people is a story wholly of its own. Not one I had any prior or current knowledge of. I am solely legally focused on the potential trial of Mr Slater. Which will pale into comparison with the trials of those allegedly involved in the hack of Mr Slater to be fair. Maybe they’ll all end up in the same institution and can write jailhouse blogs in competition with each other.

    I am, and have been, limited in what I can say. Suffice to say Slater has never denied being the source of messages asking for a hack for him and his funder. The potential trial will be brutal as these people play brutally.

    Regarding my alcoholism and entry into a treatment facility: does it not scare you that LF has inside knowledge of someone’s location? No normal person leaked that to them. It can only have been media, security services or the police. Likewise them tweeting my location AFTER. Being followed and surveilled sucks.

    But I have my sobriety and my full faculties back. In spite of the most horrible year of my life.

    I win. I’m winning. Soon, I will have won.

    Thanks for having me. Good day to you all. Even the LF/[Deleted as per court order]/Slater socks 😉

    Ben Rachinger

    Reply
    • jaspa

       /  15th November 2015

      Is ____ the same _____ mentioned in your deleted post : “I was friends with a guy named ______ who has previously been in trouble/prison in NZ for various things. He’s a Maori activist and keen computing genius. The Police asked me to pass on any information _____ may have had as regards the identity of “Rawshark”. They also wanted proof of any other crimes that could be taking place.” ?

      Reply
      • DaveG

         /  15th November 2015

        Well spotted / asked Jaspa, the questions outnumber the answers about 500 to 1 at the moment….. Credibility, ZERO.

        PS: For the haters, I’m happy to give anyone the benefit of the doubt, a second chance, but not convinced by Bens visit today, it merely reinforces the old behaviours and patterns

        Reply
    • Ben Rachinger. Davis Fisher said this
      “Hager says he spent weeks talking the person into letting him see the material and use it to build the narrative which became Dirty Politics. The hacker, says Hager, gave him everything. “I’ve seen everything. I’m 100 per cent sure.” The hacker then expressed a desire to keep back some material for himself. “We kind of negotiated how much,” he says. “I said ‘can I have all the political stuff’.” Hager got what he asked for and so, the book was written.”

      Now, tell the truth, is Hager’s claim true or are you playing games with us all. I get the feeling that you are an immature kid having some fun by winding us up and wonder how it is that you are being given some space in this for real discussion group. Last chance, either put up or shut up. Are you ar not Rawshark and why should we believe you.

      Reply
    • DaveG

       /  15th November 2015

      “That all came out as it should” As you wanted it to Ben, i remain totally unconvinced to your motivations, and my bet is you will be exposed as a double or even triple agent, working for the other side, trying to trip Slater up. I have mentioned this before Ben, you are playing a game with the big boys, forces i would not tangle with. If their game starts to unravel, be careful, they will cut and run leaving you exposed. Was it alcoholism, or merely an excuse?

      Reply
    • jamie

       /  15th November 2015

      “No normal person leaked that to them. It can only have been media, security services or the police. ”

      …or gang members.

      Reply
    • THUNDERBIRD 4

       /  16th November 2015

      I would love to know what all the space gaps between words are trying to say

      Reply
  34. MaureenW

     /  15th November 2015

    Appears there are quite a few people on the verge of shitting themselves who will go to whatever measures to gain public sympathy for themselves, or attempt to drag in others.

    Back to Ben Rachingers first comment .. “If you would like to question me on facts, motives and agendas… I’m happy to do so. I know many commenters here will hate me – that is fine. But the truth is the truth….” , and then flick across to his last comment “… I am solely legally focused on the potential trial of Mr Slater. Which will pale into comparison with the trials of those allegedly involved in the hack of Mr Slater to be fair. Maybe they’ll all end up in the same institution and can write jailhouse blogs in competition with each other” ..

    I suspect therein lies the motive for the visit of the commenter named Ben Rachinger.

    Cheep-cheep – back to the chickens you go.

    Reply
    • tealeaves

       /  15th November 2015

      I honestly don’t get the “many commentators” thing either – if he’s been “visiting” daily for a while he’d know that at best there are about seven.

      Reply
      • Mike C

         /  15th November 2015

        @TeaLeafs

        You and a few others in here today have really shown your true colours and pointed out to everyone in here what blog you normally inhabit … so thanks very much for that 🙂

        Reply
        • tealeaves

           /  15th November 2015

          Lol, get a life, Mike. The blogs I usually inhabit are “Three drops of Sunshine”, check it out, you’ll love it, and the Herald website. Big deal. I actually am just a normal citizen with no political affiliations. But, who cares, you think what you like.

          Reply
        • tealeaves

           /  15th November 2015

          And I consider your remark a smear, and an unfounded one, so who’s shown their true colours, Mike C?

          Reply
        • tealeaves

           /  15th November 2015

          And, you’re a twat. So, there you go, you got rid of an annoying, leftie, FEMALE. Keep your sexist crap blog to yourselves and enjoy your fucking feeding sessions.

          Reply
          • Rob

             /  15th November 2015

            Don’t let them get to you tealeaves. You know how children can be.

            Reply
          • Guest

             /  15th November 2015

            @tealeaves

            Mike C is a girl, too…

            Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  15th November 2015

            First rate female melt-down, tealeaves. And guess what, your enemy is female too!

            Reply
            • Mike C

               /  15th November 2015

              @AlanW

              Yeap … TeaLeafs arse just got whooped by another “girl”.

              I wrote a single comment in response to one of “TeaLeafs” … and about half a dozen comments then spewed forth from them in response to my comment. LOL.

              Wonder how their self esteem is holding up?

              Because let’s face it … being beaten by a woman is so much worse than being beaten by a man 🙂

            • tealeaves

               /  15th November 2015

              And I am a girl, Mike. My self-esteem is fine. Thank you.

            • Rob

               /  15th November 2015

              Wouldn’t really call it a whoopin Mike. I didn’t know you were a woman, (if you really are) nor do I care. You’re still as silly as a two bob watch.

            • Robby

               /  15th November 2015

              Be nice Rob, a two bob watch is right twice a day……. 😉

          • Guest

             /  15th November 2015

            @tealeaves
            Mike C has been very hormonal during the past few days…ignore her.

            Reply
            • Ok, it would be good if the petty personal stuff was left at that. This isn’t just directed at you Guest.

  35. tealeaves

     /  15th November 2015

    Sad. The whole fucking thing is just sad.

    Reply
  36. Pete Kane

     /  15th November 2015

    What a hoot.

    Reply
  37. Mike C

     /  15th November 2015

    If Rachinger manages to send Slater&Co to jail … for trying to employ him to hack the Standard … then that will make my day 🙂

    Reply
    • Kevin

       /  15th November 2015

      Good luck with that since it never happened – except in Prentice’s fevered imagination.

      Reply
  38. Loki

     /  15th November 2015

    Belt is a mouth breathing idiot who gets all his info from his master.
    Cam is spinning hard, don’t know why because by some extraordinary piece of luck . In Rachinger he has found somebody even more profoundly stupid and selfish than himself.
    Those of us who have been exposed to slater over a long period cannot believe he found a conspirator even worse on every measurable than himself.

    Reply
    • Guest

       /  15th November 2015

      @Loki
      Would the long-term exposure to Slater be akin to exposure to asbestos?

      Reply
    • DaveG

       /  15th November 2015

      You claim to know a lot Loki, but seem light on detail, big on spin. Whilst (as Pete G says) no need to identify yourself, it does make one wonder if you are yet another spurned commentor from WO, or just another WO shined his Sunlight on.

      Reply
      • Guest

         /  15th November 2015

        I think we can hear you breathing through your mouth DaveG. The regular ‘star’ guest commentor on WO – known as ‘ George’ – says “whilst”. Sounds as though you are a wee bit dottery and a whole lot of Slater.

        Reply
        • DaveG

           /  15th November 2015

          I can assure you I am neither, but would love to have Georges writing skills. Keep guessing, but as a hint, yes, every year I get a wee bit dottery, i might catch you up one day soon 🙂 for the record, I’m under retirement age, by about 12 years.

          Reply
      • Conspiratoor

         /  15th November 2015

        “yet another spurned commentor from WO, or just another WO shined his Sunlight on”

        methinks you are spot on there DaveGee. All lime and salt, no tequila, all booster no payload 😉

        Reply
    • Michelle

       /  15th November 2015

      Now now Emm-Bee… calm the fuck down already… if you were even half as capable you would have taken fatboy down by now… WHat is taking you so long ??

      Reply
      • Guest

         /  15th November 2015

        @Michelle
        What are your thoughts on Elle- Eff? Seem like a couple (one?) soft cocks to me..

        Reply
        • Michelle

           /  15th November 2015

          LOL “Elle-Eff” are generally way off the mark… but every so often they have a little gem that doesn’t come directly from fatboy that turns out to be right on the Mark… so they have their uses… some info is from genuine and interesting places

          Reply
  39. Rachinger is obviously incapable of being adult enough to tell the truth. I would vote that we dismiss him from the blog for his own mental welfare.

    Reply
    • Mike C

       /  15th November 2015

      @BJ

      I vote that Ben Rachinger stays 🙂

      Who are you to judge anybody … with a fake username like yours. LOL.

      Reply
  40. tealeaves

     /  15th November 2015

    “Mike C / November 10, 2015

    @Michelle

    What a great idea.

    That woman sounded very articulate and intelligent and easy on the eye too :)”

    Well, if Mike C is a woman, comments like that and a traditionally masculine username don’t automatically lead one to that conclusion.

    Reply
  41. Rod

     /  15th November 2015

    Why has Ben Rachinger suddenly appwared.

    Reply
    • tealeaves

       /  15th November 2015

      If you’re referring to my comment above, I’m not Ben Rachinger. I’m tealeaves. Could it be that you’re dreaming him up?

      Reply
  42. Alan Wilkinson

     /  15th November 2015

    PG, I think you should file this thread under “bizarre”. Full of sound and fury but in the end going nowhere in much confusion and pot stirring.

    Reply
    • I can understand that for you Alan. It’s been quite revealing for me.

      Reply
    • tealeaves

       /  15th November 2015

      I’m not stirring the pot, if you’re trying to label my actions as such. I just don’t understand the fire I’ve drawn from practically the day I started posting here. It seems excessive and intolerant. Anyway. If this is a specialist blog that only wants certain types of participants perhaps it should try to find a way to make that clear.

      Reply
      • tealeaves

         /  15th November 2015

        Otherwise, frankly, it’s like being sent like a lamb to the slaughter.

        Reply
        • tealeaves

           /  15th November 2015

          It’s cruel to be so indirect. Just get a ban-hammer for fuck’s sake, Pete. Or tell people to piss off.

          Reply
          • Ok, so you don’t get it. The point of difference here is not being selective or draconian and not telling people to piss and not banning them.

            And I frown on anyone else telling others to piss off, it’s not their place to do that.

            If you want a forum that controls speech to suit what you want then this isn’t the place for you. It can get a bit knarly at times, but equal rights knarliness applies.

            Reply
          • Robby

             /  15th November 2015

            tealeaves, the reason I enjoy this place is that Pete doesn’t use the ‘ban hammer’ often, & doesn’t tell people to piss off. ‘Someone’ has been winding you up, and has obviously succeded, so consider this quote from a wise old bugger I know….
            “The biggest favour you can do for someone who is trying to upset you, is to let them know they have succeeded”.
            Take a breath, and think about it…………

            Reply
            • Robby

               /  15th November 2015

              And as for you Mike C, if you enjoy upsetting people, I can think of a certain left wing blog where you would fit right in……

      • Have I been excessive or intolerant? I’ve always made it clear this blog is open to anyone to comment at. And I discourage others from playing the person rather than the topic, but some can get a bit carried away in the heat of the moment. One of the prices of ensuring as much free speech as possible is sometimes getting speech you would prefer not to see.

        Reply
        • jaspa

           /  16th November 2015

          “Have I been excessive or intolerant?”

          No. Never, that I have seen. “Excessively tolerant” may be more apt, lol. And tealeaves hasn’t “drawn fire” here either, she must be a very sensitive wee sausage.

          Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  15th November 2015

        For heavens sake, tealeaves, it’s not all about you at all. Calm down. No, you were not the political operatives stirring pots here. We are not all out to get you but you need to get a thicker skin if you are going to let the odd comment work you up to that extent. People will disagree with you here. There is no party line. They might even tease or niggle you some times – as they do everyone else. Get used to it. Cultivate a sense of humour -an excellent and all too rare thing in a Lefty.

        Reply
  43. Well, I knew nothing much at all about “Dirty Politics”, Nicky Hager, Slater, Rawshark, BenR and all the rest, and after reading all that I don’t know anything much more; so I can’t comment in that respect, but I reckon the cult of personality sure is alive and well and living right about here. Very clearly it is personalities that genuinely engage people. It’s like “My Dirty Politics Rules” or something? “Hacker Wars”. “NZ’s Biggest ‘Home’ Blackguard”.
    I must be one chromosome short of a DNA helix …
    Best comment – @tealeaves – “Sad. The whole fucking thing is just sad”.
    Kevin had some good things to say too. Doubt if anyone read them though. They were issue related.
    I’m way out of my league …

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  16th November 2015

      I still think it is bizarre, not sad. A lot of self important posturing and horn-locking. Paris is sad, this is ridiculous.

      Reply
  44. Summary of Sunday:
    – Pete Belt at Whale Oil makes stupid claims
    – @LaudaFinem make stupid clames
    – There’s a few people who don’t like or want Ben Rachinger speaking out.

    Reply
  45. THUNDERBIRD 4

     /  16th November 2015

    Ben seems to just pop up every so often. Its like he fades away, then needs to be famous again. I note he has now come here, but why not back at The Standard? Prentice was more then happy to entertain him when it suited. But why not now? I am with DaveG on the kid – put it all out there. No more of this drip drip. If you’ve got something to say then say it. Interesting that as soon as the LF tweets popped up here he disappeared.

    Reply
    • “Interesting that as soon as the LF tweets popped up here he disappeared.”

      I posted the tweets at 2.01 pm. Ben last commented at 4.03 pm.

      “put it all out there. No more of this drip drip.”

      Are you prepared to put it all out there yourself?

      Reply
      • THUNDERBIRD 4

         /  16th November 2015

        Are you Pete? I know you are constrained at present. But you have stated on this site that soon enough you will put it out there so I will look forward to that. Enjoy your day.

        Reply
      • DaveG

         /  16th November 2015

        Pete, I agree with thunderstruck, Ben (if it was Ben) and IF if was Ben commenting alone and not under someone’s influence didn’t reveal anything, he made some claims, but you didn’t get verification, they are just wild claims. You constantly ask for proof or verification, but I note no proof was asked of Ben. Me, I have followed Ben from day one, to me he has previously stated seems to want to be the biggest baddest player, yet will never ever pull that off, he doesn’t have the background or the knowledge. He seems to have flipped and flopped from side to side and achieved nothing but destroy his own credibility. He was said to be in a rehab facility for alcoholism, but I have also heard it was due to a meltdown.

        My suggestion at the time remains for Ben to move away from the Internet, to go overseas for 5 years or so, make a name for himself and not go near the blogosphere for that time.

        If anything is to be considered anything factual from Ben, he should write it out in his own writing, with facts and dates and have it witnessed by a court or a JP. Please go back yourself and look at all the claims, at who’s side he has been on, who he sucked up to. There is a lot to come out yet on the BR saga, and I doubt the entire truth is out yet, nothing like it.

        Reply
        • I’m not surprised you agree with THUNDERSTRUCK.

          Are you doubting my confirmation that it was Ben?

          I’ve seen a lot of what ben has posted online throughout this year. I’m not going to act as judge and jury on that. I’m giving him the oportunity to speak here the same as you have.

          I noter that yesterday you repeated ‘rumours’ that we have already dealt with a number of times, for which you have never provided any proof, but you keep repeating them.

          If anything is to be considered factual from you, should you write it out in you own writing, with facts and dates and have it witnessed by a court or a JP?

          Reply
          • DaveG

             /  16th November 2015

            Pete. Who is to say Ben wasnt sitting down next to MB, and of course they both said, of course its me. And, its nice to know you have them on speed dial. Please, go back and review the entire Saga, the young man needs to come clean, all i have seen so far is a diary of stretched trruth or outright lies.

            Yesterday (above) I asked about his videos he posted on WO, that is a FACT, no response, I asked about Mis J Williams, that is also a fact, NO RESPONSE. Have you ever considered that perhaps you are being used Pete – please go back and look at every entry Ben has made, he has flipped, and flopped from one side to the next. It cannot all be correct.

            You speak of rumours, i clarified everything, but I also note, you dont call for clarification of others, of other things, of anything Slater is alleged to have said or done, please read back – it is only if MB is mentioned.

            And for the record, I have nothing to do with Thunderstruck, dont know who he / she is (taking the MikeC / Michelle revelation there) but I agree with them.

            Reply
            • “Who is to say Ben wasnt sitting down next to MB, and of course they both said, of course its me.”

              I’m to say I’m confident they weren’t, and I think I’ve got a lot more to go on than you have for your bizarre speculation.

              There seems to be a Blomfield conspiracy paranoia amongst a few people.

        • THUNDERBIRD 4

           /  16th November 2015

          thanks @DaveG. PG seems to want to blur the lines on my point of Rachinger actually dropping the real facts, with his desire to find an outcome to his own self inflicted situation. Perhaps if each issue is done separately on its merits and facts then we would all be clear. I myself are still working away to see where it all lands. And that is for various reasons. Both legal and personal.

          Reply
          • “actually dropping the real facts”

            Another interesting phrase. Quite funny in an ironic way.

            Reply
            • THUNDERBIRD 4

               /  16th November 2015

              Pete, the Rachinger story, diatribe, shit storm, saga, what ever one choses to call it has been doing the rounds for months. lets be completely frank – the kids a fuck up, he cant be believed on anything, he has made all sorts of claims and allegations, including that Slater is headed to jail, when we all know that is not happening here. I mean come on. Personally I think giving the little turd any oxygen is a waste of time. Yes, its an interesting story, but not the way he tells it.

            • I could say very similar things about you but I allow you to have oxygen here.

              All you have done is attack the man and as usual not backed it up with anything of substance. Seems to be your main MO.

            • THUNDERBIRD 4

               /  16th November 2015

              Pete, I am not attacking anyone, I have simply asked / stated that Ben needs to present his evidence. I to this point have no view either way, but each time Junior Cheeseburger pops up he does the same thing. Says there is a story, but does not provide it. I am open to hear if & how it all worked. But it is easy at this point to err towards the other side.

            • So you didn’t read what Ben said he wanted to talk about?

              You seem to be trying to push him into saying something he said he didn’t want to talk about.

              But you also seem to want to discredit him and shut him up. Familiar tactics.

              Can you make up your mind?

  46. THUNDERBIRD 4

     /  16th November 2015

    get him to talk Pete. Please.

    Reply
  47. Jane

     /  17th November 2015

    Ben has spent at least a year publicly abusing and threatening women online and there’s now comprehensive and clear proof that he traded revenge porn. Does anyone care about that? Doesn’t it disgust you? Doesn’t that make you wary about trusting him?

    Reply
  1. Ben Rachinger speaks again | Your NZ
  2. Ng versus Rachinger and Slater | Your NZ

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