Statement from Ben Rachinger

Ben Rachinger has asked me to post this statement:

Good Morning YourNZers,

I am aware that in the last 24 hours many statements and posts have been published about issues that cannot be legally be published. I will issue a statement at 4pm here today in response.

My thanks to Mr George for having me here on this blog and to the good people I have met through here. Free Speech is important to me and this blog is a bastion of Free Speech.

I can’t and won’t tolerate any attempt to break the law in comments here. Please wait until Ben is able to legally put forward his side of the story before jumping to judgement.

As most people won’t know what can be legally discussed if in doubt leave it out, there will be ample opportunity later today.

I don’t necessarily agree with or disagree with Ben’s’s position or opinion on this. I am providing a forum for him to make a statement.

As per usual robust debate and valid criticism is welcome here, but personal attacks and abuse and attempts to discredit or defame are not acceptable and will be dealt to appropriately.

UPDATE: Ben has advised that for logistical reasons his statement won’t be available until after 6 pm

 
If you are interested check out NewsHub at 6 pm.
 
If you want to ask Ben questions he will endeavour to answer them here when he can after 6 pm.
Previous Post
Leave a comment

72 Comments

  1. Pantsdownbrown

     /  10th May 2016

    Ben: I look forward to your side of the story.

    I see the usual suspects have got in first……..

    Reply
    • Kevin

       /  10th May 2016

      “I see the usual suspects have got in first……..”

      Where?

      Reply
      • Can’t say or hint as it could also be illegal. A complaint may have been made already as on post has since been taken down but the self inflicted damage has been done. They may be brazen but they are also stupid.

        Reply
        • MaureenW

           /  10th May 2016

          Definitely a case of now you see it, now you don’t.

          Reply
  2. Hall

     /  10th May 2016

    ** deleted an unnecessary an provocative personal attack – PG **

    Reply
    • Idiot. When will you ever learn? >:D

      Reply
    • Pantsdownbrown

       /  10th May 2016

      I think Hall has been ‘snipered’……..

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  10th May 2016

        …because of lack of intelligence in any sense of the word…

        Reply
    • Hall

       /  10th May 2016

      I never made a personal attack or said anything provocative. I made a reference to Ben always being in the news, so calm down everybody.

      Reply
  3. Ratty

     /  10th May 2016

    Ah…

    This is the “Tuesday” thing posted by Chief Idiot at some silly blog

    Reply
    • Joe Bloggs

       /  10th May 2016

      … aaand the trained chimp at 9:30:

      Reminders:
      2pm Question Time
      4pm Whaleoil Media Statement

      Reply
  4. Ratty

     /  10th May 2016

    Cameron Slater did what ?

    Reply
  5. MaureenW

     /  10th May 2016

    Good ole Ben, 10/10 for promises and 0/10 for delivery

    Reply
  6. Alan Wilkinson

     /  10th May 2016

    Cameron has published a statement with more to follow. At first skim it seems balanced and sensible.

    Reply
    • Ratty

       /  10th May 2016

      Oh shut it

      Its a typical Slater ” Look at me !.. I’m the big fat victim here”

      Reply
      • MaureenW

         /  10th May 2016

        I like the bits where Slater starts .. “In my tortured mind ….” and.. “Ben continues to be a man with many demons ..” . Both statements are there to remove blame from one, and place it on the other.

        Reply
    • Pantsdownbrown

       /  10th May 2016

      Slater promising a hard-hitting piece at 5pm………

      Reply
      • Ratty

         /  10th May 2016

        VENGENCE !!!

        really… the dude has had his day… time to give it up

        Reply
        • Pantsdownbrown

           /  10th May 2016

          I read his 5pm piece……..

          I thought Ben spelling Jacinda Ardern’s name as Jacinta Adern may have tipped poor old Cam off that things were not as they seemed………

          Reply
          • If Ben had offered me that information about Standard authors I’d have laughed at it. I have observed and written about Standard authors a lot.

            Reply
            • Kevin

               /  10th May 2016

              Would have been funny if OAB turned out to be Angry Andy. 🙂

          • MaureenW

             /  10th May 2016

            Have to say, the word “gullible” springs to mind.

            Reply
  7. Suppression on a matter lapsed at 4 pm. Comment is fine on published information you might see elsewhere but I suggest a degree of scepticism with certain sources

    Reply
    • Pantsdownbrown

       /  10th May 2016

      “Slater’s name was suppressed from his first appearance, and Slater sought continued name suppression despite being a long-time campaigner against name suppression”.

      Good old Cam – do as I say, not as I do………not that any of his followers at whaleoil will notice.

      Reply
    • Ratty

       /  10th May 2016

      I just love the Irony on soooo many terms… even David Fisher being the Author…

      Reply
  8. Abouttime

     /  10th May 2016

    Read the Whale side, I thought it has been often said there for quite sometime that “explaining is losing”, seems correct.

    Reply
  9. Hall

     /  10th May 2016

    If you don’t know what this is all about here’s an explanation…

    Newshub can reveal controversial right-wing blogger Cameron Slater was at the centre of a plot to hack political website The Standard.

    His motivation was to embarrass and undermine Labour leader Andrew Little by unmasking anonymous contributors to the site he claimed were connected to the party.

    Slater, who writes the Whale Oil blog, was charged with attempting to procure access to a computer system for a dishonest purpose on December 17 last year. However, court orders prevented the media revealing his identity, detailing the exact charge against him or naming the website involved.

    IT consultant Ben Rachinger was charged at the same time, accused of deceiving Slater out of $1000. Suppression orders also meant Newshub couldn’t connect that charge, Slater and The Standard plot that was first revealed on TV3’s The Nation.

    Slater sought a court order to keep his name and the details of this case secret forever. However Newshub and others, including the owner of The Standard, fought him in court and won.

    TV3’s The Nation last year revealed hundreds of encrypted texts between Rachinger and Slater discussing “the mission”. Slater paid a $1000 down payment for the hack. The contract for the cyber break-in was worth a total of $5000 on completion. But the mission was never completed; Rachinger reported the plot to police.

    At the time Slater denied any involvement, but has since admitted his role as part of the police diversion scheme that allows some offenders to escape conviction if they admit guilt. ….

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  10th May 2016

      Er-haven’t we heard about this before ? It sounds very familiar.

      Reply
      • YES KC, sorry for shouting! So Hall says “His motivation was to embarrass and undermine Labour leader Andrew Little by unmasking anonymous contributors to the site (s) he claimed were connected to the party.” Umm, I thought Slater’s comments preceded Little’s selection as leader, and if not mistaken , another Labour leader was in place. I could be wrong, as they changed so often. I still wonder how an unnamed Madam who was accused by some for running a House of Ill Repute that resulted in an 18 year old fleeing for his virginity, still occupies such a senior place in Labour’s hierarchy, but then we live in a different age now don’t we? Joking of course!!

        Reply
  10. Pantsdownbrown

     /  10th May 2016

    You didn’t provide the links Oliver……..

    Reply
  11. Alan Wilkinson

     /  10th May 2016

    I know Ben promised a statement but given his ongoing court case I would suggest he should keep most of his powder very dry. If it is true that his case depends on contradicting police evidence I believe he would be wise to get the best legal advice he can afford. First, they have infinite resources and second, some of them are expert and professional liars. His word against theirs will carry zero weight unless supported by bullet-proof evidence.

    Reply
    • Pantsdownbrown

       /  10th May 2016

      I agree – the temptation is to go out and immediately refute all the claims from the other side. Patience may be a better approach.

      Reply
    • Blazer

       /  10th May 2016

      did i just read that you think the Police are …’are expert and professional liars.’!

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  10th May 2016

        I have never been shy with that opinion and have held it since I experienced direct evidence of it during the 1981 Springbok Tour.

        Reply
    • MaureenW

       /  10th May 2016

      And questions. [Deleted – petty, I asked for no personal attacks. PG]

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  10th May 2016

        Alan, the Tour was 35 years ago ! You can’t judge them all since then on what happened then.

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  10th May 2016

          I don’t judge them all. I think a small but significant percentage fall into that category. My wild guess is it is in the range 10-20%. I suspect the further up the ranks you go it increases rather than decreases. Unfortunately when you deal with them you must presume the worst until proven otherwise.

          Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  10th May 2016

          I would just add that many if not most defence lawyers would have a similar opinion from what I’ve heard.

          Reply
  12. Hall, are you Oliver revisited? Please advise.
    For Ben Rachinger, I guess you are going through a catharsis at present. You do not have to make any further statements to the Public. Walk away from this rubbish and use your undoubted talents to make a happy and fruitful life. Do not for a minute expect any support from the mob. Stand tall, and make a new start away from the crap artists. You can do it!

    Reply
    • Hall

       /  10th May 2016

      No BJ I’m not, sorry to disappoint you . Who was Oliver? you guys make him/her sound like some sort of folk hero.

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  10th May 2016

        (manages not to say it, with great difficulty)

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  10th May 2016

          How many people who are allegedly not Olivers do you reckon would think an Oliver would be a her? o_O

          Reply
          • Dougal

             /  10th May 2016

            For a time, I was convinced Oliver was of Asian origin. The grammar, construction and delivery of his/her comments seemed very similar to email conversations I have with my Asian customers were very similar.

            Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  10th May 2016

        Do you have a twin?

        Reply
      • Pantsdownbrown

         /  10th May 2016

        Oliver: “Who was Oliver? you guys make him/her sound like some sort of folk hero”

        Reply
      • patupaiarehe

         /  10th May 2016

        @Hall
        I’m sure Oliver would like to think that 😀

        Reply
      • Pantsdownbrown

         /  10th May 2016

        Hall: “Who was Oliver? you guys make him/her sound like some sort of folk hero”

        No, actually he was a right tosser.

        Reply
  13. I see further confirmation of the identity of Rawshark whom I named about a year ago. He might be a Handy witness for Ben if he could be compelled to attend Ben’s trial. We would then see a further dimension of the Hager Manifesto.

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  11th May 2016

      That would depend on the evidence available to support allegations. One presumes from the lack of any police prosecution that there is insufficient proof to stand up in court.

      Reply
    • He will never do that BJ. Rawshark is a coward. The reason there is no prosecution is that I am required to testify and was too scared of him before to do so.

      Rawshark has no mana. Allowing an innocent person to go on trial for them is the highest form of cowardice I can imagine.

      I’ll beat my charge fair and square. Then go back to being a Ghost.

      I’m taking your advice BJ. Cheers.

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  11th May 2016

        Glad to hear that, Ben. Best wishes.

        Reply
      • Kevin

         /  11th May 2016

        Wow, talk about being a victim of your own fantasies.

        Reply
        • Kevin, that was unnecessary, like kicking a guy when he is down. I would be happy to debate whether Rawshark has any mana. From a Tuhoe Maniopoto historical point of view he certainly has, and I can compare and contrast the nature of the Tuhoe people with the Acehnese of Indonesia who also assert tino rangatirotanga over their lands. Where I differ from Rawshark is that I really do believe we New Zealanders are one people, and we need, all of us, to respect our fellow beings and never attempt to rob them of their mauri. Te mauri, te roi au te tabamoa,

          Reply
          • Kevin

             /  11th May 2016

            Everything that comes out of Rachinger’s mouth (or in this case fingertips) should be treated as pure fantasy.

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  11th May 2016

              As opposed to Slater’s grasp of reality?

      • And Ben, that was nt just my advice, it was also Alans and I hope a large number of others. Of course you can do it!

        Reply
      • Hall

         /  11th May 2016

        Ben it was brave of you to double cross Slater and effectively mute the National Party blog. Slaters audacious plan was foiled in the final moments. It’s interesting that in your tweet you mention Slaters hacking operation was been funded by a third party, [deleted and don’t make unsubstantiated accusations like that again. PG] It’s interesting that the charges came days after J Collins was brought in from the dark to be appointed Police Minister. It seems like another chapter for Dirty Politics, I wonder if Hager is on to that.

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  11th May 2016

          That’s almost a record for you and this blog, Hall, in the number of wrong conclusions you manage to draw in a single post. I’m impressed.

          Reply
        • Pantsdownbrown

           /  11th May 2016

          Oliver: “It seems like another chapter for Dirty Politics, I wonder if Hager is on to that”.

          As it is likely pure fantasy without much evidence I suggest Hager might be very interested in writing another book and making some money – mind you he would first need to receive more stolen data to base it upon considering his total lack of investigative skills.

          Reply
          • Hall

             /  11th May 2016

            Technically those emails should have been made Public through the official information act. Because it involved a Minister so it’s in the Public interest. So you can’t cal it stealing when you’re entitled to it. And I don’t know why you keep calling me Oliver.

            Reply
            • Hall, Oliver, whatever, I think you should be judicious about claims of Cabinet Ministers funding illegal hacking operations (hacking is a criminal offence) and we still have libel laws in New Zealand. They are costly, ask Cam Slater

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