Slater versus Rachinger

This is a follow-up from Rachinger pleads guilty.

Yesterday Rachinger pleaded guilty to obtaining $1000 by deception – Cameron Slater paid him to hack The Standard with the intent of embarrassing the blog as well as Andrew Little and the Labour Party. Rachinger didn’t provide any hacked information to Slater, hence the charge.

That on it’s own is bizarre – Rachinger was charged for not carrying out an illegal act.

Rachinger outed himself online in revealing what he had done (and not done) with Slater.

This lead to charges being filed against Slater for soliciting the hack. Slater obtained suppression, but this was lifted when it was revealed that Slater had been granted diversion to avoid going to trial.

See NZ Herald: Whale Oil blogger Cameron Slater admits soliciting hack

Whale Oil’s Cameron Slater has been granted diversion by police for attempting to hire Ben Rachinger for $5000 to get into the left-wing “The Standard” blog. Instead of being convicted and sentenced, he has arranged to do 40 hours work for the children’s charity Kidscan.

Judge Richard McIlraith said: “He has accepted his guilt and embarked upon a programme of diversion to address that.”

Following that Slater published a number of posts at Whale Oil effectively giving the finger to the Court and to what he had said to get diversion, claiming he was an innocent victim of Rachinger’s actions.

Somehow, the media are still saying Cam ordered the hack.  Well, if that was even remotely true, then I don’t understand how stupid he was by asking the police to get involved and asking Ben to share his discoveries with police.  That clearly shows Cam had no intent to do anything stupid.

To the contrary, it made Slater look very stupid, as do the denials he did anything wrong despite accepting guilt in order to get diversion (which was controversial due to previous convictions).

Slater had retaliated against Rachinger by making a complaint to the police, which led to yesterday’s court appearance. Newshub reported:

Mr Rachinger was paid $1000 by Mr Slater, but never carried out the hack they discussed. Instead he blew the whistle to TV3’s The Nation, telling the programme he was asked by Mr Slater to figure out who The Standard’s contributors were and record their IP and email addresses.

Police alleged Mr Rachinger never intended to follow through with the promise he made to Slater. He was charged with obtaining $1000 by deception for saying he could and would hack the site.

A summary of facts shows Mr Slater believed Labour politicians were writing for The Standard and posting their views anonymously online.

He offered Rachinger $5000 – paying him $1000 up front – believing the hack on The Standard’s servers would uncover evidence of links to Labour.

Mr Rachinger is also seeking a discharge without conviction, and told Newshub outside court he’s looking forward to the chance to put the matter behind him.

http://www.newshub.co.nz/nznews/slater-hired-hacker-pleads-guilty-to-fraud-2016121211

Slater and associates have responded to this with two posts at Whale Oil (so far, yesterday). This again portrays Slater as a victim vindicated by Rachinger’s plea. It includes large dollops of what Slater would refer to if someone else was doing it as ‘explaining is losing’.

The conclusion of a victory speech:

With your help, we have stood up against these people trying to take Whaleoil down.  And this is also why it is so important we have your financial support.   They wrote a book about us. Labour bet a whole election on us.  They tried to take us down via vexatious court procedures.  And Ben Rachinger has failed too.

Cam is still here.  You are still here.  Whaleoil is still here.

That drips with hypocrisy, given that Slater tried to have The Standard hacked to try to take it down and to try to take Andrew Little and Labour down. That’s how he plays politics, dirty – and then when found out he cries victim.

Oddly…

There are suppression orders in place on this appearance as well, which makes it difficult to freely discuss the situation without running into further trouble – the last thing we want to do.   As a result, the comments on this post will be disabled.  I don’t want any of you to accidentally get yourself, or by extension, us, in trouble.

Both posts had comments disabled, but one post under ‘Whale Oil Staff’ and the other under ‘Cameron Slater’ allowed themselves to fairly free discuss their one side of the story which include claims contradicted by court reports.

The total blackout on comments suggests an avoidance of having anyone point out the stupidity and hypocrisy of their slants. Their final comment:

So yes, I think a short custodial sentence is appropriate.  He’s wasted so much of everyone’s time!

Slater got away with nothing but embarrassment and some community service, but wants Rachinger locked up for sucking him in and then exposing him.

This is not the first time Slater has been involved in retaliation to the extent of wanting people locked up for being exposed and embarrassed. I can think of several examples of this, including  me being the target.

That’s has Slater played, dirty and vindictively, and it appears that this behaviour is continuing.

Rachinger has made mistakes and done some silly things, and has copped a charge for outing himself over this. Slater didn’t make a complaint until it went public.

Rachinger says he has addressed personal issues and I’ve seen no sign of his previous erratic behaviour, so he appears to have sorted some of his stuff out.

Slater seems to have learned nothing and continues with the same old, big on attacks but whining and playing the victim when things go bad.

And Whale Oil and Slater seem oblivious to the self-inflicted damage they do  through their posts – every time they attack Rachinger, and there has been a lot of that, they expose themselves some more.

Rachinger seems to be wisely staying quiet about yesterday’s court appearance given that sentencing is not until March, and courts tend to prefer things they are dealing with aren’t played out in public. I hope he has learnt from his experiences.

If Slater ever finds himself in court again what he has put on public record over this could come back to haunt him. His obsessions with winning and whining with as much publicity as he can get may not always work in his favour.

Slater may think that his ‘giving back double’ against Rachinger is a warning to anyone not to mess with him.

But it is also a warning about Slater’s habit of lashing out when things don’t go his way – he has become politically toxic, which he is busy reminding everyone about with his bitter attacks on Bill English and National, multiple times a day.

He’s not making much headway even against the Whale Oil commenting community, which may be why they have not risked any comments on his Rachinger posts.

Leave a comment

101 Comments

  1. Blazer

     /  13th December 2016

    If a person went to the Police and said I gave x $1000 dep to hack Y’s computer and he didn’t deliver, investigate and charge him,they would tell you to get lost.

    Reply
    • They didn’t tell Slater to get lost, they charged Rachinger, hence yesterday’s court appearance.

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  13th December 2016

        No kidding.!I will spell it out for you…an ordinary citizen,not someone in constant contact with Key and his dirty ops pawns.

        Reply
        • Disgusting conspiracy statement Blazer, with no factual evidence. Mere speculation lacks merit eg “dirty ops pawns”, the fact that you continue to make these sort of extravagant claims shows me just how unbelievable everything you claim is.

          Reply
          • Blazer

             /  14th December 2016

            Key has admitted he was in regular contact with Slater=FACT,and the fact is Slater is about the only person Key has publicly apologised to….funny ..that..eh Col.!

            Reply
            • Some contact, I don’t know if it was regular, and that is likely to have ceased – he seems to be fairly isolated even from MPs he was associated with – he has been moaning about Ross running numbers for English. And Mitchell did numbers for Bennett according to one report – no wonder he has been fretting at WO.

            • When was that Blazer. You and I live in a different universe apparently. I recall vividly comments that the contact was no more than short, less than 2 minute conversations about8 times. Tat conveys less than the time my correspondence with key would have taken. I assure you no dodgy matters were discussed, and yes, I can produce the emails.

            • Blazer

               /  15th December 2016

              Do you have Keys direct dial phone number Col?The facts I mentioned are on the public record.Yes Key and many of the Natz want to disassociate themselves from the slug.Collins too if she has any sense.

  2. Anonymous Coward

     /  13th December 2016

    “Cameron Slater paid him to hack The Standard with the intent of ….”

    Not quite. Slater payed Rachinger for the data from a hack that Rachinger claimed to have already done. He payed $1000 and received an encrypted file, and no password.
    Rachinger wasn’t charged for the hack because it never happened. Slater was charged with paying for information obtained from a crime – because, whether or not the crime happened he still payed for it. Rachinger was charged with deception, because the crime didn’t happen and he deceived Slater into believing it had and getting him to pay for it.

    “That drips with hypocrisy, given that Slater tried to have The Standard hacked to try to take it down”
    Again, it’s all about the sequence of events. Rachinger approached Slater with fraudulent intent to get [deleted, I don’t think that is fact – PG]. Of course Slater was interested. But he didn’t order the hack. He paid for, and didn’t receive data that Rachinger never had and never had a hope of getting.

    Reply
    • I don’t remember the exact sequence of events, but they are reliant on what Rachinger and Slater claim.

      The key details are that Slater paid money, that’s not disputed. He wanted hacked information to damage The Standard and Labour and Little. And Rachinger didn’t supply – but I don’t know how you can claim that Rachinger never had and never had a hope of getting any data. That cannot be proven.

      Reply
      • Kevin

         /  13th December 2016

        “but I don’t know how you can claim that Rachinger never had and never had a hope of getting any data”

        Because Rachinger is all talk and no action and doesn’t even have the hacking skills to hack into a Christmas ham let alone The Standards’s servers?

        Reply
      • Anonymous Coward

         /  13th December 2016

        You should read Rachingers document dumps again, Keith Ng’s rundown at Public Address, the court document from the suppression hearing and Slaters posts. It’s all there for everyone to see. When the Polish guy comes into it Rachinger confesses to being more of a ‘Social Engineer’ (or confidence trickster) than a ‘hacker’. And if he could have hacked the Standard to get money he would of. He needed money, he was going to get $5000, he only got $1000 because he couldn’t drag the con out – because he couldn’t hack the Standard.

        The Standard, Labour and Little are something of a red herring here – they are the carrot Rachinger dangled to con Slater out of money. Granted they were a tantalising prize, but it was a phoney prize.

        Reply
      • Anonymous Coward

         /  13th December 2016

        You’re suffering from a form of ‘confirmation bias’ on this issue. It’s no secret that you have no love for Slater but you’re letting it cloud your view of Rachinger. You want to stick it to Slater so badly that you can’t see that he was played by a conman.
        “I don’t remember the exact sequence of events” and you’re not even keeping up with the play.

        Reply
  3. Jeeves

     /  14th December 2016

    I like a lot of what Ben posts here- and he seems like a young guy with a good grasp of many things, with a fairly well developed ethics framework, and very articulate. He seems to know a fair amount about stuff I know little about- ie internet systems and social media.He is always quite mannerly and sticks to the point.

    My issue is that I think in spite of these great qualities- he is someone who drops in and out of honesty like Donald Trump, and has proven himself untrustworthy repeatedly.
    So, nice guy, sure. Interesting, sure.

    Trustworthy?
    Some knife throwers can be trusted 99.9% of the time. Few of them have many friends.

    Go well young man.

    Reply
  4. AC your critique of PG’s comment above is unsubstantiated and shows a fixed interpretation of events that I for one am not persuaded by. The point you miss, I think, is that Ben actually knows who Rawshark is, and that in itself indicates a linkage to a person whose ability to “hack” WO and others has been demonstrated. Eventually I believe that Rawshark will be the victim of his (yes, he is a male) own cleverness. “No man is an island unto himself…”

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  14th December 2016

      No? How do you explain Gerry Brownlee?

      Reply
      • Gezza, I have written to Gerry and chastised him about his negative comments about senior Defence Force Leaders. I told him that he was out of line for making public comments like that when he knew well that by customary protocols, the Chiefs of Staff could not respond, but I could. I alsi said he was fat and not an inspiring leader, who had not had the moral courage to visit the NZSAS in Papakura, yet was one of the decision makers for their deployment. I also followed up with an email to John Key suggesting it was time for Brownlie to go. I acknowledge in hindsight that Brownlie performed much better since that time but in no way claim that I had anything to do with the change in his performance. Whay did you do?

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  15th December 2016

          I spelt his surname correctly. Do you want me to follow up with an email telling him his performnce in regard to respectful treatment of Defence Forces might have improved lately but he’s still fat, and we still don’t have enough sailors or any F-16s. What the hell is wrong with him?

          Reply
          • He has reached his used by date Gezza, and despite his intellect, he is tired of the sort of criticism people like me have levelled at him. I hope he has a long and happy retirement, and someone else can provide basic Air Defence capability to NZ. Post Trump, maybe we can do a guns for butter transfer with Russia who have good air defence equipment. (We can’t afford US gear).

            Reply
    • Anonymous Coward

       /  14th December 2016

      Rachinger knows who he THINKS raw shark is, he is also an inveterate liar. As for unsubstantiated, I’ve read the police reports, the court reports, Rachingers claims and Slaters claims, as well as all the interpretations on the internet. If I was a judge I would have to say that Slater makes the most reliable witness and the Rachinger cannot be trusted. You seem to think the boy can do no wrong, I say you’ve backed the wrong man. As has been said of him by others, he will do anything to win your trust – but only so he can exploit you.

      Reply
      • Anonymous Coward

         /  14th December 2016

        And come March, BJ, your boy-who-can-do-no-wrong will be a convicted fraudster.

        Reply
        • That’s not what the charge was for.

          Reply
          • Anonymous Coward

             /  14th December 2016

            Obtaining by deception. Isn’t that fraud? Or is it Dishonesty?

            Reply
            • It’s obtaining by deception which is obviously separate to fraud.

            • Anonymous Coward

               /  14th December 2016

              But it comes under the umbrella of either a fraud or dishonesty offence. See below.

            • Anonymous Coward

               /  14th December 2016

              From the Crimes act:

              deception means—(c) a fraudulent device, trick, or stratagem used with intent to deceive any person.

            • I presume you don’t know the basis of the charges so you’re guessing.
              You’re judging him and trying to paint a particular picture without, presumably, knowing the details of the charges.

          • Anonymous Coward

             /  14th December 2016

            Even if you just call it deception, he’s being convicted for telling lies and deceiving someone out of money. Whatever way you slice it, it makes him someone you’d be very wary wary of employing or trusting.

            Reply
            • He pleaded guilty but is going for a discharge without conviction according to Newshub.

              It could affect employment. My guess is he would be less distrusted and more employable than Slater.

            • Anonymous Coward

               /  14th December 2016

              Slater got a job, Rachinger is already unemployable.

            • Slater has a job with Belt? His options must be limited.

              Why do you say Rachinger is unemployable? I don’t know how you would know that., you can’t speak for all employers. There’s quite a demand for IT skills.

            • Anonymous Coward

               /  14th December 2016

              He doesn’t have them, he’s a confidence trickster.
              Sure he can take a screenshot, but he can’t even write coherently.
              And he’s deaf (which doesn’t matter) but if you’ve followed his public tweets over the years he’s also an alcoholic and has cancer. But mostly he’s a proven liar e.g. cancer.

            • Do you think you’ve dumped on him enough yet? You seem to have a particular inclination towards that. Why is that?

              He’s certainly had his problems in the past, but would appear to have made an effort to address that. But you don’t seem to believe in rehabilitation, just continued trashing. That’s worse than I’ve seen him do.

            • Anonymous Coward

               /  14th December 2016

              [You keep taking shots at him. You seem to be trying to induce or provoke him into reacting.

              If you know as much about court processes as you seem to think then you would know it’s not a good idea to publicly discuss something that is currently before the courts that you are involved in.

              As you should know personal attacks aren’t acceptable here. Your agenda is quite suspect.

              PG]

            • Anonymous Coward

               /  14th December 2016

              [No, moderation because you are abusing this forum, quite deliberately and, it appears, with a degree of personal malice. And I can’t trust you not to continue with your agenda because you have a record of persistence. PG]

            • Anonymous Coward

               /  14th December 2016

              “Do you think you’ve dumped on him enough yet? ”
              Do you think you’ve been right to stick up for him these last few years?

              [You’ve got things wrong, like a few other people.

              I’ve stuck up for Ben being able to comment here without being subject to personal attacks that have occurred elsewhere online (sometimes vicious and malicious). That’s not exclusive to him, it’s a core part of this site. If you were commenting here under your own identity rather than as ‘Anonymous Coward’ and were subject to personal attacks and deliberate and methodical attempts to discredit and dump on you from someone posting anonymously then I wouldn’t allow that either – I will stick up fro anyone’s right to be able speak here safely and reasonably.

              I’ve been critical of some things Ben has done. Unlike you I’ve also been critical of things others have done when associated with Ben. In contrast you have single mindedly targeted Ben, and recently knowing that Ben was not really able to respond without jeopardising his current Court situation. It appears that you have been deliberately trying to provoke him into being imprudent.

              So yeah I’ll stick up for anyone being subjected to that sort of attention here – that doesn’t mean I’m sticking up for everything he has done and is doing, I clearly haven’t done that, but i am sticking up for principles of fair play here.

              There’s been a few people who have either misunderstood my sticking up for fair speech here, or deliberately misrepresented what I do as ‘sticking up for’ someone they are attacking. They seem to see any limits on their attacks here as total support for the target of their attacks, or they just have a habit of attacking anyone who stands up to their malicious behaviour.

              I’ll continue to stick up for balanced and fair discussion here (with a reasonable degree of latitude), and if that means limiting the one sided agendas of a few people at risk of them attacking and labelling me for it then so be it.

              Allowing, enabling and protecting fair free speech can be difficult but it’s something I will continue to do as well as I can. The results will be imperfect to some people with their own agendas but tough.

              PG]

      • Blazer

         /  14th December 2016

        Key said he knows who rawshark is…who cares and if they do…why?

        Reply
  5. I have absolutely no intention to feed the circling sharks in this situation. I am 100% behind Pete George’s approach to Ben Rachinger’s situation, and also hope that he is at least treated the same as Slater by our judicial system. Two wrongs never make a right!

    AC you seem to clam a special knowledge of the circumstances surrounding this case, if that is the case, I invite you to inform all of us about what you know.

    Reply
  6. Deetz

     /  16th December 2016

    Pete George and B J Marsh,

    I find it odd that you dismiss many of the evil things that Rachinger did that people know about anyway as silly indescretions. [Deleted] “Boys will be boys”, really?

    The truth is that Rachinger had been posing as a hacker and and a left-winger for years and had really got up the nose of some scary people [Point made, deleted unnecessary detail]

    Rachinger’s laptop was reportedly [Deleted]

    As for the identity of Rawshark there are many rumours but there are all so very good reasons why people even if they wanted to dob him in, which they don’t, wouldn’t if it is who I think it is.

    [I’ve allowed you to make your points but I think that some of your assertions are unnecessary or unsubstantiated. PG]

    Reply
    • I haven’t dismissed things that he has done, nor called them silly indiscretions. Rachinger himself has acknowledged some serious indiscretions in the past.

      Yes there have been a number of rumours about the identity of Rawshark, including assertions and claims by Slater. But there is no public proof of identity.

      Many people have applauded the Slater hacking as it exposed ‘dirty politics’ and very poor behaviour. While many of the details were new to me the overall revelations were no surprise to me, there were plenty of signs of those sorts of things going on.

      Exposing Slater et al was not a bad thing, but I have serious misgivings about justifying and legitimising political hacking, it sets a very serious precedent. In this case it didn’t swing the 2014 election, it may have actually helped National. But the much larger scale US experience is cause for serious concern.

      Reply
      • Deetz

         /  16th December 2016

        Pete, when the state and corporates routinely do it to silence their enemies is it so bad that private citizens do too? private citizens often have much purer motives.

        Reply
        • The problem in politics with ‘purer motives’ is that it can be very subjective and dependant on ones leaning.

          If Slater (or anyone) had successfully had a hack done that revealed embarrassing information about Little and Labour that could potentially have killed Little’s leadership I think there would be quite different views on the virtues of hacking.

          Reply
        • And I’ll put it another way – I think there was enough publicly known about how Slater and associates operated that an book could have been published that effectively discredited them – if the launch didn’t coincide with an election campaign. It was easily dismissed as a political hit job rather than a balanced exposé.

          There were legal and possibly (I think probably) more effective ways of doing it.

          Reply
      • Deetz

         /  16th December 2016

        The truth is that Rawshark was the invention of Cameron Slater. He knew his systems had been breached and that was the motivation. The SIS knows that but went along with it because there is so much else buried. Operation Rawshark was primarily directed at Nicky Hager. It was always a nefarious black op directed at him and others, aimed at revealing all his suspected sources: including a very high-level intelligence source. The truth is that Slaters systems were full of holes and backdoors and what he was up to was well known. And it backfired on him, hence the creation of ‘Rawshark’. But certain people were watching. And now they’ve turned the tables. MPs now falling like flies. They know why but the powers wil be will never admit it.

        Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  16th December 2016

      The biggest question is why our police and security services seem so persistently incompetent at investigating hacking offences. That would be where I would be wanting answers if I were the Govt.

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  16th December 2016

        in case you had not noticed ,the World Wide Web,and a task far beyond the capacity of the NZ govt to make an impression.

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  16th December 2016

          In case you hadn’t noticed quite a few hackers are in jail in the US, UK, Europe …

          Reply
      • Deetz

         /  17th December 2016

        That’s because Rawshark is Cameron Slater, after he realized his systems had been breached.

        Then the people who had been watching Slater (and Rachinger and others) stepped in to disrupt the party.

        Reply
        • Deetz, you have made a number of claims and assertions that are unsubstantiated. I have seen most of it floated before, amongst many claims and diversionary noise. So if you make claims here, especially related to potential criminal behaviour or if it could be claimed to be defamatory the some substantiation is required.

          If anyone objects to any of your claims I will need to remove them.

          I have seen a number of claims around the Slater hacking, that it was an inside job, that Slater has created cover stories etc. I have seen no evidence of any of this, just people claiming they know. Not everyone can be right given the range of claims out there.

          That ‘Rawshark’ was the invention of Slater’ doesn’t stack up for me given how the whole thing has played out, and the information that has been made public under the name Rawshark.

          Slater has made a lot of claims and accusations himself – I’m also sceptical of anything he says on anything related to this. He has a history of claiming to have evidence and promising to reveal all and not fronting up.

          I’m aware that there has been a lot of game playing on this, so sorting out fact from fiction is a challenge.

          Without evidence nothing can be seen as the truth.

          If you have details or evidence on any of this then I need to see it first before publishing as I need to be careful of legal ramifications.

          Reply
          • Deetz

             /  18th December 2016

            Sorry, I wasn’t clear.

            The timeline is very complicated.

            Slater knew he had been breached. Slater therefore started planning to release certain material as both a threat and a contingency plan as well as arrange for hacks – that’s right, hacks plural – of websites including the standard.

            Meanwhile the Police and other certain groups saw the whole fucked up situation, however if would play out, as an opportunity to get Hager and more specifically Hager’s sources. So called Rawshark was therefore not even the primary target. A target, but a cover target all the same.

            But everything tremendously backfired. Slater was unable to release the info he had threatened to release because he was warned that it would all come out if he tried it on – all the nasty details including his employment of a certain particularly nasty PI and many others who [deleted, too strong and open to interpretation without specific facts and may be best left out of this – PG]. Turn on the tap he was told, and you won’t be able to turn it off. The govt had strong reasons themselves to downplay Slater’s involvement with certain actors. For example the police’s involvement and reliance on some pretty unethical PIs and the intelligence agency’s extremely close relationship with both Israeli and Fijian authorities, the former who had political motives and the later financial. Slater became an odd go-between between both powers, which was never an ideal situation but which enabled agencies to formally distance themselves from direct engagement from right wing Israeli intelligence factions and Fijian government and corporate interests.

            Through the likes of the loony PI Slater was relying on with her own twisted agenda and the overblowing and manipulative Rachinger and the watchful and mischievous hand of anonymous and, well, all hands were wringing, sweating and tied with the result that all players were able to melt into the background for the most part, with Slater hit and fully knowing what went down but unable to tell the real series of events and who was who without seriously implicating himself in some very serious activity – much more than has hitherto been pinned on him.

            Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  17th December 2016

          I have yet to see any evidence that Slater is capable of evading detection as Rawshark but plenty that he lacks it. The claim is not credible.

          Reply
          • Deetz

             /  17th December 2016

            All he did was download his own emails and then selectively release them.

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  17th December 2016

              To Hager? Posting them online? Without being detected?

              Nope.

            • Deetz

               /  18th December 2016

              To your following commment: it’s not that hard

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  18th December 2016

              WordPress does display in sequence. Even if Slater had the technical and emotional nouse, which he doesn’t, it wouldn’t make any sense to release selective stuff that harmed himself and his friends but not his enemies. Not credible.

            • Interestingly Slater has promised a number of times to publish more details that will expose and harm his enemies, but has failed to do so.

              Perhaps he’s planning an election campaign book. Ghost written by Hager? /joke

  7. Deetz

     /  16th December 2016

    Surveillance is control Pete. When corporates and governments can use whatever they want against private citizens with impunity – unless caught out – and citizens are prosecuted for for trying to ameliorate that increasingly invasive and controlling influence by revealing the extent of the abuse of that influence, among other abuses and actual crimes, we are headed for a very dark place.

    Reply
    • Fair point and I generally agree.

      But I think the Whale Oil thing should have been dealt with without an illegal hack, and I think it would probably have been more effective.

      Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  16th December 2016

      Except none of the hackings revealed any crimes.

      Reply
      • Deetz

         /  16th December 2016

        Using the SIS to destroy political opponents is a grave crime.

        Reply
        • PDB

           /  16th December 2016

          No proof of that what-so-ever.

          Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  16th December 2016

          a) The statute is?
          b) The proof is?

          Fortunately for you b.s. is still not a crime.

          Reply
        • Klik Bate

           /  16th December 2016

          Maybe everyone has been had……..BIGGLY ❓

          https://www.spinbin.co.nz/the-ben-rachinger-hoax/

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  16th December 2016
            Reply
            • Deetz

               /  16th December 2016

              Grace Haden, Cameron Slater, Ben Rachinger, the Police and the SIS – not to mention Penny Bright

              😉

            • Deetz

               /  16th December 2016

              Haden fed information to the Police about Dawson and personally stalked and harassed Dawson. She had at that time connections to the NZ Police – now she’s an untouchable as far as they are concerned. Rachinger had his nose in too: and had some communication with Haden, as did Slater. The Police (and the SIS) were doing their best to shut down Occupy. Suzie might be overblowing things a little bit but she was definetly on the radar and targeted. Rachinger and Haden were useful idiots as far as the Police and the SIS were concerned. Both have been hung out to dry. Have little sympathy for either, but what they did pales in comparison to what SIS agents and foreign agents got up to during that time. Seeking asylum in Russia is probably a bit extreme in Suzie’s case but I don’t blame here for being terrified. She was absolutely 100 percent made a target.

            • Anonymous Coward

               /  17th December 2016

              Suzie Dawson is, having already met Julian Assange, Glen Greenwald and Kim Dotcom in person, off to Russia with the intention of meeting Ed Snowden. She’s as mad as a snake.

          • Blazer

             /  17th December 2016

            interesting how Edes name always pops up.Mention of Israel…they are the experts at misinformation,smear and media manipulation.!

            Reply
  8. Blazer

     /  17th December 2016

    this…..
    ‘Using the SIS to destroy political opponents is a grave crime.’…politics does not get any dirtier.I recall Warren Tucker former head(retired)of the S.I.S became as hard to contact as…Jason Ede.!

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  17th December 2016

      Ridiculous. Goff tried to use the SIS as a political weapon himself and got bitten back as he thoroughly deserved. The manipulation was entirely on his part. Warren Tucker is a straight up engineer I worked with at Canterbury University.

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  17th December 2016

        he still wouldn’t….answer the …door!And he is ex army.

        Reply
      • Gezza

         /  17th December 2016

        It’s a pretty good bet Kitty will have a friend who knows somebody who knows him. I’ll wait & see what she has to say about him.

        Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  17th December 2016

        And in contrast to my experience working with Tucker I have a friend who did a job for Goff when he was a young man. He says Goff was arrogant, demanding and nasty.

        Reply
        • Blazer

           /  17th December 2016

          so on the basis of 2 selective historical anecdotes you come to conclusions that suit your politics…how compelling…NOT!

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  17th December 2016

            They are not selective. The story I was told about Goff was entirely unsolicited and still makes the teller angry decades later. And we have never discussed politics but I would guess he would have been a traditional Labour voter.

            Reply
            • Al… Left wing anecdotes GOOD, all other anecdotes BAD!!! Flicker is flickering – its all he has got

            • Blazer

               /  18th December 2016

              so…you have known this person for decades,but never discussed politics,but you ‘guess’ he is a Labour supporter!Not only was his story unsolicited,but as you kept in contact,it still makes him …angry….decades later !very good Al, but it sounds like you are …F.O.S!

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  18th December 2016

              I could tell you why I guess that but it would breach his privacy so I won’t. As for the rest, GFY.

            • Blazer

               /  18th December 2016

              how would it breach his privacy,unless you named him…?lightweight.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  18th December 2016

              Because the characteristics would identify him to those who know me, just as interminably stupid would identify you to those who know you..

            • Blazer

               /  18th December 2016

              don’t need any characteristics either!Hey I’don’t know you,and even though you are interminably stupid,those who do ,will identify you…regardless.

        • Gezza

           /  17th December 2016

          I find that very hard to believe. The man rides up to a party conference on a motorbike that’s too big for him once & he has to pay for it forever?

          Reply

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Coward Cancel 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