WO: hypocrites or poor memories

Not much seems to have happened in the Craig v Slater defamation case yesterday. It has now been in progress for 3 weeks and looks likely to also take most of next week for finals bits and summing up. Then it will take weeks if not months to get the judgment.

Even before this case Colin Craig had a reputation for being quick to threaten legal action. This one is a bit different given the campaign Cameron Slater and Whale Oil ran against Craig and effectively the Conservative Party.

I have no idea whether it amounted to provable defamation  or not, that’s up to the judge, but it certainly looked like a sustained political and personal attack to me, something Slater and Whale Oil have prior form for.

During the current case Slater, along with his wife SB/Spanish Bride (Juana Atkins) and Pete Belt, have ran a campaign at Whale of defence of their actions and they have repeatedly claimed to be the victims of Craig. This in itself has a touch of hypocrisy.

And there’s more. This morning on Whale Oil (under the authorship of ‘Whaleoil staff’):

 In the mean time, as ever, the mere existence of a court case means we are better off to keep things to ourselves.  Which is, of course, one of the things litigants want to achieve no matter the merits of their actual case.

Except that they haven’t kept things to themselves at Whale Oil, they have posted and commented throughout the trial, and they have also allowed a lot of comments, some of which openly attacked Craig.

Whaleoil is currently involved in no fewer than three defamation actions and the only reason these have been brought is not because we defame people, it is because they are forcing us to be silent by weaponising the courts.

Claiming innocence of defamation again to their WO audience, despite also correctly stating “As for the merits of the case – that will be up the the judge”.

But also, in case those at Whale Oil have forgotten, “they are forcing us to be silent by weaponising the courts” is highly hypocritical.

Slater has been involved in exactly that against me and Your NZ, trying to force my silence and shut Your NZ down by using the courts as a weapon.

One of those attempts is out in the open, when Marc Spring with Dermot Nottingham and Slater involved trying a ridiculous court order to try and gag me and us, Coinciding with that were massive attempts to disrupt and train wreck Your NZ.

Ironically at one stage, I think on Kiwiblog, Slater threatened that his current lawyer, Brian Henry, would be used against me. I suspect good legal advice put a stop to that, but the intent was there.

There have been other attempts too, but for now I can’t reveal details in public (because certain people not only use the courts as a weapon they try to hide what they are doing legally by gagging everything.

I have some sympathy for targets of Craig’s legal endeavours, the courts are used as a threat and more.

But in mixed feelings over the current defamation case I have sympathy for Craig being in the receiving end of the attack campaign waged by Jordan Williams and Slater. It was in my mind far more than journalism, there were shades of it being a vindictive hit job or simply done for the thrill of, using a term they have used, fucking someone over.

One thing I have never been able to work out – why they would target someone as niche and relatively irrelevant as myself. I know they don’t like being exposed or their bad behaviour publicised, typical of bullies they don’t take criticism well.

I can only guess that they chose to pick on me for the hell of it, thinking it would be easy to fuck me over and shut me up.

So when they cry victim and play the “poor us” card when someone tries to do to them what they themselves use as one of their own weapons then I will continue to stand up to them and expose their hypocrisies.

Leave a comment

28 Comments

  1. duperez

     /  May 27, 2017

    I saw a good movie this week called ‘Sing Street.’ The bad, malevolent, malcontent Barry had reasons for being the sad individual he was. There was a glimmer of hope for him later, though. In the movies the stroke of a writer’s pen moves bully-boy to virtuous very easily.

    Barry’s behaviour reminds me of some of the characters mentioned on here. Trouble is, this ain’t the movies folks, and sad is not just a veneer.

    Reply
  2. Griff

     /  May 27, 2017

    WO
    Failed editor of The Truth.
    Says it all really.
    “Griff” has a log in for his site .
    I have used it maybe twice .
    Can not see the point in commenting in a tightly moderated echo chamber. Cam sometimes comments at KB using language that would result in being permanently deleted from his own blog….. hypocrite.

    Reply
    • Bill Brown

       /  May 27, 2017

      To be fair the owners of the Truth pulled the plug and stopped funding it

      Reply
    • Kevin

       /  May 27, 2017

      Different rules for different blogs. When Cameron makes a comment over at WO he still has to obey the rules there as much as anybody else.

      Reply
  3. Kevin

     /  May 27, 2017

    WO deserves praise for exposing Colin Craig. Just think, someone like him could have been kingmaker.

    Reply
    • duperez

       /  May 27, 2017

      Someone like him could have been kingmaker? Who? Craig or Slater? Or did they both think they could be? 😊

      Reply
    • Bill Brown

       /  May 27, 2017

      @kevin I’m with you on exposing Colin Craig

      The guy should be nowhere anything to do with running this country

      Reply
  4. PDB

     /  May 27, 2017

    Had a look at Whaleoil and he continues to push his anti-National party agenda with a recent post that tries to lay a case for NZL First being a better bet than ACT. I note the large majority of comments disputed that. A comment from ‘KGB’ sums it up well;

    KGB • 7 hours ago
    In my opinion no.
    A stronger NZF will not take National to the right ‘IF’ they went with National. They would certainly move Labour towards the left of centre more.
    NZF policies are mostly a left-wing list.
    NZF have weaker Law & Order policy than ACT.
    NZF immigration policy is more ridiculous than Labours numbers.
    NZF will close Charter Schools.
    NZF does not really care about Israel. (1 or 2 questions in the house were about ‘catching’ them out proceedurly, NOT morally). NOT even an ever popular…bottom-line.
    NZF has an aweful list. Always has.
    Winston is too lazy, and too old to be in Government now, let alone for 3 more years.
    Winston has achieved nothing for anyone but himself since losing Tauranga.
    Most NZ’ers have never owned a gun, and hate the things.
    And lastly, ask Northland how its working out for them?

    Reply
    • Blazer

       /  May 27, 2017

      how on earth does ..’caring about Israel’..rate as an election..issue?

      Reply
  5. Tipene

     /  May 27, 2017

    There’s a fourth defamation case heading Slater’s way.

    Reply
    • I thought Craig v Stringer was settled out of court but Belt keeps including that – is something still happening on that?

      Reply
      • Conspiratoor

         /  May 27, 2017

        He put the blowtorch on three professorial troughers who squealed like stuck pigs. I think they’ve lawyered up but he’ll take them to the cleaners if it ever makes it to court

        Reply
        • Tipene

           /  May 27, 2017

          @Conspiratoor: No, he defamed three tenured and highly respected health researchers, and in doing so, attacked the reputations of Auckland University, Otago University, and a Maori Agency engaged in Health Research.

          You telling me that Slater is going to take these organisations to the cleaners?

          “Unlikely” would be too kind a response to your premise.

          Reply
          • Defamation is alleged but not proven.

            Reply
          • Conspiratoor

             /  May 27, 2017

            Swinburns pseudo science deserves ridicule but notwithstanding their defamation case is a gutless response to slaters criticism. The correct response would have been to front foot it and take slater on in an open forum. The fact they haven’t says more about them than it does slater

            Reply
            • Blazer

               /  May 28, 2017

              imagine if they did that with every half baked nutter that thought they were fair ….game.

            • Conspiratoor

               /  May 28, 2017

              Tax sugar and turn fatties into half sucked throaties. Whose the nutter blazer?

            • Blazer

               /  May 28, 2017

              there is a case for taxing sugar….alcohol,tobacco and other substances that affect health are fair game,why not…sugar?

            • Conspiratoor

               /  May 28, 2017

              Fortunately the government have not been daft enough to swallow swinburn’s line that it worked for baccy therefore it must work for sugar
              Mexico case in point…
              “Sales of soda are climbing two years after Mexico imposed a roughly 10% tax on sugary drinks—a bright spot for an industry that has feared it could be cast as the next tobacco” – WSJ

              Or you could take the uncharitable view that fat bastards just need to wake up to the cold reality of Darwin’s law. If we are to survive as a species we must stop trying to protect the stupid from themselves

  6. Tipene

     /  May 27, 2017

    No, Craig v Stringer was settled – Craig won, Stringer lost:

    https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/colin-craig-celebrates-win-in-defamation-case-against-former-conservative-party-board-member

    This is another party that Slater has been previously writing about, who has been biding their time (nothing is going to happen until after the judgment of the current case is competed).

    There is a second party named to the action, who is female.

    Reply
    • So what are the other three? This one obviously. Blomfield. The third?

      Reply
    • Craig and Stringer settled for zero on the 30th january 2017 after stringer succeeded in forcing Craig in to a Judicial Resolution Conf: Criag spent hundreds of thou; Stringer spent nothing and it was the latter who initiated the settlement – Craig got played and Stringer was freed to move on with the next taxi on the rank Stringer v Craig & Others

      Reply
      • Craig’s public and court statements that Stringer “paid him a sum” were completely untrue – he never paid a cent – and that is being taken up with the court: Craig v Stringer may reopen as it is alleged – and now filed in court – that Craig has now also breached the confidentaility of his case against Stringer as he did twelve times the Rachel Mac sexual harassment case

        Reply
  7. Tipene

     /  May 27, 2017

    So Craig (in play); Blomfield (in play); Swinburn, Sellman, & Bradbrooke (filed, date to be confirmed for court), and the fourth one (to be filed after the result of Craig vs Slater).

    Reply
  8. Maggy Wassilieff

     /  May 27, 2017

    How interesting.
    I was unaware that WO was involved in the ridiculous court order stuff that was raised against you when you first started this blog.

    I don’t think everyone has a solid grasp of reality in the blog world….
    Some folks are prone to fantasy.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s