Rachinger denies everything on Williams

Ben Rachinger took to Twitter again to totally deny anything to do with RadioLive political editor Jessica Williams.

The Phone put up as proof on that blog. It’s a Blackphone. As owned by one Mr Cameron Slater.

It’s a sad day when one can bring a story to light after having been smeared repeatedly and parents doxed by a pseudo-anon blog….

… But this is the first credible connection between Mr Slater and the blog LF. This was beyond dirty. Mr Slaters phone should be examined.

I would encourage everyone to lay a complaint with the credible evidence that the LF source has a blackphone, Slater has a blackphone and…

… Only Mr Slater benefits from the actions and timing of the actions of that blog. There is no way the LF source should remain Anon.

I never dated the victim of that websites actions and nor have I ever contracted to MW. I never messaged those pics to Press Gallery.

I was never involved in some plot to blackmail the victim of that blog. I was never informed there was allegedly a plot involving me.

I respect the space of the victim of LFs posts and don’t wish to have any comment beyond a Wow at depths to which some parties have sunk.

I’ll close with saying… The story came out about TS hack job and suddenly this comes out. A++ Hit Job. Bye.

If this is all true (I’m sceptical at this stage)it makes the apparent acceptance of the story by Williams and Williams supporters (there were no denials nor challenges to any detail that I saw) as very strange.

If true this would mean Slater obtained risque photos of Williams, simulated Rachinger’s phone, and colluded with Lauda Finem to dump on both Rachinger and Williams at the same time.

It would mean that NZ Herald was incorrect in the article they posted and then later pulled down – except that it’s still online via syndication overseas and at the ODT:

Journalist’s private photos published

Intimate photographs purporting to be of a leading journalist have been published online, revealing gaps in laws protecting people from having personal images used against them.

The pictures were understood to have been taken and sent in a private context to an individual not involved in the blog which published the images.

It claimed it had obtained the images when they were circulated with the intent of embarrassing Williams and harming her career but gave no explanation for why it had published the pictures.

A MediaWorks spokesman said the company was aware of “certain matters relating to the publication of private images” of Williams.

“The matters at issue are not ones MediaWorks will comment on. Jessica is a senior journalist with significant responsibility for RadioLive and will be on leave until these matters are worked through.”

The pictures emerged following a story broadcast on TV3’s The Nation last weekend in which claims were made that Whale Oil blogger Cameron Slater had paid someone to hack into a left-wing website.

If MediaWorks or NZ Herald thought this story had been a total fabrication by Cameron Slater I would have expected them to deal with it quite differently.

But the media have generally been very quiet on this whole topic, and thee has been a succession of weird turns in this saga, so it’s difficult to know what is the truth and what isn’t.

And it continues in response to others:

Dude, those Photos are damning proof of how easily trust is destroyed with you, hey? You made a massive mistake sharing those.

Where is the source? Where is the Threema ID proof it’s me? I never dated the victim and never attempted to blackmail her.

k.they are spreading the muck thin, if this is the categorical truth then I withdraw my accusation. huge collateral dmge tho


… Only Mr Slater benefits from the actions and timing of the actions of that blog. There is no way the LF source should remain Anon.

Did you share the pics im question with Slater, Ben? You’re inferring it but should state so I believe, if that is tje case.

Can Mr Slater prove that? Or does he just send whatever he wants to LF and get them to release at his bidding? Where’s the proof?

Just trying to understand how, if Slater had those pics, he came by them? It reads that you are certain he did have them.


Don’t infer anything. I’d like to see the LF source front up and show their evidence/proof and for LF to prove their allegations.

I’m not having a go just trying to understand context, evidence and implications.


Embedded image permalink

Categorically false. I have never spoken to Bomber personally and he has never seen any info from me. A smear.

Bomber shouldn’t be getting smashed for what are demonstrably lies. He may have been referring to hearsay unrelated to pics but not to pics.

I could see what was coming (though not this) which is why I tweeted a few weeks ago about that blog post of his.

That last comment is interesting, needs looking in to. There may be more to add on this.

Embedded image permalink

Categorically false. I was JW source for the Hager raid. We never dated or were in a BF/GF relationship. Smear on MB.

He provided Williams with what information about the Hager raid? That was in October.

Bradbury has apparently removed that reference from the Daily Blog, according to Disraeli Gladstone:

Quite on the contrary, though, it seems like he was threatening/considering to threaten the current victim (let’s not identify her at all for her sake). How do we know this? At the time, fucking Bomber made a passing comment in a blog post that Rachinger had something to hold over someone (he named the profession, so we know it was most likely the victim).

The fact that Bomber saw the evidence and didn’t do anything about it except make a snide remark (which he now deleted from his blog) is horrible in of itself as well.

Bradbury was not likely to be colluding with Slater.

NZ Herald’s handling of Rachinger stories

Yesterday NZ Herald posted an article on the Ben Rachinger/Jessica Williams/Mediaworks story with some detail and a number of quotes, so David Fisher had put some time and effort into researching and writing it.

Within a couple of hours that article was removed. But in the modern online media world that was too late, it had already been reported and repeated in Australia on at least two news sites.

I know Matt Nippert from NZ Herald had been sniffing around the Rachinger claims on Slater/The Standard since February, but I never noticed them reporting on it except for when they followed up on The Nation’s coverage on Saturday.

This was promoted by the Herald’s media reporter John Drinnan:

Blogger accused of paying hacker nzh.tw/11460942 via @nzherald m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/articl…

I replied:

@Zagzigger @nzherald Why have different media waited this long and only followed once @thenation reported it?


Herald have been running stories.

But I searched on Ben Rachinger at the Herald and got no hits apart from Saturday’s Nation followup (Right-wing blogger accused of paying off hacker).

I’ve searched again right now and I get that same article plus a reference in Bryce Edwards’ political roundup on Monday – Political roundup: Dirty Politics ‘done dirt cheap’.

Nothing prior to those two.

I’ve tried some other searches, from NZ Herald and via Google, and can’t find any other reference.

Why did Drinnan claim they had been running stories when it appears they haven’t? I tweeted back to Drinnan disputing his claim but he didn’t respond.

Why did they pull yesterday’s story?

What’s going on with Mediaworks and Rachinger?

The Rachinger plots took another turn today with a story that has gone international. Noosa News reports Intimate photos of journalist published online.

The images were published on a blog this morning showing Radio Live political editor Jessica Williams in a series of personal photographs. Ms Williams was named Journalist of the Year at this year’s NZ Radio Awards.

The pictures were understood to have been taken and sent in a private context to an individual not involved in the blog which published the images. The Herald will not be publishing the name of the blog.

It claimed it had obtained the images when they were circulated with the intent of embarrassing Ms Williams and harming her career but gave no explanation for why it had published the pictures.

A Mediaworks spokesman said the company was aware of “certain matters relating to the publication of private images” of Ms Williams.

It seems that these images were circulated in December and it has been widely known amongst journalists. There has been mention made of attempted blackmail.

Ben Rachinger has been trying to get media interested in his claims that Cameron Slater paid him to hack rival political blog The Standard.

The Nation ran his story in the weekend. The Nation is broadcast by TV3, a Mediaworks company.

As reported above Mediaworks say they were aware of “certain matters” yet ran a story, highlighting it as ‘Dirty Politics’, that was favourable to Rachinger.

It wouldn’t be too much of stretch to think that their RadioLive political editor was aware of their investigation and story.

This raises questions.Was Williams aware of the investigation/story? If so was she in favour of the story being run? Did she contribute to the story? Did she push for the story to be run? If so was it voluntary or under some sort of pressure?

It’s not inconceivable that Williams and/or Mediaworks wanted the story run to try and avoid embarrassment.

Of course there could be a simpler explanation for all this, but are we likely to get one?

Rachinger plots thicken

The Ben Rachinger plots get ever more convoluted and murky. There is a mass of noise, insinuation and accusations, and a lack of substantial evidence.

Today Lauda Finem have added to this with more noise, insinuation and accusations, and a lack of substantial evidence.

What seems to be pretty much accepted as fact:

  • Ben Rachinger was paid a number of sums of money by Cameron Slater amounting to thousands of dollars (Rachinger calls them payments, Slater calls them loans).
  • Slater has feuded with Lynn Prentice and The Standard for yonks.

It appears that:

  • Slater talked to Rachinger about trying to obtain data from The Standard website to use to try and embarrass The Standard and Labour.

The murky plots include:

  • A businessman employed Rachinger to do a hit job on Slater (no evidence).
  • An unknown funder was providing money to Slater to pay Rachinger.
  • Rachinger had a relationship that ended badly with a political journalist (scant evidence).
  • Rachinger tried to blackmail the journalist (no evidence) using compromising photos (possible evidence).
  • The journalist has arranged with all media to leave their story alone.
  • The item on The Nation was associated with all of the above.
  • Lauda Finem is associated with Slater (denied and no evidence).
  • Prentice from The Standard (denied) is associated with the businessman who is associated with Rachinger who was associated with Slater.

There seems to be no urgency from police in investigating any of this.

Media have been watching but apart from a short flurry led by the item on The Nation have left it all alone.

This has been emerging since last year, drip drip drip with the occasional gush.

Are there any independent investigative journalists in New Zealand?

All I’m reasonably certain about is that Slater and Rachinger have been compromised, and the plots keep getting thicker and murkier.

Please be careful what is mentioned in comments, especially names.

Serious accusations against Rachinger

A serious accusation is being made against Ben Rachinger, on Your NZ and via one Twitter account. As it so far appears to be a single source accusation with no evidence or corroboration I’m not prepared to post details.

In the meantime Rachinger’s Twitter account has become unavailable overnight.

If the allegation is true then it’s serious. But absent any evidence alarm bells are ringing.

I think Rachinger has provided sufficient evidence, online and via The Nation in the weekend, to raise serious concerns about Cameron Slater trying to solicit the hacking of The Standard.

I’m aware there are claims that this has been a sting by Rachinger, and a person behind this has been named. I haven’t seen sufficient evidence to give details – and the person has a litigious history.

The new accusation against Rachinger would appear to be a separate issue. The timing is suspicious – it could be legitimate and it could have just come to light, or it could be a deliberate diversionary smear against Rachinger.

If anyone comments on this here I urge caution about what details you publish. If there are legal risks I may edit comments.

Supporting evidence is needed if this accusation is going to stand up.

One tweet states:

Of course the images and allegations we have received overnight could all be fakes……but we suspect they’re not!

So who would have sent images and accusations? And why? And where would they have come from? And why send then to this particular identity?

Either way this is serious – if the accusation has merit it’s serious for Rachinger, if it’s bogus and a smear attempt then it’s serious for those promoting it.

If anyone has information that is too risky to post email it to me (petedgeorge@gmail.com) and let me decide on the authenticity and the risks of publishing.

UPDATE: a claim via Twitte that they have:

…photographs that it has been alleged were sent to the entire parliamentary press gallery

So there would need to be reasonable proof of authenticity and proof of who sent them.

Slater’s statement on Rachinger looks dirty

Cameron Slater supplied a media statement in response to Ben Rachinger’s claims that have been publicised on The Nation and via various other media this weekend.

Supplying the statement as a JPG image was a curious ways to have presented this statement. The font used is also curious. Here is the statement as text, with some comments.

Saturday June 5th, 2015

That’s an invalid date (Saturday was the 6th). An easy mistake to make, especially when writing in advance.

I have been aware that Ben Rachinger has been on a personal campaign to take a number of conflicting stories to the world as the truth.I have continued to ignore this and left it pass without comment. in spite of the many untrue statements he has fabricated around cherry picked screenshot ‘evidence’. So whenever I was approached by the media to provide comment on Ben’s claims, I declined. I’m going to continue to do so. This is the only public statement I will make on this matter.

Despite this Slater seems to have also provided comment to Fairfax, as reported in Cameron Slater denies hacking allegations.

It is somewhat ironic that it is Mediaworks running this story and all without disclosing the ben was working for them earlier in the year as a consultant.

Mediaworks is a major radio and television outlet. Journalists from other media also took an interest in the case.

What is ironic that Slater thinks it’s an issue that Ben was a Mediaworks consultant – Slater does not generally disclose who he consults for when he posts about those interests in his own media.

Ben is an extremely talented young man, but he operates without any sense of guidance or direction.

The bouquet followed by a brickbat approach.

Slater could easily be described as operating without any apparent sense of guidance or direction at times.

When he made contact with me, and we built a relationship, it was mostly on the basis of me being a mentor to him. He had problems. Some of them very personal problems. He asked for advice. He wanted help. And I provided both.

Most if not all of that could easily have applied with reversed roles.

After a while, it became clear to me that his behaviour was erratic. His decision making inconsistent. His previous commitments and commitments to me proved worthless. And whereas we had started on the basis of trust, it became clear that he was now acting in a way to not only damage me, but also himself.

Again much of that could also apply to Slater. How many people can trust him? Or not trust him?

In spite of the fact that I still had empathy for him, there was little I could draw a line under it and move on.

Since we parted, I’ve tried to to protect Ben from himself, and was successful for a while. When different media repeatedly came sniffing around for a story, I would give them some advice that this wasn’t what it appeared, and all they could end up doing was hurt Ben more. Until today, those media had the decency not to throw Ben under the bus in the forlorn hope of a few extra ratings points.

This isn’t the Slater who is well known publicly as someone who will strongly attack someone who he thinks has crossed him or has threatened his position.

It could easily be surmised that Slater could be diverting attention and blame and is projecting, is trying to protect himself.

Slater is a prolific publisher of self interested PR. That he has remained silent on this issue until yesterday raises suspicions.

Slater could be acting totally out of character on this one issue. Or not.

The only result of me telling my side of the story in full is to completely destroy whatever public credibility Ben has left.

I call bullshit on that. It looks very much like Slater is trying to destroy any credibility Ben has with this statement. And is making excuses for not addressing any of the issues and apparent facts that have so far been presented in public.

It will also hurt other people that he’s managed to ensnare in his fantasies.

Usually the only people Slater usually seems to try to protect is himself and those he is working with and for.  And here he appears to be trying to  “completely destroy whatever public credibility Ben has left”.

He has to mature, grow up, and just move past this. Hopefully this latest phase has gotten it all out of his system.

I understand he has been monitored and interviewed by officials who have concerns about him. I can hope they succeed where I failed. Ben needs a strong role model and strict guidelines for him to channel his many talents.

This could be seen as Slater breaching confidentiality – a low blow. Someone who has suffered from mental health problems himself (he has revealed this publicly) should know better than this. Unless he was acting in his own interests only.

It should be noted that Slater frequently brags about playing dirty – his 10th Anniversary event on Wednesday is titled Decade of Dirt.

Personally I feel extremely betrayed and hurt by his campaign.

If this is genuine then Slater could perhaps reflect on the many times he has campaigned against other people – often in a dirty way.

Ben has abused my confidence and my generosity. But I won’t let that colour my future behaviour. When people come to me for advice and assistance, I will continue to make myself available.

Cameron Slater


I don’t think Slater is seen by many as a generous, helpful person who will readily make himself available selflessly.

This just doesn’t sound like the legend Slater has created of himself. It’s hard to take this as a personal and genuine statement, there are too many contradictions with reality.

It sounds more like a carefully worded attempt at diverting attention and culpability. While Slater claims to be acting in Ben’s interests he dumps on him.

After the end:

I will not respond to requests for interviews from anyone about this matter. All such requests will be declined.

If a political opponent of Slater’s issued a statement like the above, plus a refusal to answer to any of the substance of the issue, I can imagine he would be prolific in his condemnation and his assumptions and insinuations.

By acting out of character and refusing to engage on this Slater risks being seen as taking cheap at Ben while being in deliberate denial.

Rachinger has admitted being imperfect in all of this, but he has provided enough proof to raise some serious concerns.

Trying to portray himself as a total good guy a tough sell for Slater given his record. He’s more practiced at playing the victim card.

If Slater genuinely cared for Ben’s welfare I can imagine much better ways of making a statement.

Slater is denying any wrongdoing and is trying to divert attention and blame. This statement looks like an attempt to throw Ben under the bus he claimed to be protecting him from.

It looks like it could be dirty business, something that isn’t uncommon in Slater’s arsenal.

Slater’s media release:


Rachinger promises more

Ben Rachinger is active on Twitter this morning, promising more information and saying he will address points in Cameron Slater’s statement yesterday (see Rachinger tweets Slater statement on his claims).

I’ll release a statement today covering the things that were missed out yesterday and explaining the salient points of Mr Slaters release.

One thing must be clear first. This is not personal with Mr Slater. He is his fathers son just as I am the product of no father at all.

What’s important is getting to the bottom of how the Police triage complaints, the hacking scene in NZ (Pol/Otherwise) and “the funder”.

Unfortunately I have to deal with one salient issue first. It involves claims made about my ethics by a select group of people on here.

Press release on all these matters out soon.

Slater’s alleged funder is an important part of this story.

Rachinger has published communications that show Slater mentioning ‘a funder’ regarding the money Slater was transferring to Rachinger’s bank account.

Slater was reported in Stuff yesterday in Cameron Slater denies hacking allegations.

Rachinger told The Nation the offer was made by text where Slater said he wanted “all MPs outed”.

“He asked me, ‘I want you to focus on this job of getting into The Standard, I’ve got $5000 available for it’,” he said.

However, Slater has denied these claims, saying “it’s total and utter bulls***”.

Slater said he was not surprised by the allegations but they were not true.

In the past Rachinger had asked Slater for money when he was in a tough spot, he said.

Slater said he did not recall the exact amount he gave to Rachinger.

“It would be $500 here and $500 there.

“I’m a generous person, I help people out when they’re in trouble but sometimes people bite the hand that helps them out.”

It seems very odd that Slater would transfer thousands of dollars to Rachinger (bank statements show much of it was in $500 lots) for any reason.

It seems especially odd as at the same time on Whale Oil Slater was claiming to be broke and was fundraising to try and pay legal bills and feed his family.

Would WO donors be happy if their donations were dished out because Slater is ” a generous person”. Would Slater’s family be happy?

If there is ‘a funder’ would they be happy if Slater was dishing out generous loans?

This is a part of the story that would benefit from clarification and facts. Currently the money claims don’t add up.

Rachinger’s “I am Rawshark” tweet

It seems unlikely Ben Rachinger was Rawshark’. His “I am Rawshark” tweet was not the first (of many) claim of solidarity with the Slater hacker.

In October Ben Rachinger tweeted

Ben Rachinger @B3nRaching3r

I am Rawshark.

See “I Am Rawshark” – Ben Rachinger’s Sequel To “Dirty Politics” at Scoop.

He also tweeted:

Ben Rachinger @B3nRaching3r

It’s not proof you want. Snowden gave you proof. Rawshark gave you proof. Manning gave you proof.
And 99% of you sat back and did nothing.

In February he tweeted:

 Oh I know this one well.

I’m estranged from my parents since police came to the door looking for Rawshark. In October.

In a blog post in May The Hacker and all the PMs men Rachinger referred to Rawshark a number of times.

Cameron Slater is a far-right blogger, a fervent Christian man, the son of an Ex-National Party (Right wing political party) President and a man who believes that Whites are superior. A hunter of Animals and Men. Someone who called a recently deceased young man a “feral” on his blog. Ostensibly this was the reason a hacker named “Rawshark” hacked into Mr Slaters Gmail, Twitter and Facebook accounts and fed this data to Mr Nicky Hager and journalists at the New Zealand Herald.


Out of my own curiosity I began to investigate the possibilities for who the hacker could be. Shortly after this the Twitter handle @Whaledump popped up. Ostensibly this handle was the hacker themselves Rawshark. This account started to drop personal information, alongside more leaks, about Mr Slater and his alleged co-conspirators. I was interested to note that the first person it followed was @KimDotcom. The account made many challenges that their Operational Security was 100% tight and they would never be found.

My curiosity now fully aroused, I began to have conversations with Mr Slater about who Rawshark could be. After some investigating Mr Slater asked me to speak to the Police task-force who were working the Rawshark hack case. I demurred as I did not have any clear and present evidence about the identity of Rawshark.


I rang the Policeman who had left his card and enquired as to just exactly what he thought he was doing coming to my parents house and enquiring after me. I was very, very angry. My parents are Right-Wing voters who support the National Government and were looking askance at me now that cops were coming to their house. My parents are quiet people who don’t wish for any extra stress as they head into their 60s. The cop said that they had been “monitoring my twitter feed” and also that “Cameron Slater says you have inside knowledge of the Rawshark hack”. I politely replied that I would come down to the local Police Station and be interviewed.


Back in late August, Whale and I had been exchanging Threema messages about the possible ID of “Rawshark”. Whale requested that I get in contact with a “trusted friend”.


Nobody had any evidence of Bradbury and Harre connection to the Rawshark hack.


Nobody had any evidence of Bradbury and Harre connection to the Rawshark hack.

This is ‘Tomas’ seeing if I can, or anyone I know, get access to a Joomla site that was tied to who these people alleged was ‘Rawshark’. I did no cracking and left it.


At this stage I was an undercover Police asset in both the investigation into Rawshark and the ongoing look at Mr Slater.

There’s some doubt about Rachinger’s claims he was “an undercover Police asset”.

And finally:

Alongside this set of events, I had received word that the Identity of “Rawshark” was being spoken about in the Press Gallery and also by persons that Mr Slater had spoken to. I sent out the now infamous tweet “I am Rawshark” in a show of solidarity for whom this person was believed to be. They had recently had a baby. She was days old at this point.

This appears to be a reasonable explanation, that the “I am Rawshark” tweet was nothing more than an “I am Spartacus” type support comment.

Rachinger wasn’t the first to do ‘I am Rawshark”. His tweet was on 31 October 2014.

A number of commenters at The Standard changed their pseudonyms to include ‘Rawshark’ in their names (and some still do). In a thread on 7 October:

7 October 2014 at 9:42 am
Time for a little mischief making – started on TDB, the declaration based on the slave revolt in the film Spartacus

I am Rawshark

Join the revolution, declare your solidarity

7 October 2014 at 9:49 am
I am Rawshark.

There’s many references and pseudonym changes in the thread on How far will the harassment of Hager go?

This would appear to be where it started, at The Daily Blog on October 6:

OCTOBER 6, 2014 AT 8:58 PM

I am Rawshark.


It seems very unlikely Rachinger had any involvement with Rawshark or the hacking of Slater.

Slater talks to Fairfax, contradicts

It appears that Cameron Slater has talked to Fairfax regarding the Rachinger accusations – Cameron Slater denies hacking allegations.

Some of what he is reported to have said seems very odd – why would someone who has admitted to being financially stressed keep handing out generous loans? And some of it is contradictory, with Slater saying he knows nothing of any police investigation but has “given them everything” (the police).

Controversial blogger Cameron Slater is denying allegations that he offered to pay for a hack into left-wing blogThe Standard.

IT consultant Ben Rachinger told TV 3’s The Nation Slater offered him $5000 to get the website’s internal mailing list.

Rachinger said he declined the right-wing blogger’s offer.

Rachinger told The Nation the offer was made by text where Slater said he wanted “all MPs outed”.

“He asked me, ‘I want you to focus on this job of getting into The Standard, I’ve got $5000 available for it’,” he said.

However, Slater has denied these claims, saying “it’s total and utter bulls***”.

Slater said he was not surprised by the allegations but they were not true.

In the past Rachinger had asked Slater for money when he was in a tough spot, he said.

Slater said he did not recall the exact amount he gave to Rachinger.

“It would be $500 here and $500 there.

So Slater has admitted giving Rachinger money. This looks very odd, considering the financial pressure Slater has admitted to being under, and the amount of fund raising Whale Oil has been doing. It may be true but it would surprise me.

“I’m a generous person, I help people out when they’re in trouble but sometimes people bite the hand that helps them out.”

How many people does he drip feed $500 loans to while at the same time claiming he’s broke on Whale Oil?

However, the loans given to Rachinger had been taken out of context, he said.

The context is now even muddier now.

Rachinger said the pair discussed the plan but Slater would not name who was funding the hack.

He said he was only told the “funders aren’t the Nats”.

There appears to be evidence of ‘funders’ being involved in the communications. So this doesn’t add up; with the claims of loans. Who would fund Slater to dish out loans to people?

A police spokesman said police received a complaint regarding an alleged attempt to procure the hacking of a computer system and it was being investigated by Counties Manukau CIB.

“There are a number of complexities to the investigation, including the posting online of documentation which has already compromised the investigation, which is making our inquires more difficult.”

Police were taking a “cautious approach” and any decision on charges was “some way off”, he said.

Slater said he was not aware of any police investigation and he had not been contacted by police in relation to these allegations.

Ok. But…

“I’ve got nothing to hide from any police investigation.”

“I’ve been totally open with the police…I’ve given them my computer, I’ve given them my phone, I’ve given them everything voluntarily.”

This needs clarifying, it just doesn’t make sense. Slater is reported as saying “he was not aware of any police investigation” but has “been totally open with the police” and “I’ve given them everything voluntarily” – without being aware of any investigation?

That’s contradictory. This raises more questions than it answers.

Rachinger tweets Slater statement on his claims

Cameron Slater has released a statement on the claims made by Ben Rachinger, as announced by Rachinger on Twitter. Rachinger had first tweeted:

Thanks for giving me a chance to put the evidence and my side of the story in public arena. The story speaks for itself.

Thank you for your words Mr Slater. You were somewhat kind. Below is Mr Slaters last word on my allegations.


Slater has made this all about Rachinger. He has not addressed any of the claims, not any of the communications that have been revealed, nor any of the payments made to Rachinger. Slater has not denied any specifics about trying to solicit hacking of The Standard. He refuses to respond, while trying to dump all of the attention on Rachinger. More from Rachinger:

I will prepare my own statement and release this in due course. For now I’m taking some time out to be with my loved ones. Thanks.

Interesting to see his pinned tweet from  several days ago

Do you believe whistleblowers should be protected by law except if they’ve committed heinous crimes? RT if you do.

He seems to see himself as a whistleblower.