Open letter to Standard authors

I have emailed the following letter to The Standard but know that some of them at least will see it here if they don’t get a copy.

Please distribute this letter to the Standard authors.

The Standard has a record of abusiveness and bullying. What you do within your own blog is of course up to you.

However a recent post by Lynn Prentice, Ben Guerin: a dirty politics fuckwit, takes abuse to an disturbing new level – promoting it outside The Standard via personal phone numbers, email addresses and home addresses.

This post plus comments in it’s thread openly instigated, incited and encouraged attacks beyond The Standard, and when it was confirmed that personal abuse had been successfully achieved further private details were published.

Lynn has made the point that these contact details are readily available, which is correct. However publishing them in an already highly abusive post had the obvious intent to widen the abuse beyond the blog and beyond the Internet. The post and comments that followed break Standard policies and would not be allowed if others did it (depending on who the targets where).

Publishing the contact details had clearly expressed malicious intent. And this places at risk not just the individuals that Lynn targeted – it also exposes others including family members.

As authors and moderators of The Standard you have a collective responsibility, and this escalation of abuse reflects on all of you.

You can choose to be abusive yourselves on your own blog, or for most of you to silently and tacitly allow it to happen.

However instigating and encouraging bullying and violent behaviour outside your blog (so far non-physical) and exposing associates and family members is far more serious.

Currently the contact details, and the encouraging of abuse remains on The Standard. And there are also threats of repeats of this reprehensible behaviour. Lynn’s last post to date:


The information that was published was the public information that every registrant for a domain must make public. If you want to change that then I suggest that you talk to IANA.

It is there specifically to allow people to find out who is responsible for uses of that domain. Perhaps you should bestir yourself to find out what the responsibilities are for a domain name holder.

The “voitrol” was because he didn’t provide any information on the site to identify who was responsible for it. As far as I’m concerned he was concealing who was responsible from the public. All that would have been required for me to make a quite different type of post would have been a prominent notice or an about at the top of the site that said this was put up by the Young Nats.

So I made my rapid searches public and expressed by thoughts of a politically aware fool who would do this complete lack of public transparency, along with a reasonable explanation of why he did it. Since he’d neglected to provide that information, I feel that he should wear the consequences like any responsible adult

Bearing in mind the search engine optimization on this site and the interest in this post, that will probably be for some time.

Suffice it to say that the next site that I spot of this non-transparent dirty politics ilk will at least redouble that level of vitriol if I can trace it back. So you should suggest to your wellington “team” that they’d better learn to be responsible before I make them.

BTW: I don’t play for any “team”. Many around the blogs and anyone who knows me will happily attest to that. I’ve worked and cooperate with people and organisations from the army to this blog, but I’m not into silly juvenile pack games.

If you allow this and do nothing about this then as a collective you are in effect supporting this ongoing bullying, abusive  behaviour plus threats of more..

Lynn also commented:

That information is available for ALL domain names and their registrants, admins, and technical contacts. That is because domain names are a privilege requiring personal responsibility. If you put up a website or mail server or anything else under a domain, then you are responsible for the content published under it.


Bearing in mind the search engine optimization on this site and the interest in this post, that will probably be for some time.

Bear in mind what that means to yourselves.


In short – you acted like a fool. Take some personal responsibility for it and learn from it.

If you remain publicly silent and take no action then you are aiding and abetting this disturbing escalation in abuse and the provocation of bullying and violent behaviour beyond The Standard.

I ask you to seriously consider dealing with this responsibly.

Pete George

Your NZ

Guerin responds to Prentice

Ben Guerin has responded to the attack on him at The Standard Ben Guerin: a dirty politics fuckwit by Lynn Prentice.

Dirty Politics Fuckwit

Good morning! As the subject of this post, I felt it was only appropriate that I provide a response.

Last night I tweeted the following:

Monday 13th July 2015
Ben Guerin

Comment on How Kiwi Are You website

On Sunday the 12th of July I was a member of the Young Nats team that produced the Kiwi-O-Meter on the url I would like to publicly state that this website is not at all affiliated with the New Zealand National Party, New Zealand Parliament, or any National Party MPs; and is not endorsed by, or representative of, the views of my employer.

The Kiwi-O-Meter was developed solely by the Young Nats, with no financial compensation, for distribution on the Young Nats Facebook and Twitter pages.

Within 6 hours of launching, more than 25,000 people visited the site. Feedback from users was overwhelmingly positive, with people from all over the political spectrum indicating their support for a light-hearted, satirical website that lampooned the racist and ill-conceived statements made by Phil Twyford and Andrew Little regarding the Auckland housing market over the weekend.

As the registrar of the domain my details were publicly available. Perhaps this was a mistake, but I am a supporter of transparency, and made no secret of my involvement. The fact that the site was made by Young Nats was publicly acknowledged by myself personally and on the Young Nats social media pages.

Unfortunately, after my personal details including phone number, postal address and email address were published on an article on The Standard, I receive a significant amount of hatred-filled vitriol directly at me personally via txt message, phone calls, emails and messages sent to my personal Facebook and Twitter accounts.

As a result of these communications, the Young Nats have pulled the site from the domain, and we have no plans to re-launch it.


It’s a pity Ben has said that the site was pulled because of hatred-filled vitriol directed at him because Prentice published his phone number and email address. That may encourage more dirty attacks.

I presume that Prentice intended to encourage personal attacks like that. He certainly didn’t have any problem with this comment encouraging attacks:


I just sent him a text letting him know what a shit head he is. Can’t see much harm in anyone else telling him the same.

Prentice was closely monitoring comments, heavily edited some and claims to have thrown a quarter of the thread comments in spam, so he must have decided this mob motivator passed his standards.

And in response to Ben’s comment Prentice then posted my phone number and home address. It’s easily obtainable but the obvious intent is to encourage more harassment and abuse. That exposes women and children to risks more than me.

Prentice posted:

In short – you acted like a fool. Take some personal responsibility for it and learn from it.

He has a habit of describing himself, but I doubt he will learn from it.

Most Standard regulars have kept away from this thread, showing good sense. But one Labour Party stalwart joined the jeering


Oh boo hoo, hoo, hoo. My heart bleeds for you.

Serves you right. Shows what a bunch of mentally challenged, inconsequential, puerile minded itsy bitsy twats you all are. May your days be awesomely fruitful and enlightening.😀

That speaks for itself.

And is a very poor reflection on The Standard, on Labour by association and on political discourse in general. No wonder a million people don’t vote. And perhaps no wonder Labour is resorting to deliberately divisive politics – dirty politics – to try and rescue themselves from a dire situation.

A sane response to a manic attack

Someone called ‘Izzy’ has had their comment passed by tight moderation on the Lynn Prentice post that launched an over the top attack – Ben Guerin: a dirty politics fuckwit  -on one of the people involved in the Kiwi-O-KMeter website.

It covers things reasonably an well.


I can’t stand the Nats, but I really don’t think this is dirty politics.

It’s a fairly obvious parody of Twyford’s foreign ownership work, clearly registered to Guerin, who makes his place of employment abundantly clear on LinkedIn and various other places online, and talked openly about making the site. One of the main things about ‘dirty politics’ was that those involved went to great lengths to hide their identities and their involvement, e.g. Jason Ede multiple email identities.

As for use of the Labour logo – possibly a poor choice, but it didn’t take much looking at the site to realise it wasn’t actually a Labour Party site, and it’s not exactly the first time a political party logo has been used to parody that party.

In comments Prentice said “And yet it has a logo that has to be in copyright eh?”

‘Whatevanext?’ said “and if some person pulled similar stunt using National’s logo? would there be uproar? Paddy and his gang would have a field day! or just a visit from lots of policeman for several hours while you are out?”

‘NZjester’: “I was just wondering if the said plonker has broken copyright law by the use of the Labour Party logo in his attempt at a non parody political hatchet job?”

Misuse of party logos doesn’t usually seem to be a problem at The Standard as the link (provided by Izzy ) to a post by the infamous ‘Eddie’ shows – Not quite beyond parody

And there were more. Plus links from Standard author and lawyer Greg Presland – Or this one? – to a spoof video that uses a National logo, so it can’t be a big deal if it’s against the other side.

I think it was poor judgement by Guerin to do this when he is an employee of the Parliamentary Service – while he has every right to be involved in political activities in his spare time, the unfortunate reality for PS employees is that it’s pretty risky to do so in any public way, because of perception issues like this. He’ll presumably learn from this mistake, which is an easy one for young activists to make when they start working for MPs.

I agree that it was at least questionable judgement that risked backlashing against National. He might have been lucky Prentice overplayed his hand so much and became to focus.

I think it’s disappointing that you saw fit to publish his contact information, which apparently commentators here have now used to send him abusive messages.

He said something about your team that you didn’t like, which pissed you off, and that’s chill. You don’t have to like it, you don’t have to like his politics, you’re allowed to question whether the site was made in a work capacity or done independently (which he has answered). But he doesn’t deserve the level of vitriol in this post, and he doesn’t deserve texts and emails telling him he’s a piece of shit. Being a Nat doesn’t make him immune to being hurt by this kind of thing. Be kind.

Disclaimer: In the interests of transparency, I know Guerin through Wellington youth political circles – he’s friends with some of my friends so I’ve met him a few times and follow him on social media.

Prentice plus a few others piled in more vitriol. They only think it’s dirty if it’s done to them, not by them. But dirty looks dirty to most people.

Prentice: “there are very few of us who act like such a complete scumbag”

Lynn Prentice continues to do more damage to Labour than anyone else online as his behaviour and hos Standard blog are inextricably linked, despite his attempts to distance himself. Widespread perceptions matter.

Yesterday he demonstrated how, acting like a dirty politics hypocrite and “a complete scumbag”.

In January Prentice responded to a comment by ‘Juana’ – Cameron Slater’s wife in the post Where is Cameron Slater?

I think your guy is a irresponsible arsehole who brings the rest of the blogging communities into disrepute. I intensely dislike being tarred with the same label as him because there are very few of us who act like such a complete scumbag. Perhaps you should consider that before trying to smear me.

Prentice has proven again that he is ” few of us who act like such a complete scumbag”. If Prentice doesn’t like being tarred with the same label as Slater then he shouldn’t act like a scumbag himself.

Yesterday Prentice was pissed off with a website set up to mock the Labour attacks on Chines property buyers. He posted about it – Ben Guerin: a dirty politics fuckwit. Fair enough rating about something he felt strongly about, but Prentice went further than that.

Prentice has spoken strongly against outing people online, and especially strongly against revealing personal details that enable people to launch personal attacks off the Internet.

For example in the same January post (where Prentice posted Slater’s home address):

As for publishing his home address on the Internet… wtf?

Cameron Slater has never had any compunction about doing that. He has published my address and phone numbers (unlawfully used from the DNS records), John Mintos, and numerous others.

Prentice obviously has no compunction about doing things like that either. Like a scumbag.

And like a coward he has abused and banned people who have confronted him – he likes to dish it out in dirty dollops but doesn’t like being on the receiving end of far more gentle criticism. The thread is full of heavy handed warnings and bans to shut down criticism.

Despite criticising Slater for doing similar Prentice published Guerin’s phone number and email address (and they are still visible).

This had what I presume was the intended effect – one comment that hasn’t been censored or criticised:


I just sent him a text letting him know what a shit head he is. Can’t see much harm in anyone else telling him the same.

Not just enabling abuse, encouraging it.

On yesterdays post here Not amused about Kiwi-O-Meter:


I text the guy from the number Lynn published. Seems the good people at The Standard have been sending him some fairly abusive texts.


On Daily Review at The Standard there was some guarded criticism of Prentice:


You act like a pissed off old man who just needs to ‘chill the fuck out’.

Nope. Just making a point about dirty politics.

If I have to bounce some dumb kid up and down to make that political point, then that is collateral damage.

I realise you probably don’t have any principles worth a damn.

But that is why I’m a “pissed off old man ” who doesn’t find mixing taxpayer paid political operatives anonymously with dirty politics “funny”. Hopefully this fool doesn’t think so either now as well.

If Slater does it Prentice calls him a scumbag and “a irresponsible arsehole who brings the rest of the blogging communities into disrepute”.

But Prentice does it and defends it as just “collateral damage” to make a political point.

The point Prentice was making was “Dirty Politics”.

FFS: Could someone inform the pathetic dickhead that Dirty Politics was so last year. That he shouldn’t reuse his old last years condoms because it is very very unhygienic. He should especially not leave his fingerprints all over the results of his pulling. Or even better still – just don’t play those stupid games.

Dirty politics was very yesterday at The Standard. There’s no point in telling Prentice not to play stupid scumbag games, he only sees things like that when someone else does it.

“There are very few of us who act like such a complete scumbag” – like Prentice in his own words.

And there are others with responsibilities at The Standard who are tacit supporters and enablers of lprent’s dirty hypocrisy.

Prentice’s long term and ongoing scumbag behaviour at The Standard is far more damaging to Labour than a temporary joke website.

Prentice, Bradbury and Slater feuds interspersed with Standard history

There seemed to be a bit of a lull in the Lynn Prentice (The Standard) versus Martyn Bradbury (The Daily Blog) feud but it has flared up again with the two trying to demonstrate who is the most bitter and obnoxious. The ongoing Prentice versus Cameron Slater (Whale Oil) feud is also in the bizarre mix of history and hissy fit.

In an otherwise interesting history of the origins of The Standard – A short history of The Standard – Maoriland Worker – Prentice managed to lace it with vitriol aimed at Bradbury and Slater.

In fact he made his attacks on Bradbury the main focus of the history.

There were some ridiculous statements by Martyn Bradbury at The Daily BlogBombast earlier this month continuing his snide comments about this site. His claims that the Labour activists founded the original Standard back in 1936 are bullshit. He gets there by ignoring the history of parent publications and where they formed from.

Clearly the bombastic author of that post was written by someone who spent his education in obtaining a master of  ill-informed juvenile ranting rather than learning much of history of the local labour movement (or much of anything else). So I dug around to see what I could find on the net about The Standard 1.0 and it’s parent publications to give that Mr Bombastic some remedial education in the local history that he is so clearly lacking.

Why the hell Prentice laced what could have been a great historical reference with feud fodder is hard to fathom.

A bit of history about The Standard follows, then a shot at Slater.

This can be seen quite clearly in the distortions that are the history of the Whaleoil blog. Because of its obsessive need by a broke (after his insurance disappeared) Cameron Slater’s need to please his larger funders of money and influence, the site would wind up getting into trouble doing the types of stories that please those funders. This is why Cameron Slater spends too much time in court. They’re still doing it today as far as I can tell.

Then a blast at both Bradbury and Slater.

The Standard 2.0, was deliberately designed by authors and myself who run it to be more like the early Maoriland Worker than Whaleoil or The Daily Bombast.

We haven’t taken money from any organisation including the PR industry, political parties or even from unions like the Daily Bombast does.

The repeated references to ‘Bombast’ in relation to someone else are ironic.

A bit more history and back to the feud.

We can do it with no tolerated external interference apart from obeying the current law (something Cameron Slater apparently has issues with) and the odd polite request from organisations we respect like unions or leftish parties.

And his conclusion includes a double barrelled blast.

Having learnt the lessons of the past (and those of other blogs in the present), that is what we intend to continue to do. That is what having sense of the history does for you. You don’t fall into the same operational organisational traps that the Bombast (set up and still supported by union funding) and Whaleoil (apparently mainly arsehole funding) appear to have tripped into.

That’s a bit of a shame because it would have been a good historical reference without the vitriol.

And it seems to have provoked a vitriolic response from Bradbury:

Your magnificent pettiness Lynn helps explain why the Labour Party had such a pitiful election last year. You have the social skills of a cancerous tumour.

When I say ‘The Standard is a Labour Party Blog’, I don’t mean that MPs feed Standard Bloggers information for black ops purposes. They are in no way shape or form similar to how the Nats use Slater. I’m sure there is pressure and terse words at the way the Standard conducts itself at times, but nothing more than that. When I call The Standard a Labour Party blog, I mean in the sense that…
-the original Standard in the 1930s was set up by Labour activists
-the latest incarnation in 2007 was seeded by the Labour Party
-And like the Labour Party, the Standard can be an alienating, tantrum throwing, bitter pus pit who can’t play well with others.

Grow up

Bradbury has a valid albeit overstated point saying “the Standard can be an alienating, tantrum throwing, bitter pus pit who can’t play well with others” but he obviously has a bit of difficulty playing well with others too. He could follow his own advice and ‘grow up’ but it doesn’t look like happening.

Prentice has achieved quite a lot with The Standard, but respect of himself and of the Labour left are not part of his successes.

Prentice and Bradbury represent the largest two political blogs on the left in New Zealand. Slater represents the largest on the right.

We are poorly served in political debate online by the three of them. No wonder the general voting public is turned off by politics.

UPDATE: And Prentice blasts back.

You have said that before in the post that I responded to. Is that all that you have? Parroted slogans?

You are wrong in all of your final three assertions. As I said in my post, you could do to learn some actual history rather than making up silly myths.

– The original Standard was setup by unionists, and run by them for 50 years from the Maoriland Worker to The Standard 1.0. Sure there was Labour party activists involved throughout (once the Labour party got formed). You’d kind of expect that to happen because they were also labour movement activists. People don’t fit neatly into the discrete labels that simple fools want to slogan them into.

– The current Standard was similarly set up by labour movement activists. Some were Labour party members, many were unionists, some had no party or union affliations. This is also not unexpected in a site from a labour movement that was pretty damn diverse back in 1910 and has been diversifying ever since.

– We tend to respond to your pettiness and snideness with pointing out the facts, in this case in 2000 odd words. If I creep a little terseness in because I doing it to educate a lazy fool, then you can hardly blame me. Fix your own stupid attitude and you’ll get less attitude from me. I’m getting really tired of having to respond to your stupidity.

“Fix your own stupid attitude” could equally apply to Prentice.

Where exactly is the backing for any of of your assertions. When did you invent these? Or are you just parroting someone else’s opinions – like Cameron Slater? Because that appears to be what you are becoming.

Ironic. The three of them can be as bad as each other.

Lauda Finem and conspiracy theories

There is frequent speculation and accusations about who ‘Lauda Finem’ is/are. It’s conspiracy theorist heaven.

Lynn Prentice has often made claims about knowing who runs Lauda Finem, how they run a joint conspiracy with Cameron Slater. On Twitter yesterday:

LF bros lying just as they usually do.

Accuracy isn’t part of the [Precautionary delete] thing.

He continued that line here:

But I have met [Precautionary delete]more often, usually when his mate Cameron Slater as a lawyer is making a complete dork of himself in court using his [Precautionary delete]’s legal ‘expertise’. They like taking sly photos because that is how they are – rather gutless prats.

Coming to think of it. I don’t think I have ever had time to have a coffee with Greg either. Have had a single beer with him twice during the occasional biannual Standard meeting. I see him at the odd demo or public meeting that I have come along to.

I suspect that the [Precautionary delete] brothers or their great friend Cam Slater just have just been inventing material.

Claims linking the [Precautionary delete] with Lauda Finem with Cameron Slater are common from Prentice and from others. For example some recent tweets:

It’s a messy saga strewn with toxic lies, but I reckon has nailed the latest Rachinger-Slater twist.

That link is to a blog specialising in conspiracy theories:

Matthew R. X. Dentith

Conspiracy theories, conspiracy theory theories and theories about conspiracy theorists.

His Twitter descrioption:

Author of the Philosophy of Conspiracy Theories & co-host of The Podcaster’s Guide to the Conspiracy.

I heard an interview with Matthew on Radio One next week. Yes, he is very interested in conspiracy theories, although his knowledge of ‘Dirty Politics’ seemed a bit superficial. You might get an idea of his political interests from his blog Links.

Back to Nippert’s tweet, which started an interesting thread.

Lauda Finem top dogs were at WO’s shindig the other night.

Kemara has an interesting past, having been imprisoned with Tama Iti as one of the ‘Urewera Four’.

Talking about conspiracy theories, Cameron Slater asked of Kemara “Is This The Man Behind The Brash Email Thefts?” – like most conspiracy theories that was never proven.

Kemara’s conspiracy claim interested Dentith:

Really? Now that’s interesting…

And others:

So that would be D for dependent [Precautionary delete]? And was [Deleted as per court order]there too?
Oops, I meant D for *defendant* ..

But Cam claimed to be shocked and appalled by what LF had done! Surely, some mistake?

Where was Slater Jnr’s expression of being shock and appalled, Russell?

Embedded image permalink

WO being shocked by *that* alone should be clue enough…

Yes to the first bit, and don’t know about anyone else sorry.

Cheers, pattern recognition leads me to perceive those three as part of Slater’s ugly smear/attack gang.

Certainly appear to be helping him shoot out chaff.

Birds of a feather, etc. They each avoid writing about each other, so I’m sorta surprised they’d share meatspace.

Some interesting associations. Plenty of conspiracy stuff for Dentith to get stuck into.

I would have thought it would be a big story if it could be proven that Lauda Finem had close links with Cameron Slater – it would make a great scoop for Nippert.

Cracking through last big story before a well-deserved break. Main parties not talking, but it’s a cracking tale stretching to 11 figures.

Maybe that’s what his big story is about. It would be good to get some of the current conspiracies hacked open.

More on the non-coffee story

Yesterday Lauda Finem tweeted:

@lprent @GregPresland We hear from @PeteDGeorge that you both do coffee a lot with @danylmc, how sweet, is he a corrupt Stalinist as well?

As I said then I have never said anything liken that. And the only way Lauda Finem ‘hear from’ me is online, they obviously read posts here and there’s been some exchanges on Twitter. All very much in the open.

After stating this was false on Twitter Lauda Finem responded:

Making things up @PeteDGeorge? Try humour! You criticised false allegations made by @danylmc , allegations mirroring false claims by @IPrent

I’ve had enough of people lately making false claims and then trying to excuse it as ‘humour’. Maybe LF were fishing but they shouldn’t use me dishonestly for that. Maybe they were trying to dump on me for criticising them. Maybe a bit of both.

Prentice, Mclauchlan and Presland responded on Twitter.

Never met danyl. Been meaning to for about 5 years. LF bros lying just as they usually do.

I muted the LF clowns a while back; also eager to meet for coffee next time you’re in Wgtn

Whenever you are in Auckland @danylmc you and @lprent and I can have our inaugural coffee together or separate

Prentice also responded here.

I’ve never met Danyl, although it has been marked down for a while as something to do when I’m in Wellington for long enough. But the last couple of times have been for political conferences while being a media bod. I usually wind up talking to politicians, staffers and activists during them and afterwards. Not much socialising.

We have exchanged the odd email over the years.

I’ve no reason to not believe that they have never had coffee together. They live in different cities and are associated with quite different politics

Mclauchlan lives in Wellington and is deep in Green intellectual circles there. He helped James Shaw in his successful leadership bid. Prentice and Presland live in Auckland and are associated with ‘the labour movement’ – this largely seems to be a faction of largely Labour party interests – and they don’t come across as intellectuals.

Of course there’s other ways of communicating but I doubt if there is much between them.

Standards @lprent is the source of the @danylmc false allegations, it’s that simple @PeteDGeorge,

That doesn’t require a meeting, coffee or not. I doubt that it’s uncommon for bloggers with a common interest to communicate remotely (the Internet is quite useful for that) but it’s also not common for non-associated bloggers to run similar lines, especially when they have common enemies.

Lauda Finem, Prentice and Presland continued scrapping on Twitter, with Prentice counter-attacking with “Accuracy isn’t part of the Nottingham thing” and he has launched into more accusations about who he things runs LF.

There’s little difference with Prentice’s proof-less accusations about LF/Slater and Slater’s proof-less claims that The Standard is a Labour Party blog, an accusation that Prentice keeps getting upset about. Slater and Prentice can be as bad as each other.

LF also tweeted:

@PeteDGeorge would have to be New Zealand’s most obsessive blogger.. … I am so glad that this political fool isn’t in Auckland”-@IPrent

I don’t know where they found that comment but it sounds typical Prentice, but it shows his ignorance of how the Internet can break down geographical barriers. No coffee meetings required.

We’ll see who looks the biggest political fool as the Rawshark/Rachinger/Slater story unravels Lynn.

Disappearing tweets – not

It looks like Lauda Finem have not searched well enough for tweets they claimed had been deleted, as pointed out by ‘LF are idiots’ in Disappearing tweets.


All the supposedly deleted tweets are still available on Twitter, LF simply don’t understand (or are deliberately lying about) the way Twitter cross indexes stuff.

A lesson in being wary of evidence presented on the Internet. LF claimed this pic showed that tweets had been deleted.


But links show otherwise via different views. The following are screen shots I’ve just taken from the links supplied.




Easy to make this sort of mistake, but I don’t know if it was deliberate or in error by LF. This is why I’m most just recording claims and ‘evidence’ as the story unfolds.

Disappearing tweets

Lauda Finem have claimed on Twitter:

Ben Rachinger has systemetically been removing every tweet ever exchanged between himself and Williams, as have Prentice and Presland

And they provide an example:

An original twitter exchange with Rachinger, Williams et al dated October 2014 – compared with what remains available


Rachinger has a record of purging things he has previously posted. Interesting if Presland and Prentice are doing it too – but they could have plausible explanations.

Also interesting to see that Presland and Prentice were apparently associating with Rachinger last October.

UPDATE: As advised in comments the tweets can be found via other views, so they are still there. For details see Disappearing tweets – not

The Nation on Rachinger and Slater versus The Standard

The Nation this morning reported on investigating Ben Rachinger’s claims that Cameron Slater paid him to hack The Standard.

I’ve seen most of this information before (and have posted much of it here over the last four months – see Links on Ben Rachinger accusations). There were a few tweets I haven’t seen but not much.

So mostly what this does is bring to a wider audience what was already out on the Internet.

The Nation say that the police are investigating this but any decision on whether to prosecute will be some time away as it is a complex case.

I doubt the evidence reaches the ‘compelling’ level but there’s reasonable evidence that Slater was paying Rachinger and communications between Slater and Rachinger woulld support a possibility, and that may be a reasonably high possibility, that Slater was trying to obtain information from The Standard that would probably need to be illegally obtained.

A possible defence would be that Slater was hoping Rachinger would find an open door into The Standard as Slater had found (or been pointed at) on a Labour party website.

Slater had claimed that as this was publicly accessible information he hadn’t obtained information illegally, although the manner in which he exploited the security flaw could easily be seen as malicious.

Slater was given a right to respond but he turned that down, he offered no specific denials, but did state he has not done anything illegal.

Standard owner Lynn Prentice was interviewed but didn’t contribute much apart from saying that he thought that no one had breached Standard security, and pointing out how hypocritical Slater is complaining (a lot) about being hacked but appearing to actively dig dirty data from another blog.

Rachinger admitted that he hadn’t always acted properly.

He said he tried to do some amateur detective work to expose Slater and had got in over his head. Not mentioned on The Nation were his claims he had been working as a police informant.

While there’s good evidence he was paid a number of sums of money by Slater it would appear that he didn’t deliver any hacked data – Slater had expressed annoyance at not getting any results.

Rachinger claims that he didn’t breach Standard security and didn’t obtain any data. That could be seen as obtaining money off Slater by deception.

As most of the information revealed today was already known this doesn’t add much to the convoluted story except that it gives it more publicity.

Ironically Slater is currently promoting a Whale Oil tenth birthday event next Wednesday that he has called ‘Decade of Dirt’ so he is still promoting his political sleaziness. Tickets are $150 to attend.

Any politician with any future ambition will probably be avoiding Decade of Dirt and Slater as much as possible. Or at least avoiding any visible association.

While probably not conclusive evidence what The Nation has highlighted today is the risk of any association with Slater.

UPDATE: The Nation has the video link up now:

More Dirty Politics?

An exclusive Nation investigation into allegations blogger Cameron Slater commissioned a hack of left-wing website The Standard.

A former confidant of Slater’s has supplied The Nation with documents and texts raising serious questions about their online activities – Lisa Owen delves into them.

UPDATE 2: And Prentice has added a comment:

Good thing they didn’t use my closing comment then. Something like “Cameron Slater is the arsehole of the local internet”

While there’s justification for him being grumpy about this Lynn is not the most pleasant person on the local internet either.