Another trumped up ban at The Standard

So things seem to be much the same at The Standard – a trumped up ban from Te Reo Putake. I don’t care about bans at The Standard, but this is quite shonky moderation – ironically when discussion was generally working quite well.

I posted this comment:

There was actually some reasonable discussion, apart from a few like Sacha trying to say I should shut up because i didn’t know enough about something that is very vague.


I’m used to special standards of attribution for me that many others are never asked or required to meet. I’m used to trumped up bans.  But that’s pathetic TRP. Embarrassing for The Standard .

TRP – did you do that on your own? Or did Sacha or someone else put you up to it?

So it seems that decolonisation is a touchy subject in some quarters. Can’t have the general population talking about it.

See What does decolonisation of Aotearoa mean?

Oh, and TRP, do you actually know what plagiarism means? I note that you haven’t attributed to the cartoon replicated in your post.


Some of them seem to believe their rants

A couple of days ago The Standard had a strange post obsessing about David Farrar and I supposedly obsessing about them. Anthony Robins wrote:

David Farrar has a bad case of STD (Standard Titillation Disorder). He seems to find us endlessly fascinating, if the desire of him and his Dirty Politics mates to spy on / hack this blog are anything to go by. Take this post on us today, we’re flattered, really we are. David Farrar and Pete George, who can even tell them apart these days?…

I’m sure Anthony can tell us apart. It’s curious that he seems to be trying to link me in with the ‘Dirty Politics’ agenda – he doesn’t usually go down the dirt track, but where there’s mud there’s a muckraker.

Then lo and behold felix chimed in.

Oh dear. Went and had a look in Pete George’s dismal hole for the first time in a while and noticed four things:

1)In spite of his pretensions to politeness, he lets some pretty hateful stuff happen in his comments.

2) Whenever he posts on any topic that Cameron Slater has an interest in, his comments section is overrun by what appears to be one person using several handles (handles I’ve never seen before) to shout very loudly over anyone else.

3) He has begun to refer to the PM by his first name, beginning a post thus: “Graeme McCready’s criminal prosecution against John has been rejected by the District Court. ” lolz 

4) He is still utterly obsessed with everything that happens here. Forget about Big Brother. Weird Uncle is watching you.

Will check it again next year and report back if anything changes.

It’s common the hear people claim they wouldn’t ever go near xyz blog but just happened to notice something. “Weird Uncle is watching you.”  Very funny. You get to know who the “utterly obsessed” are.

If I referred to Key as ‘John’ it was a typo, I normallyrefer to him as ‘John Key’ or Key. I’ve never met him nor had any communication with him in anway, unless he comments on blogs under a pseudonym like ‘felix’.

But if missing a word out like that can get felix and Anthony all excited about where I might fit in within the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy maybe I should try it a bit more often.

Then the master of self-unawareness, lprent, posted this:

I see the pingbacks to the posts goinga into spam. Occasionally I click into them and go over to rev PG up a bit more in his obsessional spiral. I’m getting interested in testing how extreme I can make the guy get by simply pointing out his personality flaws.

It appears to be petty I know. But he really has this interesting inability to see himself as others see him, and never seems to have developed the self-critical ability that most people have that allows them to learn from criticising their own performance. I’m interested in how far I can push before he starts to develop it.

There has to be a name for the condition – it is like megalomania, but probably less extreme. I have observed it before (Pat O’Dea seems to have it as well) and I’m still kind of puzzled about how adaptive such people are. They are a pain on the net because they seem to pull all of the opinions out of their arse and hate discussing alternate viewpoints. They also are usually pretty poorly informed on their obsessions because they never seem to research them.

I won’t bother responding to most of that. Anyone who knows me and just about anyone who has observed lprent here or at The Standard can judge that for themselves.

Except I will say that I think I’m fairly well informed about The Standard, having done a fair bit of research and having experienced a lot of the comaraderie there first hand. That seems to get up their noses a bit going by their ongoing reactions.

And then Sacha repeated an absurd claim despite having been told before how ridiculous it is (and being told at The Standard about the dangers and the stupidity of online psychological diagnosis.

I reckon he might be an aspie. Not that it means anyone should have to tolerate the crap way he engages in conversations.

I don’t know and don’t care what Sacha’s mental condition is, all I know from observation is that he is intolerant of people having different views or approaches to politics that he has to the extent that he actively tries to shut them out of forums.

Sacha and lprent are well known intolerants. Robins is, or has been, different. When he jumps on the ‘Dirty Politics’ bandwagon and makes nonsense assertions and insinuations then it’s more notable (whoops, I shouldn’t have referred to him as ‘Anthony’ earlier, felix might start to think I’ve been colluding with him).

Some of them at The Standard seem to believe their nonsense. Some just get sucked in to the dirty party game.

And when people like Little and Robins do it doesn’t bode well for a Labour recovery. It may simply be the lack of other viable options that keeps them on life support.

I await Lynn coming back here to “rev PG up a bit more in his obsessional spiral”.

I’m getting interested in testing how extreme I can make the guy get by simply pointing out his personality flaws.

Prentice really did post that line. How extreme can I get? Letting him display himself perhaps.

Dirty politics Standard style

A claim that John Key, NZ Herald and David Farrar have all been involved in the ‘dirty politics’ promotion of the meme ‘Angry Andy” has backfired after a failure to provide any proof. Lies, more lies and then resorting to abuse.

A post on Little’s leadership at The Standard quoted a ‘Rodney Hide penned the second piece’ and commented:

Now I know some are reading some Machiavellian “reverse psychology” intentions into Hide’s support, but I think they overestimate both his complexity and his influence. I take the comments at face value, that Andrew Little’s leadership is receiving broad-based support. And that’s good news, because that’s what we need for the Left (as a whole!) to win.

I agree with Anthony (Robins) here (except for ‘we need for the Left to win) but others took to the Machiavellian approach.

This led to a claim by ‘One Anonymous Bloke’ about the promotion of the meme ‘Angry Andy” by John Key, NZ Herald and David Farrar.

As I’ve researched the use of ‘Angry Andy’ it looked to me OAB was making things up so I challenged him to prove his claims. He made lame excuses, diverted, got more lame and ended up resorting to abuse, all common tactics of OAB.

It clearly looks like he lied and kept lying.

Here’s the thread (as it is at the moment):

Incognito 7.3

The way I interpreted Hide’s opinion piece was that he’s trying hard to build a (new) narrative to box in Little. Perhaps the “Angry Andy” narrative wasn’t powerful enough.

  • Pete George 7.3.1

    It was a stupid narrative and only Slater seemed to be trying to push it.

    • One Anonymous Bloke

      And John Key.

      And the New Zealand Herald.

      And David Farrar.

      Only they didn’t “seem” to be doing it – I’ll leave the weasel words to you.

      • Sacha

        Just a beige coincidence, surely. Oh, you mean someone wrote a book last year about similar conniving?

      • Pete George

        Are you making that up or do you have evidence?

        I don’t remember seeing Farrar use it. Nor Key. Only once by Steven Joyce in Parliament on 26 November (the “cut the crap” day which I thought was good from Little).

        Searching NZ Herald they reported that from Parliament but that’s the only hit on ‘Angry Andy”.

        And only from Slater (frequently) since.

        If you have other evidence I’ll add it to my post.

        • One Anonymous Bloke

          Yes, I have evidence, gained from one simple Google search using the terms “Andrew Little angry”.

          Google tailors its results though, so I expect you’ll just end up reading interesting facts about beige.

          • Pete George

            Well it will be simple for you to prove it with your evidence.

            And if you don’t I’ll presume you’re buillshitting again.

            • Incognito

              A Google Advanced search on “Angry Andy” on the Kiwiblog site or domain gave me 50 hits. Do you want me to list all 50 links for you?

              • Pete George

                Just the ones made in posts by David Farrar will do.

                I’m well aware of the term being used in comments, sometimes that’s been directed at me.

            • One Anonymous Bloke


              No-one cares what the chief fact-checker presumes. Sad and true.

              Can you do something for me, Pete? Every time you plagiarise my remarks at Yawns, include the following disclaimer, there’s a dear.

              OAB says: get your petty unoriginal shite, right here at Yawns, with Petty George, the beige parrot.

              • Pete George

                So you must have bullshitted again. And have switched to your usual diversion and evasion.

                • One Anonymous Bloke

                  Or, I’m not providing you with links on principle. I told you how to find them, and that was more than you deserve.

                  No wonder your fact checking website was such a complete embarrassing failure, just as everyone said it would be.

                  I’ll post the links if you’ll give me your word that you won’t use them, or any material they contain, at Yawns.

                  Edit: and 3News.

                • Pete George

                  You’re digging yourself deeper. Caught out lying? Unless you can prove you weren’t.

                • One Anonymous Bloke

                  Key, Joyce, Farrar, 3News, The Herald, even Jamie Mackay has no trouble finding the facts.

                  Either find the links yourself, or commit to not using them at Yawns. Your choice.

                • Pete George

                  It seems clear “you are unable to substantiate with some proof”. Hard to see that as anything but a lying smear followed by lame excuses diversions.

                  Thanks, you’ve been helpful.

                • One Anonymous Bloke

                  What you find hard is none of my concern. What you find credible loses credibility thereby, as a result of your persistent banal unoriginal mendacity, as has been demonstrated here many many times.

                  You’re a liar, your website is a vehicle for lies. My contempt for it is matched by my contempt for you, and what’s more, it’s widely shared. The contempt, that is, not your website.

                  This website’s boring, mindless, mean.
                  Full of pornography.
                  The kind that’s clean…”

                  Apologies to Johnny Clarke

I’ve searched Google and know that OAB doesn’t have some magic version that gives him results no one else can get. I’ve also searched NZ Herald and Kiwiblog, and have found nothing backs up OAB’s claim.

And neither has he found anything obviously. Nor has Incognito come back with anything.

OAB often plays dirty, lies and smears like this. And claims that the left don’t do dirty politics. OAB is worse than Cameron Slater in some ways, although shares his vindictiveness if caught out..

OAB claims to not belong to a party and there’s nothing to suggest he (if it’s a he) is acting for any party.

But OAB is allowed to act like this at The Standard, Lynn Prentice has defended and made excuses for what he does in the past, and let’s him lie and abuse with impunity, as do the other moderators.

This is typical of the worst of The Standard, and commonplace.

Normal blog etiquette is to back up claims with evidence. Standard Rules state this too:

We are intolerant of people starting or continuing flamewars where there is little discussion or debate. This includes making assertions that you are unable to substantiate with some proof (and that doesn’t mean endless links to unsubstantial authorities) or even argue when requested to do so.

They’re only intolerant when it suits them.

Dirty politics is common like this on the left, and they are either blind to it – it’s only dirty if the other lot do it – or they are being deliberately malicious and hypocritical.

UPDATE: Here’s an ironic comment from OAB:

As an author you have more power than the rest of us. I like Lprent’s strategy of re-posing unanswered questions and giving the tr*ll the option of a citation, a retraction, or a ban.

I didn’t see lprent do that with unanswered questions from OAB today. Which is not surprising given lprent’s support of how OAB operates, like here:

OAB is a determined stirrer. It is often a bit like getting a accidental look into a mirror when I read their comments.

Except over the years OAB has been steadily paring down the number of words required to perform their effect.

And considering OAB’s efforts todazy this one from lprent is very ironic:

OAB expresses opinion, links to facts, and I can’t recall them ever putting a quote out of context. That you don’t like what he says doesn’t make it “dirty”. It just means that you don’t like it and rather than arguing (and having to work for an argu!entire), you prefer smearing. To me that is just lazy.

No links to facts and when called on it he went dirty. And for lprent to accuse me of preferring smearing when he allows OAB to smear at wil and he brags about smearing himself is extreme chutzpah.

A follow-up post here: OAB follow-up

A Standard obsession

I’m far from obsessed with The Standard. I occassionally comment and get into discussions there. But with an onslaught of angst against me in my absence yesterday suggests some there have an obsession.

On Saturday I responded to a comment from Draco T Bastard who said:

You’ll find that that is the position of National and Act and probably a large part of Labour as well. They control inflation by keeping wages low through high unemployment. This is what gives the lie to National’s rhetoric about jobs while they attack beneficiaries. They don’t want more jobs but they do want more people in deprivation.

This sort of claim comes up often on the left. I think it’s nonsense that National or Labour want people to remain poor and ‘in deprivation’.  Stephanie Rodgers joined in:

Of course having a lot of people living in poverty makes economic/business sense to short-term capitalist thinkers. Larger pool of desperate labour = drives wages and work conditions down = short-term profit.

This has been explained many times before, Pete, so your hand-wringing is utterly insincere.

Nonsense rhetoric. I’ve never seen it explained properly why ‘rich people’ – and National and Labour governments – would want to deliberately keep most people poor. That’s bad for business and bad for economic growth. Short-term capitalist thinkers? How many people want to be rich today, broke tomorrow?

I stayed in the ensuing discussion for about an hour and a half and then left for the day, I had other things I wanted to do. The discussion continued. One comment from Murray Rawshark:

The main purpose of the measures taken to encourage people on benefits to get employment is to make their lives hell. Neither party gives a damn about unemployment, except that it can be used to keep wages down. WFF was a great example, and was used to unburden employers even more of their duty to pay a living wage.

That was challenged by The A1lien but Murray stuck to his claim that the aim of Government to get people off benefits and into work is to make life hell for them. That’s nonsense but a common line from the left.

That was all Standard as usual, far left rhetoric and an intolerance for being questioned.

Then on Open Mike on Sunday morning Anne commented:

On behalf of all of those commenters and readers who come here daily to be intellectually titillated, educated and entertained… could I point out the endless, boring diatribes with that duplicitous dullard, Pete George is putting us off this site in a big way.

Why is he still here?

I wasn’t there and hadn’t been for nearly a day. But that didn’t stop a core of regulars from jumping on the bashwagon. Paul responded:

Totally agree Anne.
I stop reading a thread when I see it derailed.
Better things to do than watch puerile and pointless debating.

Anne again:

There is no point anyone wasting time and energy trying to argue with someone who constantly derails and distracts away from rational debate out of some kind of personal, perverse pleasure.

‘Derails and distracts’ is Standardese for expressing a different opinion. If you don’t just join the circle jerk you are deemed an enemy jerk and need to be shut up and shut out.

And a handful of them spent the rest of the day dominating Open Mike complaining miserably about me (and others) taking over and derailing threads. A couple of people pointed out that I wasn’t there, like Adele:

PG is not even in the room and yet he can cause random people to perform random acts of dullness in this space.

Surely the irony is not lost.

The irony was lost on most of them and it didn’t stop the outpouring of angst and the calls to ban. Sacha said:

It is not harmless, and nor is it accidental. When somebody repeatedly despoils a conversation place despite previous warnings, any decent community will eject them. He’s poisoning the well.

I was nowhere near the water. They were busy pissing in their own well.

Sacha again:

And the solution has not changed either.

He wants the final solution. Like he helped engineer at Public address. Shutting up inconvenient opinions is not confined to the left but it’s more common from the left.

It seems odd that so many at The Standard chose to spend their Sunday flooding the thread with bitter complaints about me being there when I wasn’t there.

Most of the claims and accusations they make are nonsense. I’m just one relatively obscure person who joings discussions occasionally.

Has the Standard’s labour left not got anything important or positive to look forward to in 2015? Apparently not.

I seem to create more havoc by staying away from the Standard. Wouldn it be less disruptive if I joined in more often? No. They seem to just like beat ups and I seem to have become a target of choice. It has become an obsession for some and a bandwagon for others who want to be seen as belonging to the labour left. That makes for a bit of a sad and sorry looking Standard.

‘Dirty Politics’ not defined by Hager

I’ve had a few discussions at The Standard on ‘Dirty Politics’ where like elsewhere some are keen to stricly define what dirty politics is and what should be excluded from any discussions.

Ironically and typically a lot of dirt was thrown my way, after this cartoon was linked and likened to Whale Oil.

I pointed out there was a difference between hacker and blogger the usual sort of attacks were started by ‘weka’:

Irrespective of whether Slater fits a techinical definition of ‘hacker’, he doxes people, which puts him in the ‘wreck innocent lives’ box (and yeah, he uses a double sided coin). He also is eyebrow deep in Dirty Pollitics, so ditto.

You, PG, are a dirty politics apologist. Which puts you in Slater’s camp by choice and intent.

Weka then started to try and define ‘Dirty Politics”:

Accusing me of playing dirty? Oh dear, you really are digging yourself a big hole here. You still don’t have a grasp of what DP is do you. Or maybe it’s just that it suits your agenda to muddy the waters and make DP mean something that everyone does, instead of the very specific actions that Slater, Key and co engage in. Which would be another tick on the list of why you’re in their camp.

I said that Hager doesn’t own ‘dirty politics’ and doesn’t get to dictate what applies to it and what doesn’t just because that’s what he named his book. Neither does his fan base.


Pete, there’s a whole book about it. If you don’t understand the difference, best stop talking about it eh.

Dude, Hager invented the term in the NZ context.

It doesn’t matter whether you agree with Hager or not, he did get to define what DP means. You on the other hand want to redefine it to suit your own agenda, which makes you a hypocrite as well as a DP apologist and trole.

“I’d prefer to address wider issues of dirty politics”

I don’t believe you. If you did actually want to do that, you would differentiate between DP and the wider issues of how politics is conducted in NZ. Instead you just want to mix it all up and pretend that everyone behaves badly just because they’re rude.


The right deiberately set about applying the term ‘dirty politics’ to anything they could after the election, to neutralise its meaning (another Crosby/Textor ploy?). ‘Miss, she pulled my hair’. Opinion polls suggest they got away with it.

Pete, you’re being a tool of miscreants if you undermine a specific term just like they have done. Find another one if you want to talk more broadly. Better still, create a new one.

From what I’ve seen there’s been more of a campaign to try and restrict ‘Dirty Politics’ to the hacker/Hager election campaign and to attack anyone who points out it’s a much wider issue.


many in the media also seek to redefine it or deliberately misunderstand it. they had many many years to write about it and define it but it is mainly a phrase only in the consciousness of kiwis cos of hagers book.

This is all nonsense. The term ‘dirty politics’ has been around probably about as long as politics.

Duncan Garner wrote Politics is a sleazy business – regardless of who is in power in August just after Nicky Hager launched his book.

It’s worth noting this shadowy attack-politics stuff is not new and not the sole domain of National.

The then Labour Party president Mike Williams took a well-publicised trip to Melbourne to dig dirt on Key ahead of the 2008 election. It backfired: Labour found nothing and subsequently dropped in the polls.

Helen Clark was probably the biggest gossip of them all when she led the country. She leaked and spread rumours about people and even those in her own team – I wonder how her private communications and those of her senior ministers would look splashed across a book. I bet it wouldn’t be pretty.

Her Maori Affairs Minister Dover Samuels was sacked for allegations ‘‘swirling’’ over allegedly having sex with someone under the age of consent decades previously – it was Clark and her team making them swirl.

Samuels, later exonerated by a police investigation, never got a fair hearing – the ninth floor of the Beehive killed him off. I was with him at his house the night he was sacked – he was devastated and blamed Clark for the dirty tricks.

The murky Left infiltrated a National Party cocktail function in 2008, secretly recorded MPs and leaked them (to me).

I was also involved in a series of stories about former Cabinet minister John Tamihere over financial irregularities at his previous job at the Waipareira Trust which saw him sacked as a minister. When I got home, my house had been broken into. Nothing was taken but all the windows and doors had been left open. TV3 hired a security firm to change the locks, watch my kids at school and investigate the break-in. The firm concluded that someone wanted to frighten me – and we left it there.

I also remember doing business with Labour’s chief of staff Matt McCarten in the 1990s, when he ran the Alliance. Matt was fun and charming – but let’s not kid ourselves, if anyone knew how to run a black ops sting it was him.

Senior Labour ministers and press secretaries rang to point me toward The Standard, a Left-wing blog, to read its vitriol on certain days. Who had written those posts? I’m told many were written under fake names by Labour staffers paid by the taxpayer.

My point is politics is dirty, no matter who is in power. Hager seems genuinely surprised at this. Frankly I’m surprised at his naivety.

Bryce Edwards wrote last year: Political roundup: Dirty politics means we all suffer

When dirt gets thrown around in politics, everyone involved emerges looking grubby.

That was about the Cameron Slater attacks on Len Brown just after the local body elections. Brown didn’t come olut looking very clean either.

In 2012 I posted Repeat of Labour’s dirty politics which amongst other things quoted Scott GN at The Standard:

Nice try Matthew. But you’re wrong. There doesn’t have to be a video. There simply needs to be an ‘idea’ planted into the public mindset. And that has happened. Dotcom has become toxic for this government. Key’s numbers are falling all over the place and that, sir, is the name of the game.

And if you keep going back and back there is more and more dirty politics to find. The Sunday Star Times published Dirty politics and the world wide web just before the 2008 election.

ROCHELLE REES threw some cyber-mud at John Key on the internet “as a joke”. The Auckland computer programmer was astounded at the fuss she caused. Her “harmless little prank” got a lot of publicity and raised hard questions. Was this a case of dirty tricks in cyber-space? After all, wasn’t Rees a former Labour Party activist?

The trouble started when, she says, a newspaper journalist misquoted her as saying she had no party affiliations.

Actually, she had been on the executive of Young Labour for some months last year. “One simple Google search would be enough to bring up my party affiliations. It would be ridiculous to claim otherwise. I’m just not that dumb,” she says.

She can’t remember exactly when she quit her post on the executive, and says it’s possible she still held the post when she planted the bomb (now disabled). But she says it was all her idea and not Labour’s.

Wanganui mayor and former National MP Michael Laws:

Michael Laws says dirty tricks – false rumours, character assassination – have been common in New Zealand politics. “When I stood for National in 1990, anonymous faxes were sent to Hawke’s Bay newspapers [saying] that I’d had affairs – an affair in particular with a journalist, had made her pregnant and then left her. These were sent from post office faxes and were absolutely aimed at white-anting my campaign.”

When he worked as a researcher for National Party leader Jim Bolger he was sent to Wanganui to check out a rumour – spread by Labour as well as by disgruntled Nats – that the local National candidate, the late Cam Campion, was functionally illiterate. Both parties actively promoted rumours about the private lives of MPs on the other side. National had helped spread a rumour that Labour leader David Lange had had an affair with a woman television presenter. Labour had spread rumours about the sexual orientation of a senior National figure. “I was at a cocktail party where a Labour MP was promoting that rumour.”

He was sent to interview a prostitute in Hawke’s Bay who had allegedly claimed that three Labourites had used her services without paying.

A dirty trick is a covert act “that you would be embarrassed about if you were exposed”. When he was a National candidate, he was the target of malicious faxes sent anonymously to newspapers. And when he worked for the National Party research unit, he was involved in gathering dirt on Labour MPs. This was part of a system of deterrence and mutually assured destruction practised by both main parties, he says.

Dirty tricks – the spreading of false rumours, the destruction of rivals’ hoardings – will certainly be part of this election campaign. What is newer, however, is the use of cyberspace – and it is here that allegations of dirty tricks are freely aired.

So dirty politics goes way back with both National and Labour involved in various ways (Winston Peters is a long time pro at dirty politics too).

And bloggers have been involved for years.

The owner of The Standard website, Lynn Prentice, a Labour Party activist, computer programmer for a small Auckland company, and Rochelle Rees’s uncle, says his name has always been on the blog. But other names were kept secret partly to protect them from personal attacks. These attacks – familiar to him from other blogs – became very personal and even involved attacks on the person’s family.

The Standard was outraged in January this year when a photo of the house of John Minto – described on the site as a “socialist lickspittle” – was posted on Whaleoil. “Steady Eddy”, who posted the photo, had been stalking Minto, The Standard said. “People often ask us at The Standard why we don’t post under our real names. Tonight Whaleoil has provided a damn good answer to that question,” the site said.

There were no formal links with Labour, nor was it a front organisation for Labour, Prentice said. “I would say over half the writers are more Green than Labour. There’s a few that are obviously out of the unions. And I’m not really that interested in that. What we’re interested in is going off and writing stuff from a left perspective.”

It was possible some people in the Beehive sent material to the blog. Anyone with a public email address would find “people send you stuff if you can get it out”. What mattered with a blog, he says, is not the name of those who ran it but the quality of the material.

Prentice and Slater are still attacking each other, and their blogs are still attacking opposing parties and politicians.

Both left and right-wing bloggers accuse one another of hiding their real affiliations, and of malice. Slater’s Whaleoil blog specialises in attack videos against Labour and Helen Clark, with images of her manipulated to look ridiculous and with wounding soundtracks added, often with accusations of lying.

“I don’t think my videos are malicious,” he told the Sunday Star-Times. “For a start, I put my name to it, so everyone knows who I am, and I’m not lying about my affiliations… Yes, you could say they’re malicious in that I don’t pull any punches. I call them liars, but that’s my persona online, it’s in-your-face. I don’t see that as being malicious. If I catch out anybody as being a liar, they’re going to cop it.”

Slater has a big reputation of doing much maliciousness as well as building Whale Oil to being the biggest blog in New Zealand.

He and the well-known right-wing blogger David Farrar accuse The Standard of having undeclared links with the prime minister’s department, trade unions and Labour. They also attack a newish left-wing blog, No8Wire, on similar grounds. He and Farrar make no secret of their affiliations, he says.

Slater and Farrar have close connections with National. But the other lot are in on it too.

No8Wire was set up this year by a former employee of the prime minister’s department, Rob Salmond.

Salmond has more recently been blogging at Polity where he is open about his identity.

Dirty politics was not invented by Nickey Hager this year. I’ve been speaking and writing against dirty politics since I have been involved in politics.

And back at The Standard where they claim that John Key using a very limited range of tactics is the solely responsible for dirty politics this is the sort of response you get if you argue against them

You, PG, are a dirty politics apologist.

I’m going with PG as a DP apologist at the least, and probably a major contributor to the problem.

Pete, you’re being a tool of miscreants if you undermine a specific term just like they have done.

Liar. You don’t even understand what Dirty Politics is. Or you dissemble, because it suits your muddle of the road agenda to try and play both sides

Sorry, Sacha, I expect the tiresome lying sycophant will continue to disappoint until banned again.
(that’s from ‘One Anonymous Bloke’ one of the dirtiest regulars at The Standard)

The dirt-mongers don’t react well when their hypocracy and dirtiness is pointed out.

Dirt is still a common fall back position in political blogs.

And ‘Dirty Politics’ was not defined by Hager – to an extent he threw some dirt of his own into the election campaign. Some call him an investigative journalist while others think he is more inclined towards being a one sided and partisan hit man.