A large bit of deceit at Whale Oil

Whale Oil continues to deceive their readers, most of whom are likely to know at least some of the truth despite repeated posts that defy reality. I think that SB (Juana Atkins) is unlikely to be totally ignorant of what numerous court judgments and media reports have revealed over the years, but SB continues to make claims that are at odds with what Cameron Slater and Whale Oil have done – and some of which she has been a party to.

Posted yesterday:  A Little Bit of Justice

As I write this post I am acutely aware of my bias.

She begins with a frank admission, but it all goes downhill from there.

My view of New Zealand’s justice system is totally skewed by the fact that people with deep pockets were able to drag my better half through the court system for more than 7 long years until he had a debilitating stroke from the stress at only 49 years old and was forced to declare himself bankrupt.

I think it’s fair to say that Slater brought a lot of stress upon himself. he had his stroke last October, when he had embroiled himself in the Jami Lee Ross saga, was dealing with finally having to front up in court in the seven year Blomfield defamation, had just been slammed by another judge in another ongoing defamation case – see More court costs for Slater and co-defendants in defamation entree, abandons appeal in another case – and had just got bad news in his defamation tit for tat versus Colin Craig – see Craig v Slater – the biggest losers.

When SB first fronted up about the stroke at Whale Oil in February she blamed reporters for causing stress:

Prior to this event Cam was perfectly fit and healthy with no predisposing stroke risk factors. Doctors have concluded that the cause of the stroke was entirely due to stress.

That doctor claim has been debunked in court. The claim of no predisposing stroke risk factors also looks questionable if not downright nonsense.

“7 long years” has to be referring to the defamation case against Slater, doggedly pursued by Matt Blomfield after Slater had run an attack campaign of over a hundred posts on Whale Oil based on the contents of a hard drive that Slater had obtained that contained a large amount of private, personal and business information – Judge Asher found the hard drive and other documents provided to Slater “appear to have been obtained illegitimately”.

Being right didn’t matter at the end of the day as it came down to who could last the longest.

‘Being right’ is a ludicrous claim. Slater was eventually found to have been wrong about many things, with a court finding in the end that he had no defence to false and defamatory  claims.

And it was Slater who dragged the proceedings out for so long, trying to avoid being held to account with many delays and failed appeals. Some of the delays and the copious amount of inadmissible ‘evidence’ can be put down to legal incompetence. He was helped by Dermot Nottingham, who has a very poor record in numerous legal proceedings. But some appears to have been deliberate tactics to wear down legal opponents and to inflict as much financial hardship as possible.  That eventually backfired, with both Slater and Nottingham now bankrupt over hundreds of thousands of dollars of legal costs.

NZ Herald:  Whaleoil blogger Cameron Slater loses defamation case and gets told: ‘Your day will come’

Whaleoil blogger Cameron Slater has lost one of the country’s longest running defamation cases after failing to put up any credible defence.

The judgment made public today saw Justice Paul Davison find in Blomfield’s favour, ruling out a defence from Slater after long delays and failures to meet legal requirements to defend a claim of defamation.

The new judgment came after a defamation hearing as due to start on October 8 was adjourned when Slater and lawyers arrived at court without a proper defence.

In total, Slater had entered or attempted to enter five statements of defence over the course of the case which all failed to meet the legal requirements for attempted defences of truth and of honest opinion.

Davison said Slater had been “afforded considerable leniency” to meet deadlines and get a proper defence before the court.

There had been “indulgence” to allow Slater to change his defence with one High Court judge even providing the blogger guidance as to how to prepare for the defamation hearing.

Davison said Slater’s attempts to change his defence and to introduce new pleadings was rightly seen as “a last-minute attempt to prevent the (Blomfield’s) claim from being heard and determined by the court”.

He said it was possible to see delay as Slater’s objective when seeking court hearings on issues such as a security for costs.

Davison said the statement of defence Slater had arrived with when the trial was due to start failed to identify the facts which would have been used to prove his blog posts were true.

Instead, large piles of evidence had been pointed to which, in a number of cases, relied on “a third party’s allegations about the plaintiff”.

And instead of providing a defence of honest opinion, Slater’s court filings instead repeated his inadequate defence of truth.

Davison said it wasn’t necessary to rule on the merits of the case because of the legal, technical flaws in Slater’s attempted defence.

“However, in my view the documents relied on by the defendants do not provide cogent support for the propositions and conclusions they seek to draw from them in relation to the defences of truth and honest opinion, or the bad reputation of the plaintiff.”

So the judge found that Slater had no defence for making false and defamatory claims. SB must be aware of this, but still claims that Slater was right and is somehow the victim in this.

Slater appealed, but that appeal has since been dropped. Damages are yet to be awarded, that won’t happen until next year.

Costs on pre-trial proceedings have been awarded against Slater a number of times over the years (that happens when you’re wrong, not right). The last of these were awarded recently  – BLOMFIELD v SLATER COSTS JUDGMENT [2019] NZHC 1203 [29 May 2019]

By memorandum dated 23 November 2018, Mr Blomfield (the plaintiff), seeks an award of costs against Mr Slater and Social Media Consultants Limited (collectively “the defendants”), in relation to several interlocutory matters.

SB (Atkins) was a director of Social Media Consultants Limited (now in liquidation) so must be aware of all of this.

The defendants were planning on relying on a large body of evidence covering many different issues, and I determined that almost all of it was inadmissible.

The plaintiff is entitled to costs and disbursements of $59,000.29 as set out in the annexed schedule.

The Human Rights tribunal also found that Slater and Whale Oil were wrong – Human Rights Tribunal slams Cameron Slater:

This blog can only be described as a calculated attack on Mr Blomfield and an extended assassination of his character.”

Even if Mr Slater was not party to any illegality, it seems likely the information was obtained illegally by Mr Slater’s sources.

[175.1] A declaration is made under s 85(1)(a) of the Privacy Act 1993 that Mr Slater interfered with the privacy of Mr Blomfield by disclosing personal information about Mr Blomfield contrary to IPP 11.

[175.2] An order is made under s 85(1)(b) of the Privacy Act 1993 restraining Mr Slater from continuing or repeating the interferences with Mr Blomfield’s privacy, or from engaging in, or causing or permitting others to engage in, conduct of the same kind as that constituting the interferences, or conduct of any similar kind.

[175.3] An order is made under s 85(1)(d) of the Privacy Act 1993 that Mr Slater erase, destroy, take down and disable any personal information about Mr Matthew John Blomfield as may be held on http://www.whaleoil.co.nz and on http://www.scribd.com. Mr Slater is to likewise erase, destroy, take down or disable any of Mr Blomfield’s personal information published by Mr Slater and which may be found on any other website or database which is within Mr Slater’s direction or control.

[175.4] Damages of $70,000 are awarded against Mr Slater under ss 85(1)(c) and 88(1)(c) of the Privacy Act 1993 for the humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings experienced by Mr Blomfield.

The full judgment [2019] NZHRRT 13 is here.


SB continued yesterday:

Oh, how I hate the old “public interest” line. The New Zealand media and Nicky Hager justified what they did to us as being in the public interest. The information they had obtained was stolen and included private and personal communications but even though it revealed zero wrongdoing (no one had broken any law) they decided it was in the “Public interest” to publish what had been written between friends with an expectation of privacy.

‘Zero wrongdoing’ is a joke.

I have always expressed concerns about hacking for political purposes, but there is no evidence that Slater was actually hacked (although it seems likely). There have been suggestions a whistle blower inside the Whale Oil camp may have at least aided the revelations.

There was certainly public interest in revealing that staff (Jason Ede at least) in the Prime Minister’s office colluded with Slater and used Whale Oil as a medium with which to run political attacks – some of the dirtiest of politics (Slater used to brag about how dirty he played).

There was also public interest in revealing that Whale Oil was being paid to run attacks on businesses, academics and people.

Perhaps SB just hates being found out.

She is also being very hypocritical about personal information and privacy, given:

  • Slater and Jason Ede using private information obtained from a Labour Party website by dubious means.
  • Slater’s attempt to hack The Standard (he had to admit he broke the law to get diversion).
  • Slater’s use of Blomfield’s private information.
  • The attempt to overturn the Auckland Mayoral election, and the trashing of Len Brown, using private and personal information.
  • The trashing of Colin Craig’s political career using private information in a breach of confidence.

There must be few people now who are still deceived by claims of innocence at Whale Oil, and there will be little sympathy for their repeated claims to be victims.

They are running the risk of ongoing self inflicted stress. They could deal with this if they front up with some honesty, as well as admissions and acceptance of the harm they have dumped on many people, but there is no sign of that happening.

Dirty sleaze content continues at Whale Oil

Even though Cameron Slater’s name has been virtually erased from Whale Oil content, his dirty legacy continues with regular derogatory posts still appearing.

Yesterday’s Face of the Day was posted by SB (Juana Atkins, Slater’s wife). It was another use old photo dregded up from Clarke Gayford’s past. He has repeatedly been targeted, attacked and smeared at Whale Oil.

Matt Blomfield, who has more cause than anyone to feel bitter at dirty and derogatory content on Whale Oil, said in statement in the weekend:

What got me thinking, though, was a book review on Newsroom by Finlay Macdonald – not his words but the image at the top of the page: Cameron Slater knocked out in the first round of his boxing match with Jesse Rider. He looks broken.

It follows that my mind takes me to a place of sympathy for Slater. He has a wife and kids just like me; he has tried to succeed, just like me. I feel increasingly concerned at the tone of some of the comments about him that are appearing online. I know what it’s like first hand to be ridiculed online, to be bullied and it affects more than just the individual. It flows through to that person’s friends and family.

I agree with Blomfield. But is sympathy for Slater and his family deserved  when ridiculing and bullying the family of politicians continues unabated at Whale Oil? (I know Gayford continues to have a public profile, but that is no good reason to dredge up old photos and repeatedly post them).

And the Whale Oil ‘family’ is a willing part of this. Comments on the above post all from WO ‘mods’:

Nige (Nigel Fairweather):

This is advice is apparently funny?

He’s a sicko.

Sally:

Thanks, Clarke. You’ve just given WO another opportunity to show you displaying your lace underwear.
You really lack self awareness.

Buzz E Bee:

Yup! All gift wrapped and dressed in a tutu…oh wait…

I wonder if they can look their families in the eye, their parents, their children, and say they are proud of what they promote.

From Whale Oil Commenting and moderating rules:

The golden rule of commenting

Each comment should:

  • be on the topic of the post
  • add information, a point of view or a contribution of some substance and
  • be respectful and do no harm to others.

Keep your language clean and respectful

  • Don’t put other people down.

If you don’t abide by the commandments a moderator will delete your comments

When moderators break the rules and allow others to follow their example it makes a mockery of their standards.

Slater may have slid into the background, but his hypocritical and dirty legacy continues at Whale Oil, with SB/Atkins leading and feeding the dirty mob.

Atkins still promoting and stoking Islamophobia at Whale Oil

Whale Oil has stoked and promoted intolerance against Islam and Muslims for years, with generalised attacks and mass blaming common from both Cameron Slater and Juana Atkins (posting as SB, commenting as spanishbride). Slater has dropped out, but Atkins has kept up her campaign of prejudice and denigration.

There was a slight pause when the Christchurch mosques were attacked, but it didn’t take long for Atkins to resume stoking the Islamophobic fire, pouring oil at the Whale. If anything it has increased.

On Monday Atkins (SB) posted Things that make me go hmm

She first quoted from a Stuff article (Whale Oil bases many of their posts on mainstream media articles, despite slamming the quality of media and claiming to be an alternative).

Woman forced to leave Auckland pool over claims her bikini was inappropriate

A woman was left flabbergasted after she was told her bikini was inappropriate to wear at a public pool.

Yvette Harvie-Salter, 26, was at Albany Stadium Pool, on Auckland’s North Shore, on Saturday with her partner to use the adults only sauna and spa – something she has done three times a week for the past two years.

She was told her bikini from Glassons was not appropriate swimwear and some women had complained about what she was wearing for the “last little while”.

Harvie-Salter said she had been wearing the same bikini for the past few months but was told she couldn’t wear it at the pool and was asked if she had any other bikinis at home.

[…] “Her words were ‘it’s not a rule at Albany Stadium Pool but all these mums have complained’,” she said.
“She pretty much didn’t take a bar up of it and she said ‘well you’ve got to wrap up. You’ve got to put a towel around you if you are wanting to walk around wearing that bikini’.”

[…] “It just feels like body shaming, really,” she said. “I am really hurt by it.”

Harvie-Salter said she saw men at the pool all the time wearing “tiny little Speedos” and they had never been told to cover up.

She said she refused to cover up her bikini and as a result, had to leave.

[…] McGee said there were no rules banning certain types of swimwear at Auckland Council pools.

Here is the whole Stuff article:  Woman felt forced to leave Auckland pool over claims her bikini was inappropriate

What SB did not quote (apart from the last line) was:

​Rob McGee, head of active recreation at Auckland Council, said he was disappointed a customer was made to feel unwelcome at the pool she regularly used.

“On behalf of the lifeguard who spoke to the customer and the team at Albany, I would like to offer a sincere apology to the customer.

“We are sorry she was made to feel uncomfortable, and the lifeguard who passed on the feedback from other pool users now realises this wasn’t the right thing to do.”

McGee said Harvie-Salter, who rightly felt offended and upset, was given a refund and left the pool.

“She was never asked to leave, however we understand her decision. We will be contacting the customer directly to apologise and ensure she knows she is welcome back anytime.”

McGee said there were no rules banning certain types of swimwear at Auckland Council pools.

So it seems to have been an overstepping by a lifeguard, and annoyed swimmer, followed by an apology and an assurance. Not a big deal overall.

But Atkins didn’t leave it at that. She tacked on summaries of three old Whale Oil posts:

Mount Roskill brings segregation and apartheid to public pools in New Zealand – by SB on march 19, 2017

The headline says, “Women-only swim night ‘very popular’ among Muslim community” but it was the Muslim community that asked for and was provided with segregated swimming lessons. A public pool is being partially closed one night a week to give Muslim women the opportunity to enjoy some uninterrupted time in the water

In that post Atkins also said:

This is how segregation will be spread throughout New Zealand’s public swimming pools. By denying the obvious truth that this is a special segregation created to meet the needs of the Muslim community they are sugar-coating it with the falsehood that fat women will benefit from the classes being available. Anyone who buys that lie deserves a New Zealand where the Muslim community successfully brings Apartheid to our public swimming pools. Once they have achieved that concession New Zealand wide it will be spread to our public beaches, our schools and elsewhere. It is called cultural Jihad,destroying our freedom and equal rights from within our society and the well-meaning but naive idiots in Mount Roskill are letting them.

You don’t help people to integrate by pandering to an oppressive culture. You help them to integrate by making it clear which aspects of their culture are unacceptable inside our society. I predict that Mount Roskill will become the first Muslim suburb of Auckland. They have taken control of a public pool and it will not be the only public facility that they will pressure to become ” culturally appropriate.

Covert Islamic segregation at Wellington Regional Aquatic Centre by SB on March 24, 2017

In Auckland WaterSafe were upfront about their Islamic segregation policy. They openly provided a rate payer funded Muslim Women’s Swimming programme for 12 years in Mount Roskill. At some point, they decided to go under the radar and re-named it the Womens’ Swimming programme but not everyone got the memo and up until Whaleoil broke the story ( admittedly 12 years too late) it was still being advertised and timetabled as Muslim Women’s Swimming lessons.

SB concludes:

Wellington Council like Auckland Council is providing Sharia compliant swimming lessons for Muslim women. They have gone to the trouble of putting lipstick on the pig but it is still a pig.

She went to the trouble of being deliberately offensive.

Step two: curtains around the public pool by SB on May 19, 2017

Useful Infidels think that my posts about the Muslim women only swimming programme at the public swimming pool in Mount Roskill (that had been provided on the tax payer’s dollar for twelve years quietly under the radar) was no big deal. I was making a mountain out of a molehill, and what harm did modest Muslim women pose to our society by segregating themselves from the public eye in a public swimming pool? My premise that it was only step one in a slow but relentless march towards the Islamification of New Zealand society was ridiculous they said.

These three posts from two years ago appear to have no connection to this week’s bikini story, which made no reference at all to anything to do with Islam or Muslim. Atkins has used her old posts as an excuse to continue her campaign of prejudiced Muslim bashing.

And she seems to have achieved her objective – generating Islamophobia in comments.

jonno1:

Sadly, my second thought for the reason for the ban was what this post implies. The first was that perhaps the bikini was a bit skimpy, until I saw the photo of a perfectly ordinary item of swimwear. The reference to mums also makes no sense as the spa is described as adults only. Still, the Albany Stadium Pool management can quickly clear this up by clarifying the source of the complaint. Yeah, right.

Poppa:

I’m surprised Jacinda didn’t turn up at the time (just by coincidence) and let her borrow her headscarf to cover up which ever bits somebody found offensive.

Hans:

This is a lot like hate speech, if a person finds it offensive it’s considered hate speech. This is a slippery slope, if i was that women i would get my friends together and hopefully one is a lawyer and see what happens. I bet they don’t get the police because the council cant just make up rules on a day to day basis.
They have to abide by the law, this is not Iran or the 1930’s, i would dare them to arrest me and see how that plays out. The only way to stop this rubbish is right at the start before it gets life of it’s own.

Ian:

There will be a lot more behind this rubbish than meets the eye . . . we now must compete with an unelected unwanted PM, dangerous Greens, and Islam if we want to keep our sanity.

Tracy:

It is a bikini – it is appropriate swimwear for a pool. If the overweight middle aged judgmental “mothers” don’t like it then either go somewhere else or put the biscuit tin down. I am saying this as a middle aged overweight mother clutching the chardonnay & chocolate for dear life. How dare the lifeguard ask her to leave based ion the whining of a group of self entitled minority stay at homers (I am guessing) who are jealous of the younger thinner model. I hope she returns with a group of her bikini clad size 6 posse in tow & splash about right in front of the complainers judgey faces.

Unlima Siempre:

It’ll be Islamic women that are complaining.

Dave:

I want to reverse this complaint. A woman has been told she cannot wear her Burka at an Auckland Council Swimming pool, as its a swimming pool and the weight of the fabric is dangerous in the pool as it will get wet and heavy.

Wonder how that would go down with the perpetually outraged??

spanishbride obviously had no problem with the discussion she had prompted, joining the Muslim-bashing  thread:

I think i should take some time off work this week and go for a spa with my daughter. It sounds relaxing. I have a lovely navy bikini that needs an outing. I’d like to see them try to boss her around. Yeah, sounds like a plan.

And this wasn’t an isolated example. The following day SB posted Now they are coming for our ANZAC day

And so it begins. Cultural and historical ANZAC commemorations are shut down. Two ANZAC day parades so far in New Zealand have been cancelled that I know of and I am sure that there will be more to come. One is the Papakura ANZAC parade. The other is the Matakana ANZAC service.

The reason given for the cancellation of one of them is the threat of “Vehicular terrorism.” Trucks of peace in other (politically incorrect) words.

I can’t imagine that the high terror threat is coming from Greenie eco-Fascists as Tarrant described himself. Why would they target an ANZAC day parade? I can’t imagine White supremacists targeting ANZACS either. I wonder where the threat could possibly be coming from?

It’s obvious where threats of intolerance, division and potentially violence are coming from – Atkins. One comment (from Tiger):

I can’t imagine that the high terror threat is coming from Greenie eco-Fascists as Tarrant described himself. Why would they target an ANZAC day parade? I can’t imagine White supremacists targeting ANZACS either. I wonder where the threat could possibly be coming from?

spanishbride was also active in comments:

This is not surprising. We are merely following in the footsteps of Europe where Jewish celebrations have been cancelled by the government who said they could not protect them. It starts happening after the first terror attack and then the next year they find an excuse to cancel it again and before you know it historical and cultural celebrations have been removed due to the ongoing terror alert.

Juana Atkins appears to be managing Whale Oil now, and controlling content. She seems intent on continuing to stoke insidious Islamophobia.

The persistence and volume of these niggles and attacks and fearmongering posts and comments, orchestrated by Atkins, makes me wonder whether Whale Oil could be labelled a hate site.

Whale Oil’s golden rule of commenting:

Each comment should:

  • be on the topic of the post
  • add information, a point of view or a contribution of some substance and
  • be respectful and do no harm to others.

While the volume of Islamophobic comments appear to be ‘on the topic’ (or intent of the topic), and add points of view adding substance to Atkins attacks and provocations, she makes a mockery of “be respectful and do no harm to others”.

 

Changed headline on failing students

A screen shot of a post at Whale Oil yesterday:

WOEducationscreenshot

An obvious faux pas. It was actually posted as two separate images.

SB commented:

Heaven forbid the government try to help failing students. The teacher unions can’t be having that. Failing students is their job!

But the headline doesn’t reflect what the unions said, going by the article.

The latest increase – $12 million – will be targeted to 150,000 students who have been identified as being most at-risk of under achievement.

“We absolutely appreciate that’s a good thing to do but not at the expense of the operations grant which actually provides support for all children,” NZEI national president Louise Green says.

So it would appear to be both the One News headline writer and SB who have failed here. Perhaps neither read the article properly.

One News have since changed the headline.

OneNewsEducationFailing

The original headline text is still on the photo but at least the headline is now more appropriate.

No correction from SB though.

And why are WO screen shots in pieces?  One aim seems to be to remove ‘Source One News’ and replace it with ‘Screenshot-whaleoil.co.nz’.

 

Sexual identity survey

Whale Oil is running a reader survey on age, gender, sexual identity and where you live.

Actually they are running a second survey because the first one was faulty.

Brief Whaleoil Readership Survey because of poorly phrased original question

Dear Readers due to my inexperience I phrased a question poorly in the recent Whaleoil readership survey so the results were inaccurate.

In order to get an accurate picture I have redone that part of the survey and hope that you will all be so kind as to answer it for us.I have also added the option of not answering the sexual preference question.

Unusually for a survey SB has also included her predictions for what she thinks results will be.

SB is mistaken if she thinks she “will get an accurate picture” from a self-selecting online poll, no matter how many times she re-arranges the questions.

There is no way of determining what accuracy you can get from polls like this. They are generally regarded as totally unreliable, except by media organisations trying to make headlines and stories.

In particular asking a question about sexual identity is at the best of times difficult to get accurate results. Particularly with deeply personal questions (at least there’s an option for “None of your business that question is too personal”) it’s well known that people often avoid answering accurately.

I am asking the question because Whaleoil was a big supporter of the gay marriage bill but we have been accused of being homophobic by the left. I am interested to see how many gay readers we have for that reason.

It sounds like she may be using the survey to try and show that Whale Oil is not “homophobic” but given that there are a number of authors and many commenters the survey makes no attempt to evaluate homophobia.

The results from the first inaccurate question, indicated that we have seven gay readers.

No it didn’t indicate that at all.

Typically there are many more readers than active participants on blogs, so a survey is unlikely to give any meaningful measure of the sexual preference of readers.

Seven respondents indicated they were gay, whether they are ot not, that is all.

There is no assurance given of privacy of information – I don’t think Whale Oil would in this case misuse information provided by readers but many people are very wary of what they divulge on the Internet, as they should be. That will increase self selection and in particular self non-selection.

The survey may be ‘fun’ for SB but there can be no confidence in getting anything like an accurate picture of the sexual identity of it’s readers.

And even though some readers may be prepared to reveal their sexual identity that does nothing to determine whether straight or gay or bi or ‘other’ participants see Whale Oil as homophobic or not.

Trying to turn dirt into dirty money

This the first dumb post of the year (that I’ve seen, not written).

SB has posted at Whale Oil: Dirty Politics advertising opportunities

Here at Whaleoil we are very big on turning lemons into lemonade. Dirty politics is now a well known brand so I have turned my devious mind towards how best to turn it to advertisers advantage.

Turning a lemon into lemonade is quite a bit different to trying to turn dirt into dirty money.

First up any products that get dirty would benefit from the Dirty Politics brand or any products that clean up dirt. Not that I can imagine Cameron promoting a vacuum cleaner but maybe if it was a Dyson.

I personally want a hot tub for outside so think that Cameron would be the perfect spokesperson for a hot tub company. He not only lands in hot water regularly, he revels in it. Cut to Cam relaxing in a steaming hot tub looking very pleased with himself while texting the Prime Minister or being interviewed by a harried looking MSM reporter.

Promoting dirty politics as a selling point and trying to make money from it through advertising seems like a dumb idea to me.

Please put your suggestions in the comments below for other ad campaigns. I think we should milk Dirty Politics and turn the smear into a commercial success for both the products and Whaleoil.

My suggestion is don’t flog a dirty dead horse.

The Slaters want to roll in it (dirt and money) but I don’t think it’s a great way to win friends and influence people.

Dirty politics was prominent and dominant last year. I expect most politicians will want to be seen to be on a cleaner side in 2015.