Craig suing Slater – bring popcorn

138 comments on “Craig suing Slater – bring popcorn ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Save NZ 1

   29 July 2015 at 3:39 pm

   Go Colin Craig.
   • Chooky 1.1

     29 July 2015 at 5:44 pm

     lol…must go and buy some pop corn…yes if it comes to Craig vs Slater …I back Craig…(after-all he doesnt believe the Americans landed themselves by foot on the moon…and he does believe in Chemtrails…this shows he is NOT a politician).
2. thechangeling 2

   29 July 2015 at 3:44 pm

   Go Craig Go. (First time I’ve ever thought that!).
3. te reo putake 3

   29 July 2015 at 3:53 pm

   “Mr Slater said he had “not one single concern” about Mr Craig’s legal action because he was capable of funding his defence …”

   I’m sure he told the court last week when he was defending a charge of contempt of court that he was representing himself because he couldn’t afford a lawyer. Must have won lotto on Saturday.
   • lprent 3.1

     29 July 2015 at 4:03 pm

     He could be relying on Jordan Williams. He is named as one of the defendants….

     Of course we can’t be too sure that Williams will cooperate with Slater after posts from Slater slagging Williams off after the Blomfield district court hearing in 2013
     • dukeofurl 3.1.1

       29 July 2015 at 4:15 pm

       Has Jordan Williams ever appeared in court as a litigator (?)

       My guess is that Craig will serve the papers to shut Slater up while he plots his comeback.
       Another point though , Slater’s enemies all ways carry through their legal threats, even if like Blomfield have to do it themselves.

       And it is Slater who walks away from his bluster. Remember Fidelity Life who he was going to sue the pants off for catching him out when working AND getting disability payments. Never went to court and Slater lost his home.
       • CnrJoe 3.1.1.1

         29 July 2015 at 9:29 pm

         Jordan Williams ever appeared in court as a litigator you ask? From twitter

         Hamish Price ‏@hamishpricenz
         @gtiso By “funding his defence” he doesn’t expect to hire legal counsel.

         Giovanni Tiso ‏@gtiso
         @hamishpricenz what’s he going to do, build a brick wall?

         Hamish Price ‏@hamishpricenz
         @gtiso Last time @jordnz represented @whaleoil in a defamation action it didn’t end well for either of them.
     • Chris 3.1.2

       29 July 2015 at 4:45 pm

       Slater treats Williams like the whipping boy he is.
   • Draco T Bastard 3.2

     29 July 2015 at 6:28 pm

     https://twitter.com/gtiso/status/626231907563339776
4. Clean_power 4

   29 July 2015 at 3:56 pm

   Go Cameron Slater (first time I’ve ever said that).
   • Morrissey 4.1

     29 July 2015 at 6:50 pm

     Maybe you should consider what you’ve just said then. It’s quite possibly the stupidest thing you’ve ever said, or ever will.
5. Pascals bookie 5

   29 July 2015 at 3:58 pm

   Sup

   http://www.scribd.com/doc/272896057/Colin-Craig-Dirty-Politics-The-Booklet
   • mickysavage 5.1

     29 July 2015 at 4:00 pm

     Ta PB.
6. lprent 6

   29 July 2015 at 3:58 pm

   What is going to be interesting with this is the testing of the Lange vs Atkinson when it comes to bloggers.

   That lowered the standard when looking at people of public interest. Effectively it was possible to have the wrong facts and to still not be liable because of the public interest (note that does not mean the voyeur/gossip interest).

   The Atkinson decision was made in part based on Joe Atkinson doing a political analysis of the Lange years in Metro. Some of his “facts” were more in the order of speculation, but a reasonable speculation based on known facts.

   In this case, what we saw from these Slater and Stringer (where does Williams fit in?) looked to me to be more of a deliberate hatchet job between Stringer and Slater either in collusion or possibly just in their mutual distaste. I suspect that a lot of the case is going to rest on how much of his usual level of malicious creative fantasy (ie lying) that Slater used in his posts, and how much of that came from his “sources”.

   A lot of Slater’s defense (as alluded to by micky) will be based on Slater’s ability to protect his source(s) using the Evidence Act. Since those sources appeared somewhat malicious in the material that was being passed around, I’d say that the public interest will cut both ways. If we assume that Stringer is the source of Slater’s stories, then I suspect that the public interest in revealing that is going to be very strong – because Stringer is himself a public political figure..

   It will be interesting.
   • lprent 6.1

     29 July 2015 at 4:38 pm

     I’ve read the booklet and displayed it in the post. Interesting reading.

     The way that puts it looks to me like a classic Slater smear operation. In much the same vein that lauda finem has been operating recently. In fact I’m rather surprised that Craig didn’t put them in the frame as well. It was quite clear to me that LF were acting as a Cameron parrot site during the operation.

     But again, it is interesting that Slater (maybe Stringer) appears to have been losing private communications as reported in this booklet. But it is hard to see a common source apart from the ever leaking Cameron Slater. I wonder if the technical fuckup will ever learn to protect his information and sources properly.

     But it is also clear that journos are giving information to Craig. I guess that they don’t really view Cameron Slater as being one of them.

     Indeed popcorn all round.
     • JeevesPOnzi 6.1.1

       30 July 2015 at 8:36 am

       Off topic, a bit- but I’ve read through some of the early passages in LF where they are absolutely vile against Slater and his ‘other’ sex partner Spanky Pride… and I mean vile.

       I cannot buy the whole – working together- theme.

       Although I admit I’m amazed that Slater has not launched against them consistently over recent years.
       Are they really so anonymous that they are unreachable?
       Are they really in Amsterdam?

       They are becoming a more attractive cache than Rawshark (god bless ‘im).

       Anyhow- off topic.
       • lprent 6.1.1.1

         30 July 2015 at 5:23 pm

         No in my opinion, they are quite local. I am sure that I know who several of them are. Their servers are offshore, just as our main server was until late last year, something that is trivial to do.

         That LF and WO work together has been pretty clear for about 2-3 years, especially for anyone who has watched the dirty politics patterns with a lexical and meme observation for the last 8 years.

         This site has had authors pointing out the linkages between Farrar, Odgers, Lusk, Williams, Ede, Slater, the National party, bits of Act, and a number of other sites for up to 6 years before Dirty Politics. The only one we missed was the linkages off to Carrick Graham. We could see them, we just couldn’t pin down who was pushing it. Probably because we are a political site and that was purely commercial.

         But from your tone I suspect you know all that, so if you want to continue to comment here, you had better proceed very cautiously. I really am not that tolerant for idiot trolls trying to play meme games at present.
         • JeevesPOnzi 6.1.1.1.1

           31 July 2015 at 7:25 am

           No- I didn’t know it- and any suspicions to the contrary gained from my ‘tone’ are ill-perceived, so perhaps the lexical and meme observation algorithms need to be recalibrated slightly- cos you’ve got me well wrong.

           My post was based on this from LF:

           “Juana Atkins also said her cunt husband Cameron Slater has “no thought of the consequences for himself or others ……

           …… Slater most likely claimed depression when he was charged by the police, which would, if the case, evidence what a gutless coward he is. ”

           Its your site- but I don’t deserve the moniker you choose- so ban away Lynne.
     • JeevesPOnzi 6.1.2

       30 July 2015 at 8:37 am

       Off topic, a bit- but I’ve read through some of the early passages in LF where they are absolutely vile against Slater and his ‘other’ sex partner Spank my Pride… and I mean vile.

       I cannot buy the whole – working together- theme.

       Although I admit I’m amazed that Slater has not launched against them consistently over recent years.
       Are they really so anonymous that they are unreachable?
       Are they really in Amsterdam?

       They are becoming a more attractive cache than Rawshark (god bless ‘im).

       Anyhow- off topic.
       • te reo putake 6.1.2.1

         30 July 2015 at 8:48 am

         It’s a double blind, JP. I think I read somewhere that they were actually based in Nottingham.
         • JeevesPOnzi 6.1.2.1.1

           30 July 2015 at 9:57 am

           Or in the heads of the Nottingham brothers……
           • te reo putake 6.1.2.1.1.1

             30 July 2015 at 9:59 am

             Nottingham brothers? Never heard of them. Perhaps LF could investigate?
   • Sacha 6.2

     29 July 2015 at 5:29 pm

     Also, Atkinson was a university lecturer at the time – a different relationship with facts than either Craig or Slater have ever exhibited.
     • Morrissey 6.2.1

       29 July 2015 at 6:59 pm

       Also, Atkinson was a university lecturer at the time – a different relationship with facts than either Craig or Slater have ever exhibited.

       Everyone outside of the ACT party, the Taxpayers Union and the Sensible Sentencing Trust has a higher relationship with facts than Cameron Slater. I loathe and detest Colin Craig—anyone who would even consider accepting Garth the Knife McVicar or Christine Spankin’ Rankin as candidates for his party deserves no praise—but he is not a malicious liar like Slater is.

       And another thing: being a university lecturer does not guarantee that one has a higher “relationship with facts” than other people. Some of the most notorious liars in the world are or have been university lecturers—Alan Dershowitz, Barack Obama, Milton Friedman to name three of the most odious.
       • Sacha 6.2.1.1

         29 July 2015 at 7:08 pm

         I didn’t say higher 🙂
         • Morrissey 6.2.1.1.1

           29 July 2015 at 8:05 pm

           Fair comment, Sacha. Actually, in the case of Dershowitz, Obama and Friedman—as well as a whole bunch of dodgy professors in this country—they have a far lower relationship with facts than most people.
       • mickysavage 6.2.1.2

         29 July 2015 at 7:32 pm

         So it is a bit like Steven Joyce getting into a full on scrap with Judith Collins. And the downside is?
         • Morrissey 6.2.1.2.1

           29 July 2015 at 8:01 pm

           So it is a bit like Steven Joyce getting into a full on scrap with Judith Collins.

           No, it is not like that—not even a bit. I do not particularly like Colin Craig, and I distrust his political judgement; however, I have seen no evidence that he is a cynical or obnoxious scoundrel like either Collins or Joyce.

           And the downside is?

           The downside is that the Labour Party will treat this with amused disdain, instead of taking it seriously. Last year their political candidates, from Cundliffe down to the National Party’s hero Kelvin Davis, tirelessly parroted that Nicky Hager’s book was a “distraction” from the “real issues”. The reaction I’ve seen so far today seems to be in pretty much the same vein.
           • mickysavage 6.2.1.2.1.1

             29 July 2015 at 8:13 pm

             the Labour Party will treat this with amused disdain, instead of taking it seriously. Last year their political candidates, from Cunliffe down to the National Party’s hero Kelvin Davis, tirelessly parroted that Nicky Hager’s book was a “distraction”

             Are you sure? Cunliffe thought the disclosures were utterly appalling.
             • Morrissey …

               29 July 2015 at 8:25 pm

               Yes he did. But he couldn’t distance himself from Hager and Kim Dotcom quickly enough. He—or the “brains trust” that formulated the Labour strategy—also ignored Glenn Greenwald when he came to this country.
               • Paul …

                 29 July 2015 at 8:37 pm

                 Greenwald was so impressive last year.
                 • Morrissey …

                   30 July 2015 at 6:09 am

                   But treated with contempt not only by the National Party, but also by the Labour Party and the media. I could not believe that neither of the main television stations did not cover the event from the Town Hall live. While he was speaking, reporters babbled on about nothing. TV3 was as bad as Television One.

                   And of course, anyone who has listened to Radio NZ could have predicted exactly how shoddy its coverage turned out to be.
                 • Paul …

                   30 July 2015 at 6:19 am

                   Yes they were talking to the cameras rather than listening.
                   Disturbed those people trying to hear Greenwald and Snowden.
   • Matthew Hooton 6.3

     29 July 2015 at 8:38 pm

     Lange v Atkinson provides greater protection for writers than this. It is not even necessary to prove reasonableness. You may be confusing it with honest opinion.
     • lprent 6.3.1

       29 July 2015 at 9:54 pm

       Ah no. Read the Lange vs Atkinson decision and the exact basis for it.

       Doing something deliberately malicious when stating facts that were known to be incorrect will probably strip away much of the protection.

       I think that is exactly what Craig is arguing, that Williams and Slater in particular made up false facts. Read his little booklet. I suspect based on past behaviours by those two and what is in there that he is likely to be right. That is a major difference from the case in Lange vs Atkinson.

       I suspect we will get a better defined law from this case, and I don’t think that Slater or Williams will like it. I don’t know about Springer.
       • Matthew Hooton 6.3.1.1

         30 July 2015 at 3:10 pm

         Yes, you can’t be malicious. But you don’t have to be reasonable.
         • lprent 6.3.1.1.1

           30 July 2015 at 5:42 pm

           Exactly. Having an unreasonable opinion or interpretation of facts isn’t that much of an issue in defamation, especially when the public interest about politicians is taken into account..

           But the sample emails (and I suspect there are a lot more of those based on what is rumoured about their source) published yesterday make a good case for a planned and deliberate maliciousness and creative invention of “facts”. I think that will harm their defence a lot.

           Lange vs Atkinson didn’t change the law of defamation, it simply loosened an expected boundary when the public interest was involved. I suspect that this case will further define where that boundary is if it doesn’t get settled beforehand. It doesn’t look to me like Craig is looking for a settlement in the way that he is demanding more than an apology.
7. b waghorn 7

   29 July 2015 at 3:59 pm

   Hee Hee hope cray cray harpoons himself a whale .
   This will keep me smiling for the rest of the day. 🙂
8. Karen 8

   29 July 2015 at 4:00 pm

   “Mr Slater said he had “not one single concern” about Mr Craig’s legal action because he was capable of funding his defence”

   So how come Slater recently said had no money for his defence in another court case he is involved in? Has he been promised funding to defend a potential defamation case from Craig, and if so, by who?
   • lprent 8.1

     29 July 2015 at 4:06 pm

     Has he been promised funding to defend a potential defamation case from Craig, and if so, by who?

     That is a question of public interest, and one that is of a distinct public interest in this particular case. If Craig is right about what those posts were about – then who funds dirty politics?
     • Sacha 8.1.1

       29 July 2015 at 5:31 pm

       Perhaps it’s the same donor who paid for a QC for Mr Slater before the elction, which effectively shut down media publishing any more about Dirty Politics?
     • Anne 8.1.2

       29 July 2015 at 7:33 pm

       Someone with a lot of money who channels through a trust eh?
       • man.u 8.1.2.1

         31 July 2015 at 5:26 pm

         What! David Cunliffe paid for Slaters QC?
   • cancerman 8.2

     29 July 2015 at 7:45 pm

     Perhaps I’m wrong but if what Whale Oil has published is true then isn’t he safe?
     • Clemgeopin 8.2.1

       29 July 2015 at 8:32 pm

       The defamation case will determine that, I suppose.
9. r0b 9

   29 July 2015 at 4:05 pm

   Here ya go, courtesy of Ben Ross:

   http://www.scribd.com/doc/272896057/Colin-Craig-Dirty-Politics-The-Booklet

   Edit: Ninja’d!

   Edit: Also – http://t.co/7Eapi3BUSt
10. James 10

    29 July 2015 at 4:39 pm

    Im guessing that this booklet will do more hard than good for Colin Craig.

    As for the court case – this will be interesting. Popcorn indeed.

    Craig wins – Whale is ****’ed
    Whale wins (by proving his info etc) – then Craig is ****’ed.

    The left cannot lose on this.
11. James 11

    29 July 2015 at 4:39 pm

    BTW – the booklet is terribly written.
12. tsmithfield 12

    29 July 2015 at 4:48 pm

    I wouldn’t get too excited about the prospect of an entertaining court case. Craig has a history of threatening legal action and not following through.

    I think this is more about deflecting attention away from his own issues than anything else.

    e.g. http://www.3news.co.nz/nznews/colin-craig-drops-defamation-case-against-russel-norman-2014101015
    • Matthew Whitehead 12.1

      29 July 2015 at 5:04 pm

      They’re slightly different situations though. Norman and the GP are pretty careful not to say things that could defame people anyway.

      Cameron Slater basically makes his living off defamation.
      Craig probably has a bit of a lower bar to clear to make this one work.
      • mickysavage 12.1.1

        29 July 2015 at 7:33 pm

        Yep Norman’s comments were perfectly defendable. Slater’s tho …
13. r0b 13

    29 July 2015 at 4:53 pm

    Slater says he has never communicated with Stringer.

    https://twitter.com/Whaleoil/status/626251803332513792

    Stringer says he has communicated with Slater.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11488774

    Who to believe? Who???
    • mickysavage 13.1

      29 July 2015 at 4:55 pm

      … lots and lots of popcorn!
      • Sacha 13.1.1

        29 July 2015 at 5:33 pm

        Whole thing’s a jackup by popcorn-sellers. 🙂
      • Anne 13.1.2

        29 July 2015 at 6:59 pm

        Add a cellar full of wine for this one.
    • Matthew Whitehead 13.2

      29 July 2015 at 5:05 pm

      Now I’m just imagining Slater giving Stringer the cold shoulder by never replying to his txts and emails, lol.
    • Clemgeopin 13.3

      29 July 2015 at 5:47 pm

      In the second link above, Stringer says that,

      ‘ he had never met Slater or Williams, though he had corresponded with Slater since Mr Craig resigned’

      On the first link Slater says this :
      ‘I have never communicated with John Stringer’

      Strange stuff!
      • dukeofurl 13.3.1

        30 July 2015 at 11:13 am

        Slater has usually done it this way, said he never communicated with Collins ( through her public twitter account), but the truth was they used blind twiiter accounts.

        Same would be here. Slater wasnt using his ‘official’ email.
        • lprent 13.3.1.1

          30 July 2015 at 12:14 pm

          If the comment last night from TRP was correct and Springer’s email went through Craig’s email server and left backups or imap, then it won’t matter what email address he used, They will all be visible to Craig’s tech heads.
14. Clemgeopin 14

    29 July 2015 at 4:57 pm

    Here is the TV3 video of Colin Craig’s press conference where both Craig and his wife Helen make statements followed by a few questions put to Craig by the journalists. One of the questions was about his ex secretary, Rachel McGregor, and the confidential agreement between them.

    http://www.3news.co.nz/nznews/colin-craig-takes-dirty-politics-brigade-to-court-2015072914#disqus_thread

    Will be interesting to see where all this goes.

    I heard on the Radio Live news at 4 pm that after the conference, Slater has come out very defiantly saying that Craig will rue the day and will get exposed or something to that effect.

    Interesting stuff!

    One thing is very well known that there seems to be a vicious and nasty dirty politics brigade operating from high places in this country as exposed by Nicky Hager in his book, ‘dirty Politics’.

    https://www.mightyape.co.nz/product/Dirty-Politics-Paperback/22658930?gclid=CPHmgJvG_8YCFZWUvQodpbUAtQ
15. Jenny Kirk 15

    29 July 2015 at 4:57 pm

    oh – this will be fun. Keep us entertained for ages !
16. Marvellous Bearded Git 16

    29 July 2015 at 5:24 pm

    I just heard Mora introduce this on Checkpoint where he he named Slater as being sued by Craig but not Williams or Stringer. Protecting his right-wing mate and panel guest Jordan “Dirty Politics” Williams as usual.
    • Sacha 16.1

      29 July 2015 at 5:35 pm

      Wonder if ZB will make the story about Stringer and Wiliams to protect their guest, Slater?
    • Paul 16.2

      29 July 2015 at 6:31 pm

      Williams’ invitations to the Panel show how awful that programme of Mora’s has become.
      Gave up listening a while back, and enjoy Morrissey’s takes on some of its worst moments!
      He word ‘today’ defines Mora’s approach to the powerful so aptly.
      Just can’t fathom how this makes him a good journalist.
      • Morrissey 16.2.1

        30 July 2015 at 6:12 am

        Slight correction, Paul: Mora is a toady, not a today.
17. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 17

    29 July 2015 at 5:29 pm

    If only there were two of Colin to sue them.
18. Stephen 18

    29 July 2015 at 5:47 pm

    How can we connect the Beehive to this?
19. repateet 19

    29 July 2015 at 6:04 pm

    Jordan Williams, described as a “political lobbyist.” Jordan Williams who works for the Taxpayers Union.

    Jordan Williams who is a colleague, mate or whatever of Cameron Slater and David Farrar.

    This group rails against anyone not doing ‘real work’, people with noses in troughs not adding anything productive to the world, who grizzle constantly about public servants and obviously scorn nurses, teachers and the police because of where their pay comes from, who whine about and attack workers’ unions because they hate people getting together for a united cause.

    I don’t know about the Craig case and their dealings about him. As far as their dealings with the rest of society, they are scum. As far as their relationship with hypocrisy they are kings. As far as their rationality and intellect they are simpletons.
    As far as their impact on our political life and any aspirations of a fair society they are a disease.
    • JeevesPOnzi 19.1

      30 July 2015 at 8:04 am

      +100 Repateet

      Filth.

      Like Bathnagar
      Like Lusk,
      Like Ede,
      Like Odgers.
      • JeevesPOnzi 19.1.1

        31 July 2015 at 7:27 am

        and I forgot that cockroach Carrick Graham.

        More filth.
20. tsmithfield 20

    29 July 2015 at 6:07 pm

    I suspect that Craig has opened himself up to a countersuit and weakened his own position considerably if key allegations in his booklet are proved wrong. By publishing the book, he is engaging in exactly the type of behaviour he is complaining of if his allegations are wrong.

    Craig has a track record of threatening litigation, so I expect that Slater would have made sure that anything published was well supported by facts before going public. So, Craig will be pushing uphill to get anything to stick I expect.
    • Colonial Viper 20.1

      29 July 2015 at 6:24 pm

      huh? You think Slater will have been thorough with the facts, while you think Craig will have been lazy and incorrect with his.

      How you come to such a bizarre conclusion is a mystery but lets wait and see.
      • tsmithfield 20.1.1

        29 July 2015 at 6:35 pm

        Remember we are talking about someone who questioned whether the moon landings actually happened etc.
        • Chooky 20.1.1.1

          29 July 2015 at 6:40 pm

          shows he can think for himself
          • Kevin 20.1.1.1.1

            30 July 2015 at 1:55 pm

            So believing the moon landings were faked is thinking for yourself? I suppose believing 9/11 was a conspiracy is thinking for yourself too?
            • Chooky 20.1.1.1.1.1

              30 July 2015 at 2:38 pm

              smirk…yup!
            • te reo putake 20.1.1.1.1.2

              30 July 2015 at 3:03 pm

              9/11 was a conspiracy, Kevin. Bad example!
              • Kevin …

                31 July 2015 at 8:12 am

                Do you really believe that or just taking the piss? Hey, you can believe what you want – I just don’t want to peg you as believing something you don’t really believe.
                • te reo putake …

                  31 July 2015 at 8:20 am

                  Think about it, Kevin! Specifically, think about 19 young men coordinating their actions under the instructions of shadowy figures planning the crime from a distance. There’s a name for that sort of thing; it’s a …………
        • Mark 20.1.1.2

          29 July 2015 at 7:12 pm

          You have got to be fucking joking. Slater wouldn’t know the truth if it kicked him in his fat arse. He has court cases on several fronts at the moment and is on the backfoot in all of them. Craig for all his weirdness has never been dishonest to my knowledge. So why he would start now defies all logic, like your post.
          • tsmithfield 20.1.1.2.1

            29 July 2015 at 7:20 pm

            If he were really serious he wouldn’t have published his ridiculous booklet. He would have simply filed his papers which would have set out his case which would then have been reported on by the media at absolutely no risk to Craig.

            Mike Hosking’s comments on 7 Sharp said it all.

            As I mentioned earlier, he has weakened his position considerably by what he has done. So, I doubt it will be seriously prosecuted.

            Anyway, all will become known eventually, so we are all just speculating at the moment.
            • Mark 20.1.1.2.1.1

              29 July 2015 at 11:31 pm

              You watch Mike Hoskings. You need help urgently. And to take anything that piece of shit says seriously means you have lost your moral and ethical compass completely. Craig has lawyers and Slugfuck doesn’t. Like all arseholes that represent themselves, he has a wanker for a client.
              At the rate Slugfuck is going, he is going to be spending half his life in court defending himself against lawsuits and by all accounts there are more coming. I will have to get a double order on the popcorn.
          • Chooky 20.1.1.2.2

            29 July 2015 at 8:39 pm

            @Mark …I was referring to Craig being able to think for himself ..over the moon landings, which he questioned ( not Slater)

            ..whether Slater can think for himself is another question….I suspect he can …and is therefore accountable before the courts
          • JeevesPOnzi 20.1.1.2.3

            30 July 2015 at 8:14 am

            I thawed to him slightly when he used to appear on Bomber’s show, I could see him gradually adjusting his blinkered Christian ideologies the more he found himself exposed to different truths… I almost went tepid on him…

            So there is a kernel of potential for him to be a reasonable guy…. but anyone who lives their lives according to a completely fallacious belief system cannot be measured against common understanding of what ‘honesty’, or ‘truth’ mean.

            If he wants to do good for Aotearoa – he should drop the politics altogether and just go after the Filthy Few hell for leather. Just crush them.
            • Chooky 20.1.1.2.3.1

              30 July 2015 at 2:47 pm

              sometimes very conservative people turn up trumps…when exposed to other ideas

              …and it can go the other way of course….sometimes supposedly lefty radicals turn arsehole

              (…but I suspect it has something to do with how developed they are morally to begin with re. ‘Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development’ eg one can support the same cause or ideology or political party for very different moral development reasons eg there are highly evolved Christians and scumbag Christians)

              I suspect Colin Craig has considerable reservations about this jonkey Nact government and what they have been doing …and if he were in parliament…would be supporting Labour and the Left…of course he has been the subject of “Dirty Politics” for this very reason…because jonkey Nact know it!

              …and they almost had many here convinced ( myself included) …so good he is taking them to court !
        • vto 20.1.1.3

          30 July 2015 at 2:06 pm

          tsmithfield “Remember we are talking about someone who questioned whether the moon landings actually happened etc.”

          as opposed to …

          Remember we are talking about someone who believes everything John Key says

          …. which type of person is the more nutty eh?
    • mickysavage 20.2

      29 July 2015 at 7:43 pm

      Craig has a track record of threatening litigation, so I expect that Slater would have made sure that anything published was well supported by facts before going public. So, Craig will be pushing uphill to get anything to stick I expect.

      You presume that we are dealing with a level playing field here. Craig has resources to burn. Slater clearly does not. It looks to me like a pretty one sided fight although unfortunately there are some important principles involved that support Slater.
      • Pascals bookie 20.2.1

        29 July 2015 at 9:20 pm

        The other thing that might bite slater is his habit of hinting at things. Saying that he will publish evidence that ‘x’, but never following through.

        That in itself is possibly defamation, in that you are claiming as fact that there are more dirty secrets to come etc. If what he has is ‘nothing’ as would seem to be the case, then the claim of ‘more to come’ is damaging to someones rep.

        the same sort of ‘gosh if I phrase it right I’m a clever bastard’ thinking that got him nailed for breaching suppression.
      • greywarshark 20.2.2

        29 July 2015 at 9:40 pm

        ms
        Is that ‘principles’ or ‘principals’. I could see that either might fit. Do you think that Craig has principals that have been in the background but would step forward to help with expenses etc? Or?
        • mickysavage 20.2.2.1

          30 July 2015 at 9:11 pm

          Very good. Yes could be either …
    • Pascals bookie 20.3

      29 July 2015 at 9:25 pm

      “if” his allegations are wrong. Sure.

      But also, honest opinion cuts both ways, and what he is alleging parallels various chaos and mayhem operations that Slater et al have done. Quite similar to the Len Brown stuff etc.

      If Craig has been told this is how it happened, and been shown those emails, and had people tell him they heard Williams say these things, then it would be quite reasonable to believe them given facts everyone knows about Slater.

      I’m picking Slater will settle.
      • Anne 20.3.1

        29 July 2015 at 10:35 pm

        I am inclined to believe the story for the reason you give. It’s the DP m.o. and the “Len Brown stuff” came to my mind too.

        But I’m not sure if CC would be happy with a settlement. He comes across to me as primarily wanting to clear his name and he’s apparently loaded with dosh so he’s not in it for the money.
21. Tanz 21

    29 July 2015 at 6:16 pm

    oh, the glee club is rubbing its hands. why is CC a laughing stock? He may well be proved right.
    • Chooky 21.1

      29 July 2015 at 6:41 pm

      agree
    • Anne 21.2

      29 July 2015 at 7:04 pm

      Yes, Tanz. You stood up for CC and some of us laughed at you. If he does prove to be right, I hope I’m among the first to apologise.
22. Stuart Munro 22

    29 July 2015 at 6:27 pm

    I rather like Colin Craig – he’s a lot straighter than some on the right, and the moon stuff was a beat up. If he thinks Whaleoil belongs in court his judgment may prove better than is often supposed.
    • Tanz 22.1

      29 July 2015 at 6:42 pm

      me too. A straight shooter and above the fray.
      • Chooky 22.1.1

        29 July 2015 at 8:42 pm

        I think this is why the right wing are out to get Colin Craig….they dont trust him and dont want him syphoning off their conservative votes…and then forming a coalition with Labour or NZF
        • Clemgeopin 22.1.1.1

          29 July 2015 at 9:13 pm

          I think it is ACT party that might like to destroy Colin Craig and hence the Conservative party because, if CC’s party gains support, then ACT will be ‘completely irrelevant and dead’, instead of being in its present zombie state of ‘almost completely dead’ but for its current one important gifted seat by National. Without ACT, National can’t form the Government easily and without National, ACT is irrelevant being as dead as the flightless dodo.
        • Stuart Munro 22.1.1.2

          30 July 2015 at 12:37 am

          I’d like to see him form a loyal opposition – he’s a lot closer to traditional National values than the raddled old collection of political roués presently cavorting in the Indian sunshine of Carter’s abuse of speaker’s powers.
23. BM 23

    29 July 2015 at 6:43 pm

    Slater must be stoked, he’d pretty much sunk into irrelevance.
    • tsmithfield 23.1

      29 July 2015 at 7:38 pm

      Exactly. Slater will be thrilled at this turn of events.

      And another reason that Craig’s strategy is so stupid. If he had simply filed his papers, Slater would probably take down all the relevant articles because the matter is before the court. As it is now, all in sundry will be flocking to the Whaleoil site to see what the fuss is about. Assuming the articles are still there, Craig will have only served to further undermine his reputation through his own actions.
      • BM 23.1.1

        29 July 2015 at 7:49 pm

        Craig is a complete arse.

        He’s not a politicians anus, thank God National didn’t get involved, he makes Winston Peters look stable and level headed.
    • mickysavage 23.2

      29 July 2015 at 7:45 pm

      This fight has no political implications. It is between someone who wasted 4% of the right’s vote and someone who has added an enormous stink to the right. Let them go for it! This beats left factional fighting …
      • tsmithfield 23.2.1

        29 July 2015 at 7:52 pm

        Micky, this seems to me to be more to do with Craig trying to justify himself to his own followers and the public rather than trying to fight this in court. That is the only reason I can see for him publicising his case in a booklet before filing in court.

        I expect he is angling to get re-elected as leader of the Conservatives because of the perceived injustice he has suffered.

        The Whaleoil articles I have seen are couched very carefully, and is difficult to see how they could be defamatory.
        • tsmithfield 23.2.1.1

          29 July 2015 at 8:06 pm

          The other thing is, the way he has done this, he has got his “case” into the public arena without having to produce any evidence to substantiate the claims in his booklet.
        • JeevesPOnzi 23.2.1.2

          30 July 2015 at 8:21 am

          I can’t believe he cares a jot for the Conservative Party anymore- its brand is destroyed-
          He’d be much better off moving forward and starting as anew party altogether, with fresh branding, new psycophants, but essentially the same tired old message.
          Surely a new brand couldn’t do worse than the last one.

          Either way I hope politically this is his death knell. We need people loyal to us, not to the sky fairy and the bank balance.
24. Clemgeopin 24

    29 July 2015 at 7:19 pm

    Colin Craig certainly comes across as an honest person. As to the allegations and if they are true or not, that will only be known in the future, hopefully.

    Between the dirty politics gang and Colin Craig, my gut feeling is that I trust Craig and his wife rather than the dirty politics crowd he mentions, namely Jordan Williams, Stringer and Slater.

    It is a mystery to me why his ex secretary is unwilling to make the confidential agreement open, when Colin Craig is happy to do so! If Craig has anything embarrassing or bad to hide, I think he would not be comfortable to do so. Right?
    • cancerman 24.1

      29 July 2015 at 7:58 pm

      Between Craig and Cameron I don’t trust one more than the other but I do think the media advisor who is still gagged seems the most legit, yet she is still gagged despite Craig saying he would release her from the confidentially agreement.
25. cancerman 25

    29 July 2015 at 7:52 pm

    The amounts claimed Colin Craig are seeking for defamation seem ludicrous even if he wins the cases. Am I wrong? How has this much damage been done to Colin ( I mean in the finacial sense) political he’s screwed but it debatable if he would hae ever made it and if he had the damage is only the MP wage lost for 3 years. Or am I an idiot that is missing something?
26. upnorth 26

    29 July 2015 at 8:05 pm

    right suing the right.

    this is going to worse for Craig and Whaleoil will boom more.

    Problem I see from a legal perspective is that Craig references dirty politics which means for a ruling, courts will need to complete a ruling on the Hagar saga.

    If reference something in a suit then that has to be a completed case or it is all hearsay
27. Rodel 27

    29 July 2015 at 8:41 pm

    Maybe this will help Craig to become aware that people like Slater, Williams, Key, , Stringer and Rankin are deep down fairly unpleasant people and will have an OMG -‘birds of a feather’ epiphany
28. Anne 28

    29 July 2015 at 9:03 pm

    Having now read the entire ‘booklet’ from start to finish, I’m intrigued by the similarity of the operation (and the way it was carried out) to the revelations in Nicky Hager’s “Dirty Politics.” Some of the detail may not be precisely correct but the overall strategy comes across as typical of the Dirty Politics modus operandi.

    So, the big question is: what was the real motivation behind taking Craig out and destroying the Conservative Party? Simple really. The Nats want their 4% of the vote back. It could be the difference between them winning or losing in 2017. It also suggests the truth might go further than the three individuals Craig has named. In fact it might go to the heart of the National Party!
    • Tanz 28.1

      29 July 2015 at 9:14 pm

      I voted for them, Colin is the only honest politician left.
      • JeevesPOnzi 28.1.1

        30 July 2015 at 8:26 am

        Well done Tanz, every village needs someone like you.
    • Clemgeopin 28.2

      29 July 2015 at 9:23 pm

      “It also suggests the truth might go further than the three individuals Craig has named. In fact it might go to the heart of the National Party!”

      That is interesting! If you don’t mind and if possible, could you please copy and paste some of those passages here?
      (If not, could can let us know on which pages we may find those particular details?) TIA.
      • Anne 28.2.1

        29 July 2015 at 10:16 pm

        mickysavage has embedded it in the post now but here it is:

        http://www.scribd.com/doc/272896057/Colin-Craig-Dirty-Politics-The-Booklet

        It’s in four parts. There’s nothing like the detail that was in Hagers book of course but enough to get the gist of the story.
29. Marcus 29

    29 July 2015 at 9:17 pm

    Craig is loaded. He can spend huge money on lawyers and he wouldn’t even notice the cost. The booklet looks very smartly produced and it’s an interesting read.
    Ms Rankin will be spewing – “Fool, moi??” So who will she support? Media will be asking. The judge too. But who cares? Well I’m picking Craig but what do I know. Some soaps arent meant to be understood, just enjoyed.

    I’m interested in the expensive lawyers Craig is gathering, creative thinkers on stretching a costly case way out for the respondents I hope. A couple of years even.
    It couldn’t happen to a more appropriate group of people. Who cares if Craig succeeds in the case that’s irrelevant. Probably to him too, he can fund a total revenge fantasy, money no object. A nice hobby to keep him (and us) amused, hopefully for a long time.

    Craig is weird but respected by a lot of people and I’m thinking he will come out of this squeaky compared to slater and the other trolls involved. As this plays out in public Dirty Politics will get read again, and that’s a good thing.
30. Alpha Z 30

    29 July 2015 at 9:45 pm

    ‘How naughty have you been?’ Duncan Garner quizzes Colin Craig over Rachel MacGregor.

    Colin Craig responds.

    http://www.radiolive.co.nz/AUDIO-How-naughty-have-you-been-Duncan-Garner-quizzes-Colin-Craig-over-Rachel-MacGregor/tabid/506/articleID/92688/Default.aspx
31. Pat 31

    29 July 2015 at 10:17 pm

    of course Slater could always lodge an insanity defence….
32. te reo putake 32

    29 July 2015 at 10:43 pm

    Bryce Edwards is reporting that John Stringer has just realized that “Craig has been reading and viewing these emails, as they are routed through his server”.

    D’oh! Isn’t that internet use 101? If you’re on someone else’s server, your emails are their emails too. What a goose.
    • Stuart Munro 32.1

      30 July 2015 at 12:49 am

      Stringer is right up there with PG – stood in Christchurch for the Gnats once I think – got ACT-like support levels. Aspiration but no moxie.
33. Paul Campbell 33

    29 July 2015 at 11:20 pm

    The best thing here is that now “Dirty Politics” is a meme of the right too – it’s going to be harder for the Nats to try and hide this slime under their carpet without the wet spot showing
34. Tigger 34

    29 July 2015 at 11:27 pm

    “Mr Slater said if someone was going to stand for Parliament, it was important that the public knew about their background”

    Funny how he never holds certain others to this standard. Collins especially is often despicably hypocritical.
35. keyman 35

    30 July 2015 at 6:37 am

    there can be no comment let them go for it .sit back and enjoy
36. Chromophore 36

    30 July 2015 at 6:57 am

    Brand Rankin isn’t looking too hot.
37. graeme 37

    30 July 2015 at 8:26 am

    it’s the Dunne effect…..if it’s on the bosses computer system…it’s the bosses property.
    • RedLogix 37.1

      30 July 2015 at 8:39 am

      And when block-chaining means that ‘it’s on everyone’s computer’ – who will it belong to then I wonder?
38. Puckish Rogue 38

    30 July 2015 at 8:37 am

    The enemy of my enemy is my friend is incorrect, the enemy of my enemy may also be my enemy is probably more accurate

    Once again the left go cheering on someone they really shouldn’t be because they’re going to “get” someone they don’t like 🙂

    Colin Craig v Cameron Slater will go the same way as Crim Dot Con (actually make that everyone ever) v John Key

    But hey clutching at straws is a time honoured tradition amongst the left I suppose
    • RedLogix 38.1

      30 July 2015 at 8:45 am

      I’m inclined to agree. I truly could not give a rat’s arse for any of these players – and I’ve no interest in making comment about their actions here. Not even read the ‘booklet’. Life is too short for that kind of mischief.

      On the other hand I will confess to some residual awareness that this may lead to other more connected and politically significant actors yet. That possibility cannot be discounted – this govt does have record.
      • Puckish Rogue 38.1.1

        30 July 2015 at 9:31 am

        I’m confessing that I hope this goes to the courts so it can all come out, salacious gossip is the best kind of gossip
        • dukeofurl 38.1.1.1

          30 July 2015 at 10:37 am

          So are you going to tell us about Slaters affairs and why his wife is still with him?
          • Puckish Rogue 38.1.1.1.1

            30 July 2015 at 11:14 am

            You can ask him yourself:

            http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/contact/
            • dukeofurl 38.1.1.1.1.1

              30 July 2015 at 12:07 pm

              Debbie was talking back then.
              “One of them was to have an affair with a married man. That man was Cameron Slater.”

              The affair between Slater and Debbie Brown was revealed in an Auckland District Court judgment detailing a bitter fallout between Brown and her former friend Jacqueline Sperling. Both women have been linked to shock-jock Michael Laws: Sperling is a former girlfriend and Brown is a woman he was seen out with.

              Brown and her friend, lawyer Madeleine Flannagan, had applied for restraining orders against Sperling under the Harassment Act. They complained Sperling had made numerous hurtful and distressing internet posts about them.

              But in a lengthy written decision on Friday, Judge David Harvey dismissed their application. He said Brown had contributed to her own distress and had admitted to having made a NUMBER of unfortunate choices.
              http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10813552

              Judge Harvey…. now that rings a bell

              But to refer back to Craig- Slater epic it seems that Jordan Williams was bonking the CP media spokeswoman.
              So much politics- so much sex
              • Puckish Rogue …

                30 July 2015 at 12:23 pm

                Hopefully theres more to come
39. Sable 39

    30 July 2015 at 9:17 am

    For the first time ever I hope Colin wins!
40. te reo putake 40

    30 July 2015 at 9:20 am

    Awkward!

    https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/colin-craig-my-wife-said-she-didn-t-want-any-sext-messages-from-me-q03516
    • Chooky 40.1

      30 July 2015 at 4:22 pm

      …not really Jack Kennedy is it?….or Bill Clinton?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS