Written By: - Date published: 9:00 am, January 12th, 2010 - 103 comments
Categories: child abuse, crime -
Tags: cameron slater
The other day on the telly, Cameron Slater said why he had breached suppression orders intended to protect the identity of sex attack victims in two cases involving an alleged celebrity assailant, but not a third. ‘It involves a kid’ stated he. How noble. How fine. He’s making a point. He won’t hurt a child to make it though.
Pity it was bullsh#t.
The media coverage was over. Endorphin high was falling off as fast as his blog’s pageviews. Media had moved on. Slater needed more attention to fill that hole inside. He breached another suppression order. One that was put in place to help protect the identity of a girl. A child. Supposed morals gone. Slater needed his fix of hits.
Prick seems to think he could put this child’s identity into the public arena with his stupid coded message and get away with it. (Don’t fool yourselves, pathetic righties. The identity of the alleged assailant will have identified the victim to those who know them). He actually said the Police should have better things to do than nab him for his blatant, unrepentant crime. He thinks he has the right to add to the suffering of sex victims to get himself some more airtime. (Congrats, btw, to news outlets that are refusing to name his blog and its URL).
But Police are investigating. They’re not going to let this dick spit on a law that protects child sex victims. I’m no big city lawyer. But I reckon that committing another offence while on bail awaiting trial awaiting a hearing on related charges has got to be in contempt of court. That’s imprisonable. So is a more serious charge. Like perverting the course of justice.
I can see him now. Being lead to jail. Yelling his site’s URL to anyone who will listen. Pitifully asking the warden if they get broadband.
Nah. He’s a son of privilege. He’ll be right. No jail for a rich boy.
Slater just wants a bit of attention. A few more hits to make him feel better about himself. Some more ad revenue now the insurance company has stopped paying out his income insurance. When things get too scary Daddy, a former President of the National Party, will be there.
Eh, Cameron? Daddy will be there for you. He’ll protect you from the consequences of your actions. From the people you’ve hurt. Like he always has in the past. You piece of crap.
lprent: Cameron John Slater isn’t on bail. He was summoned, not arrested, and therefore has no bail conditions.
Perhaps he should be arrested for this latest breach and in view of his current activities; denied bail to prevent him from re-offending as he isn’t prepared to wait for the courts to make a judgment.Thanks Mako.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Wasn’t this covered the other day?
You both appear to need help.
deleted – breaching suppression order. Eddie
Probably pay to delete deranged’s post, before anyone reports this blog to the authorities.
Yeah another moderator got there before I did. Now lets make sure that nutter doesn’t come back
It would appear that the authorities are pursuing this fool with some vigor now and we should not supply him with any more oxygen. I think Jo Blo will rapidly draw his own conclusions about the nature of the “man” – not from his blog but from his public appearances.
Every time I see the idiot on TV I wonder why the MSM breath any life into his bloated corpse.
I just proved that Cameron is scum. He claimed that for every 50 positive comments on his blog, 1 is negative. That is because he deletes all those comments he does not like.
How can anyone trust a scumbag like that who censors comments to make a point?
How much credibility does Cameron have left? NONE.
All my comments about contempt of court were deleted because he doesn’t like them.
Poor little rich boy is right. The sooner that scum is locked up the quicker we can all get back to being normal law abiding citizens.
Same thing use to/still does happen here.
Hilarious, this really gets up your nose doesn’t it? BTW all your comments are right there, not deleted.
You have confused Cameron’s ranking mechanism with deletion. Your comments are on Cameron’s site – you have simply failed to understand how the comments section works.
You’re hardly in a position to talk about someone else’s credibility.
Deranged is Cameron Slater – who more than a post that (rightfully) tells it like it is – needs professional help of the kind that is not available here on the web.
I should point out that the post I am referring to is Zetetic’s post, not Cameron’s post.
How does blubberboy know what the people he named are the correct people?
Yes, it is astonishing that his primary tactic appears to be perjury. I’m sure by the end of it he will be very thankful for the fact that lawyers are not allowed to turn people down ($$ and existing business aside), strange how the right tends to forget that rule when ever they seek to slander lawyers?
Anyway, honestly, me and my friends stopped playing bull shit semantic games about writing things in code about age 12? He looks to be inline for some serious “reality interface”.
Z, might pay to amend the post to reflect the fact that Blowhole isn’t on bail. He was never arrested – he’s simply been charged with several breaches of the Criminal Justice Act, and his hearing has been adjourned.
You should hand over any IP information you have on “deranged’ to the police, since if they can trace it back to Mr. Slater it will add to the body of the prosecution case.
“no jail for a rich boy”
Or a poor boy. The maximum penalty for breaching section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act is a $1000 fine.
That Slater could face a different type of charge may be wishful thinking on your part. However, we shall see.
“But I reckon that committing another offence while on bail on related charges has got to be in contempt of court. That’s imprisonable.”
I think you’d be wrong. Any fresh breach of section 139 would be a separate offence.
Finally, I don’t know a lot about media law, but I would have thought that continuing to impugn Slater’s character in this manner while he is before the courts may give rise to a sub judice issue. I wonder if anyone with a media law background and who might be reading this has any thoughts on whether that might be the case.
Ummm that is an interesting thought. I’ll have a look over at Prices website. I seem to remember that there was a a series of posts there on the subject.
I seem to remember that the fine was on a per day basis.
Finally, I don’t know a lot about media law, but I would have thought that continuing to impugn Slater’s character in this manner while he is before the courts may give rise to a sub judice issue.
As far as I’m aware the whole thing is in public and there are no suppression orders. That means it is fair game as far as we are concerned. The sub judice issue is really one for the lawyers in the case (assuming that CJS has manged to get one willing to touch his case), and the courts.
If the courts do not want this discussed (as the courts are effectively the complainant), then they should put a suppression order on it.
I think you’re confusing two issues.
The doctrine of sub judice doesn’t prevent discussion of the case. We are allowed to know who is involved and what is happening. The doctrine exists to ensure that people are not allowed to publish anything that creates a real risk of prejudice to a fair trial.
Calling Slater a scumbag, saying he’s guilty or should have the book thrown at him – all those kinds of things might risk a sub judice issue.
But, as I say, media law isn’t my area
people were calling Slater a scumbag well before this latest affair.
and I don’t think sub judice applies to ordinary members of the public expressing their opinions on current legal cases. If it did all the talkback shows would have been closed down long ago.
I’m not sure it’s quite that clearcut. I recall a few months ago another prominent right-wing blogger got into legal difficulties over comments made by others on his blog about a prominent criminal trial that was ongoing at the time.
You should have listened to RNZ this morning. The Police were saying that they would talk to the judge and a charge of contempt was possible.
Remember, Slater has already been charged with breaching the Court’s suppression order. To then do it again, and openly acknowledge you are doing it, that is contempt of the Court’s authority and the decision-making of the judges who made the suppression orders in light of the facts.
I’m not sure if contempt is relevant. The latest allegations against Slater relate to a different suppression order – as far as I know he has not been accused of breaching the same order again.
The law provides a clear penalty for breach of a suppression order – i.e. section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act. Parliament clearly thought that a fine was a sufficient penatly for such a breach, otherwise it would have provided for some other penalty in the Act.
No doubt the authorities are looking at what further steps they might take, but they are probably struggling themselves.
These are not just offences, they are direct, calculated, and repeated challenges to the authority of the court. Other penalties have been provided for – contempt and perverting the course of justice, both of which the police have said are possible charges.
Of course, I’m sure you know the law better than the Police.
No, I don’t. I’ve already said I’m not an expert in media law.
Of course, I’m sure you know the law better than the Police.
Protesters know the law better than the police…… Ask rocky.
Bearing in mind Scotts profession I’d say he would know it better than someone who has been whacked through a 6 month course where the law is a minor component.
I hate to say “told you so” * but it looks like Slater won’t face contempt charges.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3231114/No-contempt-charge-for-blogger
* This is a lie
WRONG. Slater himself focused the media spotlight on himself, most of the talk I have seen is not about what was said at his hearing, but what he has said to the media or on his blog.
Therefore, no rules or laws have been broken.
Cameron has bought this all upon himself.
Whatever you think of Slater, name suppression orders are unworkable in this day and age.
What’s the point in a useless law?
Maybe he just wants his fucking insurance back.
Just thinking aloud, but the insurance was paid for depression and an inability to function in a work environment…
…and then as part of his defence we’ll hear that his actions are symptomatic of depression + whatever else…
….and then he gets back on the case of the insurers.
Question is, how much of a hit will he take in seeking to secure $100 000 p.a.?
Okay, maybe he’s not that cunning. Maybe he’s just a shallow, crass idiot.
Funny but I guess im not bright enough to get the code that Slater put on his blog,but got it in minutes when I read the HOS story so why arnt they being put before the beak.
Maybe he’s just trying to get pats from ‘Uncle johnny’, ’cause uncle johnny has expressed a certain disregard for suppression orders. Remember the smiling smarmy TV clip as he made a pitch to become ‘one of the boys’ with a knowing nod and a wink over whoever/whatever suppression order it was at the time?
Anyway, drop suppression orders and pretty soon our banner headlines will consist of nothing else but MP x, y or z is a sheepshagger.
Can’t wait.
I just proved that Cameron is scum. He claimed that for every 50 positive comments on his blog, 1 is negative. That is because he deletes all those comments he does not like.
How can anyone trust a scumbag like that who censors comments to make a point?
How much credibility does Cameron have left? NONE.
All my comments about contempt of court were deleted because he doesn’t like them.
Poor little rich boy is right. The sooner that scum is locked up the quicker we can all get back to being normal law abiding citizens.
I don’t condone Mr Slater’s actions, but I note some of his friend’s comments elsewhere about the man, which suggest that he is a severely challenged person, with any number of personal problems. When I did read his blog, is struck me then that some of its contents were driven by affliction rather than rational analysis, and I see no reason to change that judgement. I would hope that we could rise above the personal here, and focus on the issues. Is “scumbag” the appropriate level of conversation?
Apologies: “friends’”
Na, you probably had it right with the apostrophe.
I suspect it is a reaction to Cameron himself and the way that he portrays other bloggers. Scumbag would be a typical Cameron level comment about another blogger, along with corrupt, lickspittle, and many more
Personally I thought that Z was rather restrained (for him).
Funny innit how the bare word “blogger” is getting max usage in the media: if it were the Standard it’d be “Labour blog” or at least “left-wing blog”, but in this instance such typical descriptions as “extreme right-wing shock-blog” and “mentally ill son of former top Tory who pasted PM’s face onto porn and broadcast it to the world” are curiously absent.
Looks like another case of “tarnish the competition by association, but don’t upset the boss”. If there’s a blogger association of any sort, some rapid distancing might be in order.
The Herald on sunday narrowed the possibles down to three. If the other two had come out and said “it’s not me”, would they have been breaching the suippression order?
The Herald on sunday narrowed the possibles down to three. If the other two had come out and said “it’s not me’, would they have been breaching the suippression order?
last night on teevee he was slobbering and doing the chlorpromazine shuffle.
maybe he should spend more time at the therapists and less at the gym hoisting dumbells.
cadae.
who are you.
whats your claim to fame and who gave you the power to decide what is credible or not?
Cammy is such a censor that the very word “sonic” gets replaced by ******* if you type it (go ahead and try)
Great post, nailed it Z.
blubber boys oil that keeps him going are the pats on the back from comments off his blog and his self-dillusions of adoration of being important and saviour to the down trodden, when in reality he’s just a sad fat fuck – who can afford not to get a real job and spend his time throwing stones at others. It will be nice when one of those targets gets up and cracks him one.
The recent TVNZ coverage of him (which he just loves) really does reveal nicely that he truly is a fat fuck – whale oil or CS sweat really is an appropriate name for his site
Look up ‘whale oil’ at the urban dictionary
That is pure gold and surprisingly accurate.
As other commentators have noted, let’s not lower ourselves to the level of the sewer in which Slater operates. Let’s remember that, at heart, he’s probably a decent person, who …
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Sorry, found it difficult to maintain a straight face there. Ahem. Better now.
But there is one thing about which I WILL comment, simply because I find it odd. Slater has recently made a big deal about quoting scripture. Why? I doubt that he believes in the principles for which he’s citing “the Holy Book. He casts nasty, bigoted slurs on people who annoy him. Not Christian. He breaks laws with the intention to promote his own self. Not Christian. He cavorts with prostitutes. Dirty, self-promoting, attention-seeking whores. Not Christian. (And God help his long-suffering wife.)
And yet he purports to live by Christian principles? Nah.
I suspect we are watching a train wreck in slo-mo which is morbid but secretly fascinating. It’s like rubber necking.
“He cavorts with prostitutes.”
???
Do you mean he shares his blog occasionally with Lisa Lewis?
I’d hardly call that cavorting unless you have evidence he does something else.
As for being Christian or not there is ample evidence in the Bible that Jesus hung out with all sorts of unsavourary characters, including prostitutes. So your argument falls down on that point.
Yes, and to quote Jesus in Matthew 5:17:
“Fucking dole bludgers. Truely they are not blessed.”
I also like Luke 1:32, where he says:
“That lawyer prosecuting me? He represents scum, he does”
Yes you’re absolutely right.
He’s so obviously a christian. Obviously.
Hey I didn’t bring his Christian credentials into this discussion, Mako did.
All I am pointing out that it is a bit ridiculous to claim he ‘Cavorts with Prostitutes’ if the reference is to Lisa Lewis and even if he did that would be entirely in line with what Jesus did anyway.
I personally think it is idiotic to bring this into the discussion but Mako thinks he is being clever making some sort of point.
So you don’t believe Slater is a christian either then?
What’s he playing at?
I don’t know, perhaps you can ask him directly on his blog?
I personally don’t like his style, he’s the Right wing equivalent to Martyn Bradbury of Tumeke.
Although the way he gets under certain leftist noses is entertaining to see I must admit.
he’s the Right wing equivalent to Martyn Bradbury of Tumeke
Pretty facile comparison. Perhaps you’d like to back it up by pointing out the most offensive thing you can find from Bradbury and I’ll see if I can find something worse from Slater.
You start.
Bradbury is interesting and funny. Whale needs professional help. There is no comparison.
Here’s just a couple of examples of Martyn Bradbury’s style
“Thanks for contributing moron, you do know what extreme weather means right? It is EXTREME, moron. ”
and
“I see why you both post anonymously, it’s because you are both idiots. ”
Yes, very funny and interesting don’t you think? Why he decided to add the personal insults to his replies is beyond me. Do you support this sort of posting style then?
Bradbury, like Slater, has an intellectual arrogance about him that means if you disagree with his position you are treated as a fool or denied a chance to put you view forward on his comments sections.
Interesting that he refuses to allow me to post on his site anymore yet his fellow Blogger Tim Selwyn has no problem with what I write. My comments have not been any different to how I post here but he just doesn’t like someone pulling him up. I think it damages his ego.
All in all I’d say Bradbury and Slater are cut from the same blogosphere cloth.
Is that it?
Bradbury calling people morons and idiots?
You seriously want to compare that to the racist, sexist, homophobic, hateful filth posted by Slater on a regular basis?
You’re having a laugh.
I’d class regulaly labelling people idiots, morons, racists, facists, as well as supporting racist statements made by people like Hone Harawira, and also demanding NZ goes to war against Japan, puts Bradbury in the same boat as some of the outrageous piffle that Slater makes.
You of course are free to disagree
So calling someone a bigot is the same as being a bigot.
I don’t think you’re discussing this in good faith Gosman.
I just spoke with Jesus, and he thinks you’re an idiot.
Seriously, do you not see the irony of Slater claiming, on the one hand, that he abides by Christian values (I have my doubts about his motives here – I think he’s simply trying to target the right-wing fundamentalists), and on the other, his obvious obsession with Lewis. It goes beyond his simply allowing her to blog on his website. (Although perhaps one ill-informed and ungrammatical post hardly counts as “blogging”.) He’s twittered on attending a photo shoot, and made a number of other references about her, to the general idea of “whoar”. I think he’s just excited that a good-looking woman is paying attention. Poor Juana.
As for the nasty, bigoted slurs he casts? He’s posted on his fantasy to kill Helen Clark, for chrissake. So, if I were God, I would definitely exclude Slater from my kingdom.
So would I. Slater, you’re an abomination.
Get a life dad.
he shares his blog occasionally with Lisa Lewis
Poor woman. She certainly earns that $1k an hour.
I don’t really see the point in attacking Slater on the grounds of his physical appearance or jabs based around his well-known mental health issues. It’s awful to have to trawl through a thread like this on The Standard to see if there are actually any new insightful comments to be read, as opposed to that rubbish.
[lprent: I can't see much point either (and don't). However I have commented before on his lack of technical abilities that doesn't match his ego.
However I really have very little interest in expending effort protecting Cam on anything but the most egregious attacks. For some reason he brings out the vindictive pugnacious male in me.
I've actually been surprised at how few comments I've needed to do (none). However as you noted there are a lot of ones that don't hit my quite high thresholds. ]
Agreed, Julie – and it’s just such laziness, too. Who goes for “is fat and has depression” when “‘shopped the PM’s head onto porn” is available?
It is delicious irony that the ever boastful Slater claims to have witnessed a desperate breach of our drug laws and failed to raise any legal or moral issues with that. Turns out Cameron’s moral compass is heavily influenced by fame and hits on his awful cesspit of a blog.
TV3 have led tonight with the likelihood that the C slug will face contempt charges. That will mean arrest, a swift court appearance and bail, almost certainly with blogging restrictions as part of the conditions.
Stand by for the charmless shit to try and spin this as an attack on media freedom.
As much as I hate his blog, I don’t want to see Slater banned from blogging – that would be a severe limit on his rights. Much as Sue Bradford had her condition not to protest struck down by the High Court. A condition not to breach any further supression orders on his blog would seem appropriate however.
“…It is delicious irony that the ever boastful Slater claims to have witnessed a desperate breach of our drug laws and failed to raise any legal or moral issues with that…”
WTF is he thinking with that?? It is a big, fat, conspiracy charge right there.
I’m an obnoxious troll but some of the garbage and hate filled bile I’ve seen written on this post appears to be actually meant with feeling …………… I can’t see why anyone would get so filled with hate over an odd chap who has a little right wing blog in NZ… and you call Kiwiblog the ‘sewer’ .. even at their vilest I’m not sure they could match this.
[lprent: I guess it because of some of the crap he has said about me - and my partner because he can't spell. ]
Could he not simply be remanded for psychiatric assessment?
[Deleted. You have been banned]
So what do you guys think of Michael Laws’ apparent breach of suppression orders, when – just over a year ago – Laws publicly released details about three of the complainants involved in the prosecution of convicted sex offender Peter Ellis? And why haven’t police charged Laws? I would hate to think there’s one law for some and one law for others.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DkQ5B3e_yo
[Deleted. You have been banned.]
Cameron?
Timmeh!
[Deleted. You have been banned.]
[Deleted. You have been banned.]
[lprent: permanently. Looks like d4j.. ]