When the wolf cries boy

Written By: - Date published: 7:10 pm, December 6th, 2013 - 128 comments
Categories: blogs, news, spin - Tags: , ,

Matthew Blomfield, the defamation plaintiff against Cameron Slater who has been exciting the journalistic and blogging communities this week asked to make a statement to clear up some issues that have arisen in the blog space.

There was a lot of stupidity and outright bullshit (like allegations that Mr Blomfield was an undischarged bankrupt) in the comments in an earlier post that put this site at a legal risk (including comments from Cameron Slater). So I agreed to do it only if the post was fully moderated. Rational discussion without unsupported assertions of fact will be let through where they do not impede the case currently in front of the courts.

Mr Blomfield’s statement is as follows..

In 2010 I was adjudged bankrupt on personal guarantees of $3.5 million. I don’t have a lot of excuses. I had too many interrelated companies. We made some poor business decisions. We simply ran out of cash and the whole house of cards crumbled taking me with it. Very humbling, very embarrassing. I have since been discharged from bankruptcy without objection and am slowly rebuilding my commercial life in a far more considered manner.

In the midst of all of my troubles, there was in 2010, a burglary at the office I shared with a business associate. I believed my hard drive was taken, by who I don’t know. The statement I gave to the police says

What was originally taken and what ended up in the storage container [a shipping container owned by my associate] I will never know. I can categorically say that a whole lot of boxes with my files and my stuff went missing and my mountain bike and other stuff went missing when the burglary happened.

A number of reasons have been offered up for why Slater has the drive. I’m not sure what is true, but the discovery I seek will answer that question. The fact remains, it was stolen, by friend or foe, and the information was accessed illegally. The law is very clear on that (storage and stored data are defined as a computer system). It doesn’t matter how Slater got it. My associate later left the company I was working for in the face of a very significant dispute with the other main shareholders, of whom I was not one. I certainly believed that I had been let down by him and said so. It was the end of a very close friendship as well.

I adjusted to my new circumstances in a rented small home that my father in-law purchased out west and concentrated on my wife and family whom I love dearly. I had never been a public figure and by May 2012, I was all but invisible. I had barely heard of the Whaleoil Blog, did not read it, and certainly had had no dealings with Mr Slater whatsoever.

It was therefore a considerable shock to me to be directed to his blog site and to see the contents of my hard dive published therein. If Mr Slater had stuck to saying what he has in the last few days (with some exceptions), namely that I was a (now former) bankrupt and banned company director (I am now allowed to act as a director of the company I work for BTW) who took $3.5 m of other people’s (all institutions, no individuals) money with him when I went down, I could hardly complain.

Instead, he wrote a series of articles and published attendant comments which accused me of a series of crimes and then made disgusting and denigrating claims against my wife. As recently as Thursday this week she received anonymous text messages stating “Headhunters are waiting”. While the stories were running it was commonplace for her to receive updates of what atrocities were in store for her (all the detail is before the court and Slater knows it). His supporters then amused themselves with online hate speech. He mocked my attempts to reason with him. That is when I decided to sue him. I had no money and legal aid would hardly be appropriate even if it were available so I did it myself. He responded with a high profile law firm. Was I angry? He wasn’t just attacking me!

After a slow start, I have been improving as a lay litigant. The offending material has all but been removed from the internet. I have also been helped by the fact that, at Mr Slater’s behest, every investigative body in the land has had a look at the information on the hard drive he acquired, and nothing has come of it. I even went through a Judicial Review with Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment to get my hard drive back after an intensive investigation by the Official Assignee, provoked by Mr Slater, of all of the files on it. The defamation case moves slowly towards trial and Mr Slater claims truth and honest opinion as defences.

In Slater’s attempts to prove wrongdoing after the fact, to date, the Official Assignee has recorded $111,953.02 (taxpayer funds) for cost and disbursements in administering my estate. That is just one of many of the government offices that received complaints during Slater’s tirade. And to the best of my knowledge they haven’t had any of my creditors contact them (only Slater and his cohorts’).

For the past year I have been trying to get discovery from Mr Slater. I served a notice and he ignored it. I obtained a Court Order in September 2013 and he ignored that. In November 2013, I went back to Court and asked that he be jailed in contempt. He then said he will apply to the High Court to appeal the September 2013 Order and the District Court has given him time to do so. The part he wants to appeal is where the learned Judge said, not only must he provide discovery, he must provide all discovery including emails from my above-mentioned former associate and his cohorts.

A lot happened on that day. Judge Blackie looked into discovery in detail, reviewed vast amounts of evidence, and then reserved his decision. It was an interlocutory hearing, one of many you have on the way to the main event. What is clear is that his honour and the Court know a lot more about what went on than is currently out there. All will be revelled in good time.

This is not about bloggers – it’s about Slater. I’m all for freedom of speech. Like most of us, I just think public statement s should be true – pretty simple in my mind.

I told the Court that I believe Mr Slater published this material at the behest of a third party and that, directly or indirectly, he received a benefit from doing so. If he is just a crank being a crank, that is one thing, but if he is a gun for hire masquerading as a commentator, that is a different ball game. The damages will increase substantially.

In an attempt to avoid having to hand over this information, Mr Slater claimed that he is a journalist. The Judge, without any real prompting from me, decided that he is not. I agree. Journalism is a profession. It has standards and he has none.

Whilst I well understand the commentators who say that, because his blog apes a news medium, he should be given his own tea set, the High Court can assess the application of the privilege afforded by the Evidence Act in this case.

The protection of journalists’ sources is a “public interest” privilege. It is hard to argue for a public interest privilege in the absence of any public interest. There was no public interest in my hard drive. If I am right about who gave it to him, Mr Slater has, for whatever reason, allowed himself to be a megaphone for one source individual who wishes to inflict considerable damage on another individual and his family from behind a cloak of anonymity. In this instance, there is no public interest in allowing that source to remain in hiding.

I believe Mr Slater himself has a great deal to hide with respect to my hard drive. That is why, as Martyn Bradbury so pertinently observed, we have the wolf crying boy. A person who has previously eschewed the mainstream media and made so much of his swashbuckling outsider status now begs the protection afforded to the establishment. Rather than point to any aspect of the public interest that arises in this case, Mr Slater hopes that he can acquire the mantle of a journalist and get blanket protection. He points to his recent achievements to qualify.

Mr Slater highlights the substantial increase in page views arising from the swell of readers driven by a prurient desire to absorb the masturbatory and ejaculatory details of the Auckland Mayor and his mistress (understanding that this is irrelevant to my matter before the court as it’s almost two years after the fact). Self censorship has never been an effective tool and that’s why we have others to do it for us. Acting in a totally unregulated environment, Mr Slater committed a gross breach of privacy of the sort that garnered Max Moseley significant damages. Whatever the newsworthiness of the affair itself, the Mayor could have expected that sort of sheet sniffing perversion would never see the light of day.

Mr Slater also exhibits delusions of grandeur by touting his webpage as a groundbreaking news organisation. That is patently incorrect. He did not “break” the Len Brown story. Luigi Wewege used him to disseminate it. Luigi could have taken the story the New Zealand Herald which I understand has confirmed that it would have at least printed the fact of the affair. He chose Mr Slater. Why? Because Mr Slater and Stephen Cook will go lower than anyone else. Why? Well from their own words: Cook aspires to that kind of material. Mr Slater? He just likes to see things burn.

When Mr Slater demonstrably acts in the public interest, then that is when he should be afforded the public interest privilege that he desires.

Matthew John Blomfield

128 comments on “When the wolf cries boy ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. mickysavage 1
    6 December 2013 at 7:45 pm

    Cheers Matt.

    Can I wish you the best of luck with your case.

    I posted on one particular aspect of the judgment, that Slater’s website was not a “news medium” because I was worried at the precedent value of such a finding. I did have to have a shower afterwards! Supporting particular freedoms means that you have to support your enemies also having those freedoms!

    I left open the question of whether Slater was a journalist. This is the second limb of the test for people wanting to protect the identity of sources. For confidentiality of a source to be respected not only would his site have to be classified as a news medium but he would also have to be a journalist. And this is where Slater’s cuteness with his income and the funding of stories could hurt. If he is not being paid then he is a hobbyist not a journalist and if he is getting paid then he is probably a lobbyist and not a journalist.

    His claim could of course have been met with an application that the informant’s identity be disclosed and I am sure that this would be met sympathetically although it involves an application to the High Court and that is of itself a considerable hurdle.

    You may have seen the tweet today where Cameron with all the style that he can muster said about his former lawyer Jordan Williams that he “loses to former bankrupts who are litigants in person”. I am sure that Jordan will now seek payment of his fee with gusto.

  2. Te Reo Putake 2
    6 December 2013 at 7:49 pm

    Wow! That’s nicely laid out, Matthew. All power to you.

  3. One Anonymous Knucklehead 3
    6 December 2013 at 7:53 pm

    Slater’s problems are genetic in origin. National Party DNA.

  4. weka 4
    6 December 2013 at 8:52 pm

    I’m not familiar with the original case, and google is not proving much use (no way am I going to WO). Can someone please explain what WO published and why?

  5. ghostrider888 5
    6 December 2013 at 9:20 pm

    all very interesting.

  6. Pau; 6
    6 December 2013 at 9:22 pm

    Slater has your HD without your permission, that is under any law in the country possession of stolen goods. He has published private information (not in a for-the-greater-good WikiLeaks manner) that he has no right to?

    How is this offensive oik not in Jail?

  7. Ianmac 7
    6 December 2013 at 9:36 pm

    As an absolute layman I find the argument compelling. According to respected columnists such as Edgler, Brown, Geddis etc the issue hangs on the definition of journalist and the protection afforded journalism. It seems that from Matthew’s point of view as a court concern, the issue is much wider than that. It will have significant outcomes for all of us. So let justice prevail. Good luck Matthew.

  8. fender 8
    6 December 2013 at 9:46 pm

    Unusual for a burglar to take files, unless that was their target.

  9. T Wilson 9
    6 December 2013 at 10:02 pm

    Matthew, given how many lives you have ruined and people you have stuffed over in Auckland, i call it just desserts.

    Tom.

    btw, I don’t know Mr Slater, nor do I like his work. In this case though at least he’s attacking someone that deserves it.

    • Draco T Bastard 9.1
      7 December 2013 at 12:18 am

      When you invest with money you’re taking a risk. The risk is that you’re not going to get it back. The people doing the investing understood that at the time and if they didn’t then shouldn’t have been investing. To late now to blame the person they were investing with.

    • bad12 9.2
      7 December 2013 at 9:32 am

      T Wilson, your comment is wrong on numerous levels, as Draco points out to you, IF you are an investor who lost money through your dealings that’s whats called RISK even us lot here at the Standard who despise the capitalist system understand such RISK and we have little sympathy for those who ‘play’ such games who then lose and go on to ‘whine’ about it,

      Matthew Bloomfield is not a ‘public figure’ and thus deserves all the protection of the law that those of us who are not public figures deserve and i say that having read and laughed at Bloomfield’s mea culpa over His business dealings,

      To say that Blubber boy and ‘wail oil’ is not a journalists arse-wipe i think is grammatically incorrect in that while the first part of such a conjecture is obviously in its entirety incorrect i believe that we could find a broad consensus on the latter part of such conjecture,

      Which simply leaves me with the impression that if that Arse-wipe gets His slimy self heavily spanked by the Courts over this matter it will simply be well deserved…

      • Frank Macskasy 9.2.1
        8 December 2013 at 11:24 am

        @ Bad12 – I concur.

        @ T Wilson – Hmmmm… Can we ask what your interest is in this case?

        @ Matthew – you’ve put your case very well, and going by the information you’ve shared with us, it seems that you are indeed the victim of a nasty little vendetta.

        One thing that Slater may (or may not realise) is that whilst “honestly held opinion” can be a defence in defamation – malicious use of such is not.

        “The judge referred to this latter condition as “the objective criterion”, noting that even if the objective criterion is satisfied, the defence of honest comment can be defeated if the claimant establishes that the defendant was actuated by express malice (i.e. that the defendant did not honestly believe in the truth of what she had said).” – http://inforrm.wordpress.com/2011/02/15/case-law-thornton-v-telegraph-media-group-no-defence-of-%E2%80%98honest-comment%E2%80%99-in-malicious-falsehood-sara-mansoori/

        I trust Slater’s lawyers have mentioned that to him.

        As I wrote on The Daily Blog,

        We keep hearing about “rights”. The right to free speech. The right to free media. The right to do this, that, or the other.

        Nowhere do I hear about the other side of the Rights coin; responsibilities. (Which right wingers are supposedly very Big on. They certainly keep demanding it from the rest of us.)

        The media has certain responsibilities when it carries out its work. When will bloggers like Slater be responsible in his actions? Because as far as I can see, publishing details that identify the victims of sexual abuse is hardly an exercise in journalistic responsibility.

        When Slater shows himself to be responsible, and not just a glorified hate-merchant of sleaze, then I’ll look at his “rights”. Until then, he is subject to the same defamation laws each and every one of us is also subject to.

        • T Wilson 9.2.1.1
          8 December 2013 at 11:59 am

          Blomfield doesn’t take risks, he lies and defrauds people. Then when he falls out with people he runs to the media will bs to soil your reputation.

    • greywarbler 9.3
      7 December 2013 at 10:41 am

      T Wilson
      How many private individuals losing money has the collapse of this man’s business resulted in? Can you be specific. It’s not enough to condemn someone who has been called to account in the legal way, because we have heard of so many who have created mighty frauds.

      It is the nature of businesses to sometimes fail or lose money. Each failure is not a fraud. Matthew talks about being bankrupted on personal guarantees of $3.5 million. Others have taken many investors for millions each.

  10. Marty 10
    6 December 2013 at 10:06 pm

    Before we all run off and order a hall to have a party at Slater’s expense, can we have some questions answered here?

    Like: where the hell do the Headhunters threatening Blomfield’s wife come into a story about defamation case between Blomfield and Slater?

    Where is the connection here?

    What is the inference?

    Has Slater ordered a hit on his wife?

    Why are the Headhunters part of this all of a sudden?

    • mickysavage 10.1
      6 December 2013 at 10:41 pm

      Well if it happened then someone needs to explain why …

    • Murray Olsen 10.2
      7 December 2013 at 10:18 pm

      My experience suggest to me that if the Headhunters were involved, they wouldn’t be sending threatening texts. I’d guess they’re not, and that any texts would have come from one of the idiots around the sewer that is the WhaleSpew blog. If I’m right, and it becomes common knowledge who is using the Headhunters’ name, court action is likely to be the least of that person’s worries.

  11. John Drinnan 11
    6 December 2013 at 10:33 pm

    Smart decision going with The Standard. – puts campaign for legal protection in different light – argument more complex than some depicted. Good example why Blogland needs a regulatory body

    • Colonial Viper 11.1
      6 December 2013 at 10:41 pm

      Prose, not tacked together discombobulated sentences, would be helpful.

      • John Drinnan 11.1.1
        6 December 2013 at 11:09 pm

        I am terribly sorry. I reverted to the constraints of twitter,

      • Dumrse 11.1.2
        7 December 2013 at 11:28 am

        Interesting, when was the last time you told Phillip Ure that?

        • lprent 11.1.2.1
          7 December 2013 at 11:59 am

          I have. CV probably has. Many have over the years. But that is how his taste goes, it doesn’t violate site policies, and I suspect thgast most of us have gotten to the merely sighing stage.

          • phillip ure 11.1.2.1.1
            7 December 2013 at 4:30 pm

            heh..!..strike that man a special condescension-award..!

            ..anyway..i don’t write in stilted-twitter..i just eschew the irrational dictates of the likes of capital letters -commas – etc..

            ..and..fwiw.. i attempt to write with/in a (spoken-out-loud) rythmn..

            ..(and there i was..in the annual whoar-awards..(to be published soon..)..going to present you with the most-improved-web-censor-award..(!)..this glory/gong was within yr grasp..)

            ..i probably still will..

            ..but it’ll be done with a ‘sigh!’..eh..?

            ..i ‘suspect’ i am at that ‘stage’..

            ..eh..?..)

            ..phillip ure..

    • Sacha 11.2
      6 December 2013 at 10:44 pm

      “Blogland” – not sure it has legs, sir.
      Sounds like a theme park.

    • Marty 11.3
      6 December 2013 at 11:05 pm

      Hey, you interviewed Farrar and Slater, when do LPrent and Bradbury get their turn?

      • lprent 11.3.1
        7 December 2013 at 12:18 am

        I did my interview back in 2008 with Russell Brown. It was a pain getting there and back again as it disrupted the progress of the code I was trying to get to work in an EFTPOS for gas pumps we were exporting to India.

        They can trawl my 11k+ comments here, the 500+ posts here, the ones on the other blogs and use groups, the traces back through usenet, university, etc. I’ve been on the nets for more than 30 years. The only thing they will find hard to get is an image.

        Concentrate on the issue in the post will ya..

    • lprent 11.4
      6 December 2013 at 11:49 pm

      On the blogs, where is the best place to point out flaws on another blog? Newspapers? Most of the audience for newspapers don’t read blogs. Many of the younger generations have largely stopped hanging around most broadcast media including newspapers. Making stories about the terrible blogs is good titillation for the non-bloggers and pretty damn ineffectual for those who read them every day.

      And it is a silly idea regulating blogs. It is the usual problem John.

      Where exactly are the incentives? It costs between nothing for something like No Right Turn and what would be a smallish fraction of my income from other sources to run The Standard even if we didn’t advertise. And I’m just one amongst a mass of authors. Most of us participating would simply ignore the regulators, especially if they wanted us to pay more than the blogs operating costs for their unskilled and largely illiterate do-gooding.

      The history of guilds and their regulatory bodies require some kind of income is present to fund them and people are willing to pay something to secure their future incomes through higher standards or legal immunities. Few in the blogging world wish to make it either a main income or a job. It is the same reason I didn’t want to be a politician. It’d cut into my programming time which is my main focus.

      Sure there are some people who seem to want to regulate the blogosphere. They mostly seem to come from outside the nets. Or they are the usual strange people who like to tell everyone else how they should operate apart from themselves. The Mrs Grundys of the world include people like Cameron Slater. After all in this case he is a good example of someone who tries to do exactly that.

      Most of us who grew up with the net really don’t trust such people. I’ve seen them come and go ever since I started playing with networks back in 1979. They usually have no skills of any significant note. They just attract a cortège of similarly badly skilled sycophantic mini-bullies.

      If you wanted to do something about particular bloggers then the current laws are actually pretty good in principle, but way too slow in practice. Speed up the courts and make it so the dragging out proceeding is way more expensive for those dragging the status hearings out.

      Often simply asking a system operator where there are egregious cases is a whole lot faster. Something as sluggish and ineffectual as the current media *regulatory* bodies is just pointless. An apology buried on page 20 a year after after you’ve screwed the pup on someone’s life in page one is simply gross.

      Sure there are some bloggers who are in at least part becoming interesting investigative journalists. But they’re people like Keith Ng. Now they’d be worth pulling in to the journos protective area. Usually the problem is convincing them that they want it.

      Meanwhile there are a pile of jonolists who don’t deserve those protections. Perhaps cleaning them out would provide the poor benighted bloggers are better standard to look up to? 😈

      • rhinocrates 11.4.1
        7 December 2013 at 10:12 am

        Yeah, I noted a superannuated hack in a bad wig attacking me personally as a “toxic troll” in Granny a couple of weeks back (cheered on by Pete George, bless) – I felt as if I’d been savaged by a rabid lichen and my only reaction was mild amusement. “Delusions of relevance” is the phrase that springs to mind.

    • bad12 11.5
      7 December 2013 at 9:38 am

      John Drinnan, No Thanks, i see no reason why the Standard ‘needs’ a regulatory body, it is one particular ‘Blogger’ that is currently befor the Courts for His behavior,(or lack of it),

      If any blog or blogger wishes to have themselves ‘seen’ as ‘the media’ or part of it then fair enough that particular blog or blogger should subject themselves to the same standards as the mainstream media…

    • newsense 11.6
      8 December 2013 at 2:51 pm

      Not sure it needs anything beyond the law as applied. The concern of regulation would be more the possibility of politically motivated regulators and appointees which would be a much worse situation than currently is the case.

      I think the discussion here and on other blogs shows the strength of relative freedom in the blogosphere.

      • john Drinnan 11.6.1
        9 December 2013 at 8:18 am

        bad 12 – i can buy that argument – not every blogger wants to be regarded as news media – and they can take or leave limited legal protections based on whether they accept regulation

        But newsense – isn’t it just self regarding to believe media that is at the centre of the argument and not people who are damaged by the media.
        Judith Collins agreed with you. The government shelved the law commission recs to make (self-regulatory) standards body a prerequisite for blogs having protections By doing so this government ensured that WO and other blogs go without scrutiny in election year.
        Judge Blackie – who has a background working in defamation – found that WO was not news media. That is subject to an appeal – that would cost both players an arm and a leg.

        Im sure it suit many bloggers to leave it as it is – and some clearly deserve protection – but some want their cake and eat to too. You might feel different you had been defamed or attacked by a blogger who – if they lost a defamation claim – would simply throw up their hands and claim personal bankruptcy.

  12. John Drinnan 12
    6 December 2013 at 10:59 pm

    Blogging community?

  13. chris73 13
    7 December 2013 at 8:40 am

    “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”

    – The left might like to look objectively at the people they’re championing and wonder what it says about them

    • lprent 13.1
      7 December 2013 at 9:17 am

      You are completely missing the point. Probably deliberately. I don’t know much about Blomfield and really don’t need to. But as far as I can see the legal and business processes have dealt with him. It is a hard process to go through losing businesses, and I’m sure that there are people who are pissed with him.

      But I know a lot of about how people use and misuse the net and I judge those people. I’m infuriated that Cameron Slater and a pile of cowardly dickheads are using the net to attack people and their families for no more *apparent* reason than they think torture is fun. That I suspect that Cameron Slater as a blogger was paid to pursue a vendetta just annoys me even more.

      More a case of bloggers looking at how other bloggers are using their blogs, commenting on it, and redressing the balance. Now that the project at work has entered a phase requiring less work, I have time to address the arseholes of the local blogging scene. If that means providing a platform for those unfairly attacked by arseholes like Cameron Slater, then so be it.

      • LynWiper 13.1.1
        7 December 2013 at 10:06 am

        +100

      • Frank Macskasy 13.1.2
        8 December 2013 at 11:32 am

        “That I suspect that Cameron Slater as a blogger was paid to pursue a vendetta just annoys me even more. “

        Interesting that Slater hasn’t posted here demanding a retraction or correction of that statement, Lprent. He was very, very prickly when I made such an unintentional inference in one of my blogposts about his usual sleazy stories…

    • lprent 13.2
      7 December 2013 at 12:06 pm

      Hey Chris. Your missing comment was the first comment I moderated out. You asserted as fact a number of things that were clearly not true or were simply allegations or charges. Thius included a number of people, authors, and commenters. You did it all without any links.

      If it’d been in a usual thread, I would be warning or banning for the author part.

      • chris73 13.2.1
        7 December 2013 at 1:02 pm

        Oh please, you’re being precious and you know it. However it doesn’t change the gist of what I’m saying and that is you’re judged by the friends you keep or in this case support

        • lprent 13.2.1.1
          7 December 2013 at 1:37 pm

          On that definition of “friends”, you’d be a close one because I talk to you at all, whereas I don’t know most of the people you’re bullshitting about personally. But basically it is clear that you just have problems with defining social relationships.

          Just to be clear, we follow the norms of society which says judge people on what they do, no what Whaleoil makes up about them.

  14. john Drinnan 14
    7 December 2013 at 8:41 am

    jonolists?- Freudian slip 😉

  15. john Drinnan 15
    7 December 2013 at 9:35 am

    Nobody arguing the Keith Ngs of this world deserve legal protection.

    Its whether there should be carte blanche for every blogger.

    Maybe. But your You’re argument arse about face – need for regulation is to protect public not yourselves. You seem to believe that you have having private conversations.

    Like yourselves many in public cannot afford defamation action when the offender will plead poverty,

    “Most of us participating would simply ignore the regulators, especially if they wanted us to pay more than the blogs operating costs for their unskilled and largely illiterate do-gooding.”

    I think you’ve pretty much summed up the problem.

    • lprent 15.1
      7 December 2013 at 10:04 am

      I will come back to this. Shopping. But I don’t want protection for bloggers. What I would like is a speedier court system to deal with the dumb bloggers.

      We at TS don’t get sued or charged. We seldom even get misguided and toothless threats of suits.

      We stay well within the legal constraints of any citizen. Having complete arseholes like Cameron around is as embarrassing to us as I am sure some of your fellow journalists are to you.

      • rhinocrates 15.1.1
        7 December 2013 at 10:17 am

        lprent, I’m amazed that you can translate that gibberish in order to respond to it. I use Granny columns in my writing classes to show students how not to write (Armstrong is a particular favourite).

    • lprent 15.2
      8 December 2013 at 1:34 pm

      John…

      Maybe. But your You’re argument arse about face – need for regulation is to protect public not yourselves. You seem to believe that you have having private conversations.

      I suspect that you are still thinking in terms of broadcast print news media. Which this isn’t. There is an intermediate step (and always has been legally) between private conversations and broadcast.

      Many eons ago, I used to work as a barman in a public bar in Hamilton. What you read on here is in exactly the type of public conversation that a barman and regulars in any pub hears every day. Sometimes it is exactly the same level. They are conversations in a privately owned space accessible by the public and where almost anyone is able to overhear them if they choose to be at that pub at the same time a particular comment is made.

      The only real difference is one of scale and time. It also that many more can “hear” that conversation than are within physical earshot. This space also leaves a echo for those who were not present at the time a comment was made. But in legal terms what we do on the nets is equivalent to conversations in a public accessible space.

      This is a system that has been running on the nets for the whole of the 30 years I’ve been involved with them. It doesn’t matter if it is a BBS running on a 1200 baud modem, BIX in its heyday, usenet running uucp, gopher and eventually http running on ethernet. All of them have the same underlying characteristics.

      But the legal position of this kind of private space being used as a public area is also the same as a “public house”. Ultimately the operators are responsible for what is said and done on their sites. Which is why pubs and bars reserve the right to say who is allowed to be in their bars, employ bouncers, and have various other measures to ensure that their legal obligations are met. Just as we do. It is also why our providers of servers and services explicitly state that we are not allowed to do anything that may increase their legal liability.

      When you are looking at Whaleoil in mid-2012, just view them as a badly run bar trying to cop out of their legal obligations now by trying to suddenly and conveniently claiming special legal rights.

      This “bar” is probably just as rough as whaleoil in many ways. But we didn’t have an incompetent publican in charge back in the middle of 2012 who encouraged actions that were legally dubious.

      Like yourselves many in public cannot afford defamation action when the offender will plead poverty,

      I repeat, we have never had a defamation or criminal action against us. We’re bloody unlikely to have one either. That is because we stay well within the legal limits of the type of establishment we are.

      We’ve had a few people send us emails about various matters over the years, typically three or four per year. It could be the police asking us to take down their logo, to people asking us to remove their name that someone has put in a comment, to a company wanting us to unlink them for legal reasons, to people claiming ownership of an image. Most of the time I’ll do it if it doesn’t substantially change what the conversation had in it (for instance I tend not to remove names where the discussion is about a news medium story with their name in it). Some of the time I ask for proof that what they claim is valid (how does someone prove ownership of an image?).

      At least once a year and more in election year, we will get people threatening to sue for defamation – invariably with blanket demands. My standard response is to send back a response seeking clarification with some discussion about what I could find on the system that matched their criteria, and a discussion on legal aspects of defamation related to that. I usually never hear back from them. I have never needed to remove anything when someone is claiming defamation. In fact I have come to view people threatening it as having some strange ideas about the law around defamation.

      I think you’ve pretty much summed up the problem.

      Not really. You haven’t managed to state what you consider that the “problem” is. I could as equally well ask how The Truth managed to survive for a century with its rather strange idea of the “news” and ask why The NZ Herald using a similar type of technology was also permitted to publish.

      • john Drinnan 15.2.1
        8 December 2013 at 10:54 pm

        I can see how the notion of a non-public public space appeals to you .

        • lprent 15.2.1.1
          9 December 2013 at 7:39 am

          Look around. You will find them everywhere. Politics in particular is littered with them. Communities have lots of them. God knows I have been in enough cold halls in such meetings.

          What is actually weird is a broadcast media like newspapers. It is a result of a relatively high capital costs of broadcast media for the last few centuries.

      • Chooky 15.2.2
        9 December 2013 at 8:14 am

        Like the idea of the Standard as being a well run, civilized public bar, frequented by Lefties….. with a good barman in charge

        ….and Whaleoil a bar of ill repute, frequented by the somewhat lawless…. and where anything and everything scurrilous and scrofulous goes….

        …..much prefer to drop in and drink at the Standard…. hear good political discussions, learn the most up- to- date important news of the day, feel the pulse and state of the nation, given by insiders…. and occasionally make a comment and get up on a soap box and pontificate ….. as the mood brings it on

  16. Rat 16
    7 December 2013 at 10:31 am

    T Wilson…..

    Doesnt happen to be “Tom The Torch” does it ?

  17. Marty 17
    7 December 2013 at 10:46 am

    Matthew, I had a night to think about this, and although I would like nothing more than to see one run up Blubber Boy, something doesn’t feel right to me about that Headhunter text.

    Have you been to the police? Have you laid a complaint? Is the text submitted as evidence?

    If my wife received threatening communications from any source, I’d lay a formal complaint and insist on a Police investigation.

    Have you done this?

    Texting can’t be done anonymously. It will have a phone number associated with it. A court order can be obtained to track down the owner of the number, or if it is pre-paid, I’m sure further investigations are possible, such as which cell tower it was one when it sent the text, and so on. If it is still used, etc.

    Can you explain why the Cameron Slater would get the Headhunters involved?

    I wouldn’t be writing this in a blog mate – I’d be off to the cops.

  18. Matthew Blomfield 18
    7 December 2013 at 11:30 am

    Your comment is totally valid. Yes I am dealing with it as anyone would. In hindsight I agree I should have not included it in this statement it does detract from the point. Sorry.

    • lprent 18.1
      7 December 2013 at 11:34 am

      Looks like you missed the reply. Could someone point to the comment he was replying to? I’m juggling Xmas shopping while lyn selects the next victims prize.

      • fender 18.1.1
        7 December 2013 at 11:44 am

        Marty at 17.0 I think.

        Just because “Headhunters” was used I’m thinking it doesn’t necessarily mean the gang?

        Then again if Slater had gang connections I wouldn’t be surprised either.

        • felix 18.1.1.1
          7 December 2013 at 8:53 pm

          For Slater’s own sake I certainly hope he hasn’t been dropping the name of the gang for his own ends.

          A person can get in an awful lot of trouble like that.

  19. Matthew Blomfield 19
    7 December 2013 at 11:48 am

    First time ever that I comment and muck it up. It was about the texts sent to Rebecca. I think I’ll leave the blogging to the bloggers.

    • Rogue Trooper 19.1
      7 December 2013 at 12:01 pm

      Carry On our wayward son…

    • greywarbler 19.2
      7 December 2013 at 12:16 pm

      Matthew
      You can direct your reply by putting the name of the blogger at the top and if it is a long thread, put the blog count number or the nearest number, as well.

      Blogs can get quite mixed up sometimes, one made in the morning can end at the end by evening because of a large interest building from an earlier-numbered blog.

  20. Rogue Trooper 20
    7 December 2013 at 12:13 pm

    12: meanwhile, when a crowd of many thousands (Yep!) had gathered, so that they were trampling on one another (to be first with the news), Jesus began to speak to his disciples, saying: “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight, and what you have whispered in the ear in inner rooms will be proclaimed from the roofs. -Luke (anticipating Gutenberg and the Internet 😀 )

    “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.” Matthew 10:16

  21. red blooded 21
    7 December 2013 at 5:28 pm

    Come on mate – I know it’s December, but I don’t need biblical allegories to illuminate every aspect of life…

    • rhinocrates 21.1
      7 December 2013 at 9:11 pm

      Well, RT is a Christian and sees the teachings of Jesus as being relevant to all aspects of life. I’m agnostic myself, but my gf has a similar consciousness. We manage to get along.

    • Rogue Trooper 21.2
      8 December 2013 at 4:17 pm

      😀

  22. Tracey 22
    7 December 2013 at 7:06 pm

    Interesting account matt. Thanks for taking the tine. I will watch with interest.

    as for who can own material on a computer may I direct you to an auckland high court case.

    Citicorp New Zealand Ltd and Citibank N.A. v Blomkamp and White unreported 1070/92

  23. felix 23
    7 December 2013 at 8:48 pm

    Anonymous threatening text messages, eh?

    Not the first time we’ve seen that where Slater is involved.

  24. Matthew Blomfield 24
    7 December 2013 at 9:31 pm

    Thanks Tracey. I’m not sure if its a good thing that I’ve just spent the last two hours reading about that case. Made me feel quite paranoid.

    I see the police got stuck in with the investigations in that case. I have had no joy whatsoever with the police in relation to my hard drive. As far as they are concerned the drive was not illegally obtained and the data on it is a free for all. I have had opinions even from a retired judge who said that its a matter for the police…theft of find, accessing without authorisation etc pretty simple stuff but nothing from the police. Similar treatment in relation to the threatening texts to Rebecca.

    Lastly, I’m aware of three copies of my drive that associates of Slater have and they are all a bit marginal and for those that are wondering the drive contains 10 years of data that I have collected from my clients and staff including all of the payroll data for the Crane Group of companies (by memory about 5000 employees) including bank account details and home addresses and so on, sample data of ANZ Bank customers (I worked on a white label banking project a few years ago), full copies of the Hell customer database and customer details and countless other files from various clients. I worked out how many peoples private details were on that drive for the Privacy Commissioner and it was a number like 250,000.00 people. Seems strange that the police have made the decision not to even approach the people who have copies…Quite astonishing really!!

    And for those who are thinking it, yes yes I should have taken more care with that much information…

    • Tracey 24.1
      8 December 2013 at 11:51 am

      Most importantly that case showed that even if your hard drive was NOT illegally obtained, there IS an argument that as NONE of your employees or clients gave their permission for the release or dissemination of their information, accordingly no one else is entitled to disseminate it.

      Perhaps send the police a letter/email citing the case and number and referring the police to its actions in that case and asking in what ways they consider your case ( and the situation of the clients and employees involved) is different?

  25. Jimmy 25
    8 December 2013 at 8:20 am

    Seeing that waste oils sister was involved with a headhunter, and that it took a lot of effort for the Slater family to extricate her from that situation, I don’t think Cameron and the HH would be on very friendly terms.

  26. Matthew Blomfield 26
    8 December 2013 at 8:31 am

    Thanks Jimmy. I’m pretty sure that the HH have nothing to do with Slater. I suspect its one of his friends or readers. Not very nice though.

  27. Grumpy 27
    8 December 2013 at 10:00 am

    Jesus Matt, that’s a lot of information to have on your hard drive. I hope you were authorized to retain that. I would have thought that when a contract/project was finished that the data needed for that project would be returned or deleted as once the need was exhausted you probably had no more right to the information. I’m thinking here of Crane payroll data and bank records.
    Care to explain why you still had them?

    • Tracey 27.1
      8 December 2013 at 11:52 am

      and the same argument prevents slater or anyone else from disseminating it.

      • Grumpy 27.1.1
        8 December 2013 at 12:31 pm

        There are two issues. One is the 3rd party data such as Crane payroll and ANZ customer info. that Matt had that should not have been there and Slater has not and definitely should not have used, nor retained.
        The issue of Matts emails is another matter and it seems they have been used to expose matters of concern, in the same time honored traditions of the left with other people’s emails. Anyone remember Hager, Manning, Snowden???

        • Tracey 27.1.1.1
          8 December 2013 at 3:04 pm

          yes. And they all could claim public interest. Like governments spying on its people having said they werent, or allies, what was slater trying to save us all from?

          Do you accept that a number of government departments have investigated Matt’s business and found no case to answer, or do you consider this is a lie by Mr Blomfield?

        • Frank Macskasy 27.1.1.2
          8 December 2013 at 3:27 pm

          @ Grumpy – it appears you are trying to shift attention and suggestion of wrong-doing from Slater to Matt? What the data was doing on his hard drive is between him and his clients. None of your (or my) business.

        • Grumpy 27.1.1.3
          8 December 2013 at 5:03 pm

          I find this whole Hells pizza thing puzzling. Some of the issues, I don’t see as seriously as others do but generally I have seen how receivership and liquidation can be distorted to lead to very unfair outcomes.
          I cannot fathom why anyone would get into a franchise operation, very few are anything other than get rich quick schemes for the franchiseor. If you like, one of the less attractive aspects of capitalism. Again, not the sort of issue I would expect this blog to get into, unless, of course, it’s just a dislike of Slater?

          • lprent 27.1.1.3.1
            8 December 2013 at 6:38 pm

            If it was just Slater then we’d probably not be interested. Same with Hell Pizza – that becomes a matter for the magazines interested in franchises.

            The issue as far as I’m concerned is with blogs and bloggers getting the protections that should be aimed at journalists like Jon Stephenson, Nicky Hager, David Fisher, (trying to think of others in NZ) etc etc. The ones who actually do investigative journalism.

            Sure I have a known great dislike of Slater. Which is hardly surprising after the panty-sniffer arsehole attempted to have a go at one of my former employers because I used to be employed there and his mindlessly dumb attacks trying to “out” authors here. He isn’t a sufficient reason to get interested in this case. What is interesting is if the source protections that should be given to investigative journalists, should also be given to Cameron when he gets is (at least potentially) being paid to attack attack private citizens, unions, political opponents in the National party, or whatever.

            Tell me, do you think that he should be protected by the Evidence Act if that is what it turns out he has been doing?

            • Grumpy 27.1.1.3.1.1
              9 December 2013 at 8:27 am

              Since you ask, I think bloggers in general should have the limited protection for their sources given to journalists under the Evidence Act. I find it very hard to make any distinction and their is a huge overlap of poor journalists and good bloggers. I don’t believe I am blinded by ideology either and have no problem if the blogger was Slater or Bradbury. Truth is good.

  28. Grumpy 28
    8 December 2013 at 10:13 am

    ….and another thing while I’m waiting for my earlier comment to come out of moderation. You claim that the money lost was only from institutions, not individuals? There is no such distinction. The institution is only a collection of individuals whether they be investors, depositors, shareholders etc. it may allow you to sleep better at night but a loss to an institution certainly finds it’s way through to individuals.

    • felix 28.1
      8 December 2013 at 10:20 am

      Yes I agree. And I hope you remember that next time you see someone attacking those collections of individual workers known as unions.

  29. Grumpy 29
    8 December 2013 at 11:07 am

    Yes, Felix. When those unions accurately reflect the wishes and best interests of the members I will. But, when they act against their members, I will treat them exactly as the rogue finance companies, and I hope you also recognize that distinction. unfortunately, some unions accord their members the same regard as rogue finance companies gave their depositors.

    • Tracey 29.1
      8 December 2013 at 11:49 am

      You will let us know the different situations though wont you grumpy, seeing as you are the self appointed arbiter of such things?

    • Frank Macskasy 29.2
      8 December 2013 at 12:04 pm

      When those unions accurately reflect the wishes and best interests of the members I will. But, when they act against their members, I will treat them exactly as the rogue finance companies, and I hope you also recognize that distinction. unfortunately, some unions accord their members the same regard as rogue finance companies gave their depositors.

      No doubt you can provide instances and references to back up those assertions, Grumpy?

      You claim that the money lost was only from institutions, not individuals? There is no such distinction.

      Institutions can insure or spread/minimise their risk – much harder for individual investors.

      But as others have pointed out above, Grumpy, that’s the nature of the capitalist system; risk.

      • Grumpy 29.2.1
        8 December 2013 at 12:35 pm

        You can read all about more obvious excesses in any Aussie newspaper, the HSU and AWU are textbook examples of corruption. Locally we have The wonderful example of Actor’s Equity trying to destroy the NZ film industry.
        I exclude the education sector unions who are certainly echoing their member’s educational attitudes but that reflects on the members, not the unions.

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 29.2.1.1
          8 December 2013 at 3:09 pm

          In this exchange, it helps to remember that “the wishes and best interests of the members” is code for “things that Grumpy agrees with”.

        • Frank Macskasy 29.2.1.2
          8 December 2013 at 3:25 pm

          I won’t comment on the Australian situation, but the NZ Actor’s Equity thing is another matter and your suggestion that “locally we have The wonderful example of Actor’s Equity trying to destroy the NZ film industry” is sop much rubbish.

          Especially when Jackson himself later admitted that there was little risk of his movies being shifted overseas. (Sir Peter: Actors no threat to Hobbit)

          Actor’s Equity wanted only one thing: talks with the Producers “union”, SPADA. Jackson panicked and went nuclear. Warner Bros exploited the opportunity to wring more concessions from Key (for whom giving out corporate welfare is a normal occurrence).

          So your example of Actors Equity” being a rogue union doesn’t cut it. Just a bit of union bashing.

          Next.

  30. Matthew Blomfield 30
    8 December 2013 at 1:28 pm

    Thankyou T Wilson. Can you please point the readers to the facts for which you base that assertion? Or could that be an assertion based on what? My hard drive and every single email and document I have ever done has been investigated by multiple government departs. As I pointed out the OA alone spent over 100k. They all found nothing. Thank you for pointing out why it is important for me to continue this case so that people who have formed such baseless opinions can find the truth. Thanks

  31. Matthew Blomfield 31
    8 December 2013 at 1:35 pm

    Grumpy. The drive was my backup and had everything I had ever done on it. We reviewed all the contracts with the various clients whose information i was holding and I am comfortable with my position. in saying that its not ideal and I should taken more care. That can be said about a lot of what I did.

  32. Grumpy 32
    8 December 2013 at 2:22 pm

    Dunno Matthew, seems very much like trying to relitigate via competing blogs to me.
    Surprised that TheStandard has provided the forum.

    • Rogue Trooper 32.1
      8 December 2013 at 4:19 pm

      yet, here we are. 😀

    • Tracey 32.2
      8 December 2013 at 4:49 pm

      It’s called two sides to the story grumpy. TS ran two threads one “supporting” slater as a news medium and another saying he aint no journalist. Slater climbed in and selectively answered questions (including leaving one from me unanswered – and before he was censored, and when he replied to others of my queries), now Mr Blomfield gets a say.

      Given your predisposition in this thread to be a kind of dictator of thought with your pronouncements of how things are, I am not surprised you object to the other party being given space.

      Quite aside from this, the more Matt and Slater write on a public blog the more they may actually reveal about themselves. Given your belief that Mr Blomfields behaviour is of public interest, this should be welcomed by you.

      • lprent 32.2.1
        8 December 2013 at 6:53 pm

        He wasn’t really censored so much as got chopped because he and a few others were making me legally liable for their unsupported statements.

        That may have been because the supporting posts were all on his blog (and nowhere else) and they appear to have all been removed.

        • Grumpy 32.2.1.1
          9 December 2013 at 8:30 am

          I saw that exchange and think your actions were fair. It was obvious what your stance was and Slater could have framed his points accordingly.

    • Tracey 32.3
      8 December 2013 at 4:51 pm

      How can someone relitigate something in litigation in the courts now. It hasnt even been litigated yet so logically is some way off being relitigated.

  33. greywarbler 33
    8 December 2013 at 3:56 pm

    Well TS does provide a place for a wide range of people trying to get a society that operates fairly. Even you come here Grumpy, though I don’t know why we provide the forum seeing your idea of ‘fair’ is so skewed that it’s hard for you to find anything to agree with, or even vaguely consider.

    • Tracey 33.1
      8 December 2013 at 4:50 pm

      He has agreed with everything he has written. he is kind of the literate version of Naki Man.

  34. Tracey 34
    8 December 2013 at 7:26 pm

    thanks lprent. couldnt think of the right word.

  35. Bruce 35
    9 December 2013 at 8:13 am

    This is all rather puzzling – as i recall Slater states he used Blomfields own emails when writing the posts, and he had made contact with the various parties to verify facts so hard to see a valid claim of Blomfield being defamed. Otherwise its one hell of a story! excuse the pun. My knowledge of law is limited but also perhaps Slater is looking to protect sources due to what he believes is not only in a journalistic sense, but perhaps a personal safety issue as well. I have to say the banter here about gangs etc is all rather amusing and i struggle to see the validity of it in this argument. It will certainly be a ruling that will have a profound effect on the media

    • lprent 35.1
      9 December 2013 at 8:25 am

      The post isn’t about the contents of the Slater’s posts. That is something that a court will decide. Nor is it about the personal safety of sources. In the unlikely event that something is a problem, then that is something for the police.

      It is a post about Salter’s claim that he was a journalist in the May-July period in 2012 and if he should be entitled to the limited legal protections that journalists have to protect their sources. That Judge Blackie ruled he was not by saying that the Whaleoil blog then was not a news medium.

      This was the same period in which he was declaiming to all and sundry that he wasn’t a journalist and should be held to the same professional levels that journalists were expected to maintain. The questions he was responding to at the the time were specifically directed at his complete lack of balance in his posts and his habit of using his blog as a way or pursuing vendettas. See the links in the post.

      From what I have seen his posts on wayback about Mr Blomfield, it’d be hard even for a known hypocrite like Slater to argue that they were balanced.

      It will certainly be a ruling that will have a profound effect on the media

      Hard to see how. Blackie ruled that the Whaleoil blog was not a “news medium”, and implicitly that most blogs were also not “news mediums”.

      This is exactly what most of the broadcast media and journalists have been arguing ever since they first started getting popular.

      Your comment doesn’t appear to have much apart from wishful thinking in it.

      • Grumpy 35.1.1
        9 December 2013 at 8:35 am

        Does a blog have to be balanced? Indeed much journalism is even less balanced than blogs. More confusing is the court held him to be a journalist on the issue of breach of suppression but not on protection of sources? It seems the classification changes in order to whack him. I share Bruce’s concern and believe this fishing expedition by Blomfield is only a means to intimidate.
        Surprised to see TS being part of it. It is not Slater at risk here, it is his sources.

        • Tracey 35.1.1.1
          9 December 2013 at 9:38 am

          So, posting his side of the story here is a means to intimidate Slater? Does that mean everytime Slater posts anything on this topic he is truing to intimidate Blomfield to drop his action?

          Grumpy

          Please quote your sources for

          Court “held” him to be a journalist. That is, formed part of the judicial decision; and
          Where it was material to his breach of suppression order whether he was a journalist o rnot

          Funny how this advocate against name suppression didnt see fit to publish the sex offender up north’s name so as to protect the wider community from him.

          ” Judge Harvey said the internet made everyone a publisher and with that came responsibility.

          “One of those responsibilities is to abide by the law. You have chosen to use your website, blog for the purposes of a political campaign and that is absolutely legitimate.I have no quibble with that.

          “But the fact of the matter is you stepped over the lines when you chose to publish names subject to non-publication orders.

          “You made value judgements about the names you were going to publish and those you were not.

          “You set yourself up as a judge and jury knowing those names were subject to orders but willing to flout the law notwithstanding.

          “I don’t imagine anything which happens today or is about to happen today will change your point of view but I hope it will change your behaviour.” “

        • Tracey 35.1.1.2
          9 December 2013 at 10:47 am

          I’ve read the suppression decision. I wonder if you have?

          That case was squarely about publication not about journalism or journalists.

          Some VERY interesting stuff in there. Journalist is mentioned but interestingly the judge seems to be suggesting that what makes you a journalist is not where you are publishing. That is, he mentions jounralists having blogs. My observation is that having a blog doesnt make you a journalists.

          in any event I think you are being led astray by some red herrings.

          “[14] Blogs can be part of mainstream media or may be separate from it. Many
          journalists and news commentators maintain blogs where they may expand upon
          stories that they have written or interact with others who wish to comment up
          on them. In this respect the blog facilitates a conversation between the journalist or
          reporter and other individuals. However the conversation differs from that which
          may take place over a cup of coffee or across a dinner table. The first difference is
          that the material that is posted upon the blog is posted primarily in the form of text.
          Thus, unlike a conversation, the blog becomes a record which is preserved and
          available on the blog site until such time as it is removed by the person responsible
          for administering it. For some blogging is seen as a way of getting around the
          restrictions that are normally imposed upon mainstream news media. Unlike
          newspapers which are subject the oversight of the Press Council or advertisers who
          are subject to the Advertising Standards Authority or radio and television which is
          subject to the Broadcasting Standards Authority, there are no similar regulatory
          organisations in place in the blogosphere. Of course, subject to issues of jurisdiction, bloggers are subject to their domestic laws. “

    • Tracey 35.2
      9 December 2013 at 9:30 am

      So Bruce, do you believe everyone’s diary can be published if someone gets hold of them and decides to just cos it’s in their own words. Seems an odd notion to support.

      • grumpy 35.2.1
        9 December 2013 at 12:44 pm

        What do you think about the theft of Don Brash’s emails as published by Hager?

        • Sacha 35.2.1.1
          9 December 2013 at 5:59 pm

          You mean the emails leaked by a senior Nat insider? Nice try.

          • Anne 35.2.1.1.1
            9 December 2013 at 6:23 pm

            Yes… and it’s a pity we don’t know who they are (?) because they did this country a major service and it would be nice to say thank-you to them.

  36. captain hook 36
    9 December 2013 at 2:58 pm

    I guess you cant expect that much better from someone who has legs on their belly and hides under rocks!

  37. Tracey 37
    9 December 2013 at 3:24 pm

    You and Mr Slater have something in common grumpy, you both answer selectively. Would love your responses to my questions within 9.38am and 10:47am

  38. Ross 38
    9 December 2013 at 4:34 pm

    “In an attempt to avoid having to hand over this information, Mr Slater claimed that he is a journalist. The Judge, without any real prompting from me, decided that he is not. I agree. Journalism is a profession. It has standards and he has none.”

    I completely disagree, and I’m not sure why this is an issue for you.

    Journalists disseminate information and provide commentary on the news. That is what Slater does. It might not be to your liking, it might not be to my liking, but what you and I like is irrelevant.

    • Arfamo 38.1
      9 December 2013 at 6:34 pm

      Well, they do quite a bit more than that actually. But he doesn’t. So, I’m happy to let the story go on to tell itself via the legal system.

    • Tracey 38.2
      10 December 2013 at 7:54 am

      can you post your source for the legal definition of a journalist, because that is the only definition that matters in this, under the evidence act how has “journalist”been judicially interpreted.

      All people who provide comments on the news are NOT journalists. All people who disseminate information are NOT journalists.

      I doubt any one would disagree that Slater meets the definition of publisher (and see his suppression verdict decision for this) but as for whether he is a journalist, that’s a whole other ball-game.

      Some of you need to actually read some of the judicial decisions before commenting. Slater’s suppression defence sounded like a strong ego telling his lawyer some things he MUST argue. I would hate to be his lawyer for that reason. Next you will tell me Slater is a lawyer cos he knows some stuff about the law?

  39. Ross 39
    9 December 2013 at 9:17 pm

    [deleted]

    [lprent: Your entire comment is entirely irrelevant to the topic. In fact it looks like a deliberate diversion. ]

  40. Ross 40
    10 December 2013 at 8:10 am

    A deliberate diversion? A diversion from what? Mr Blomfield’s main complaint seems to be that he thinks Slater isn’t a journalist. That is clearly false. I’d hate to think that this blog’s hatred of Slater is so great that it will print anything negative about him and to hell with the consequences. I’m no fan of Slater but even a stopped watch is correct twice a day.

    • lprent 40.1
      10 December 2013 at 8:39 am

      Perhaps you haven’t caught up yet. Perhaps you should read the decision rather than trying to gain a reputation of being willfully ignorant. Your fantasies have little bearing on the legal process. Read back into this post and the two previous ones on this topic to help educate yourself.

      Judge Blackie ruled that in mid-2012 that the whaleoil blog was not a news medium. That is what the High Court has to hear an appeal on. Now I’m sure that Cameron will screw up on trying to argue every other point except the one that he’ll have to pass first, because screwing up is his particular skill in life. Now I happen to agree with Judge Blackie. I don’t think that whaleoil, this site, kiwiblog, public address, facebook, twitter, most blogging sites, and many other parts of the net constitute “news mediums”. Mickey disagrees largely based on the protection it’d offer people who are in fact acting as journalists (often in their spare time) and researching all of the angles of stories. His example is Keith Ng. I’d probably extend that to Idiot Savant. Most bloggers don’t get deep enough into a story to either require the protection of their sources.

      The only reason that I suspect that Cameron would like such protection is because he has been known to sell his services writing for whaleoil to pursue vendettas for his “sources”, and they’d rather like to not be exposed as part of the transaction. When I look at many of the bigger “stories” that Cameron has written about over the last few years, that is what I see. He is being used by people who have something that news mediums won’t touch that they want to use to smear opponents. By his own admission Cameron “demands” payment for doing exactly that. Not what I’d consider to be a news medium.

      I suspect we’re going to find that the high court takes as dim a view of that as I do of a blog dedicated to the sale of smear vendettas against opponents. I suspect that they won’t find that the whaleoil blog is a news medium.

      Under the evidence act, unless Cameron could show that he was intending to take his source’s information to a actual news medium he can’t claim the protection of being a journalist. The question of if Cameron being a journalist didn’t even arise.

      However if the question of if Cameron was a journalist during the 2012 period that the case is about, then the plaintiff would merely use Cameron’s words against him. He spent much of 2012 explaining that he was able to write some blantant lies and strange vendettas because he wasn’t a journalist. I’d agree..

      Perhaps you should ask Cameron why he suddenly finds the need to go back on those rather emphatic statements?

      As I said at the start – perhaps you should actually have a close look at the judgement and your hero. Personally I find him to be a rather spineless fool.

  41. Whale watcher 41
    11 December 2013 at 4:57 am

    Long time listener, first time caller. Intrigued by the ramifications of this story, I have been keeping an eye on the Whale Oil website to how he responds to the very serious suggestion that he defames for reward. The silence is deafening.

    As there are clearly participants in this discussion who will not open that site on principle, allow me to share my observations.

    WO has clearly read the Blomfield story. He wrote a post saying that he owes a duty to disclose his income to the IRD and no-one else. He quoted an academic who posited that he did not mind if bloggers got paid. No way in the world could that person be talking about the type of mercenary conduct suggested. WO has blagged this site but in doing so, completely avoided the issue. Apart from that, the great gonzo of our time, the man Luigi runs to when he has some shit to spread, is silent.

    WO has instead recruited a couple of complete imbeciles who are filling his pages with post pubescent blather garnered from You Tube coupled with some inane thoughts of their own. It is pitiful.

    • lprent 41.1
      11 December 2013 at 9:31 pm

      I’d noticed it’d gone quiet over there

    • felix 41.2
      12 December 2013 at 1:20 am

      “WO has instead recruited a couple of complete imbeciles who are filling his pages with post pubescent blather garnered from You Tube coupled with some inane thoughts of their own.”

      Err, that’s been the MO of WO for a couple of years, posting literally thousands of popular youtube vids to get his page views up. And around the time he became Truth Editor, he made up a few new handles so as to pretend it’s not just him.

      “It is pitiful.”

      Yes it is.

Links to post