Beware, creepy men of the right: Rawshark returns (briefly)

Written By: - Date published: 6:30 pm, September 14th, 2016 - 82 comments
Categories: Dirty Politics, local body elections, scoundrels - Tags: , , , ,

An old handle flickered back into life briefly this afternoon:

Rawshark – presuming the account is still held and operated by the hacker who exposed the dodgy shenanigans between the WhaleOil blog, corporate lobbyists and senior National Party politicians – started with a screenshot from the previous run, in which Cameron Slater and Jordan Williams allegedly discuss how to get damaging anti-wharfie stories into the media at the time of the POAL lockout.

whaledump-screenshot-1

But something appears to have changed his or her mind.

So a bit more information has been released. (Highlighting added by me)

whaledump-screenshot-2

If this is ringing a bell, it should, and not just because it’s no surprise that Jordan Williams has an … odd perspective on women:

It also sounds a lot like the way Luigi Wewege used sex to pressure Bevan Chuang to reveal details of her relationship with Auckland Mayor Len Brown.

Bevan Chuang told the New Zealand Herald she entered an intimate relationship with Luigi Wewege, a member of Mr Palino’s failed campaign team, who wanted her to expose the mayor’s infidelity when he found out about the affair.

“Luigi started pursuing non-stop about how I should tell on Len,” Ms Chuang said. “I was asked to record phone calls because that’s when Len would say all the dirty stuff.”

She says Mr Wewege wanted to publish the allegations on the Whale Oil blogsite, run by Cameron Slater, to ruin Mr Brown’s reputation before the election but she refused to swear an affidavit and produce text messages to corroborate her story.

It’s a bit hard to avoid the conclusion that rightwing men are so lacking a moral compass that they happily exploit sexual intimacy to manipulate women to gain political ammunition.

If women were doing the same thing to men they’d be denounced as cuckolding honeytrap Jezebels from every direction. That’s the patriarchal double standard for you.

So here’s my question, rightwing dudes: you love demanding that other people denounce extremism in their culture or party or religion. Are you going to denounce Jordan Williams and Luigi Wewege, and any other man who’s “taken one for the team” to manufacture a political scandal?  Or are you happy for us to assume that all rightwing men are sleazy creeps?

~

A quick note: I’m sure commenters will be quick to point out that leftwing men can also be abusive creeps, but show me (a) where a leftwing dude has used sex to gain political ammunition and (b) the bizarro universe in which I didn’t condemn that as scummy, too; otherwise sod off with your derailing tactics.

~

And a final thought, on a related topic: Rawshark’s brief return sent a very powerful message to the Dirty Politics crew. I’m still here. I’m still watching. And there’s a lot I didn’t reveal, so don’t make me want to come back.

Good on ya, mate.

82 comments on “Beware, creepy men of the right: Rawshark returns (briefly) ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Anne 1
    14 September 2016 at 6:39 pm

    I’m still here. I’m still watching. And there’s a lot I didn’t reveal, so don’t make me want to come back.

    Good on ya, mate.

    +1000

  2. CnrJoe 2
    14 September 2016 at 6:50 pm

    Áwèşômņêśş

  3. Cinny 3
    14 September 2016 at 6:51 pm

    Ewwww… ‘take one for the team’ – like he would have turned her down if not for possible information, yeah right !
    He seems rather sure of himself, rates himself, lolololz talking himself up to look like a hot shot to whale blubber, what a joke, seriously? LMFAO !!! Muppet as

    WB Rawshark, been thinking about you while watching Mr Robot <3

  4. Chuck 4
    14 September 2016 at 6:54 pm

    [Stephanie: I refer you to the penultimate paragraph: show me (a) where a leftwing dude has used sex to gain political ammunition and (b) the bizarro universe in which I didn’t condemn that as scummy, too; otherwise sod off with your derailing tactics.

    And don’t use other people’s traumatic experiences as a “gotcha” to score cheap political points. It’s gross, it’s pathetic, and it’s not welcome on my posts.]

    • In Vino 4.2
      14 September 2016 at 8:48 pm

      Typical of Chuck’s contributions – well deleted, Stephanie. Given his past writings, I suspect he will have to Google ‘penultimate’. You are dead right about the patriarchal double standard.

    • Chuck 4.3
      14 September 2016 at 9:01 pm

      I refer you again to what your wrote…

      “It’s a bit hard to avoid the conclusion that rightwing men are so lacking a moral compass that they happily exploit sexual intimacy to manipulate women to gain political ammunition.”

      Have a think about it…I won’t comment on anymore of your posts, as its clear you are only after comments that support your theory.

      • Stephanie Rodgers 4.3.1
        14 September 2016 at 10:00 pm

        It took you less than 15 minutes to leave another comment after this one. 🙄

        You’ve offered no substantive response except drag up a five-year-old scandal to try to derail this conversation. You look like a fool. Try better in future.

    • WILD KATIPO 4.4
      14 September 2016 at 9:14 pm

      Dun dun dun dun….. Im thinkin big hungry Great White sharks think bloated , fat and blubber rich blue-bloods taste even better,…Id swim for it if I were you , matey!

  5. One Anonymous Bloke 5
    14 September 2016 at 7:09 pm

    Can this evidence of Mr. Williams’ character be used in court? I do hope so 😈

    • Anne 5.1
      14 September 2016 at 7:12 pm

      Someone will need to make sure Colin Craig’s lawyers get to see this ‘evidence’.

      • Chuck (The goat fucker) 5.1.1
        14 September 2016 at 9:12 pm

        So Anne you support Colin Craig and his abuse of power and unwanted behavior towards Rachel?

        Or is it that getting Williams, makes it o.k. to overlook Craig’s behavior?

        For Craig to win this case, throws Rachel MacGregor under the bus with her testimony.

        [lprent: So Chuck – when did you last fuck that lovely goat? The nice friendly one that makes you horny to just look at him…

        I’d suggest that you don’t use that particular strategy here again – especially against an author on their post. I don’t like it, and I’m inclined to use it as an excuse to remove my personal restraints as a moderator and become more like the vindictive bastard that I so long to be – and with sysop powers. ]

        • Muttonbird 5.1.1.1
          14 September 2016 at 9:39 pm

          The problem here, Chuck, is that both Craig and Williams are rightwing men and therefore both lack a moral compass.

          If only it were possible for both to lose…

          Anyway at 9:01 you promised not to comment again yet here you are at 9:12. Perhaps that’s another thing rightwing men have problems with – keeping promises.

          • lprent 5.1.1.1.1
            15 September 2016 at 12:04 am

            If only it were possible for both to lose…

            Ummm. I think that something like a defamation case between them would probably do the job.

            That is a civil case. Hard to get suppression orders on those.

            Then all kinds of arsehole behaviours could be exposed…..

            Williams vs Craig. The case where both of them look like complete poorly sanitised douchebags

          • Anno1701 5.1.1.1.2
            15 September 2016 at 2:13 pm

            “Anyway at 9:01 you promised not to comment again yet here you are at 9:12. Perhaps that’s another thing rightwing men have problems with –”

            premature enunciation !

    • the pigman 5.2
      14 September 2016 at 7:30 pm

      The problem for Craig is that for an “honest opinion” defence to succeed (and I hope it does, because frankly) against Williams’ defamation claim, he needs to be aware of all facts on which he based his opinion at the time he expressed/published that opinion.

      So while Williams keeping all of the MacGregor/Craig correspondence in his safe then running to the Conservative board with it when MacGregor wasn’t looking (and expressly against assurances he gave MacGregor) sure looks like the inept VRWC/Dirty Politics machine operating to ratfuck Craig, I’m not sure he was aware of those facts at the time he claimed that’s what Williams was doing.

      Either way, Williams is a disgraced, discredited, sleazy and inept wannabe right wing black ops man… at least we won’t be hearing him on Mora’s the Panel alongside Boag and Franks anytime soon… (actually, I am probably speaking to soon on that…)

      • Stephanie Rodgers 5.2.1
        14 September 2016 at 8:16 pm

        He could probably base his opinion on the fact it had apparently been Jordan Williams’ standard modus operandi for years …

        • the pigman 5.2.1.1
          14 September 2016 at 8:39 pm

          Although I agree, even that is a matter of opinion, whereas honest opinion should be based on objectively provable facts (and pointing to a bunch of whaledump correspondence of him being scummy probably doesn’t get you there).

          • Stephanie Rodgers 5.2.1.1.1
            14 September 2016 at 8:57 pm

            The defence against charges of defamation is “honest opinion”. Not “honest opinion based on 37 affidavits from neutral witnesses and 18 pieces of documentation notarised by Justices of the Peace.”

            • lprent 5.2.1.1.1.1
              15 September 2016 at 12:57 am

              There are several defences apart from honest opinion.

              The obvious one is to show that the facts as stated are substantially correct (ie “Truth”). We aren’t going to see that one appear until the defence starts its case. However bearing in mind what is alleged is the defamation, what has already appeared in the plaintiff‘s case and the way that some of this material got exposed – I’d expect that there is a decent case to be made on substantive truth grounds. And that is before we look at some of the older material from rawshark.

              Various types of privilege. I can’t see that appearing highly in this case, unless they relate to matters that involve the general meetings of the Conservative Board.

              Consents – unlikely.

              “Honest opinion” usually isn’t that good a defence. However in this case, and bearing in mind the way that Jordan Williams was exposed in Dirty Politics the previous year plus the subsequent rawshark dumps – I’d say that honest opinion has a reasonably good shot.

              But I personally wouldn’t have trusted Jordan Williams with any documents unless I wanted him to leak them to his mates for political gain. It has been my opinion for many years, since well before “Dirty Politics”, and based on public instances of his behaviour, that he simply isn’t trustworthy when it comes to sneaking around with information.

              In my view, he appears to have self-control problems with ‘hot’ information. It appears to me that rather than being concerned about the ethics of releasing information he is privy to, he is far more concerned with making sure that he isn’t caught holding the hot potato when it goes public. Usually in the past that has been to Kiwiblog and/or Whaleoil.

              So far in the reporting of this case, I haven’t had to revise that judgement.

              There is a pretty readable summary of the NZ defamation law here.

            • the pigman 5.2.1.1.1.2
              15 September 2016 at 7:54 pm

              Sorry SR, I know you’re the author and all, but as I have already said, and as lprent has repeated in a kind of roundabout way (and I believe he may have had some recent direct contact with this area of the law), the barriers to entry on an honest opinion defence are high. You can’t just fling any shit around and say “well, its what I think, so there”.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 5.2.2
        14 September 2016 at 8:18 pm

        Oh well. Williams will win his $1 in damages I suppose 😈

        • the pigman 5.2.2.1
          14 September 2016 at 8:41 pm

          Agreed – damages likely to be minimal and definitely worth the price of admission.

          It’s startling, really, that two wealthy righties haven’t managed to settle something with no economic value, that paints both of them in such unsympathetic light.

          They have merely enriched their lawyers and dragged MacGregor through the mud. It’s almost as if both of them might get a vague kick out of doing so?

          • Anne 5.2.2.1.1
            14 September 2016 at 8:57 pm

            They have merely enriched their lawyers and dragged MacGregor through the mud.

            Oh the irony….

          • left for dead 5.2.2.1.2
            15 September 2016 at 8:28 am

            They have merely enriched their lawyers and dragged MacGregor through the mud. It’s almost as if both of them might get a vague kick out of doing so?

            To true,,,,,, then I here Ms MacGregor say ” I just wont them too stop suing each other” so I can date and find a husband.
            They are all fools, and wasting our time and money….Three weeks of court time. Someone make a TV series and put the rest of the sheepes to sleep.

      • Chris 5.2.3
        15 September 2016 at 10:58 am

        I think Williams counted on Craig not wanting this stuff exposed and paying up from his deep pockets. Then when Craig didn’t Williams found himself having to follow through. Which also would’ve suited Williams because he’s a major player wannabe and everyone knows that to be a major player you need a defamation case or two under your belt. And as far as dealing to Craig goes, there are plenty of ways Williams could’ve released the dirt, confidentiality agreement or not.

      • Philj 5.2.4
        15 September 2016 at 7:23 pm

        Jordan Williams not on Jim Mora’s panel any more. Why not? Standards. Really? Mind you, David Farrar hasn’t been on the Panel recently, or I’ve not heard him. I’m yet to decide whether The Panel is a weak joke session or a feather duster analysis.

    • Chris 5.3
      15 September 2016 at 3:48 pm

      Yeah, but Craig had better watch out because Williams has got some pretty heavy hitters on his team. Nobody can take what this lot have to say too lightly:

      “Williams says he was telling the truth about the alleged harassment and has called a long list of witnesses for his case, including MacGregor, MacGregor’s advocate Ruth Money, former Conservative board members Christine Rankin and John Stringer, PR professional Carrick Graham, and some of Williams’ law colleagues.”

      http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/84281588/colin-craig-to-defend-defamation-case

      All he needs now is to get “Cam” up there and he’ll be simply unbeatable.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 5.3.1
        15 September 2016 at 5:48 pm

        Dude, my only interest in this is the schadenfreude.

        Jordan Williams is dishonest and corrupt, a vile manipulative man with a negative rating on the ethics scale, and so is Colin Craig. Williams embodies National Party values better than Craig.

        As Bill once put it, “fight, you bastards, fight!”

        • Chris 5.3.1.1
          15 September 2016 at 6:12 pm

          And surely the comedy, too? Carrick Graham, Rankin, Williams’ mates, Ruth SST Money of all people? And isn’t Hooton supposed to be giving a cameo performance? You couldn’t get a better cast.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 5.3.1.1.1
            15 September 2016 at 7:23 pm

            Tories hurting one another wouldn’t have that much comedic value even if they kept their hatreds to themselves. It’s not like they’re original or imaginative.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 5.3.1.1.2
            15 September 2016 at 7:42 pm

            I lied: schadenfreude isn’t my only concern. When trash (like Jordan Williams and Colin Craig) fight, the relevance of the outcome is proportional to how much it actually damages right wing political and business interests.

            Williams’ employer has backed him in court. I hope her doors are closing faster than his are. That’s for nothing. Now do something.

  6. newsense 6
    14 September 2016 at 7:26 pm

    Will Armando Ianucco be suing real life for stealing his satirical ideas?

  7. Rodel 7
    14 September 2016 at 8:50 pm

    After Williams and Slater, Donald Trump doesn’t look that bad.

    But if Williams is suing Craig for defamation why do we have to hear all about Colin’s massages, magic hands and being sung to sleep between imaginary legs .

    Surely if he said or wrote something wrong which harmed William’s reputation that’s what the issue is. I mean right wing christian pervs are intriguing albeit not uncommon but Mr Craig’s penchants and proclivities are side issues.

    Be great if the judge/ jury decided that Mr. William’s honourable reputation was unsullied and he could get on with his union work.

    I hope Mr Craig returns to the political scene renewed and re-inviagorated.

    • ianmac 7.1
      14 September 2016 at 9:00 pm

      Something weird about the whole set up. Must be an ulterior motive. Surely Williams is not concerned about his reputation given the rather unpleasant dabblings he has been involved with and the dark companions he works with.

      • mickysavage 7.1.1
        14 September 2016 at 9:16 pm

        I get the feeling there are two huge egos unwilling to compromise and preferring to spend large amounts of money on lawyers rather than backing down.

        Perfect people to be MPs …

    • lprent 7.2
      15 September 2016 at 1:01 am

      Surely if he said or wrote something wrong which harmed William’s reputation that’s what the issue is

      Ah no. The reputation is of absolutely no interest in winning a defamation case. Perhaps you should read something about actual NZ defamation law rather than making yourself look like a fool who is totally ignorant about parts of the legal system.

      http://www.defamationupdate.co.nz/guide-to-defamation-law

      If Jordan Williams manages to win the case, then reputation MAY become part of the remedy ordered by the judge and/or jury.

  8. Rosie 8
    14 September 2016 at 9:13 pm

    Did I imagine it? I am not following the Williams Vs Craig case. Got too much tat to deal with IRL unfortunately. But, two days ago while watching the 6 pm news did I hear Williams say something in court a long the lines of “women need to be respected…..”?

    Then there was a moment of confusion when I remembered back to those disgusting, offensive and in Slater’s case, violent remarks about women’s body parts, that there is a mention of, in the above post (and which has sickened me and stayed with me since I first heard it). Then I thought, you f*cking two faced hypocritical smug toe rag.

    So, if you made a brief appearance this arvo Rawshark, you have gladdened my heart. It’s reminds us that there is a watcher. And that watcher has a mega phone.

    Much respect.

  9. stunned mullet 9
    14 September 2016 at 9:16 pm

    🙄

  10. Macro 10
    14 September 2016 at 9:27 pm

    Gezz I hope Jordan’s mum doesn’t get to read that email……
    Any hope he had of her leaving her darling boy a penny or two will be out the window!

    • Muttonbird 10.1
      14 September 2016 at 9:44 pm

      Dragging his mother into this now. What an awful little oink.

      • Macro 10.1.1
        14 September 2016 at 9:49 pm

        Craig and Williams deserve each other. It has been wonderful popcorn entertainment, and free to all!

        • Anne 10.1.1.1
          14 September 2016 at 10:06 pm

          I agree Macro but lets not forget the real victim here. I refer to the young MacGregor woman. First she has to put up with Craig’s fawning (to put it nicely) then she is used and manipulated by the Williams creep. I hope she gets lots of support after this is all over because I think she is going to need it.

          • Macro 10.1.1.1.1
            14 September 2016 at 10:11 pm

            Yes! what you say is very true Anne. These two creeps have a lot to answer. If any damages are to be paid (and I think both should pay) it should be awarded to her.

            • Rodel 10.1.1.1.1.1
              15 September 2016 at 12:27 am

              Macro..Brilliant .If I were judge that would be my wish.
              But wait there’s probably more.

              • save nz …
                15 September 2016 at 10:45 am

                Nope the women should be told to attend some sort of counselling so she can recognise manipulative creeps and users. The money should be awarded to womens refuge.

                Craig and Williams have to attend court mandated counselling sessions on misogyny and sexual harassment.

          • lprent 10.1.1.1.2
            15 September 2016 at 12:12 am

            Agreed.

            So far from what I have glimpsed in the news, she appears to simply have made awful choices in bosses and who she confides in.

            However so far I don’t think that we have heard the defence yet? Just questions that the defence has been raising with plaintiff’s witnesses. So I’m going to be fascinated with what the defence puts up.

  11. RedLogix 11
    15 September 2016 at 12:08 am

    Life is generally too short to waste paying attention to affairs like this, so I’ll constrain myself to commenting on the only upside I can think of: no-one will feel obliged to take either of these men seriously ever again.

  12. Richard Rawshark 12
    15 September 2016 at 7:24 am

    Rawshark seems to dislike Slatter, a lot.., wonders if slatter burned someone and they are just getting there own back..

    The only peoples, who take ..fuckwits like these with any seriousness or even go to their websites, well they are fucked anyways, probably very angry [men]. As in I need to go somewhere and make out i’m big tough and don’t give a shit. Sadly they are usually the opposite in real life when challenged face to face.

    In other words, these days, Slatter and anyone associated with him are just clowns.. to be treated as such.

    IMHO

    [Stephanie: Edited commentary on penis size. It’s unnecessary, it buys into harmful tropes about masculinity and sexuality, and it’s exactly the kind of toxic shit Slater and Williams throw around. Not on my post.]

    • save nz 12.1
      15 September 2016 at 9:27 am

      Richard Rawshark –

      “The only peoples, who take ..fuckwits like these with any seriousness or even go to their websites, well they are fucked anyways, probably very angry [men]. As in I need to go somewhere and make out i’m big tough and don’t give a shit. ”

      You mean like John Key and Judith Collins, friends and txters with Slater?

    • reason 12.2
      15 September 2016 at 8:15 pm

      “Rawshark seems to dislike Slatter, a lot.., wonders if slatter burned someone and they are just getting there own back..”

      Well there is this ………………

      “In January 2014, WhaleOil was hacked some time after he posted a blog post with the headline “Feral dies in Greymouth, did world a favour.” Three other children in this family had already been killed in accidents and the post provoked a ‘furious public reaction’. ” …..

      Key rang up to commiserate and side with slater,….. the bereaved mother was apparently a”a bitch” who had embarrassed key over another one of her sons and his false promises regarding the pike river mine disaster/killings …

      Cameron Slater acting like a super creep, slagging off the dead and adding to the grief of a mother seems to have been the motivation for Rawshark …

  13. Patrick Cummoskey 13
    15 September 2016 at 7:39 am

    +100 Steph! Like you I support Craig 100%! Go Colin!

    [Stephanie: Blatant trolling. Don’t do it again.]

  14. Paul 14
    15 September 2016 at 7:42 am

    6 questions.

    1. Is it worth observing the link between ex ACT MP Stephen Franks and Williams?
    2. Is Franks the portal for Williams’ connections in business and politics?
    3. Who is Franks friend on RNZ that ensures regular visits on the Panel?
    4. Will the media now ignore the press statements of Williams creation the Taxpayers Union?
    5. Who paid Williams to discredit Craig?
    6. Why did the extreme right want to get rid of Craig?

    • Jenny Kirk 14.1
      15 September 2016 at 8:10 am

      “Why did the extreme right want to get rid of Craig?”
      Paul – my theory is so he would not be any sort of “threat” to whoever is going to stand in the Nat-held seat of East Coast Bays in future (replacing McCully). I think that’s a bit OTT, but cannot think of any other reason.

      Whatever – the defamation case has produced some of the funniest news items we’ve seen for quite a while – notwithstanding the fact that these two guys have demolished a woman (Rachel McG) whose personal life shouldn’t be subject to so much publicity just to justify two sleazy egos.

    • Puckish Rogue 14.2
      15 September 2016 at 8:43 am

      6. Why did the extreme right want to get rid of Craig?

      – Because hes nuttier then a fruitcake?

      • Patrick Cummoskey 14.2.1
        15 September 2016 at 10:25 am

        How dare you write such defamation about Mr Craig! Colin Craig is an honourable man who loves his wife and would never cheat on her. Colin Craig never sexually harassed that woman! The affair was consensual! MacGregor will be proven to be a liar in court if she hasn’t already!!!

        – Patrick Cummoskey.

        [Stephanie: Cannot tell if sarcastic or sincere, but in either case: don’t attack Rachel MacGregor and don’t make statements about sexual harassment you can’t back up.]

      • Nelson Muntz 14.2.2
        15 September 2016 at 10:36 am

        The Left are blind to the obvious.

    • Bearded Git 14.3
      15 September 2016 at 11:05 am

      @Paul good questions. I think Key wants Craig out of the way so there is no possibility of 3-4% of the vote being wasted at the next election.

      For the same (Election 2017) reason Key is now sucking up to the MP over the Kermadecs and has left Nick Smith and any semblance of pro-green policy swinging in the wind (Chris Trotter explains this today in style). Key is positioning for a 4th term.

      • mosa 14.3.1
        15 September 2016 at 12:09 pm

        Another victim run down by the John Key Coachlines bus. But its only Nick Smith this time. It was overdue.

  15. mary_a 15
    15 September 2016 at 7:46 am

    Great. Bring it on. Go Rawshark :-)))))))

  16. save nz 16
    15 September 2016 at 9:25 am

    Absolutely shocking.

    Go Rawshark!

    Go Colin Craig. Don’t agree with his politics but good on him for standing up for himself with the RWNJ bullies!

    As for Williams, his misogyny is truly creepy.

    • Puckish Rogue 16.1
      15 September 2016 at 9:39 am

      You don’t agree with his politics but you do agree with his view and treatment of women?

      • save nz 16.1.1
        15 September 2016 at 10:02 am

        I think the Williams examples of some sort of manipulative political honey trap sex a lot creepier than Craig.

        “she’s no doubt want to root me tomorrow”
        “take one for the team”

        Really disgusting. Much worse than what Craig’s accused of.

        And I’m not sure I believe the MSM portrayal of Craig as it seems that those who might take votes of National seem to be smeared and incapacitated in some way…

        Just noticing…

        But sexism needs to be cleaned up in NZ. The rugby/stripper scandal, the PM and the ponytail, Colin Craig, Jordan Williams, Len Brown, Louise Nicholas, the roast busters, Tony Veich, Cunliffe made fun of for actually wanting to do something about family violence.

        Considering many people seem to think NZ is not sexist, it is clear it is institutionally NZ is very sexist. Which is terrible as a lot of NZ men are actually the opposite of being sexist but maybe they are out numbered.

        • Puckish Rogue 16.1.1.1
          15 September 2016 at 10:20 am

          The thing is you seem to be championing a man who, if nothing else, is creepy towards women simply because it might score a hit on Williams

          You really don’t see the issue there?

          • save nz 16.1.1.1.1
            15 September 2016 at 10:35 am

            Forgot to add to my recent NZ Misogyny list, the rich lister who punched a female police officer got community service.

            Punching women is ok in NZ (sarc), so he is appealing it apparently as does not even think it warrants a criminal sentence.

          • save nz 16.1.1.1.2
            15 September 2016 at 10:37 am

            I’m not championing Craig. But think there is more to it than that.

            • Puckish Rogue 16.1.1.1.2.1
              15 September 2016 at 10:48 am

              I beg to differ:

              “Go Colin Craig. Don’t agree with his politics but good on him for standing up for himself with the RWNJ bullies!”

              that sounds like you’re championing him quite a bit, just because you think Williams is a creep doesn’t mean the Colin Craig isn’t a creep, they could (probably are) both be creeps

              • save nz …
                15 September 2016 at 1:32 pm

                Yep, the could possibly both be creeps. But the jury’s out on Craig until he’s convicted of harassment. Just find the timing weird that she outed him days before the election. I mean the women must have known by publicly doing it the way she did she would be curtains for her career, so was she made or manipulated or asked to do it that way?? Just speculating that the whole thing does not make any sense.

                With the right wing manipulation of the Len Brown affair I’m not willing to think it’s all some sort of co incidence.

                • Puckish Rogue …
                  15 September 2016 at 1:44 pm

                  Well no, hes being sued by Jordan Williams because Craig defamed Williams (at least that’s what Williams is saying) so not harrassment

                  Now unless you’re very good, close friends with someone then saying you slept well because you dreamed you were sleeping between their legs is creepy

                • Stephanie Rodgers …
                  15 September 2016 at 5:22 pm

                  Many answers to your questions are in the post above.

                  Election times are incredibly stressful for political staffers. It doesn’t surprise me at all that she resigned then.

                  And as The Standard isn’t a court of law, I think people are quite able to draw conclusions about Craig being a creepy sexual harasser with control issues, based on his own public behaviour since then.

  17. Cemetery Jones 17
    15 September 2016 at 9:40 am

    [Stephanie: It is not necessary to make personal comments about other people’s fuckability. This post is about manipulation and exploitation of sexual relationships for political ends.]

  18. Infused 18
    15 September 2016 at 10:14 am

    Yawn.

    Bring this up again. Works so well for the left.

    [Stephanie: Make a constructive, on-topic comment or go away.]

    • Infused 18.1
      15 September 2016 at 1:30 pm

      You’re just being manipulated by some random. The account didn’t spring back to life. Take a step back and look at what’s going on here.

      Something’s about to come out, or someone is distracting from something. Either way, you are all taking the bait.

      • Stephanie Rodgers 18.1.1
        15 September 2016 at 5:09 pm

        It’s the same account Rawshark released information through previously, was verified by Nicky Hager as being his source, and hasn’t tweeted since September 2014. “Sprang back to life” seems a pretty apt description to me.

        Do you have any actual evidence that it wasn’t Rawshark, or that the evidence was falsified, beyond your unearned sense of superiority? If not, stop trolling.