Cameron Slater’s shame: his latest moneymaker

Written By: Zetetic - Date published: 9:12 am, January 19th, 2010 - 100 comments
Categories: crime - Tags: cameron slater, scams

Cameron ‘Whaleoil’ Slater has launched ‘SHAME’. It’s supposedly a lobby group to get suppression laws changed. Really, it looks like a money making scheme for the workshy Slater.

SHAME seems to have no members apart from Slater. He says “We are fortunate to be supported by Michael Laws and John Banks, plus many others.” Note: Banks and Laws are not members. They’re “supporters”. I’ll bet you now there are no ‘members’ other than Slater. Certainly, the SHAME site offers no way for you to join. Doesn’t even raise the possibility.

What you can do on the site is donate. It’s all you can do. Apart from read the ‘about’. There are four links to the donation page on the front page alone.

Who are you donating to? SHAME won’t say. It doesn’t look like SHAME has any legal status. It is not a company. Not a society. Not a trust. It is a scam. It is Slater. “If you give money to SHAME, it looks like the money will go straight to Slater. What is to stop him spending it on himself?”

Slater lived on income insurance for many years until the insurance company stopped his payments. Now he is on the sickness benefit. To maintain his lifestyle he needs another source of income. Hence, SHAME.

There’s no point engaging in Slater’s ‘arguments’ since this entire campaign is just another money-making/attention-getting venture for him, but here I go.

SHAME stands for Suppression Helps Abusers Make Excuses. No, suppression doesn’t. It protects the identities of sexual abuse victims. Also, in some cases, people have been a accused of a particularly damning crime but have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Because those people would unfairly bear the stain of the offence if they are later found not guilty. These suppression orders are made by trained, experienced judges in light of the facts. Not dickhead bloggers.

In his about page for SHAME, Slater writes:

“We belive [sic] that the ONLY solution to our suppression laws [is] a simplification removing name suppression for all except for victims and to add the suppression of the nature of the relationship between the offender and the victim.” Slater misses the point that the suppressed names are of ‘accused’ not ‘offenders’. I expect he doesn’t understand the difference. He also ignores the fact that he has revealed the identities of accused whose names were suppressed to protect the identity of the victims.

“People are n’t [sic] interested in the lurid details of the victim they are interested in the names of offenders. If something becomes a secret then people want to know that secret.” So, what? People are fascinated by crime porn. We know that. That fascination doesn’t outweigh the right of the victims to privacy.

“Slater (who has strangely taken to referring to himself in the third person) doesn’t really give a damn about suppression laws. He is exploiting victims of sexual crime for no higher purpose than money and the attention he craves.

100 comments on “Cameron Slater’s shame: his latest moneymaker ”

Comments are now closed

gitmo 1

19 January 2010 at 9:29 am

This just appears to be another rant and borderline slanderous… why do you hate Slater so much that you’d continue to post about him in such a way ?

This site is loosing whatever mojo it had and descending into a teenage bitching fest.
- Rob 1.1
  
  19 January 2010 at 2:04 pm
  
  @gitmo…
  
  It is either slanderous or not… there is no borderline….
  - starboard 1.1.1
    
    19 January 2010 at 6:38 pm
    
    ..keep up the good work Cam.
Sanctuary 2

19 January 2010 at 9:41 am

“…SHAME seems to have no members apart from Slater…. …Certainly, the SHAME site offers no way for you to join. Doesn’t even raise the possibility…

…What you can do on the site is donate. ..”

Clearly modelled on Family First then.
sweetd 3

19 January 2010 at 9:42 am

Agree with Gitmo, this is less about SHAME and more about your hatred of Whale. I suspect if anybody else had started a group like this you wouldn’t care less.
- felix 3.1
  
  19 January 2010 at 9:47 am
  
  I suspect if anybody else had started a group like this you wouldn’t care less.
  
  The main thrust of the post is that its not a group. Slater has pretended to start a group.
  - sweetd 3.1.1
    
    19 January 2010 at 10:10 am
    
    For a pretend group, the SHAME Facebook page has 129 members. Looks like a group to me.
    - felix 3.1.1.1
      
      19 January 2010 at 10:20 am
      
      Ah, a facebook group.
      
      In that case, give generously.
snoozer 4

19 January 2010 at 9:46 am

this guy really is a con-artist eh?

First he is ripping off an insurance comapny for income insurance that he wasn’t entitled to. Now, he’s trying to get Kiwis concerned about sex crime to fund his lifestyle.
Seti 5

19 January 2010 at 9:49 am

So beneficairy bashing is okay providing its on the opposite hue?
- felix 5.1
  
  19 January 2010 at 9:53 am
  
  Explain what you mean by “beneficairy bashing”. Show your working and any relevant examples. Your answer should be more than “beneficiary bashing means using the word beneficiary”.
  - Seti 5.1.1
    
    19 January 2010 at 10:01 am
    
    Replace …Slater the welfare queen with Sione the welfare queen.
    - felix 5.1.1.1
      
      19 January 2010 at 10:02 am
      
      Your answer should be more than “beneficiary bashing means using the word beneficiary’.
      
      Try again.
    - starboard 5.1.1.2
      
      19 January 2010 at 6:40 pm
      
      well said Seti
felix 6

19 January 2010 at 9:49 am

The second comment on his site reads The whale rocks! posted by admin
big bruv 7

19 January 2010 at 9:53 am

It needs to be pointed out that not all of us on the right support Slater or SHAME.

I favour blanket name and detail suppression in all instances until the accused has had his/her day in court.

Where I do agree with Slater is in the area of name suppression once the accused has been found guilty, this should never be allowed to happen.
- Richard 7.1
  
  19 January 2010 at 10:47 am
  
  Even if naming convicted people identifies victims, or punishes the offender out of proportion to their crime?
  - big bruv 7.1.1
    
    19 January 2010 at 10:57 am
    
    Richard
    
    Naming the criminal need not identify the victims as per the Caphill case.
    
    As for punishing the offender out of proportion, yes, tough luck for the criminal.
    - Richard 7.1.1.1
      
      19 January 2010 at 11:43 am
      
      Yes, you are right in some cases identifying the offender does not identify the victim (such as apparently the Caphill). But in some cases identifying the offender does identify the victim. That’s why in those cases suppression could still be valid after conviction. I think that’s why a blanket rule that suppression ceases after conviction is unworkable.
      
      Punishing offenders out of proportion to their offense is not just and undermines the rule of law.
- lprent 7.2
  
  19 January 2010 at 12:44 pm
  
  bb: I agree with most of that (and that is a surprise), and it was the case until somewhere in the 70’s (from memory).
  
  However I disagree with
  <…area of name suppression once the accused has been found guilty, this should never be allowed to happen.
  
  Imagine that someone was convicted of kiddie fiddling his daughters in a high profile case. Releasing the name and details of the offender then re-victimizes the victim. Absolute rules like that a real problem. I’d prefer to leave that decision up to the judge, ideally with a review period (family may change name etc…)
  - Rex Widerstrom 7.2.1
    
    19 January 2010 at 6:04 pm
    
    Releasing the name and details of the offender then re-victimizes the victim.
    
    I don’t for one moment disagree with the need to respect the wishes of the victim in this matter.
    
    However, it also annoys me intensely that society’s response to anything with “sex” in it is still a Puritanical mixture of disapproval and titllation such that a victim of a sex offence is left feeling they have something shameful to hide.
    
    We really, really need to grow TF up.
Mako 8

19 January 2010 at 10:16 am

It’s interesting that Slater has previously insisted that his reason for publishing identifying information was his belief that the law was wrong. Yet on Breakfast this morning, he claimed to have taken this stance only once charged by the police. This would seem to confirm that his original motives were not as principled as he now claims them to have been.

BTW, I wonder if he’s had a spot of media training recently? If so, I can probably guess from whom.
- toad 8.1
  
  19 January 2010 at 10:26 am
  
  Lhaws?
  - Rex Widerstrom 8.1.1
    
    19 January 2010 at 6:06 pm
    
    Well according to Mako he was caught in a blatant and stupid lie in the midst of a scheme aimed at personal enrichment, so yes.
    
    I expect any moment now the secretary / treasurer will be revealed to be one Antoinette Beck, Australian university student, and oddly uncontactable.
toad 9

19 January 2010 at 10:17 am

The “How to donate” page says:

Through our Bank Account (coming soon)

Thank you in advance for your kind donation, through The Whale’s court cases and through our lobbying we WILL change this law.

That’s interesting on 2 counts.

1) The “organisation” obviously doesn’t have a bank account yet. The paypal payment facility is presumably sendiong credit card payments directly to Slater rather than to the “organisation”.

2) It appears to be funding Slater’s legal defence as well as his lobbying.
Pete 10

19 January 2010 at 10:29 am

It really irritates me that he’s called a “high-profile” blogger on Stuff et al too.

I guess in the village that is New Zealand that this is so, but still, it does many decent bloggers a dis-service…
torydog 11

19 January 2010 at 10:57 am

wow as if the group wasnt cool enough he has to get Laws and Banks…geez sounds like a well reasoned group of intelligent thinkers…….!

Spose John will be donating a significant amount to save buddy from what he deserves.

AND what ever happend to innocent until proven guilty???? Why the need to have private info released about a person before they go through due process……god we sure are under tory rule now!
Scott 12

19 January 2010 at 10:58 am

I don’t particularly like Slater, but Z that’s one mean post. Calling someone a “welfare queen” does you a disservice.

Why stoop to his level? He’s clearly got to you.
- Bright Red 12.1
  
  19 January 2010 at 11:03 am
  
  Slater hasn’t worked for the last ten years. He rants on about ‘bludgers’ but he’s one himself.
  
  I think it’s fair that it gets pointed out.
  - Scott 12.1.1
    
    19 January 2010 at 11:11 am
    
    I understand the hypocrisy issue, but maybe there’s a good reason for him to be on on a sickness benefit. None of us know the full details of his medical condition. Calling him a “welfare queen” merely demeans others on welfare.
    - lprent 12.1.1.1
      
      19 January 2010 at 12:25 pm
      
      I’d agree with that. Using it as a phrase of opprobrium isn’t particularly useful, although it is usually used from the right that way.
      
      However Z wrote the post. He is always a bit extreme in wording for my personal taste. But not enough for me to start censoring. Also it is Cameron. After years of being denigrated by the guy, I really have little sympathy.
      - Scott 12.1.1.1.1
        
        19 January 2010 at 1:36 pm
        
        Fair enough. I’m not suggesting you censor the post. And it’s not Slater I was worried about, but others who might be on welfare.
        
        lprent 12.1.1.1.1.1
        
        19 January 2010 at 2:27 pm
        
        That is why I wasn’t happy with that wording. Z will probably get some stick for it.
        
        But I think that I might also send him some pointed comment about using wingnut terminologies. Bad enough looking at them when I read the incoming links.
    - dontsurf 12.1.1.2
      
      19 January 2010 at 4:18 pm
      
      His insurance company certainly thinks he’s fit to work.
      
      And from his quite prolific output, it certainly doesn’t sound like he spends all day in bed.
      
      What depressed person willingly invites this kind of attention on them? He’s not depressed. He’s a bludging motherfucker. He thinks the world owes him a favour, when what the world really owes him is a good kick in the balls.
      - Babar 12.1.1.2.1
        
        19 January 2010 at 7:39 pm
        
        and your psychiatric qualifications are …?
sweetd 13

19 January 2010 at 11:02 am

Pete

he is high profile in NZ. He uses his real identity, and like David Farrar, Russel Brown and Bernard Hicky to name a few, is being used as a go to guy for comments and thus appears on TV and radio. Something that can never happen with the standard with its grouping of hidden ID’s, Lprent being the exception.
- Bright Red 13.1
  
  19 January 2010 at 11:04 am
  
  Lynn and Rochelle. But you’re right, the standard does need a public face.
  - Tigger 13.1.1
    
    19 January 2010 at 11:10 am
    
    So the fact that the poster at the Standard aren’t media whores is a bad thing?
    - felix 13.1.1.1
      
      19 January 2010 at 11:44 am
      
      I don’t think it’s a bad thing at all, however Red has a point. It would be good if someone were available to the media in the way Clinton Smith used to be.
      - Tigger 13.1.1.1.1
        
        19 January 2010 at 11:56 am
        
        It’s a co-op site isn’t it? How can one person speak for a community unless employed/elected to do so? I agree, great to see more left wing pundits being interviewed so perhaps if it was made clear they were a writer on the Standard and not speaking for the Standard…
      - lprent 13.1.1.1.2
        
        19 January 2010 at 12:19 pm
        
        Don’t look at me. I’m more likely to rip reporters heads off.
        
        However rocky is pretty good on the media
        
        rocky 13.1.1.1.2.1
        
        19 January 2010 at 12:27 pm
        
        LOL yes I think keeping lprent away from the tv cameras is a smart move! He didn’t do too bad in that SST Anthony Hubbard story about a year ago though.
        
        It’s entirely possible to have someone anonymously commenting to the media (no tv of course though)… perhaps putting up a cellphone number for media to call that one of the main writers can use wouldn’t be a bad idea. It does frequently annoy me how the media always write about The Standard without comment from our side.
        
        felix …
        
        20 January 2010 at 12:51 am
        
        It does frequently annoy me how the media always write about The Standard without comment from our side.
        
        Me too. Just need one person available for comment.
        
        As for your uncle, he’s not too bad on the radio.
- Richard 13.2
  
  19 January 2010 at 11:51 am
  
  Don’t be ridiculous, the media is perfectly able to interview people operating under pseudonyms if they want to.
  
  Madonna, Bono, Marilyn Munroe, Marilyn Manson.
tc 14

19 January 2010 at 11:39 am

Ignore him, like badly behaved children are, the fact he gets cover/copy by banks/laws/TVNZ just shows what tub thumping morons we have in our extremely mediocre media….no critical analysis just provide a soapbox for the loons.

I have the rule “IF Laws THEN Ignore”……he’s a Howard stern wannabee without the big bucks and intellect……just the way Radio Live like ’em.
Juana 15

19 January 2010 at 12:05 pm

You are a lying piece of trash.
You act as though you have the moral high ground yet lie through your teeth throwing unfounded accusation after unfounded accusation at my husband.
Everything you have stated in this post about WO is a lie.
Bet you won’t publish this because this is about your jealousy and hate not reasoned debate or fairness.

[lprent: What you think is your problem. Just attacking the writer without addressing the points raised is normally a bannable offense. But since you have an interest I’ll let it through.

But as a suggestion, you should really provide some details about what you found objectionable rather than just doing blanket statements. Then you might get some discussion on those points rather than simply being ignored. This isn’t gotcha – act according to the policy. ]
toad 16

19 January 2010 at 12:14 pm

Juana, it might help if you point out what the “lies” are and why they are lies – ie what the correct information is. Just accusing someone of lying doesn’t really add anything to the debate.

If Z has stated things as fact that are not, tell us what they are and what the real facts are.
- lprent 16.1
  
  19 January 2010 at 1:03 pm
  
  Ditto – I made exactly that point when moderating the comment. I always find it irritating when people make blanket statements without bothering to get to the essential detail.
Tigger 17

19 January 2010 at 12:23 pm

The black/white approach to suppression that Slater espouses (it’s never black and white), the confusion between being accused of a crime and being convicted are truly alarming. It’s more of the mob rule that National is encouraging…I expect torches and pitchforks and an angry mob descending on Parliament any time soon.

Any truth to the rumour that Slater’s next website will be Burn Witch, Burn – devoted to burning suspected witches at the stake?
rocky 18

19 January 2010 at 12:33 pm

Because those people would unfairly bear the stain of the offence if they are later found innocent.

Just to be pedantic – people aren’t found innocent in court, they are found not guilty. It is an important distinction.

I don’t want to see everyone get name supression if found not guilty, but in some cases it is warranted. I supported those who were charged after breaching the name supression in the Louise Nicholas trial.

Judges aren’t always right. Slater’s problem is he doesn’t seem to have any concrete values behind his stance.
Juana 19

19 January 2010 at 12:42 pm

‘Cameron â€˜Whaleoil’ Slater has launched â€˜SHAME’. It’s supposedly a lobby group to get suppression laws changed. Really, it’s a money making scam for Slater ‘

A totally unfounded and slanderous accusation.

” It doesn’t look like SHAME has any legal status. It is not a company. Not a society. Not a trust. It is a scam. It is Slater. If you give money to SHAME, you are giving money straight into Slater’s wallet to do what he chooses with it.’

A totally unfounded and slanderous accusation

Slater used to rip off an insurance company but they stopped his payments.

A totally unfounded and slanderous accusation.

‘Now he is on the sickness benefit.’

( the only correct thing stated in your tirade thus far.)

To maintain his lifestyle he needs another source of income. Hence, SHAME.

A totally unfounded and slanderous accusation

‘Slater (who has taken to referring to himself in the third person as his grip on reality loosens further) doesn’t really give a damn about suppression laws. He is exploiting victims of sexual crime for no higher purpose than money and the attention he craves.’

A totally unfounded and slanderous accusation

Well, I hope that clears it up for you Toad. Though most intelligent readers would have been quite clear on the slanderous, malicious lies I was referring to.
- Marty G 19.1
  
  19 January 2010 at 12:52 pm
  
  Juana/Slater.
  
  It’s obvious that it’s you.
  
  You made nearly identical points in your threatening email and we’ve given you our response.
  
  (don’t worry, viewers, we might publish the emails later)
  - Juana 19.1.1
    
    19 January 2010 at 1:19 pm
    
    Yet another slanderous and totally unfounded statement from you!
    I have NEVER e-mailed you. I have only ever commented on your website.
    Where is the soap? Someone needs to wash your mouth out with it.
    Can you even lie straight in bed?
    - Rob 19.1.1.1
      
      19 January 2010 at 2:07 pm
      
      @juana perhaps stick to you husbands blog and comment and rave on that…… he needs the comments # based on todays post..
      
      It will be interesting how Cameron keeps up the momentum until he next appears in court…
- Craig Glen Eden 19.2
  
  19 January 2010 at 1:07 pm
  
  No sorry your response does not do it for me Juana, you have proved nothing.
  
  Just responding to a so called slanderous comment with a repeated sentence
  “A totally unfounded and slanderous accusation” does nothing. Surely you understand that or don’t you?
  - Tigger 19.2.1
    
    19 January 2010 at 1:09 pm
    
    Juana seems very concerned about slander. I wish Slater had an inkling of such concern.
    - Juana 19.2.1.1
      
      19 January 2010 at 1:23 pm
      
      Slater, as you refer to Wo takes the consequences of his actions.
      I sincerely hope this Z coward is ready to do the same.
    - Juana 19.2.1.2
      
      19 January 2010 at 4:25 pm
      
      No, I am quite satisfied now that they have heavily edited the original post to make it clear that their viewpoint is not based on facts but their biased opinion only. They reconsidered when faced with the reality of the consequences of their actions.
      
      [lprent: Bullshit. There were a number of comments including mine that were a bit peeved about some of the language in the post for reasons that had bugger all to do with wee johnnie. They denigrated other people on welfare and with other issues. I suspect that Z got a few e-mails apart from Camerons futile blustering. I got a txt about some changes.
      
      If you are so ignorant as to want to try and sue, then do so using a cached version. I suspect a lawyer will have a lot of fun laughing. There was nothing actionable about either version.
      
      Basically claiming a ‘victory’ just makes you look like a ridiculous and rather pathetic fool. ]
  - Lukas 19.2.2
    
    19 January 2010 at 1:14 pm
    
    And you will of course be demanding the same level of proof from Z?
- lprent 19.3
  
  19 January 2010 at 1:11 pm
  
  Based on what I know, and my undoubted biases about Cameron. I’d think those are reasonable suppositions from the facts.
  
  You’d have to actually show some kind of reason why those things are incorrect, ideally with proof, rather than simply stating it as your opinion. After all this is the standard that Whale demands of himself.
  
  Of course I view anything that Cameron says as probably being bullshit. I’ve seen what he has written about me, this site, and the writers here. Not to mention the same things about many of my friends. It is 95% speculation/innuendo and 5% fact.
  - ben 19.3.1
    
    19 January 2010 at 1:37 pm
    
    So the poster must prove a negative, Lynn? That their goal is not to maintain a lifestyle? I am looking forward to seeing the Standard held to account.
    - lprent 19.3.1.1
      
      19 January 2010 at 1:59 pm
      
      ben: In the case of Cameron, my view is that before I believe his story he should prove it.
      
      After all he has never believed what I’ve said (just search his site), why should I treat him any differently than he’d treat me. It is obviously the standard of behaviour that he prefers.
      
      On the other hand, if you ever look back through the stuff I’ve written here. You’ll generally find that I tend to take people at their word unless they have done something that proves otherwise. I’ll often poke the borax at their ideas, beliefs, opinions, and ‘facts’ – but that is normal debate. Of course I’m not perfect – who in hell is. But that is my normal mode of operation. The exception is of course when it comes to issues that relate to the operation of this site – ie part of the duty.
      
      Cameron doesn’t perceive that as being his mode of operation. So I’ll follow his expected rule set with respect to him. That is I don’t believe anything that he says unless it is evidentially nailed down.
- rob 19.4
  
  19 January 2010 at 1:46 pm
  
  Juana
  
  please prove that you can join the organisation SHAME, and its not just Cameron and you..
  
  If you/WO want to get support, perhaps help clarify why many of the points are as you put it
  
  “A totally unfounded and slanderous accusation”
- dontsurf 19.5
  
  19 January 2010 at 4:25 pm
  
  Quick, Juana! Call the cops! Again… because you’re incapable of settling your own disputes, and you’re a massive fucking hypocrite and your support base is drying up like your insurance payments.
  
  That’s a completely founded and true statement, by the way. You know, just to counter your intended riposte.
  
  [lprent: That is heading over the bounds because it is a pointless flame starter. Calm down (or else). ]
  - dontsurf 19.5.1
    
    19 January 2010 at 5:14 pm
    
    It was Lyn, yes. If it helps, I’m partially sorry.
    
    [lprent: No problem – just a warning.
    
    BTW Could you please call me Lynn with 2 n’s. My partners name is Lyn and it always seems a bit weird to be referred to as her. ]
ben 20

19 January 2010 at 1:14 pm

Who are you donating to? SHAME won’t say. It doesn’t look like SHAME has any legal status. It is not a company. Not a society. Not a trust. It is a scam. It is Slater. “If you give money to SHAME, it looks like the money will go straight to Slater. What is to stop him spending it on himself?’

Slater lived on income insurance for many years until the insurance company stopped his payments. Now he is on the sickness benefit. To maintain his lifestyle he needs another source of income. Hence, SHAME.

There’s no point engaging in Slater’s â€˜arguments’ since this entire campaign is just another money-making/attention-getting venture for him, but here I go.

High time The Standard got done for libel, methinks. I am no defender of Slater and I don’t care who you are writing about: but what you write here is probably libelous and certainly malicious, and therefore probably illegal. You’re free to be dishonest all you like in this country, thankfully, but you are not free to libel others. Would be nice to see the Standard held to account.
- Bright Red 20.1
  
  19 January 2010 at 1:24 pm
  
  being malicous is not illegal. Free speech and all that.
  
  And I can’t see how it is defamatory to state some facts, raise some questions, and come to logical conclusions from them. Yes, even if some damning language is used, as long as the conclusions are defendable interpretations of the facts.
  
  Considering what you turn a blind eye to all the time from Whale, I think it’s a bit rich to go crying ‘defamation’ now.
  - Juana 20.1.1
    
    19 January 2010 at 1:28 pm
    
    Z has no facts.
    Logical conclusions? Yeah right!
    WO is on a sickness benefit THEREFORE he must be a thief out to con the system.
    What a poor liberal Z does make.
    - Pascal's bookie 20.1.1.1
      
      19 January 2010 at 1:37 pm
      
      That’s not the argument Z makes though Juanna.
      
      Here are the premisses
      
      – Wo has money probs at the mo
      
      -Wo has set up a group seeking donations
      
      -the group seems to have no official status, or any members other than Wo
      
      This raises the question of where the money goes, if not to, Wo.
      
      One quick question, is it safe to assume that donations to SHAME will be helping with Wo’s legal fees?
      - Pascal's bookie 20.1.1.1.1
        
        19 January 2010 at 1:39 pm
        
        Sorry about the typo’s, Juana. Particularly in your name. (Too slow to edit a correction).
      - Bright Red 20.1.1.1.2
        
        19 January 2010 at 2:38 pm
        
        The SHAME website says that the money will be used to pay his legal fees and for ‘lobbying’, which I take to mean paying for Slater’s coffees with Nats and trips to wellington.
        
        Juana (who is Mrs Slater, I think) – ‘welfare queen’ is just an insulting term for beneficiary. One that is often used by the Right. I think Zet is taking the piss and exposing Whale’s hypocrisy.
        
        Actually, I see that sentence has changed.
  - ben 20.1.2
    
    19 January 2010 at 1:43 pm
    
    Red, you are right, truth is a defence, and if Z is speaking truth then there is no libel. If it is made up, on the other hand, this is textbook libel and The Standard as publisher is liable.
    - Scott 20.1.2.1
      
      19 January 2010 at 1:49 pm
      
      I would find it truly ironic if Cameron Slater, of all people, were to sue someone for defamation.
    - Bright Red 20.1.2.2
      
      19 January 2010 at 2:53 pm
      
      It doesn’t look made up. Check out the companies and trusts websites for yourself. No registered organisation.
      
      From the fact that this isn’t an organisation with any legal personality, the obvious conclusion is that any money you give will be going to a bank accounted administered solely by Slater with no controls over what he spends the money on.
      
      And given Slater’s income has taken a dive recently, I think one can conclude where the money would go.
      
      I think it’s called honest opinion.
      - ben 20.1.2.2.1
        
        19 January 2010 at 3:40 pm
        
        Given all the invective it looks plain malicious to me. Would be good to see this tested in court.
        
        [lprent: Bearing in mind the way that the defamation laws operate and who Cameron is, I suspect that he would have a hard time proving damage (apart from anything else). He does more of it to himself than anyone else could possibly hope to challenge – even Z. ]
        
        Scott 20.1.2.2.1.1
        
        19 January 2010 at 4:12 pm
        
        I wouldn’t hold my breath. I suspect (and hope) the courts have better things to do than settle disputes between angry bloggers.
        
        Pascal's bookie …
        
        19 January 2010 at 4:19 pm
        
        What the fuck do we pay them for then? Fuckity fucking flash new fuckugly building, waste of my fucking money fuckity fuck.
        
        gitmo …
        
        19 January 2010 at 4:26 pm
        
        Sad but true
        
        Bright Red 20.1.2.2.1.2
        
        19 January 2010 at 4:28 pm
        
        ben using malicious language isn’t illegal.
        
        Freedom of speech, heard of it?
        
        ben …
        
        20 January 2010 at 8:25 am
        
        Sigh.
        
        It is illegal if you publicly tarnish the reputation of another and what you say is untrue.
        
        Speech is limited in some ways in this country, this is one of them.
        
        lprent …
        
        20 January 2010 at 11:12 am
        
        Sigh.
        
        The test is damage, not tarnishing reputation. In this case, you’d have to argue that Cameron takes little if any damage to his reputation. He only has a bad rep.
        
        Marty G …
        
        20 January 2010 at 8:36 am
        
        Yeah, ben, and that’s different from being malicious. It has to be defamatory within the legal definitions.
    - Jewish Kiwi 20.1.2.3
      
      19 January 2010 at 10:59 pm
      
      Another thing about libel cases, is that plaintiffs must establish that they have a reputation which has been harmed.
      
      Sir Edmund Hillary he aint.
  - ben 20.1.3
    
    19 January 2010 at 2:00 pm
    
    It may well be rich, but it doesn’t matter what Slater does. The law does not consider two wrongs make a right.
    - Scott 20.1.3.1
      
      19 January 2010 at 2:07 pm
      
      Maybe so, but on the other hand the chances of a blowhard pottymouth winning a substantial damages award when served with some of his own medicine are probably next to nil.
    - Marty G 20.1.3.2
      
      19 January 2010 at 11:45 pm
      
      Actually, ben. Defamation is part of equity isn’t it? And what’s the phrase ‘you must come to equity with clean hands’?
      
      Or is defamation part of tort (does the distinction even matter anymore?). If so, I’m sure the same principle applies. If you’ve behaved like a dick to people, you can’t be surprised and run crying to the law if they’re rude back.
      - ben 20.1.3.2.1
        
        20 January 2010 at 8:31 am
        
        No court is going to consider the question of whether person A has been libelled is helpfully informed by whether person A has previously been rude to person B. The court will say that is a matter for person B to separately take up.
        
        capcha: liable
        
        Marty G 20.1.3.2.1.1
        
        20 January 2010 at 8:38 am
        
        ben. you actually don’t know anything about this topic do you? The context in which comments take place does matter. Courts aren’t stupid and blind. If it’s an exchange of insults that has been going on for some time and one party suddenly cries ‘defamation’ the courts look at the context and say ‘well, you were an active part of this, you’re not a victim’
Rob 21

19 January 2010 at 2:35 pm

does this group make Cameron “the head of SHAME”? or the leader of SHAME?

“oh, the irony” (I sound just like Cameron there!!!)

On a serious note, given that his group doesnt seem to show really what they stand for, and that no one can join except for a facebook page, and that he isnt exactly charismatic when fronting the media….
I hope people who do take the suppresion issues seriously perhaps approach there local MP, or an existing group rather than throwing money at the Cameron and Juana Crisco Club fund…
Parnell Boy 22

19 January 2010 at 2:52 pm

Does this mean Banks is trying to distance himself from Slater?

http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/newsdetail1.asp?storyID=169475

Or does Banks support making it easier for sexual abuse victims to be identified or not?
- BLiP 22.1
  
  20 January 2010 at 12:15 am
  
  Spoken like a true “Banks For Super Mayor” Bhatshit crazy campaign strategist.
Babar 23

19 January 2010 at 7:58 pm

this post is far more illuminating of zetetic’s character than of cameron slater’s. ymmv
Descendant Of Smith 24

19 January 2010 at 8:04 pm

It does seem a little unusual that someone who is unfit to work puts himself about like this. If only that much energy went into getting better or working part time. Maybe his wife / partner could go to work instead.

While I totally defend his right to a benefit if he is unwell with that does go a responsibility to try and get better where possible. Maybe in his case it’s not possible – I don’t know.

If he does intend to use any of that donated money for personal use then one assumes he needs to tell on himself to WINZ and have his benefit reduced. At least it’ll save the tax payer some money.
- Babar 24.1
  
  19 January 2010 at 8:29 pm
  
  does anyone really think this is going to be a “moneymaker”? i can’t imagine people donating thousands of dollars to the anti-name suppression lobby.
- ben 24.2
  
  20 January 2010 at 8:32 am
  
  Relevance?
  - Bob 24.2.1
    
    20 January 2010 at 12:22 pm
    
    Read the title
Snifternz 25

19 January 2010 at 8:19 pm

[deleted]

[lprent: You’re still banned. Adding another month for having to clean up the pending. Next time I’ll drop you into auto-spam. ]
ConorJoe 26

19 January 2010 at 10:16 pm

since when did master slater of we’llallbefooked become the whale jeesh
randal 27

20 January 2010 at 11:03 am

this stuff is better than all the books in the library.
keep it up.
when can I get a bound copy?