Cameron Slater’s statement on Ben Rachinger

Written By: - Date published: 8:10 am, June 8th, 2015 - 77 comments
Categories: uncategorized - Tags: , ,

As far as I can ascertain Cameron Slater has released one statement about the allegations made against him by Ben Rachinger aired on the Nation last weekend.

Slater is a self confessed social media guru.  His statement does not appear to be on his own site.  He posts multiple posts every day but obviously must have missed doing this.

The only media where I have seen his statement is on Twitter.  This must be an oversight.  His statement was posted as a jpg and is not searchable.  Google will not let you know what he said.

So as a public service job to a fellow blogger I thought that I should post the text.  That way we can appreciate the full details of Cameron’s response.

Here it is …

Saturday June 5th, 2015

I have been aware that Ben Rachinger has been on a personal campaign to take a number of conflicting stories to the world as the truth. I have continued to ignore this and let it pass without comment, in spite of the many untrue statements he has fabricated around cherry picked screenshot ‘evidence’. So whenever I was approached by the media to provide comments on Ben’s claims, I declined. I’m going to continue to do so. This is the only public statement I will make on this matter.

It is somewhat ironic that it is Mediaworks running this story and all without disclosing that [B]en was working for them earlier in the year as a consultant.

Ben is an extremely talented young man, but he operates without any sense of guidance or direction. When he made contact with me, and we built a relationship, it was mostly on the basis of me being a mentor to him. He had problems. Some of them very personal ones. He asked for advice. He wanted help. And I provided both.

After a while, it became clear to me that his behaviour was erratic. His decision making inconsistent. His previous promises and commitments to me proved worthless. And whereas we started on the basis of trust, it became obvious that he was now acting in a way to not only damage me, but also himself.

In spite of the fact that I still have empathy for him, there was little I could do but draw a line under it and move on.

Since we parted, I’ve tried to protect Ben from himself, and was successful for a while. When different media repeatedly came sniffing around for a story, I would give them advice that this wasn’t what it appeared, and all they would end up doing was to hurt Ben more. Until today, those media had the decency not to throw Ben under the bus in the forlorn hope of a few extra ratings points.

The only result of me telling my side of the story in full is to completely destroy whatever public credibility Ben has left. It will also hurt other people that he’s managed to ensnare in his fantasies. He has to mature, grow up, and just move past this. Hopefully this latest phase has gotten it all out of his system.

I understand that he has been monitored and interviewed by officials who have concerns about him. I can but hope that they succeed where I failed. Ben needs a strong role model and strict guidance for him to channel [h]is many talents.

Personally I feel extremely betrayed and hurt by is campaign. Ben has abused my confidence and my generosity. But I won’t let it colour my future behaviour. When people come to me for advice and assistance, I will continue to make myself available.

Cameron Slater”

Two questions I have though are (as asked on twitter) why donations would be paid out of a business account?  And what did Slater mean when he referred to “funders”?

77 comments on “Cameron Slater’s statement on Ben Rachinger ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. coaster 1
    8 June 2015 at 8:32 am

    maybe funders was a typo.

    that is a very well written letter that shows compassion, ive never seen anything like that on whaleoil.

    • lprent 1.1
      8 June 2015 at 8:38 am

      Indeed. Not in his usual style of writing at all.

      I wonder who wrote it for him.

      Edit: And I notice that he never states that he wasn’t trying to get Ben R to hack into my machines.

      • Jones 1.1.1
        8 June 2015 at 1:40 pm

        Slater is capable of writing like that and that level of compassion when he thinks it’s worth it. The whole paragraph beginning “After a while, it became clear to me that his behaviour…” read like someone writing about Slater though.

        Re the hack… I have no doubt it’s what Slater intended.

    • Lanthanide 1.2
      8 June 2015 at 8:39 am

      He spoke of funders several times on different occasions. Also I don’t know what it would be a typo of – ‘finders’, the most likely slip, doesn’t make any sense in context.

      • DoublePlusGood 1.2.1
        8 June 2015 at 2:47 pm

        Perhaps it was ‘fondlers’, as in ‘fondlers of ponytails’?

    • RedBaronCV 1.3
      8 June 2015 at 8:10 pm

      Meets the gold standard for passive – agressive, agressive-agressive behaviour. Note how he puts himself in the light of I’m just helping as a mentor , he’s a very sick fellow ( as diagnosed by Slater himself) , he needs a strong mentor like me ( according to me Slater). etc etc. Empathy I don’t think so.

      Minimises his own role, denies any wrong doing and tries to shift the blame onto Ben infering that he is less than fully competent. Not exactly the impression Ben gives in interviews.
      For my money it is right up there with the cop on telly talking about Louise Nicholls – ‘ words along the lines of – she is a very sick woman – she has accused a lot of cops of poor behaviour’

  2. les 2
    8 June 2015 at 8:33 am

    he wanted people to be completely sure that his motives were altruistic and the Nats were not involved in any way!

    • weka 2.1
      8 June 2015 at 12:27 pm

      and in other news, a flock of kiwis was seen flying over the Beehive this morning.

  3. Tracey 3
    8 June 2015 at 8:33 am

    3. Who wrote the statement?

    • mickysavage 3.1
      8 June 2015 at 8:38 am

      Yep the style is completely different to Slater’s normal writing style.

      • Tracey 3.1.1
        8 June 2015 at 8:57 am

        apart from anything else it attempts to rely on compassion and empathy.

      • dukeofurl 3.1.2
        8 June 2015 at 12:12 pm

        probably written by Lusk- who posts under Slaters name on his blog.( especially on hawkes bay issues)

    • b waghorn 3.2
      8 June 2015 at 10:19 am

      Probably the same outfit that’s doing Collins make over PR at the moment.
      I threw up a little bit when I read about her wanting to hug strangers today.

  4. Lanthanide 4
    8 June 2015 at 8:37 am

    “The only result of me telling my side of the story in full is to completely destroy whatever public credibility Ben has left. ”

    Yeah right, hardly believable.

    If you tell your story and it exonerates you – that’s what you do. The claimant puts themselves at risk if they’re making stuff up, and as the defendant that’s not your problem to deal with.

  5. One Anonymous Bloke 5
    8 June 2015 at 8:38 am

    “…cherry picked screenshot ‘evidence’.”

    So the texts are genuine. Slater implies there are others. He implies these other texts will exonerate him.

    😆

    • Lanthanide 5.1
      8 June 2015 at 8:41 am

      They probably won’t exonerate him, but Ben obviously hasn’t shared them for a reason. It looks like Cameron is alluding to some personal issues that Ben may have discussed with him, and Cameron is saying he’s going to take the high ground and not reveal them.

      But if they are wholly personal issues, it would seem unlikely to make any great difference to the hired-for-hacking allegations against Slater. Even if Ben turns out to be some sort of scammer or fraudster / con-artist (which from the evidence on The Nation, from Cameron’s perspective would be the case anyway), it doesn’t really change the fact that it was Cameron that suggested the hacking of The Standard in the first place.

  6. CnrJoe 6
    8 June 2015 at 8:39 am

    hang on – what happened to the Ben written with a lower case b in the second paragraph? see here –
    http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/06/07/slaters-bizarre-response-to-the-allegations-of-hacking/

    too nit-picky? Its what gave me the feeling it were written by the Slater scion hisself..

    • mickysavage 6.1
      8 June 2015 at 8:43 am

      I thought it was my typo when I reread it and corrected it. Will revert to the original.

      • CnrJoe 6.1.1
        8 June 2015 at 9:01 am

        and then ‘is’ for ‘his’ in the 2nd last para then..
        you can delete this MS 😉

  7. Charles 7
    8 June 2015 at 8:47 am

    I can’t but notice that the statement by Whale Oil is a standardised National Party response to ANYTHING. Just take out Ben Rachinger and enter in “Beneficiaries”, “Boat People” or any other pesky troublesome pet hate of the National Party perspective. It reads exactly the same. It’d be fucking hilarious if it wasn’t so serious.

    The poor old Nats, they just want to mentor you troubled people back to good sense, because deep down they have your best interests at heart but you don’t WANT that do you, you don’t WANT TO BE CONTOLLED by them at all, do you, you want to HURT them with INGRATITUDE!

  8. Tiger Mountain 8
    8 June 2015 at 8:48 am

    Slater oil usually has some difficulty keeping the blowhole closed, so what is different in this case? and as Micky alludes to, business account activity usually indicate something to do with business and services rendered

    the text is laughable on various levels, and parts could almost be taken for a primitive form of self awareness, I have read the comments re taking it easy on Ben “Rat”hinger due to fragile mental state and fair enough to some extent, but Mr Slater has well squandered his chances for the same amnesty to be extended

  9. One Anonymous Bloke 9
    8 June 2015 at 8:52 am

    Put on a fake Tony Soprano accent when you read it. Only more whiny.

    • adam 9.1
      8 June 2015 at 1:52 pm

      I then tried, in a Christopher Walker accent – again adding more whine.

      My partner then did it as Nicolas Cage – OMG, laugh, I almost wet myself.

  10. dv 10
    8 June 2015 at 8:56 am

    If he was being so nice why did he not go on the Nation?

  11. cogito 11
    8 June 2015 at 9:25 am

    “He had problems. Some of them very personal ones”.

    Sounds like possible blackmail to me.

    Slater’s statement is saccharin sweet laced with poison… Did Judith Collins write it?

  12. Kevin 12
    8 June 2015 at 9:36 am

    Strange. He used the word empathy that he does not know the meaning of.

  13. hello 13
    8 June 2015 at 9:47 am

    Great job at attacking and discrediting the person make such allegations, sadly coming from someone with such low moral fibre it really on adds to the points that have come to light.

  14. georgy 14
    8 June 2015 at 9:53 am

    Slater has become a victim of his own crosby-textor brainwashing. He can’t tell reality from crosby-textor.

  15. stever 15
    8 June 2015 at 10:16 am

    And there is no such date as Saturday 5th June 2015 🙂

  16. NZJester 16
    8 June 2015 at 10:21 am

    Have any of you got access to one of those tools that check submitted writing against things published on the web to identify plagiarism?
    I would be interested to know if he put it up as the JPG to avoid someone from identifying his text as plagiarized from someone else.

  17. Anne 17
    8 June 2015 at 10:22 am

    Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in themselves, while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

  18. Old Mickey 18
    8 June 2015 at 10:39 am

    ” we built a relationship, it was mostly on the basis of me being a mentor to him. He had problems. Some of them very personal ones. He asked for advice. He wanted help. And I provided both. After a while, it became clear to me that his behaviour was erratic. His decision making inconsistent. His previous promises and commitments to me proved worthless”

    Great advert for being a friend of Slater and taking him as a mentor….I feel sorry fro Ben.

    The hypocrisy drips from every word in the statement, when compared to Slaters own MO……unbelievable !

  19. mac1 19
    8 June 2015 at 11:15 am

    I’d say that Cameron Slater wrote this, though I’m no expert.

    If you go to his site, you can search for specific words. I did this for specific words or phrases in the above Twitter text. Yes, he does often use the word ’empathy’, the phrases ‘throw under a bus’ and ‘cherry picked’ and he often uses ‘gotten’ in the American usage.

    • Sacha 19.1
      8 June 2015 at 11:27 am

      Dirtry Politics showed at least some of his site is not written by him. Maybe tis Carrick Graham’s style you’re spotting?

      • mac1 19.1.1
        8 June 2015 at 11:36 am

        Was Carrick Graham writing on Whale Oil in 2010? ‘Cos you can add the number 2010 to your search and then ‘cherry picked 2010’ and ‘gotten 2010’ get lots of returns from that year.

        Oh, the joys of search engines and too much free time to use them……….

    • dukeofurl 19.2
      8 June 2015 at 12:14 pm

      There is software that does word/ sentence structure to see if a text is a match to another.

      I think you can just plug it in a website.

  20. Frank Macskasy 20
    8 June 2015 at 11:51 am

    I doubt very much if Slater’s “funders” exist.

    This was an attempt to pursue a vendetta against a left-wing blog and others who have slighted Slater. Only Slater feels the need to exact revenge against those he perceives have/are attacking him.

    Others couldn’t care less.

    • Treetop 20.1
      8 June 2015 at 12:09 pm

      Finding out if a funder actually exist is where I would start.

      • mac1 20.1.1
        8 June 2015 at 12:28 pm

        Treetop, you wrote “Finding out if a funder actually exist.”

        ‘Funding a finder out’ is what Slater was doing.

        Now we’re finding out about a funder by the foundered bounder who founded Whale Oil floundering about funding a finder?

        Sounds like a short dialogue from “Yes, Minister.”

        • Treetop 20.1.1.1
          8 June 2015 at 1:12 pm

          I tried to correct the word exist to exists but was too late.

          “Funding a finder out’ is what Slater was doing.”

          Show me the hacker funder/s. Until I see one/them, the hacker funder could be Slater for all I know, he could have his own gifted cash fund for his personal use.

  21. appleboy 21
    8 June 2015 at 12:51 pm

    Of Course a funder exists. Slater would not have enough, nor would put up, money out of his pocket for this. he’s vindictive but not that well healed.

  22. Reddelusion 22
    8 June 2015 at 10:39 pm

    Nice language felix, says more about you than slater

    • Colonial Rawshark 22.1
      8 June 2015 at 11:18 pm

      Never picked you as prissy before

    • JeevesPOnzi 22.2
      9 June 2015 at 1:23 pm

      Actually its nice to see that word used in a fair context.

      It should be reserved for Carrick Graham, Lusk, Odgers, Edes, and Slater.
      Oh, and that other C, Baragwanath or whatever…..

      • Tracey 22.2.1
        9 June 2015 at 1:33 pm

        bhatnagar? he was an example of how slater talks about his friends…

        • JeevesPOnzi 22.2.1.1
          10 June 2015 at 4:47 pm

          Yes Tracey, Bhatnagar. Another C**t.

          I appreciate that no-one will read this, but I’ll still say it….

          Just for the record, I call them C**ts because they surreptitiously but deliberately wanted -and planned- to load the political dice of NZ in such a way that democratic choice would be annexed away from future generations.

          They conspired to rid the NZ public of informed choice.
          I’ll say that again…..
          They conspired to rid the NZ public of informed choice.

          They planned the systematic placement of sympathetic c**ts, or indeed anyone right wing and willing to be loyal to their plans, into as many positions of local , regional and national power and influence as possible – not to get a good job done, no- but to prevent anyone else from doing a good job on terms other than theirs.

          They conspired, with extraordinary success- to poison the political discourse of New Zealanders so that they would be universally
          a) Ignorant of any pertinent facts contrary to their view, and
          b) saturated with opinion adverse to any opposing view, and adverse to any person with an opposing view.

          I’ll say that again…..
          They conspired to rid the NZ public of informed choice.

          And the saddest thing is that they were, are, and will be – to some degree successful – because of one simple fact- they recognise that their own voters are dumb enough, and number enough, to not see through it, and indeed be happy with it.

          And this was not them trying to hijack an election- no-no-no.
          This was them hijacking every election forever.

          Not the suspension of free and informed democratic choice, but the elimination of it.

          That’s why I’ll call them like they are – C**ts.

  23. abouttime 23
    9 June 2015 at 4:28 pm

    @Treetop, I’d just about guarantee the funds were flowing in for “paid pen duties” into another series of his articles written on his site at the time, he get’s the coin from dishonest folk, wrote unsubstantiated, false allegations against good people, all in order to receive funds to chase his own criminal activities.
    I hope he gets jail time.

  24. The Perfect Crime 24
    12 June 2015 at 8:08 pm

    Slaters defence is everything but, instead it exposes him on all accounts including funders being connected to the National party, incompetency to deflect attention via an invalid (Saturday 5th June) defence letter picture therefore no response at all and his indirect admission of his own sorry state projected on to Ben Rachinger.

    Slater’s a nut case, not to be trusted, volatile and sponsored by the National party to run fear campaign raids on those who oppose the National party and Slater himself.

    It’s in the police hands now where it belongs and will be extremely interesting to see how that plays out. Political interference? I wouldn’t think so, too close to the funders?

    Jail time? Perhaps. Conspiring to illegally obtain information? It would appear so. Level of involvement? Master Mind – Leader. Will Ben do time as an associate? No. Evidence proves he did not attempt a break in yet he did by all accounts entertained the idea of a break in to later dob the nut case in. Well done! Even the National party should be praising Ben for his under cover, double crossing tactics. Will they? No. Will Ben receive an award? No, instead he will receive a stern warning to leave vigilante type stings for the proper authorities to deal with or else he will be arrested. What can Ben do to maintain his credibility? Donate the $9k + to a psychological disability charity or donate it to fund the police investigation efforts.

    So Jail time for Slater? In all probability, yes! Because he’s not likely to reveal the National party alleged funders. Will he be able to cope with that likely outcome? Let’s hope he can. The odds aren’t in his favour due to his own personal dealings with depression etc. Home detention? Possibly, if he reveals who the funder or funders are?

    Pop open the pop corn now? Yes, but be prepared to eat it in super slow motion.

  25. Chromophore 25
    15 June 2015 at 7:23 pm

    To be fair to Cameron, I think he meant funder as in what comes after lie-tning.