Daddy to the rescue for Slater

Written By: - Date published: 10:11 am, March 9th, 2010 - 22 comments
Categories: crime, police - Tags: , ,

I said that when things got too hot Cameron Slater would call on Daddy to save him. Sure enough.

Slater has been exploiting the suffering of sexual abuse victims to get his fifteen minutes of fame. It’s sad stuff from a sad individual. And it’s illegal.

Slater knew that his father, former National Party President and head of C&R John Slater, would always be there to pay the fines. But it’s getting more serious than that. There still could be imprisonable charges coming.

Now Daddy’s decided to have a swipe at the cops instead.

Boils down to ‘how dare you investigate my son, leave him alone’. The excuse is rubbish about the cost. Don’t see Tories complaining about the cost of prosecuting taggers, of course. Nah, different standards when it’s a rich guy who’s broken the law.

Where do these Tories get off? Thinking they can throw around their power. Telling the cops who to charge. Whose law breaking to turn a blind eye to.

The Nats think the rules don’t apply to them (cf. Heatley, English, Bennett, Roger McClay…). The law’s for keeping the poor in line, not the rich, they reckon.

Come out from behind Daddy’s legs, Slater. You’re 41. Learn to stand up for your actions. Take what’s coming to you like a man.

22 comments on “Daddy to the rescue for Slater”

  1. Yeah, who would believe that a family member would support their love ones during a trial? and imgaine someone critizing the police

    The left would never do that huh!

    • Yeah Brett the left would support their own (child), but the left wouldn’t justify the crime. Also the left are not the ones who want everyone else to be locked up. The Political right on the other hand want to throw the scum in prison feed them scraps and make them do hard Labour, that is until its one of their own, then their principles go out the window and suddenly its the Police cost thats the issue. Who cares about the victims of Slaters actions aye?

      • Brett Dale 1.1.1

        The left wouldnt justify the crime?

        Your kidding me right?? The left is always trying to justify crimes, by calling it political protest.

        • lprent 1.1.1.1

          Which they go to court, defend, and usually win because they didn’t do anything that violated the law.

          The issue with Cameron is that he has clearly broken the existing law, is defending on technicalities rather than the legal issue, and whines about it every day. He gives ‘protest’ a bad name because he appears to just be doing it because he wants more site traffic.

  2. tc 2

    Cameron’s behaving exactly as he’s been brought up to behave……dad’s proud of his not so little law breaking son and alluded to plenty more cheerleaders within the Nat’s.

    More typical behaviour from the Born to Rule set…..law’s for you plebs/peasants/lower classes not us.

  3. toad 3

    Presume you mean Roger McClay, Z?

  4. “Slater suppression probe slammed by father…”

    John Slater rips the police a new one.

    No lube for whaleoil. Dad doesnt even bother to lightly insert tip of supression probe before he starts slamming.

    it’ll end in tears i tells ya 🙂

    IrishBill: Too far. Consider yourself warned.

  5. Lew 5

    Zet, not blinking likely. If he wanted to actually take a strong stance he’d have copped proudly to the charges. Too late for any of that now.

    L

    • A Paul G. Buchanan writing on Scoop would appear to disagree with you…

      Civil Disobedience in respect of laws and policies you don’t like doesn’t usually involve guilty pleas. Should those involved in the ANZAC Ploughshares Waihopai protest have copped proudly to the criminal damage charges: “Yes, we did it, we’re guilty, and we’d do it again!”?

      • Lew 5.1.1

        Pablo and I disagree about plenty, but I think his main objection there is that I sullied our blog with a post about Cameron Slater (and also the definition of his actions as “civil disobedience”, which criticism I accept).

        Yes, I think they should cop to the charges also. Why not? Did they or did they not do what was alleged? Moreover, the article you link to seems to agree:

        … the perpetrators acknowledge that in doing so they make themselves liable to criminal prosecution, and they accept the consequences of their actions. For them, the issue is one of principle and conviction, of bearing witness and speaking truth to power, and of personal responsibility. It is not about avoiding liability. … They acted out of personal and religious conviction, and adhered to the time-honoured principles of civil disobedience in a democracy. They profess to be willing to pay the price for their criminal liability in exchange for a more robust public debate on the merits of New Zealand’s participation in the Echelon network. That sounds like a fair trade, and the courts can ascertain whether they should pay for the damage they caused with jail time and/or compensation for the cost of the repairs. Their trial and the coverage of it allows Ploughshares, the Green Party, Global Peace and Justice Auckland and other groups opposed to the Echelon presence in New Zealand to engage a public discussion with the government about the relative merits of providing logistical and technical support to US-led intelligence-gathering efforts.

        L

      • Pascal's bookie 5.1.2

        You may or may not plead guilty, (pleading ‘not’ guilty is often just an extension of ‘non co-operation’ as a part of the civil disobedience) but what you don’t do is cry about the fact that there is an investigation. The investigation is actually what you are trying to get, it’s the tool for highlighting the message. The idea is to make the state enforce the law. Hopefully, as it goes, this will prove to be politically untenable in the long run and lead to a win.

        You might highlight any dodgy police tactics in the investigation, as they are restrictions on your rights, but beyond that accept the investigation, take the consequences and use the publicity to highlight your cause.

      • BLiP 5.1.3

        They seem to have a case with the self defence argument, I would have thought.

        • Graeme Edgeler 5.1.3.1

          And Cam could make the same case. He’s often said his campaign is about protecting the community from those involved in sexual crimes.

          • Hayden 5.1.3.1.1

            Which is kind of bollocks, as the reason the accused (a distinction not always recognised at WO) have name suppression is that their victims can be identified by their relationship to them, and therefore are not the type you’re likely to find hanging around playgrounds trying to entice children into their van.

            By the way, according to this study (pops), 1% of children were abused by a parent or carer, 3% by another relative, 11% by a non-related adult who was known to them, and 5% by an adult stranger (out of all children). Therefore you’re more than twice as likely to be abused by a non-stranger than a stranger, whether you know his name or not.

            Anti-spam word: shames (!)

      • Rich 5.1.4

        Their defence has worked in the past overseas:
        http://www.indymedia.org.nz/article/71646/ploughshares-five-acquitted-damage-us-ai
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_Ploughshares

        Slater has no such justification, and won’t even see a jury, right?

  6. the sprout 6

    He was always such a crashing disappointment to his father. John probably feels guilty as much as ashamed about Cameron.

  7. BLiP 7

    [Slater Snr.] said many within the National Party backed his son.

    . . . wasn’t there a discussion here recently about whether or not there were National Ltdâ„¢ links to Blubber Boy?

    • Bill 7.1

      Yeah, but allegedly some elements are keen to encourage the Japanese to harpoon him.

  8. SHG 8

    Newsflash, standing up for your children is something that parents are supposed to do.

  9. Rob 9

    I was saddened to hear this from John Slater. Surely he should be looking at how he has raised Cameron, think why Cameron is flaunting the law.

    If Cameron pleads not guilty, and thinks he has done nothing wrong, then he is not really making a stand against the law. His arguments dont make sense.

    On another note,his blog now requires people to log in to post comments.

    • The ANZAC Ploughshares protestors have pleaded not guilty, and think they have done nothing wrong. Are they not really making a stand against our involvement in foreign intelligence gathering?

  10. Heaton 10

    Cameron Slater is a sad person and a gutless wonder and his website is absolute trash and National biased and if anyone makes reference to this website The Standard he will ban them from his site.
    Must be desperate surely.?
    He seems to think he is above the Law and Dad will help out.
    Rod states you now have to log in to post comments, maybe he is getting woried who posts there.

    Whale Oil is right for his name as he is like a beached whale going no where fast and calling upon his Former National MP President to bail him out when needed

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Safety focus in improved drug driver testing
    Improving the safety of all road users is the focus of a new public consultation document on the issue of drug driver testing. Plans for public consultation on options to improve the drug driver testing process have been announced by ...
    1 week ago
  • Making it easier to get help from Police
    Police Minister Stuart Nash says calling a cop suddenly got a whole lot easier with the launch of a ground-breaking new service for non-emergency calls. “The single non-emergency number ‘ten-five’ is designed to provide better service for the public and ...
    2 weeks ago
  • More Police deployed to the regions
    Frontline Police numbers have been boosted with today’s deployment of 77 new officers to the regions. Police Minister Stuart Nash today congratulated the recruits of Wing 325 who graduated at a formal ceremony at the Royal New Zealand Police College. ...
    2 weeks ago