Defend Nicky Hager

Written By: - Date published: 5:01 pm, October 7th, 2014 - 103 comments
Categories: uncategorized - Tags:

We can contribute to his defence fund here. It’s one way to help – this is going to be a long fight.

103 comments on “Defend Nicky Hager ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. indiana 1
    7 October 2014 at 5:26 pm

    Has the sales from his book dried up?

    • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1
      7 October 2014 at 5:42 pm

      Has the capacity for craven lickspittles to besmirch themselves diminished?

      Why must Hager pay for the National Party’s abuses of power?

      Because Big Government is your Daddy?

    • Bill 1.2
      7 October 2014 at 6:00 pm

      Good gawd you idiot.

      How much money do you think a writer makes from a book with the sales numbers of Dirty Politics? Enough to cover ongoing legal expenses that could go into the many times thousands, you reckon?

      Hmm. I guess he could spend all his money, remortgage (if he has one) , move into a car (if he has one) after renting his remortgaged house to tenants in an attempt to keep a cash flow flowing…

      …and then just up and represent himself if all else fails.

      • Colonial Rawshark 1.2.1
        7 October 2014 at 6:13 pm

        That’s usually the plan. Look at what happened to the Urewera 8 and Kim Dotcom. Tied down in ongoing court proceedings. Officials paid for by our tax dollars spending their days developing and performing actions designed to cost good people like Hager their time, their livelihood, their savings, the security of their family, etc.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 1.2.1.1
          7 October 2014 at 6:18 pm

          Prosecute those who are prepared to follow such orders, There is no alternative.

      • Blue 1.2.2
        7 October 2014 at 7:18 pm

        Yeah, all these right-wingers who are suddenly incensed at the idea of people making money really have no idea how much authors earn.

      • travellerev 1.2.3
        8 October 2014 at 9:13 am

        According to Nicky a first press of any book in NZ is about 2000. When I went to his Waikato uni lecture the sales had reached about 4000. An absolute bestseller here in NZ apparently!

    • the sharkman 1.3
      7 October 2014 at 7:50 pm

      Has your English skills “not achieved”?

  2. Anne 2
    7 October 2014 at 5:34 pm

    I should like to donate Mike S, but I don’t do online banking and there is never any address where one can send a check or do an electronic transaction at the bank.

    Is anyone able to assist in this regard?

  3. Realblue 3
    7 October 2014 at 6:35 pm

    Has he been charged with something?

    • Bill 3.1
      7 October 2014 at 6:53 pm

      No, he hasn’t been charged with anything. He’s been done over… for nothing. Oh, that’s not quite true, is it? He’s been done over as a way of ‘sending a message’ to anyone who might be tempted to either speak truth to power or out them on their bullshit. Message reads – “You’ll pay.”

  4. wekarawshark 4
    7 October 2014 at 6:57 pm

    Idiot/Savant ‏@norightturnnz 36 mins36 minutes ago

    #HagerRaid legal fund now at almost $5,000 https://www.givealittle.co.nz/cause/NickyHager … That’s a giant “fuck you” to the government

  5. just saying 5
    7 October 2014 at 7:13 pm

    15 minutes later it is 6,035

    • Colonial Rawshark 5.1
      7 October 2014 at 7:25 pm

      Even if Hager finally doesn’t need these defence monies, it’s pretty certain that Rawshark will, if they catch up with him.

      • just saying 5.1.1
        7 October 2014 at 7:37 pm

        The tools of his trade have been confiscated. And lawyers don’t come cheap. Pretty sure he’ll need the money.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.1.1
          8 October 2014 at 6:09 am

          Nah, they can’t be the tools of his trade or there’d be compromising material on them. Hager assures us that his sources have not been compromised, therefore they cannot be the tools of his trade.

          Unless he thinks that “deleting” a file deletes the information, I suppose.

          Nah, I’m picking the police stole (an illegal warrant…*) personal belongings with no connection to Hager’s work.

          *don’t give me this shit about the warrant being legal under the 2012 Bill: the 2012 Bill breaches our international obligation to protect human rights and constitutes a crime against humanity.

          • Bazar 5.1.1.1.1
            8 October 2014 at 11:52 am

            A crime against humanity, thats rich.

            I seriously can’t understand how many people think Hagar is justified in using stolen materials.

            They weren’t leaked, they were taken by force and stolen.
            To defend Hagar is to defend the notation that the ends justify the means.
            That its alright to break the law, rights of others, and even turn a tidy profit from it, so long as you feel like you’ve done good.

            And thats not even touching the defamation aspect.

            If Hagar and rawshark are the champions of the left, the bar could hardly be set lower.

            • Pascals bookie 5.1.1.1.1.1
              8 October 2014 at 12:17 pm

              “I seriously can’t understand how many people think Hagar is justified in using stolen materials.”

              Not stolen, but in any case, he is justified in using them because the law says he is. You’ll note that he isn’t being charged with anything. NO one is even taking a civil claim AFAIK.

              • Bazar …
                8 October 2014 at 5:53 pm

                “Not stolen”

                If you want to be techinical, then:

                Accessed without permission.
                Copied without permission
                Distributed without permission.

                I’m sure a lawyer can draw up the correct, and verbose list of crimes commited, but i’ll settle with calling it stealing.

                “but in any case, he is justified in using them because the law says he is. You’ll note that he isn’t being charged with anything. NO one is even taking a civil claim AFAIK”

                And yet the subject of this article is “Defend Nicky Hager”…

            • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.1.1.1.2
              8 October 2014 at 12:30 pm

              Are you in need of remedial English comprehension lessons? The 2012 Bill breaches fundamental human rights principles, which is why the New Zealand Law Society, that bastion of Communism, warned the UN about it.

              I note you are lying about Nicky Hager. What kind of low-life asshole are you, anyway?

            • Jeeves POnzi 5.1.1.1.1.3
              8 October 2014 at 12:34 pm

              So if Rawshark stumbled upon a child-trafficking ring and stole their emails, do the same ethics apply?
              Would the argument be that these traffickers shouldn’t be outed because the evidence against them was stolen?

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                8 October 2014 at 12:38 pm

                You can’t make an “argument” out of fecal matter and wind.

              • Bazar …
                8 October 2014 at 5:17 pm

                Lets get this right.
                Rawshark hacked the emails taking them by force. He didn’t just stumble across them by chance. He set out to break the security protecting private files, and then copied and distributed them.

                But to elaborate your hypothesis, there are two scenarios he’d come across that data
                First is that he hacked the child-trafficking PC and stole the data
                The other is he stumbled into it. IE: fixing a clients/employers PC and finding the evidence the course of his work

                In the first, both parties are scumbags, and i’d like to see both destroyed under our laws.
                In the second, hes a whistleblower, having gained access to the information in good faith.

                Or do you believe that Hackers should have freedom to access your PC whenever they like because “think of the children”

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  8 October 2014 at 5:23 pm

                  Fact is, chump, when burglars find evidence of worse crimes during their activities they are wont to turn it over. ‘Information received’ doesn’t just come from law-abiding citizens.

                  Your argument paints the cop following a tip-off from a seedy informant with the same brush as Hager. Mine too for that matter; you just seem to think Hager did something bad by exposing Dear Leader.

            • framu 5.1.1.1.1.4
              8 October 2014 at 12:38 pm

              “I seriously can’t understand how many people think Hagar is justified in using stolen materials.”

              yes he wrote a book using illegally obtained emails
              but he wrote a book as a journalist that exposed the fact the govt was running an attack machine out of the PMs office and that the people involved in this are at best highly nasty and at worst outright criminals

              do you have no problem with the govt of the day using such a mechanism to attack its opponent?

              do you support the govt of the day getting away with keeping such activities secret?

              do you support the exposure of such activities if they exist?

              do you support other such instances were corruption has been exposed in similar ways?

              do you understand the legal concept of public interest?

              how many times do we have to repeat ourselves here?

              • Bazar …
                8 October 2014 at 5:46 pm

                Well although i think we’re going to disagree, i at least you’ve broken the issue down to revelant issues.

                That makes this a quality post for thestandard, and nice to address.

                “but he wrote a book as a journalist”
                Two issues right there, the first being that a book is not a news medium.
                http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11283331

                The second being that if he really wanted to reveal wrongdoing, there were far better ways than just writing a book.
                But he kept everything a secret, wrote it in a book, released it at a time to both inflict maximum political damage and maximum profitability, and gave no right of reply, or even fact checking and validation with those in the book.

                Call me a cynic, but i have a hard time calling that journalism.

                “do you have no problem with the govt of the day using such a mechanism to attack its opponent?
                do you support the govt of the day getting away with keeping such activities secret?
                do you support the exposure of such activities if they exist?”

                I’ll be honest, i haven’t read the book, i’d not pay a dime to support Hagar and his actions, so you’d need to be more specific.
                But in a general sense of what the book is about, with the national government leaking the failings of the opposition to a 3rd party. I don’t really have an issue with that no.
                In fact i’d prefer it that way.
                If i want to read about dirt and negativity, i can go to WO and thestandard.
                If i to head about policies and nationals/goverments official stance on matters, its not cluttered by dirt throwing.

                Honestly i have a hard time seeing what the difference is between WO and thestandard. Both have ties to their parties, both provide opposing views hidden facts, and dissenting opinions.

                “do you understand the legal concept of public interest?”
                I can say honestly no i can’t.
                I did google it, and this is from the top of the wiki page.
                “Public interest law is a somewhat elastic term referring to legal practices that are undertaken on a not for profit basis”
                If thats the legal definition, then it clearly excludes Hagar’s actions.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  8 October 2014 at 6:04 pm

                  You have little understanding of the material in Dirty Politics, and consequently, running your mouth on the subject makes you look very foolish.

            • lprent 5.1.1.1.1.5
              8 October 2014 at 1:41 pm

              It is kind of strange that Slater isn’t in prison then. After all he stole (by your definition) Blomfields data and then published it.

              It is clear that you haven’t read the actual legislation rather than your pathetic distorted and delusional version of it. For instance section 68 of the Evidence Act covering journalists which explicitly states that there are public good considerations. This directly contradicts your idiotic mumblings..

              Basically Slater won’t be able to use defamation because Hager didn’t lie about the content of the material that he received (unlike Slater who routinely lies about most things), he just summarized it and wrote an opinion on it. That Slater got upset and whines about it is his problem.

              • Bazar …
                8 October 2014 at 5:27 pm

                I was waiting for the blomfield’s argument.

                As i said before in a previous thread many months ago on this site about blomfield’s data.
                If slater did obtain it illegally, he should be held accountable by the law.
                I also said there was doubt as to how he obtained it, i suspect it was leaked to him by someone with access to the data, rather then hacked.

                Thats the actions of a whistleblower, not a hacker.
                Someone within the organization would of given him the data.
                If someone from whale oil had leaked those emails to Hager, that’d be the same scenario.

                Whistleblower or Hacker. You get to pick one, not both.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  8 October 2014 at 5:30 pm

                  I suspect the judge’s judgement on the matter means something, and your ignorance of it is just ignorance, and watching your wittering drivel disintegrate in the face of it (the judgement) leaves me wanting better wingnuts.

                  • Bazar …
                    8 October 2014 at 5:47 pm

                    Do you ever have anything meaningful to say?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      8 October 2014 at 6:00 pm

                      Yes, that your argument wanted on several fronts from the get-go, not least of which is understanding of the law, and also including ignorance of almost every other aspect of the subject under discussion.

                      Further, that this is a pattern not confined to your behaviour alone, rather one we see repeated ad nauseam.

                      It’s transparent, and feeble, and a few moment’s thought (and some reading) might help you avoid it.

                      Surely there’s some conservative viewpoint you can imagine rather than this feeble tea-party melange?

                    • Bazar …
                      8 October 2014 at 7:12 pm

                      So thats a no then?
                      You talk so much, and yet say so little, and mostly just for the sake of talking down.

            • greywarshark 5.1.1.1.1.6
              8 October 2014 at 6:06 pm

              @ Bazar
              How do you know they were taken by force? Are you practising your ethics for a verbal test in your law study? What about revealing activities that play around with the rules and expectations of behaviour in our democracy?

              Should the police have sent armed men to frighten and immobilise Tuhoe because they were playing games like hunting and shooting with paintballs or rifles and talking wildly, which the police would never have heard if they weren’t listening in and spying on them?

              They imagined there was something solid where there was a lot of hot air. Rawshark demonstrated there was something solid when he looked at Cameron Slater’s unethical behaviour and saw the documents that showed it. Which as I said undermines our belief that our democracy is a good one. Which is worst?

              • Bazar …
                8 October 2014 at 8:08 pm

                I don’t think anyone is disputing the fact that the emails were hacked.
                Thats what i mean by force.

                Tuhoe has nothing to do with Hagar or Whaleoil, so i’m not going to be sidetracked there.

                And as for something being wrong with our democracy, i’d agree.
                When political figures can have their personal rights ignored and trampled over, i do fear for our democracy.

                The ends do not justify the means.

                • lprent …
                  8 October 2014 at 8:33 pm

                  The ends do not justify the means.

                  Including the police?

                  There are no real checks on them. The IPCA is pretty much a joke. Even when they do manage to find against the police, then typically the police simply ignore the result.

                  In this case they have clearly have and they are very likely to both have the search warrant eventually overturned and to appeal it whilst holding the ‘evidence’ while they use taxpayer funds to impose a non-legal punishment.

                  Don’t you think that when the police get things wrong that they should accept some responsibility for their actions, pay costs, compensation, and someone getting fired or demoted?

                  Currently none of those things happen when the police overstep their bounds.

                  They are the ones who argue that the means justify the ends because it allows them to provide punishments on activists where the courts wind up as mere bit players. They act as police and judge until overruled by a real judge with no penalty apart from those that we the public impose.

                  Of course we have to put up with simpering apologists like yourself in the process.. Or do we?

                  In this case Hager acted as a good journalist should. When a whistle blower gave him some information about underhanded political and commercial tactics, he acted in the public good and published it. Whistleblowers seldom get their material through legal means which amongst other reasons is why we give journalists legal protections to protect their sources. In this case the police appear to wish to obviate those protections, and a normal court (ie not the privacy commission who ruled on David Fisher and who operate under different rules) will almost certainly eventually rule against the police.

                  Incidentally, I believe that the privacy court will be looking at Cameron Slater’s invasion of Blomfield’s privacy later this month. I’m expecting that Slater is going to get some unpleasant surprises.

                  • Bazar …
                    8 October 2014 at 9:42 pm

                    “When a whistle blower gave him some information ”
                    And thats where we disagree fundamentally.

                    Hacking your victim, stealing his data, and publishing what you want from what you find isn’t whistleblowing. Its being a hacker, it’s a crime, and it should be punished.

                    By such s disgustingly bad definition of whistleblowing, i could justify hacking any and everyone.

                    I’ll start tonight, i’ll hack the emails of Cunliff, read all his dirty secrets, learn about who his secret trust funders were, and have it all published.
                    He can’t complain, i’m just a whistleblower.
                    How about the private emails of ABC members, i’m sure they have a lot to say that the public should know about Labour and Cunliffe.

                    And how about you Lprent, hack this server, steal all your membership data, publish all the membership details that people have entered.
                    Its for the public good, and as long as i get someone else to publish what i find, i’m a whistleblower and should not be prosecuted.

                    How you can believe a hacker praying on his victim is a whistleblower just because hes leftwing… Whatever it takes to sleep at night i guess.

                    • McFlock …
                      8 October 2014 at 10:04 pm

                      What you don’t get is that if you found morally reprehensible crap on cunliffe’s computer and a journalist published it, that would still be a public good.

                      If you found and had published strong indications that national-security classifications didn’t apply to favoured bloggers when Labour is in power, it would still be in the public interest.

                      And the journalist who publishes it should still be protected from being forced to reveal your identity.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      8 October 2014 at 10:19 pm

                      By such s disgustingly bad definition of whistleblowing, i could justify hacking any and everyone.

                      No you couldn’t.

                      Rawshark hacked Slater. This is against the law and as such should be punished but:

                      1. Did s/he have just cause? Considering the lies and attack politics of Slater on his blog this is a possible argument
                      2. Then, instead of publishing everything that they found they gave it to Hager who went through it carefully and published exposing
                      3. Corrupt, immoral and possibly illegal practices

                      which fits the definition of whistle-blower

                      None of which you’d have.

                    • lprent …
                      9 October 2014 at 12:00 am

                      Hager didn’t hack the system, he didn’t really profit from it (have you ever looked at the profit margins for book runs in NZ), he simply exposed it.

                      So what you are saying is that because you can’t find the actual crim, that you will take any available victim and attack them in their stead.

                      I have to say that YOUR morals look fucking awful….

                    • Bazar …
                      9 October 2014 at 5:00 am

                      @Draco
                      “Did s/he have just cause? ”
                      So again we come back to the ends justify the means.
                      That its okay to ignore the law and rights of others, because you feel you have something to prove.

                      2. “Then, instead of publishing everything that they found”
                      Yes, tell that to slater when rawshark was dumping every single email by twitter, including personally private emails about Slater with his mom dying of cancer.

                      3. I disagree with calling Hagar a whistleblower. But honestly i’m tired of arguing this so i’ll leave that issue alone.

                      @lprent
                      Thank you for creating such a large strawman for me. My last comment was clearly about the illegal and immoral hacking activities of a hacker. The only reference to Hagar was as a 3rd party publisher.

                    • Bazar …
                      9 October 2014 at 5:17 am

                      @McFlock
                      “What you don’t get is that if you found morally reprehensible crap on cunliffe’s computer and a journalist published it, that would still be a public good.”

                      No, i can clearly understand that point. But you’re missing my point.
                      THE ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS

                      You cannot go around breaking peoples rights or property without just cause. And because hes Slater isn’t just cause regardless of how much people here would like to believe that.

                      We are a country that values freedom and personal rights. To start trampling those core values to promote someone’s/some party’s agenda is to accept corruption at the heart of our society.

                      “And the journalist who publishes it should still be protected from being forced to reveal your identity.”

                      And so you’ve given your blessing to vigilantes to break laws and get off scott free, so long as they work as a team of lawbreaker/publisher.

                      Take a look at my previous post about what a precedence sets. Hacking Cunliffe’s emails would be just the start.

                      Perhaps these words may ring a bell
                      “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” – B Franklin.

                    • Pascals bookie …
                      9 October 2014 at 5:30 am

                      Is anyone saying the hacker shouldn’t be punished if caught and identified and it’s proven they got the right person in court?

                      If you want to go vigilante to get something, that’s the risk. That hasn’t changed, that’s what the law is.

                      Do you think the law should be changed? That we should remove journalistic privileges like the public interest defence?

                      Gpoing on about ‘what if this happened to so sand so’ doesn;t mean anything, because this is how the law already is. If someone hacked Cunliffe of whoever, that would be a crime, of they gave the info to a journalist, that part (giving it to a journo) would not be a crime. If the journo thought there was a public interest element they could publish. That’s a risk insofar as whether or not a court agrees there is a public interest.

                      In the Dirty Politics case, hell yeah there’s a public interest. Remember the Minister of Justice resigning? I doubt any court would say there was no public interest involved.

                      and

                      “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” – B Franklin.”

                      lol what the fuck man? You are the one wanting to restrict the free press. Look up what Ben had to say about that. The quote you cite is better suited to the ‘OMG terrists are gonna kill us all’ debate.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      9 October 2014 at 9:17 am

                      So again we come back to the ends justify the means.

                      You cannot go around breaking peoples rights or property without just cause.

                      The standard RWNJ capability of having two opposing views at the same time.

                      And because hes Slater isn’t just cause regardless of how much people here would like to believe that.

                      Just cause would be due to Slater’s actions.

                      I disagree with calling Hagar a whistleblower.

                      I didn’t call Hager a whistleblower so this indicates that you either can’t read or you’re trying to distract.

                      To start trampling those core values to promote someone’s/some party’s agenda is to accept corruption at the heart of our society.

                      And yet you don’t seem to have any problem with the indications that the National Party have been doing exactly that.

                      And so you’ve given your blessing to vigilantes to break laws and get off scott free, so long as they work as a team of lawbreaker/publisher.

                      Nope, only if it was justified and in the public interest and what Dirty Politics exposed was.

                    • McFlock …
                      9 October 2014 at 1:34 pm

                      Bazar,
                      I wonder, did you quote Ben Franklin when the GCSB’s activities against Kim Dotcom were revealed?
                      Somehow I doubt it.

                      Have you considered the liberty that you are giving up, for fear of hacking? The freedom of the press? Franklin, being a printer, probably had a few things to say about that and all.

                    • joe90 …
                      9 October 2014 at 2:12 pm

                      Perhaps these words may ring a bell
                      “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” – B Franklin.

                      *groan*

                      The letter wasn’t about liberty but about taxes and the ability to “raise money for defense against French and Indian attacks. The governor kept vetoing the assembly’s efforts at the behest of the family, which had appointed him.”

                      Indeed, if you look at the text surrounding the famous quote, it’s pretty clearly about money: “Our assemblies have of late had so many supply bill, and of such different kinds, rejected, on various pretences,” wrote Franklin.

                      There’s not much on liberty, as we understand the concept, in the entire letter.

                      http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/how-the-world-butchered-benjamin-franklins-quote-on-liberty-vs-security/

                • greywarshark …
                  8 October 2014 at 8:48 pm

                  Baszar
                  You don’t want to put your mind to the situation. Just keep revolving your argument. And that the Tuhoe police raid has no connection with this shows that you can’t see the underlying factors in this police raid and that.

  6. Foreign Waka 6
    7 October 2014 at 7:25 pm

    The way Mr Hager is being treated could be from the rule book of the stasi. I never thought that this is possible in NZ.

  7. BM 7
    7 October 2014 at 7:57 pm

    I read that Nicky Hager was a trust fund child.

    If that’s the case, I don’t think money really is an issue.

    [lprent: Read where? Where is your link?
    I rather suspect that you are just repeating a smear probably by a blustering and whining technical incompetent liar. I’d suggest that you don’t make a habit of it. ]

    • Paul 7.1
      7 October 2014 at 8:00 pm

      You are such a generous spirited person.

      • vto 7.1.1
        7 October 2014 at 8:03 pm

        BM is the epitome of the right wing Key-love and English-worship.

        No humanity. Ugly to the core.

      • BM 7.1.2
        7 October 2014 at 8:03 pm

        I’m a realist.

        Also I think there’s more worthy charity cases than Nicky Hager , yeah it’s a piss, but I don’t think he’ll be too put out by the loss of a computer.

        • wekarawshark 7.1.2.1
          7 October 2014 at 8:11 pm

          🙄

          as if anyone here gives a shit about what your meanspirited self thinks on the matter.

        • Rodel 7.1.2.2
          7 October 2014 at 8:18 pm

          Nah. You’re just ugly-inside and out- but you don’t know. Nothing like a realist.
          Just hope you haven’t offspring.

    • Te Reo Putake 7.2
      7 October 2014 at 8:51 pm

      “I read that Nicky Hager was a trust fund child. If that’s the case, I don’t think money really is an issue.”

      🙄 Where did you read that, Bollox Man? From memory, he’s one of four kids bought up by parents who both worked for a living in Levin. Yeah, Levin. Glamorous bourgeois Levin, home of the filthy rich since, er, never.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 7.2.1
        8 October 2014 at 6:41 am

        It goes like this:

        Step One: write “X has a trust fund”.

        Step Two: read what you just wrote.

        Step three: add the phrase “I read that” in front of the previous phrase.

        With experience, you can move directly to step three.

    • CC 7.3
      7 October 2014 at 11:04 pm

      BM – Two generations of the Hager family on one side and three on the other have contributed to NZ society in ways far beyond what your pathetic imagination could conceive. It is suggested you pull your head in rather than display such mind numbing ignorance.

    • johnb 7.4
      8 October 2014 at 8:22 am

      My parents owned, quite a large factory in Levin, clothing manufacturer. I didn’t grow up in a state house.

      After building houses around Wellington and renovating houses for a while, I am living in the house that I built. And that has, more than any other single thing, allowed me to… I [now] have the security of the house I don’t have to pay a … mortgage on.”

    • Morrissey 7.5
      8 October 2014 at 9:19 am

      He read it on Blubberblog.

    • Foreign Waka 7.6
      8 October 2014 at 6:52 pm

      BM, Nicky Hager is a very brave men. In 20 -30 years time people will know who he is/was. I doubt that this is true for you.

  8. AsleepWhileWalking 8
    7 October 2014 at 8:03 pm

    Joyously contributed 😀

  9. Zolan 9
    7 October 2014 at 8:08 pm

    It’s just bizarre.
    While it’s easy to embrace the fascism narrative, one would think they wouldn’t be so keen to keep testing the limits of public indifference.

    What’s the wider strategy? Apart from perhaps getting it over with well before the next election, is it some kind of provocation or setup for something else? An extra round of intimidation just doesn’t seem a big enough payoff for the risk of backlash.

    Or maybe they are simply that confident they can act with impunity … I’m not sure their confidence is misplaced.

  10. cogito 10
    7 October 2014 at 8:20 pm

    This needs to be bigger than a few individuals contributing their $20. It needs to get full coverage.

    This is about those at the centre of dirty politics taking their revenge for being exposed. We live in dangerous times.

  11. Shaned 11
    7 October 2014 at 9:17 pm

    Am I missing something , but wasn’t Hagar in possession of stolen material? A journalist protecting his source – give me a break.

    [lprent: You just described Cameron Slater vs Blomfield. After his 10 hour ordeal last August when all of his computers were seized because he’d received and published stolen emails and documents, journalist Cameron Slater said.. (oops: that was from an alternate universe where the police are impartial rather than John Key’s poodles).

    Don’t you stupid dongles ever use your brains? ]

    • mickysavage 11.1
      7 October 2014 at 9:20 pm

      Wow I just wish you RWNJs could move past first base with your arguments. The material was not stolen but was hacked. And please justify how Slater’s treatment of Matt Blomfield is OK but Hager’s treatment of Slater is not.

      • Shaned 11.1.1
        7 October 2014 at 9:56 pm

        Where did I say I was defending Slater Iprent and Mickysavage? My point was regading Hagar – ie. the subject of this post.

        By the way, real classy with the name calling just because I happen to offer an alternative view.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 11.1.1.1
          8 October 2014 at 5:40 am

          Lies aren’t “alternative views” – they’re just lies, indicative of ignorance, gullibility or mendacity, and in many cases all three.

          I’m picking all three apply in your case.

        • framu 11.1.1.2
          8 October 2014 at 9:42 am

          “Where did I say I was defending Slater Iprent and Mickysavage?”

          right here

          “Am I missing something , but wasn’t Hagar in possession of stolen material? A journalist protecting his source – give me a break.”

          just to bring you up to speed – its the EXACT SAME line used by every other fool and dishonest bullshitter whos been trying to defend slater for months.

          you might think your being original – but its been used so much that anyone pulling that particular line out of their backside will meet a pretty swift and stern reactrion

          why? because its old, discredited and diversionary bullshit

      • Anne 11.1.2
        7 October 2014 at 10:02 pm

        Wow I just wish you RWNJs could move past first base with your arguments.

        How can they mickysavage? That’s all they were told to say and there’s been no update since this morning so they don’t know what to say next so they have to keep saying the same thing over and over again. Blubber boy’s slipping up on the job.

    • suck myballs 11.2
      7 October 2014 at 10:38 pm

      you may wish to update your sources on whether the HDD were actually stolen. according to sources they were never reported as such.

      [lprent: Blomfield reported them as being stolen when Cameron Slater started writing stories about them. That was in 2012. The complaint appears to have been ignored by the police. Yet Cameron Slater reports it, and Hager gets raided as a witness mere months later. I’d say that the police appear to be corrupt. ]

      • Pascals bookie 11.2.1
        8 October 2014 at 5:15 am

        The judge said that Slater was a journalist and could invoke source protection under the Evidence Act.

        However, the judge also granted orders sought by Blomfield that this section of the law not apply to Slater in this case.

        There was a “public interest” in the disclosure of the identity of Slater’s informants, Justice Asher said.

        “There is a real public interest in those who claim that they are defamed being able to fully explore the circumstances of the defamation…” the judge said.

        This was not a whistle blower case and it seemed the information was obtained illegally by sources, which diminished the importance of protecting them, the judge said.

        “Moreover, any concern at the chilling effect of disclosure of sources is lessened when the subject matter of the material originally disclosed has the mark of a private feud, and features abusive and vindictive language.”

        http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11323615

        Highlighted: where the judge indicates he thinks it was obtained illegally, and the diffs between what Slater did and Hager.

  12. Kelly-Ned 12
    7 October 2014 at 9:32 pm

    This is an almost inevitable consequence of any righteous public actions. We need to be prepared for it.
    The other aspect to be aware of is ‘credible deny-ability’ – the person who has initiated this set of raids will have separated themselves far enough so that they can deny all knowledge of the Police actions.
    Kia kaha Nicky

    • Melanie Scott 12.1
      8 October 2014 at 4:48 am

      Or perhaps they will just say ‘I don’t recall that, but at the end of the day…’

  13. politikiwi 13
    7 October 2014 at 9:33 pm

    Does anyone know if anything even remotely like this happened during the investigation into The Hollow Men?

    Because as I recall there was a police investigation (which resulted in nothing). I don’t know whether they turned over Hager’s house looking for information on the source.

    If not, what is different about this case when compared to The Hollow Men?

  14. Redelusion 14
    7 October 2014 at 10:41 pm

    I don’t think hollow man was a hack, simply national insiders who did not like brash passing on material legitimately in their possession. In the Hagar case a crime was clearly committed, police are in their right to search Hagar on the basis to find the hacker, similarly for all we know Hagar could be the hacker, there is no evidence to the contrary barring Hagar comments which the police can’t accept at face value. If Hagar was not the hacker did he assist indirectly etc thus is complicit in the crime All This bs about the police been JK poodle is ridiculous and really makes you all look a bit silly, but if it makes you feel better that’s ok, no harm done

    [lprent: Hager is essentially a technophobe by my standards. He has even fewer technical skills than Cameron Slater. There is no way that he could have done any of the things that rawshark is reported to have done.

    The police have had exactly the same complaint made against Cameron Slater. Emails copied from a hard disk and documents that the owner never gave permission to be accessed, and a ‘journalist’ who published them. Yet in the last year they appear to have not bothered to investigate the complaint that was laid.

    Whereas Cameron Slater raises his head from licking John Keys arse for a few minutes and the police are all over his complaint. Yeah, the police appear to be John Key’s poodles. They had the exact same alacrity of response in the Ambrose recording in 2011. ]

    • framu 14.1
      8 October 2014 at 9:54 am

      “All This bs about the police been JK poodle”

      so why havent they raided anybody else from the wide pool of people implicated by their own words as revealed in hagers book? (evidence that hasnt been denied challenged or refuted by anyone)

      why havent they acted on, and in fact dismissed the other complaints received that implicate ede, key and slater explicitly?

      Why did they raid the house of a witness for 10 hours, even when they could be pretty certain they would find nothing?

      why does it look like they are going after a radio DJ for encouraging people to vote green on election day but not the all blacks for their tweets in the other direction on the same day? ( here )

      why have we had two elections in a row where media who have made JKs life a bit harder have ended up being raided by the cops?

      why do breaches of the electoral act (by all parties admitedly) never get looked into by the police?

      okay – maybe not JKs poodle explicitly – but are you seriously going to sit there and ignore the rather obvious pattern of police bias and favour that they show to our rulers – and the nats in particular?

  15. Redelusion 15
    7 October 2014 at 11:13 pm

    Not sure of slater case but Hagar,whale dump etc haven’t helped themselves by playing this up, red rag to a bull in that police had no choice but to act. Was slater more a case of sloppy security and unethical behaviour rather than a crime

  16. Andrew 16
    7 October 2014 at 11:38 pm

    legal aid!

  17. Annie 17
    8 October 2014 at 1:13 am

    Love how when I gave to Hagar fund, my card didn’t get charged an extra $8 like it did when I gave to the Daily Blog !! And for the record, when I commented about it to find out why, my comment never got past moderation.

  18. Tautoko Mangō Mata 18
    8 October 2014 at 7:27 am

    This Glenn Greenwald article published in the Guardian last year is worth reading. Those RWNJ really do need to stop and think about
    how the lack of transparency in government can lead to corrupt practices.

    “On whistleblowers and government threats of investigation

    No healthy democracy can endure when the most consequential acts of those in power remain secret and unaccountable. Those who step forward to blow these whistles rarely benefit at all. The ones who benefit are you. You discover what you should know but what is hidden from you: namely, the most consequential acts being taken by those with the greatest power, and how those actions are affecting your life, your country and your world.”
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/07/whistleblowers-and-leak-investigations

    • One Anonymous Bloke 18.1
      8 October 2014 at 5:27 pm

      Right wing nut jobs only understand this argument when Margaret Thatcher is making it in reference to Communists.

  19. peter h 19
    8 October 2014 at 8:20 am

    All the 47% that voted for this govt, should do what I have just done, watch
    CRY FREEDOM

  20. johnb 20
    8 October 2014 at 8:26 am

    http://www.getfrank.co.nz/editorial/features/interview-nicky-hager-2

    “After building houses around Wellington and renovating houses for a while, I am living in the house that I built. And that has, more than any other single thing, allowed me to… I [now] have the security of the house I don’t have to pay a … mortgage on.”

    “My parents owned, quite a large factory in Levin, clothing manufacturer. I didn’t grow up in a state house.”

    • One Anonymous Bloke 20.1
      8 October 2014 at 9:50 am

      If you only have financial security because you don’t have to pay a mortgage, your income can’t be very large.

    • greywarshark 20.2
      8 October 2014 at 10:46 am

      @ johnb 8.26
      Your meaning is obscure. What is your point? Thanks for the link, interesting.

  21. Tracey 21
    8 October 2014 at 8:54 am

    its over 15k.

    how do we know it is what it says it is?