Fairs fair : how to complain, how not to and why not

Written By: - Date published: 10:10 am, May 16th, 2018 - 21 comments
Categories: admin, Dirty Politics, internet, The Standard - Tags: , ,

One of the loudmouth irrelevancies of the Labour past has been harassing Greg Presland recently on social media alleging issues with something that seems remarkably undefined written on this site. I know Phil Quin moderately well after observing his behaviour during the 90s when I was heavily involved in the Mt Albert electorate while he was working for Phil Goff.  Ambiguity and smearing do seem to me to be his modus operandi. But you can read his current story, and it does appear to me to be a work of fiction, here.

But it does point to a issue with what happens when people complain without following due process.

In a completely separate issue (at least I presume that it is despite the similarities of dirty politics methods), I am currently working through the process of bankrupting another ‘complainant’ who also failed to follow due process.

Rather than using a more usual procedure of complaint, Dermot Nottingham chose instead to pursue a private prosecution against me personally. Which he lost along with all of the appeals to date incurring at the current count, more than $47k in court ordered costs to me. This does seem to be his modus operandi. He currently appears to have at least another $130k in court ordered costs from other failed private prosecutions. Try the judicial decisions search page with the search of Nottingham and you will see what I mean with  consistent pattern of losses in court and appeals against costs.

Neither of these two fools used the procedure explained in our contact page, or the carefully explained more recent procedure in the HDCA page.

Over the last decade the first procedure has been used successfully by many people of all persuasions, political or otherwise, over the years to get rapid action on anything published on this site. One of us reads the complaint, usually me, elicits information to find out where the section is, why it is an issue and then takes the appropriate action.

Nine times out of ten it results in the material being wiped and the offending commenter or author being given sharp rap over the knuckles (and our moderating procedures reviewed again). The other times; it is carefully explained exactly why we thought that was fair comment or expressed opinion and usually with an explanation of the legal options.

That is because we are fair – almost obsessively so. We stomp on false facts where we see them, limit the expression of opinion if it isn’t backed by source or if it is not expressed as being opinion, and generally try to allow a robust debate about politics and society. That also means we don’t pander to bullies trying to bypass process. They usually run into me and I’m not tolerant of people trying to game things.

Neither Phil Quin nor Dermot Nottingham even bothered to try the clear route for complaint. Both appear to me to be, at least in part, seem to have deliberately tried to bypass those. The suspicion in both cases has to be that there are politically motivated reasons aimed at silencing fair commentary and opinion.

Dermot Nottingham has been closely associated with Cameron Slater of dirty politics fame for years. His legal advocacy seems to have been a major reason why Cameron has been steadily miring into a legal morass.

Phil Quin has been regular opinion writer on the subject of the Labour Party from for decades – from what can only be described by many Labour party activists as being from the Act wing.

Both appeared to be capable of selectively reading the site. But also appeared to lack the capability to find the Contact page. So in my view you have to look towards other motivations than their stated ones for their actual actions.

Certainly Phil Quin’s actions with his post lend themselves to that interpretation. He has appeared to have deliberately targeted a specific person with what looks to me at present like a completely unsubstantiated allegation against them.

Update: it is likely the posts he wants to complain about is this one by me, this one by weka, and this one by mickysavage on his disgraceful commentary about Golriz Ghahraman.

By the sounds of his continually evolving story, it isn’t even the person who wrote whatever he is objecting to. If there is any substance to whatever allegations he has been spewing around without providing detail, then I’d take a bet that they are in comments.

Then he has outright lied in a public post about the response from The Standard.

Greg Presland contacted me with a link to Phil Quin’s allegations in Facebook. I contacted Phil Quin via the same medium, told him who I was, gave him the contact page link and my email address and asked him to send me the link and details to whatever it was that he was talking about.

Yet somehow Phil appears to have ‘forgotten’ this exchange in his post. He seem to have forgotten blustering his way around (in the classic Quin pattern) about not wanting to know the ‘inner workings’ of The Standard in the facebook exchange.

Instead he seems to be proud of his continued attempts at bullying via social media and mainly upset that his chosen target has removed his ability to do so. If he wanted to prove that he was a irresponsible dimwit to me then he couldn’t have picked a more appropriate method.

This site is operated by The Standard Trust as explained in our about. The trustees are myself and Mike Smith. Ultimately decisions about censorship on this site devolve on to us. That is who you have to talk to if you want to complain about material on this site.

If people want to complain about specific content on The Standard, then at a minimum they need to follow the due process. Part of this is laid down by InternetNZ and the Domain Name Commission who control the .nz domain. Part is now covered by the Harmful Digital Communications Act and other legal procedures. But mostly it is run and implemented by us.

But all of which requires that if you really want to get material taken down or amended on this site, then follow the procedure and contact the site through the stated procedures. Trying other means will get you a sharp and probably expensive. in one form or another. response.

I am sure Phil will be happy about this response from The Standard. “Don’t be your normal dickhead self.”

FFS Phil – If you actually want fairness, then get off your lazy arse and follow the procedure. Send me the exact details of why you are objecting to as links and quoted material. State why you think that a fact stated was inaccurate or an opinion was excessive, And I will personally have a look at it.

But don’t waste my time stroking your ego. I neither have the time nor the inclination to pander to idiots. Basically if you can’t do the same basic simple operations that we need to locate issues and which orevious complainants like Ian Wishart, Cameron Slater, and many others who we disagree with have followed successfully. Then I can’t really see why I should waste my  time wiping your pathetic arse.

And please stop trying to be just another idiotic bully on the internet – it is just irritating. Especially since you appear to be incompetent at that as well.

Lynn Prentice – sysop

21 comments on “Fairs fair : how to complain, how not to and why not ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Chris T 1
    16 May 2018 at 10:38 am

    Not going to comment on this Quin bloke as I have never heard of him, but a quick google says it is probably this

    https://thestandard.org.nz/phil-quin-our-medias-goto-dogwhistling-aussie/

    • lprent 1.1
      16 May 2018 at 10:57 am

      Ah. That would explain why he didn’t want to engage with me. And why he has been completely coy about actually providing links to whatever he is complaining about.

      However that is also an opinion piece about a opinion piece commentary by him about someone else. It clearly states why I formed the opinion that I have based on his behaviour. And reading it, I really can’t see anything that I’d like to change.

      If you write opinion, especially that crock of crap that he wrote about Ghahraman, then you’d have to expect that analysis and opinion about what you’d written would follow.

      To stand and whine about the downstream consequences of people highlighting his opinions and opining on them would have to be the height of hypocrisy. After all I can’t see a trace of anything apart from bully behaviour in his article on Ghahraman. Why should he get concerned about someone using exactly the same right to opine upon him.

      If he cares to continue to want to complain, then I’d happily pass this over to Mike Smith to look at.

      • Chris T 1.1.1
        16 May 2018 at 12:14 pm

        Fair call

        It also strikes me as a bit of a stretch that 4 different US clients didnt hire him because they all happen to find the same opinion piece.

        • lprent 1.1.1.1
          16 May 2018 at 1:03 pm

          It does happen. I remember someone named in a post as being the current company officer with a particularly egregious company with very dubious labour practices. They had real issues getting employment afterwards. Our post came up top or high in all search results by employment agencies. (I’d have to look up the email for details now).

          This was raised with us by a family member using the contact page. Several of us at the time did some research. We found that they hadn’t been responsible for the poor decisions when they were made. They just managed to carry the can afterwards. So I wiped the persons name from the post and comments a couple of days after the complaint was made.

          But at least there was none of the kind of stupid games that Phil seems to be playing.

  2. Anne 2
    16 May 2018 at 10:50 am

    Wow, that’s interesting.

    So, some of the wee darlings are having hissy fits because a naughty author or commenter dared to criticise them. Don’t know about anyone else, but that’s grist to the mill for me.

    It became obvious a few years ago that the Dirty Political crowd decided to target Greg Presland and I expect they have been doing it on on and off ever since. Phil Quin is continuing the tradition.

    “Silly little boy”.

    • Rosemary McDonald 2.1
      16 May 2018 at 11:04 am

      “So, some of the wee darlings are having hissy fits because a naughty author or commenter dared to criticise them.”

      Hah! After flicking through the links to remind myself of the minutiae of that particular little artificially generated shit-storm the word that keeps popping into my mind is “snowflake”.

      Now I’m having to self flagellate, as this is a term most often used over where Farrar’s Ferals play.

      What was obvious at the time was that They had dug deep and mined the foetid depths to try and find something, anything on someone, anyone, to undermine the new Government.

      Golriz was low hanging fruit.

      Sadly, it seems They were in part successful because this talented MP has been so far underutilised.

      • lprent 2.1.1
        16 May 2018 at 11:18 am

        Yeah. There are three posts by different authors about different aspects of the smear at the time.

        But mine targeted Phil Quin

        But I’d also say that Gloriz is a first term MP. Traditionally not usually given a lot to do because just learning the ropes at parliament as an MP (even for people who have previously been around parliament) usually takes up much of their time.

        • Anne 2.1.1.1
          16 May 2018 at 11:32 am

          All MPs will tell you that entering parliament is a very steep learning curve. There are masses of regulations and traditions which take time to get their heads around. Add to that… preparations required for select committee hearings and House debates must be quite daunting for newbies, I’m not surprised most are not burdened with any other responsibilities for at least a year.

  3. greywarshark 3
    16 May 2018 at 12:02 pm

    I’ve been reading about vexatious litigation and the slow attempts the justice system has been making to reduce the harrassment from it when it is being brought by malicious or paranoid people who have the funds to do it.

    The government I fear, is more interested in stopping conservation groups from using the Courts to try and prevent some destruction by predatory corporates or through conniving assistance by local Councils.

    Here are some links about vexatious litigation.

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11726085
    Courts to get powers to block vexatious legal action
    10 Oct 2016

    Radionz
    New Zealand
    4:05 pm on 3 May 2014
    https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/243253/blogger-declared-vexatious-litigant
    Businessman and blogger Vincent Siemer has been declared a vexatious litigant and will no longer be able to file court cases relating to a long running legal dispute.
    Lawyers for the Crown asked the High Court to stop Mr Siemer from filing new cases after years of litigation including law suits against several individual judges, the Attorney-General, the Law Society and the Judicial Conduct Commissioner.

    Already this year the Supreme Court has ruled on four cases brought by Mr Siemer after ruling against him on 13 cases last year.

    In a ruling, Justice Ronald Young and Justice Brown said that they had decided not to impose a complete ban on Mr Siemer filing law suits.
    But he would be banned from further suits against judges, lawyers and the parties involved in his original dispute over a receivership.
    The judges said that Mr Siemer simply refused to accept the finality of rulings against him and persistently instituted vexatious proceedings as a result.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6880351/Attempt-to-shut-down-vexatious-litigant 2012
    In the High Court at Palmerston North yesterday, Justice Patrick Keane and Justice Peter Woodhouse heard Reid had taken 77 legal cases before various courts since the mid-1980s.

    https://www.lawsociety.org.nz/lawtalk/lawtalk-archives/issue-842/proceedings-ban-follows-vexatious-litigation 2014

    http://www.mondaq.com/NewZealand/x/185386/court+procedure/The+Law+Commission+on+vexatious+litigants+in+New+Zealand 2012

    http://r126.publications.lawcom.govt.nz/Chapter+16+-+Vexatious+actions/Querulous+litigants 2011

    https://nz.vlex.com/vid/commission-vexatious-litigants-in-zealand-385534768 No date

    • AsleepWhileWalking 3.1
      16 May 2018 at 12:31 pm

      The legal system equivalent of a stalker

    • lprent 3.2
      16 May 2018 at 12:41 pm

      The problem with the vexatious litigant legislation is that is just for civil law.

      Private prosecutions are criminal law.

      They are also an important safeguard against the state. It is not the only entity capable of bringing prosecutions. Organizations like the SPCA can as well. But so can private citizens.

      However to bring a prosecution the most that is required is a primary facie case that a judge considers may have legs. That doesn’t require much the way of proof. It just requires that there may have been an obvious breach of a particular law.

      The problem is with self representing prosecutors with limited legal capabilities and absolutely no duty to the court. They have no particular need ti actually check their assumptions. They can also soak up a lot of legal time with status hearings avoiding the inevitable

      In my particular case, that meant that Dermot prosecuted the wrong entity in my co-defendent. APN did not own the NZ Herald when their articles was written.

      I haven’t ever “owned” The Standard and didn’t write the post in question.

      This was all knowable when Dermot Nottungham started the case. He didn’t ask nor even apparently even try to find out. Like Phil Quin, when I reached out to point this out, it got ignored in a flurry of pointless and inaccurate allegations.

      Yet he recklessly proceeded to start and continue the case.

      So I intend to make sure Dermot Nottingham never proceeds with a case like this again and to make sure taht any other fool is fully informed before they proceed with similar stupidities.

      • greywarshark 3.2.1
        16 May 2018 at 1:35 pm

        I thought that there had to be proved first that there was a case to answer before all the hooha.

        The matter just confirms for me the advantage of having a pseudonym. There are too many loonies around that feel entitled to let out whatever arises from their bowels.

        • lprent 3.2.1.1
          16 May 2018 at 3:36 pm

          Not really. The expectation is that the police / crown prosecutor / lawyers will have already have done that. They are all to one degree or another officers of the court. And the penalties for misleading the court tend towards the draconian professionally.

          With a private prosecutor doing it without legal assistance, all they have to do is to present something that looks like it may be a case. There are no obvious early penalties and no real long term ones as well apart from paying costs after they screw up or get made bankrupt.

          In the latter case, they can effectively get disbarred from court actions for 3 years without their official assignee signing off on it.

          • greywarshark 3.2.1.1.1
            16 May 2018 at 4:25 pm

            Sounds damned unsatisfactory to me. The illusory attachment to some theoretical idea of the openness of the law, so scrappily followed, just poisons and clogs up the system. There are people who play with the system and everyone just keeps going through the motions because nobody gets to the root of the problem and changes it so it works in a way we can respect.

            I have a friend who is after a dodgy character who is so slithery its a wonder he can keep standing. She has found other people are after him too but he is all the time setting up new things with his gains from his misuse of business law. Tracked down he just walks the other way, pleads ignorance, is unwell, can’t be served, and people are put to great expense time and stress trying to get the man dealt with. They are law abiding but the law seems to lean towards him not them.

  4. AsleepWhileWalking 4
    16 May 2018 at 12:27 pm

    Did the rounds a few years back harassing users of ACC Forum.org.

    VERY well known. I received a PM warning me not to engage in anyway due to unstable and in OPs opinion vindictive nature.

  5. adam 5
    16 May 2018 at 6:51 pm

    I found Quin so very drool, his writing is boring, his website is such a drag, that dishwater, even dirty dishwater – is way more interesting.

    Don’t waste your time lprent. It was obvious reading his peace, he one of those individuals who reveals in the role of the victim. You can’t get a straight answer, nor a result from people like that in my experience.

    I think Greg Presland did the right thing blocking him. On that front, virtual *hug* Greg, remember you don’t have to suffer bullies, especially really dull ones.

    As you will note Quin, mine is all my own opinion. Nothing here is more that that. Face facts buddy – some people don’t like you, or they way you operate. I am but one of those people.

  6. Muttonbird 6
    16 May 2018 at 7:42 pm

    Quin is such a whiney little prick. Perhaps he should have thought twice before lying about Ghahraman for his own gain.

  7. mauī 7
    16 May 2018 at 10:14 pm

    I feel slightly sick and I think I need a shower. Why does this always happen when this name pops up. Really fucking weird.

  8. SPC 8
    16 May 2018 at 11:37 pm

    This appears to be little more than a complaint about one sentence “This latest little effort of Phil Quin on a female green MP shows all of the usual signs of that 1990s bubble misogynist training.”

    https://thestandard.org.nz/phil-quin-our-medias-goto-dogwhistling-aussie/

    He probably wants you to simply remove the word (misogynist) from the sentence.

    … as you say, if someone wants such a thing done, they need to go through the “standard” process for doing this … .

    • fender 8.1
      17 May 2018 at 9:14 pm

      …and this bit:

      “The bit that Andrew Geddis seems to miss is, in my opinion, that she is a conservationist woman in a position of power with a philosophy of fixing things. Personally I couldn’t imagine anything that is more threatening to misogynist egomaniac who thrives on chaos.”

  9. Philg 9
    17 May 2018 at 11:07 am

    I am more interested in finding out why our MSM gives Mr Quin any coverage at all. Is it because he’s not a lefty, in fact, a righty?