Is National’s sleaze unit feeding the Slater again?

Written By: - Date published: 11:10 am, September 8th, 2014 - 138 comments
Categories: blogs, David Farrar, john key, Media, national, same old national - Tags: , ,

bradbury-630x354

Click for larger image

Cameron Slater has an attack post out on Martyn Bradbury because the electoral commission has him down as both Martyn and and also as the normal spelling of Martin. Now that is just the usual clerical error.

But the more important stories in the wake of Dirty Politics is just how did Cameron get this bit of dirt? Did Cameron actually write the post himself? If not then who actually wrote it. And above all who ordered National’s attack blogger back into action. They must be getting pretty desperate. You’d have to ask what they are reading on their internal polls.

 

Now as we all know Cameron is too stupid and too lazy to do his own legwork. In fact from Dirty Politics and it appears that most of the time the useless arsehole is too lazy to write the posts that come out under his name. Frankly he looks like a puppet with many peoples hands shoved straight up his arse and waving his arms around in an imitation of a display of intelligence.

As he says “..a little birdy told me…”. So which “little birdy” was that? Jason Ede, John Key’s top drawer,  or National’s internal sleaze unit commonly known as the National Research Unit. The dumpster diving dicks who provide the material for John Key’s top drawer. And who ordered Cameron to. Surely not that nice John Key showing his nasty side again?

The nice picture of the line on the printed electoral roll? Well who can imagine the lazy lump going to a public library and reading the printed rolls kept there? It seems like time that Cameron would feel was more usefully used in boasting about his lack of accomplishments in life.

Of course it’d be lot easier to get that kind of detail at parliament. There are lot of copies of the electoral rolls there.

By the way, when the electoral commission sends me a confirmation, I usually read to the line saying I don’t have to send anything back. Then I just bin it. By definition, if it got to me directly, then they had the right address. The commission are checking to see if the mail gets returned with a gone no address.

Look at names? About half of the time mail sent to me has the wrong version of my first name and usually the wrong gender. The IRD had me down as the wrong gender for more than two decades. And when I corrected them, I got audited.

Anyway, we can expect the usual National dirt resonator action. The other National sock puppets like David Farrar will write a posts about the post made under Cameron Slaters name. Some compliant (and probably blackmailed) jonolist will pick up the story in the mainstream media as being discussed on the blogs. It will somehow be linked to Labour or the Greens despite Bomber never being involved with them.

So lets watch and report on who the lazy journalists are this time.

138 comments on “Is National’s sleaze unit feeding the Slater again? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. blue leopard 1
    8 September 2014 at 11:20 am

    re attacking Bomber

    It seems pretty obvious to me that Slater is attacking Martyn because Bradbury may have those emails from Rawshark (Slater and his cronies think Bradbury has been given the emails – whether he has or not, I don’t know).

    First step required for the National gang, therefore, is to discredit the messenger. So people then become less receptive to the message.

    That is what they are doing.

    All the more reason to vote Slater’s cronies out.

    • Colonial Viper 1.1
      8 September 2014 at 11:35 am

      They have dug up this material to discredit both Bomber – and the Daily Blog. The question lprent poses is – who dug it up? I think the National/Slater dirt machine is getting back into gear because *they don’t know any other way* of operating.

  2. dave 2
    8 September 2014 at 11:29 am

    Slaters last desperate action before the litigation prosecution the tax man and jail

  3. weka 3
    8 September 2014 at 11:36 am

    Here’s the donotlink to Slater’s post if you want to avoid clicking through to his actual site.

    http://www.donotlink.com/bjgp

    [lprent: Changed it. ]

    • weka 3.1
      8 September 2014 at 12:20 pm

      I see donotlink has a popup that says most people find the page (Slater’s post) offensive and asking you to rate the page yourself.

      • Rich 3.1.1
        8 September 2014 at 2:49 pm

        What it doesn’t seem to do though is to hide your origin from Slater (i.e all the cookies and javascipt the guy will be using to vacuum data up from your visit). It would be better if there was a user friendly proxy for that.

  4. Enough is Enough 4
    8 September 2014 at 11:37 am

    This does not surprise me.

    National and arrogance are synonymous.

    The poll numbers are telling them they rode the Dirty Politics storm well and are still on course to win. Therefore in their corrupt minds it is business and politics as usual.

    Little do they know the electorate will punish them on polling day. Ordinary folk won’t allow this to continue

    • Puckish Rogue 4.1
      8 September 2014 at 12:19 pm

      Yeah yeah the polls don’t matter etc etc except you’re forgetting ordinary people vote National

      • cinesimon 4.1.1
        8 September 2014 at 4:48 pm

        “Ordinary people”. Right. You mean disengaged people, I presume. Regardless, your definition of ordinary is bizarre. And rather 1950s.

  5. Brigid 5
    8 September 2014 at 11:37 am

    Martyn says he’s already voted using the correct entry – “advance voted on the first day I was able to and noted to the person I voted with that I had been enrolled as Martin as well. You will note that only Martyn Bradbury has voted. ”
    http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/09/08/cameron-slaters-latest-ridiculous-claim/.

    But please, if you must visit the dreadful soil bug’s site use http://www.donotlink.com/#sthash.uNO95eO8.dpuf so that you don’t increase his hit count.

    A description from Massey.ac.nz says of slaters “The head appears to bear one pair of antennae, although there are actually two pairs……Occasionally (e.g., in cave dwelling species), the eyes are absent. Chewing mouthparts are located ventrally.
    The largest part of the body is the thorax”
    Perhaps thats the explanation for his pathetic rant.

  6. weka 6
    8 September 2014 at 11:38 am

    A dangerous centipede has been destroyed after it tried to crawl up a 1st class passenger’s leg on a flight from Apia to Auckland

    https://twitter.com/LIVENewsDesk/status/508754023101370368

  7. One Anonymous Bloke 7
    8 September 2014 at 11:40 am

    They aren’t going to stop until someone stops them.

  8. weka 8
    8 September 2014 at 11:54 am

    I’m curious as to why they have someone trawling through the electoral rolls. What did they think they were going to find? Pretty desperate.

      • joe90 8.1.1
        8 September 2014 at 12:34 pm

        In that case an electoral audit picked up a number of people from outside the electorate listed as living at one address and a large number of forms being downloaded from one IP address.

        If the national party had real concerns about Bradbury they should have reported the incident to the electoral commission rather than attempt a smear via a criminal.

        • weka 8.1.1.1
          8 September 2014 at 12:44 pm

          According to Slater, he was told last year that Bradbury was doubled up in the roll.

        • indiana 8.1.1.2
          8 September 2014 at 12:48 pm

          @joe90…that link to the article is an old report from last year…kinda just highlighting weka’s questioning of why someone may be trawling through electoral roles.

        • Michael 8.1.1.3
          8 September 2014 at 12:54 pm

          You are begging the question that it was the National party who found it. More likely, someone else on the role in the B’s noticed it and alerted Slater.

          • Pascals bookie 8.1.1.3.1
            8 September 2014 at 1:02 pm

            Why is that ‘more likely’?

          • weka 8.1.1.3.2
            8 September 2014 at 1:08 pm

            “More likely, someone else on the role in the B’s noticed it and alerted Slater.”

            They’d still have to be looking.

          • Rich 8.1.1.3.3
            8 September 2014 at 2:51 pm

            I can understand your for you’re even though it labels the user as not getting enough grammar in school, but I’m struggling with role for roll.

            Are you using some sort of speech recognition? If you are then I’m afraid that implies that you’re paid to comment on this blog.

        • Jimmy 8.1.1.4
          8 September 2014 at 4:24 pm

          If read the post on WO it was found by WO not the Nats, I don’t get why its ok for the left to break the law but when someone on the right sails close to the line its the end of the world…..remember over half of the country are voting right of center!

          Jimmy

          [lprent: Yeah right. Like Cameron doesn’t lie as a matter of routine principle. He always has as long I have been aware of him.

          In case you missed the point of my post, I think that the “little birdie” who pointed out the duplication was involved in Nationals dirty ops, that Cameron was too damn lazy to check it, and that he is lying as usual when he says that someone else didn’t do all of the work.

          After all this is the arsehole who spent the last 7 years saying that he wrote his own material and lying through his teeth when he disputed our assertions when we pointed to the people who we suspected were actually writing it.

          Basically if you believe him, then you’re even more of an idiot than I already think you are. Probably the smell of from your insistent whaleoil arselicking has affected your brain. ]

          • geoff 8.1.1.4.1
            8 September 2014 at 10:07 pm

            ‘remember over half the country are voting right of center!’

            Failed form 1 maths did ya? That’s a funny definition of half…
            http://fluffygeorge.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/pie-chart.jpg

            Don’t let the truth get in the way of a convenient lie eh. You’ve learnt well from Key.

          • mike s 8.1.1.4.2
            11 September 2014 at 12:06 am

            “..remember over half the country are voting right of center! ..”

            FFS! Don’t always believe what you think. (especially in your case)

            Just as an aside, the voters of Epson get a pretty hard time (justifiably in my opinion) over their voting habits, but what the fuck is it with Ohariu voters? At least Epson voters are voting strategically as ordered to, but do ohariu voters actually want Dunne in parliament?? What a crazy old world

        • ghostwhowalksnz 8.1.1.5
          8 September 2014 at 5:24 pm

          It wasnt an electoral audit per se, the MPs get an electronic version of the roll which is in street address order ( for knocking on doors)
          Thats when it was noticed that there were a very high number of people at the same address.
          The MP then went to the electoral office ( and informed Slater who post it on his blog as a ‘tip off’)

  9. adam 9
    8 September 2014 at 12:01 pm

    Why did slatter put a picture of Boomers daughter on his site? This guy has to be stopped. Using children as a weapon, how low can you get?

    • Puckish Rogue 9.1
      8 September 2014 at 12:11 pm

      Go read the article and find out for yourself and lets face it the left have form when it comes to following the electoral rules

      and by that i mean ignore them completely

      • weka 9.1.1
        8 September 2014 at 12:32 pm

        Fuck off PR, the lies are getting boring.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 9.1.2
        8 September 2014 at 12:34 pm

        I read the article. It says that Cameron Slater is low-life trash who deserves a jail sentence, and so is anyone who associates with or supports him.

        I’m paraphrasing.

      • cinesimon 9.1.3
        8 September 2014 at 4:49 pm

        Let’s face it – you’re nothing more than a dishonest troll.

        [lprent: You will find that using the word “troll” will put you into moderation. That is for two reasons. It is over-used by fools who couldn’t recognise one if their life depended on it, and it is the moderators role to recognise and deal with actual trolls. We don’t need assistance from amateurs with judgement issues. ]

  10. Jenk 10
    8 September 2014 at 12:11 pm

    Gawd ! this is just pathetic on the part of the rightwing bloggers.

    Of course, clerical mistakes happen – time and again – with electoral rolls.

    Sometimes people who are meant to be on the closed (secret) roll get put onto the open roll. Other times, people roll up to the voting booth and give their name and the returning officer can’t find it, because people have – sometimes, especially if they’re ESOL people – more than one name and they forget which one they enrolled with.

    Anyone who has sat as a scrutineer at polling time will tell you this. As will those who check the “marked” rolls after the election.

    Just pathetic on the part of WO and his mates. Just pathetic b/sh-t. And what’s the betting the MSM will make a big thing of it.

    • Murray Olsen 10.1
      9 September 2014 at 1:19 am

      I was amazed by how simple all his followers seem to be. They were jumping up and down like happy dogs, all convincing each other that this was the crime of the century. If all their brains were extracted, combined, and turned into dynamite, there wouldn’t be enough to blow Horton’s nose. In reality, I also suspect that the comments are written by about half a dozen different people.

  11. fambo 11
    8 September 2014 at 12:12 pm

    Speaking of lazy journalism. It was interesting to see in a very recent news story after the WINZ murders Sue Bradford described as an ex Green Party MP. Given Sue has quit the Green Party and actually been most recently a member of IMP, this is irrelevant and misleading information in that it suggests her views are still representative of the Green Party

    Sue Kedgley is usually referred as an ex Green Party MP. She is still a party member etc, but she doesn’t speak on behalf of the Greens any more.

    • Murray Olsen 11.1
      9 September 2014 at 1:21 am

      Sue Bradford was never a member of IMP. I’m not even sure that such a beast exists. Sue was part of Mana, and left before IMP was formed.

  12. Michael 12
    8 September 2014 at 12:33 pm

    Wow. This is the epitome of ad hominem. This will be useful as a training tool for teaching people about logical fallacies.

    You have made no attempt whatsoever to actually address the topic of Slater’s post, instead simply denigrating his character. The irony is that that is what you are accusing him of doing. However, any objective reader will note that Slater didn’t call Bradbury names or label him as a lazy, stupid puppet, he merely laid out the facts and his interpretation.

    The hypocrisy here is astounding. You constantly accuse Slater of running smear campaigns, which you presumably frown upon, and your response is to smear his name??? It would be funny if it weren’t true.

    • Colonial Viper 12.1
      8 September 2014 at 1:11 pm

      So, have the NATs gone back to feeding Slater smears and innuendo to throw around on their behalf?

      You could at least address the substantial points of lprent’s post instead of distracting with distractions.

      • Michael 12.1.1
        8 September 2014 at 1:19 pm

        I did address the substantial points.

        Somehow, Lynn believes “But the more important stories in the wake of Dirty Politics is just how did Cameron get this bit of dirt?” Really??? More important than electoral fraud is how did Cam get this info?

        The tacit admission is that it is true that he is enrolled twice, but who cares, right? This blog is out to get Cam, not bomber.

        • wtl 12.1.1.1
          8 September 2014 at 1:21 pm

          The tacit admission is that it is true that he is enrolled twice, but who cares, right?

          No, the point is that Bradbury is enrolled to vote twice due to a clerical error, through no fault of his own.

          • Michael 12.1.1.1.1
            8 September 2014 at 1:28 pm

            Actually, the post makes it clear that the real story, according to Lynn, is “how did Cameron get this bit of dirt”? That is simply ridiculous. As an aside, it may be important, but to claim that that is the “more important story”????

            • One Anonymous Bloke 12.1.1.1.1.1
              8 September 2014 at 1:37 pm

              Of course it is: if it came from within National that will exacerbate the revulsion and disgust that Collins, Key, Odgers and the rest of this sleazy criminal bunch evoke in the electorate, and especially within the wider party.

              Imagine if you were an ethical Nat, and you discovered that your party was still up to its neck in this filth.

              • Michael …
                8 September 2014 at 1:40 pm

                Okay, for the sake of argument, are you claiming that this is unethical? If so, why?

                • framu …
                  8 September 2014 at 1:48 pm

                  because if it was anything more than a clerical error and there was genuine concern of electoral fraud the correct course of action is to tell the electoral commision

                  but no – its been run a a “story” on the blog of a certain paid fabricator of misinformation who runs dirt for the nats

                  thats why its unethical – not for the sake of an argument but due to the purpose and nature of its revelation

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  8 September 2014 at 1:53 pm

                  Are you perhaps not up to speed with recent developments?

                  There’s a reason Jason Ede had to hide his email address. If contact with the other gang members were ethical why bother?

                  In this specific instance, the use of Bradbury’s daughter would be dubious from anyone, but from criminal scum it’s a clear and present threat that must be taken seriously.

        • Tracey 12.1.1.2
          8 September 2014 at 2:52 pm

          By electoral fraud, do you mean proven and convicted electoral fraud like john banks, or slaters use of it as a label for something that is not factually electoral fraud

          Dont come here squealing hypocrite by comparing apples with oranges

        • greywarbler 12.1.1.3
          8 September 2014 at 5:57 pm

          @ Michael 1.19
          This blog is out to get Cam, not bomber.
          Cam, so matey. Well matey we are here to discuss politics and standards of behaviour not whether you support team Cam in whatever nefarious way it is trying to bring down NZ. Keep it up and you can all go out an have a session of boozing or whatever.

    • wtl 12.2
      8 September 2014 at 1:13 pm

      You have made no attempt whatsoever to actually address the topic of Slater’s post…

      Huh? Did you even read the post? What about all these points:

      Now that is just the usual clerical error.

      By the way, when the electoral commission sends me a confirmation, I usually read to the line saying I don’t have to send anything back. Then I just bin it.

      Look at names? About half of the time mail sent to me has the wrong version of my first name and usually the wrong gender…

      • Michael 12.2.1
        8 September 2014 at 1:24 pm

        So if you got the confirmation twice, in separate envelopes, would that raise a red flag? The excuses are weak at best. There is the admission that Cam is correct, he is enrolled twice, but it’s not his fault. Then, it’s on to the name calling and speculation.

        • karol 12.2.1.1
          8 September 2014 at 1:28 pm

          I’ve had more than one confirmation of my electoral roll details. Especially when I’ve moved residence. Also, if you’ve made a correction, they send you a notice of your current details. And then they check again a few months before a coming election.

          If you’re like me you read then forget about them pretty quickly, because of the range of stuff coming through the post, and being very busy.

          Clearly Bradbury had checked to roll, and noticed the double entry before he voted – and notified the electoral officer.

          • Michael 12.2.1.1.1
            8 September 2014 at 1:35 pm

            I get that, but in this case Bradbury would have got two envelopes on the same day, both asking him to confirm.

            Regardless, my actual point was not to debate Bradbury’s (unlikely) clerical error, it was to point out that this post is one giant ad hominem, based on speculation, the very thing that the standard accuses Cam of doing. Hypocritical much???

            • wtl 12.2.1.1.1.1
              8 September 2014 at 1:42 pm

              Regardless, my actual point was not to debate Bradbury’s (unlikely) clerical error, it was to point out that this post is one giant ad hominem, based on speculation, the very thing that the standard accuses Cam of doing. Hypocritical much???

              But your point is wrong, as I noted above. The post does point out that this is simply a clerical error, that it could easily have been missed and that it is not a big deal.

            • karol 12.2.1.1.1.2
              8 September 2014 at 1:47 pm

              He would only have got 2 envelops on the same day in the run up to the election – and then he corrected it when he voted.

              • Michael …
                8 September 2014 at 2:02 pm

                How old is bomber? How long do you think he’s been on the roll?

                One of the commenters on Whaleoil has been and viewed the rolls from 2010 til now. Interestingly, Martyn was spelt correctly in the 2010 – 2013 rolls. Now there are two entries. So his claim that it WAS misspelled when he enrolled and then he tried to have it corrected appear false. I think that it’s worthy of investigation.

                It may turn out to be a clerical error. It seems unlikely that some clerk would have altered the spelling between 2013 and now, but it could have happened. If so, great, issue solved. If not…

                Regardless, as I have stated repeatedly, my point was that this post was one of the worst examples of the ad hominem fallacy that I can recall reading. None of the comments have convinced me otherwise.

                • karol …
                  8 September 2014 at 2:10 pm

                  Depends if he changed his address recently.

                  if there was an error as you say, why not report it rather than spin it as a story while using a pic of Martyn’s daughter.

            • framu 12.2.1.1.1.3
              8 September 2014 at 1:54 pm

              micheal

              could you tell us exactly how many times your going to ignore rebuttals, replies and explanations that show why your wrong so we can skim past any further repetitions of a previously claimed idiocy

              • Michael …
                8 September 2014 at 2:09 pm

                I have replied to the replies (not ignored) and the explanations are weak, at best. In fact, the “explanations” have consisted of simply speculating as to how this could be a mistake, which I have accepted, it could be.

                How about this, someone here acknowledge that the post was actually an ad hominem attack and I’ll go away. Deal?

                • karol …
                  8 September 2014 at 2:16 pm

                  Mate, your explanations as to the way the WO post is being used are weak.

                  twisting in the wind to try to support a weak smear against someone.\It really doesn’t look like Bradbury was aiming to vote twice.

                  • framu …
                    8 September 2014 at 2:23 pm

                    cause – when im planning to break the law i totally front up to the authorities and tell them what im up to aye?

            • framu 12.2.1.1.1.4
              8 September 2014 at 2:14 pm

              i think your actual point is to try an claim bomber is breaking the law – its the one angle you keep trying to argue

            • cinesimon 12.2.1.1.1.5
              8 September 2014 at 4:51 pm

              OH – of course it’s a conspiracy by Bradbury to get two votes!
              Yeah you’re totally an honest person who doesn’t attack people’s character.
              Talk about passive aggressive – and overtly dishonest.

        • wtl 12.2.1.2
          8 September 2014 at 1:40 pm

          So if you got the confirmation twice, in separate envelopes, would that raise a red flag?

          Yes, it would. But:
          1) You have no idea that Bradbury receive a confirmation twice. In a comment on the Daily Blog, Bradbury states that he received a letter with the incorrect name, and sent it back with the correct name but it appears that the corrected name was added to the roll without the incorrect name being removed.
          2) You have no idea that even if Bradbury received the confirmation twice he ignored it (he might have send a reply to the Electoral Enrolment Centre to remove one name from the roll but it was not actioned).
          3) It would only be an offence if Bradbury deliberately enrolled himself twice under two names. He bears no responsibility for correcting the clerical error beyond returning a form with the corrected details.

          • Michael 12.2.1.2.1
            8 September 2014 at 1:50 pm

            1) True.
            2) True.

            But notice how when I don’t have proof, I don’t present my hypothesis as fact. Unlike the commenters here who are convinced that National leaked this, in spite of the lack of evidence.

            3) So, you admit it would be an offense. To quote yourself “You have no idea that Bradbury [didn’t enroll] twice.” Surely, highlighting the fact that he is enrolled twice is acceptable journalism?

            Since you all like to speculate, imagine if it was Cam’s name on the roll twice? The uproar would be spectacular. But since it’s bomber, well, who cares, right?

            • wtl 12.2.1.2.1.1
              8 September 2014 at 1:58 pm

              Surely, highlighting the fact that he is enrolled twice is acceptable journalism?

              No it’s not “acceptable journalism” because:
              1) He isn’t enrolled twice. He is enrolled once and there is a misspelled name appearing on the electoral roll at the same address. He would only be enrolled twice if he deliberately did so, and you have admitted that there is no evidence that this is the case.
              2) It is insinuating that Bradbury is doing something illegal when it is much more likely that it is simply a clerical error on the part of the Electoral Enrolment Centre.
              3) If Slater was concerned about Bradbury ‘enrolling twice’ he should report this to the electoral commission, not make a blogpost about it, as pointed out above.

              Since you all like to speculate, imagine if it was Cam’s name on the roll twice? The uproar would be spectacular. But since it’s bomber, well, who cares, right?

              If a clerical error meant that there were entries on the roll for “Cameron Slater” and “Camelon Slater”, I really wouldn’t give a fuck (unless he voted under both names). If an author on the Standard made a big deal about it they would rightfully be called out on it.

              • Michael …
                8 September 2014 at 2:16 pm

                Woah. He’s definitely enrolled twice, the evidence is clear. Whether it was deliberate or not is actually what is being debated.

                I think you’ll find that Slater has reported it to the commission. Blogging about it is what he does. Are you claiming that it wouldn’t be blogged about here is Cam was under scrutiny?

                “If a clerical error meant that there were entries on the roll for “Cameron Slater” and “Camelon Slater”, I really wouldn’t give a fuck (unless he voted under both names). If an author on the Standard made a big deal about it they would rightfully be called out on it.”

                Yeah, right!!! If you believe that then I’ve got a bridge for sale…

                [lprent: We are quite discriminatory about dickheads, even our own. When some idiot author let through the HFee nonsense, we stomped on it pretty damn hard. Ditto when another author wrote an over the top ‘sarcastic’ post on Mike Moore I shut it down. Comments are treated the same.

                While we may be quite rough in our robust debate, we aren’t the type of callous sociopathic arseholes that Cameron Slater and the people writing under his name appear to be. ]

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  8 September 2014 at 2:23 pm

                  You can find loads of anti-Bomber sentiment in this forum; your bridge just collapsed.

                • wtl …
                  8 September 2014 at 2:26 pm

                  “If a clerical error meant that there were entries on the roll for “Cameron Slater” and “Camelon Slater”, I really wouldn’t give a fuck (unless he voted under both names). If an author on the Standard made a big deal about it they would rightfully be called out on it.”

                  Yeah, right!!! If you believe that then I’ve got a bridge for sale…

                  I’m not surprised that someone without principles (i.e. yourself) is unable to believe that others do have principles.

                • framu …
                  8 September 2014 at 2:33 pm

                  your the one pretending that cam hasnt been part of a black ops machine being run out of the PMs office

            • One Anonymous Bloke 12.2.1.2.1.2
              8 September 2014 at 1:59 pm

              Bollocks. It would be a clerical error: prison inmates can’t vote.

            • Anne 12.2.1.2.1.3
              8 September 2014 at 2:08 pm

              Oh for God’s sake grow up and stop behaving like a sulky school boy who was found out he was wrong?

            • Tracey 12.2.1.2.1.4
              8 September 2014 at 3:05 pm

              the point is no one on the left has bothered themselves looking at cameron slaters name on the roll, the point is “cam” presents it as fact and you pop over here and regurgitate while using the familial nomenclature Cam.

            • cinesimon 12.2.1.2.1.5
              8 September 2014 at 4:54 pm

              You really are a childish troll. Has anyone told you that trying to be passive aggressive is a sure fire way to garner disrespect – and laughter – against yourself?
              It’s also very quaint that you like to use right wing American political slogans.

            • greywarbler 12.2.1.2.1.6
              8 September 2014 at 6:00 pm

              Good one Michael you have managed to deflect discussion to some minor individual point from the gross practices that have been going on. I hope you are getting a good payoff for your time.

        • Tracey 12.2.1.3
          8 September 2014 at 2:56 pm

          Have you complained to the police and demand they charge him?

    • One Anonymous Bloke 12.3
      8 September 2014 at 1:14 pm

      What makes you think it was Slater’s post?

      • Tracey 12.3.1
        8 September 2014 at 2:58 pm

        Plus one.

        Funny no outrage at slaters cave about him duping them all by pretending he was posting but he was really just an internet prostitue for the adults

  13. Richard 13
    8 September 2014 at 12:43 pm

    Can anyone check a signature on the original enrollment form, just in case it was Jason Bradbury instead of Martin Bradbury who enrolled?

  14. karol 14
    8 September 2014 at 1:02 pm

    The other reason for checking someone on the electoral role, is to find out their residential address.

    And that, on top of the use of Bradbury’s daughter’s image is pretty creepy.

  15. Ant 15
    8 September 2014 at 1:19 pm

    Same thing happened to me. They seem to make that mistake a bit.

  16. Brian of Mt Wellington 16
    8 September 2014 at 1:35 pm

    What a great scam. Vote early like a few people are doing and then vote again on election day. Maybe after this election he will do a postal vote as well.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 16.1
      8 September 2014 at 2:04 pm

      🙄

    • Tracey 16.2
      8 September 2014 at 3:00 pm

      If you cared about being scammed you would open your eyes and read how slater and others have been making a fool of you for years. I am guessing you would rather not know, brian the ostrich

  17. wtl 17
    8 September 2014 at 2:17 pm

    The only thing more ridiculous that Slater’s post is the RWNJs (e.g. Michael) trying to suggest that there really is more to the story than a simple error.

    How can ANYONE seriously believe that Martyn Bradbury would try to commit electoral fraud by enrolling himself twice under a MISSPELT NAME AT THE SAME ADDRESS? That’s like trying to rob a bank while wearing a name badge.

    • Anne 17.1
      8 September 2014 at 3:45 pm

      And putting a sign outside:

      Robbery in progress – please keep this space clear.

    • lprent 17.2
      8 September 2014 at 4:35 pm

      How can ANYONE seriously believe that Martyn Bradbury would try to commit electoral fraud by enrolling himself twice under a MISSPELT NAME AT THE SAME ADDRESS? That’s like trying to rob a bank while wearing a name badge.

      There is an obvious reason. Cameron is so stupid that it is actually a possibility for him to do exactly something that dumb. Think about it. One of his characteristics is that he always accuses others of doing what he is in fact doing.

      Coming to think of that it does seem to be characteristic of the right hypocrites. Afterall think of John Key and his similar insistence that “the left are doing it too..” when they don’t do anything as disgusting as Collins and Key go that sap Cameron to do.

  18. Rich 18
    8 September 2014 at 2:24 pm

    This is basically a version of “Obama was born in Kenya”.

    It smells.

    • wtl 18.1
      8 September 2014 at 2:28 pm

      What’s the bet that someone from the National Party has been checking every Labour MP/candidate on the roll to see if they could use the same smear on them?

    • Tracey 18.2
      8 September 2014 at 3:01 pm

      This is stage two of operation

      Stop the people finding out how stupid we think they are

      Stage two

      Make the dupes think all blogs do it, so manufacture some false equivalence, repeat ten times until it becomes fact in their foggy heads…

      Sit back and watch media and right supporters repeat ad nauseum.

  19. Fred 19
    8 September 2014 at 2:37 pm

    “Wake up NZ” on Facebook is saying: –

    “7pm tonight we have something epic to announce!
    We have something big to announce Monday 7pm… Make sure you’re tuned in!!’

    Wonder what big news they have??

  20. Tracey 20
    8 September 2014 at 3:47 pm

    Goffs statement (sworn) to SIS OIA inquiry
    Statement is attached

    —

    Statement to Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security
    Ms Cheryl Gwyn
    Freyberg House, 2 Aitken Street, Wellington

    My primary concern in relation to the release of NZSIS documents in 2011 is that the wider context in which this happened represents a deliberate politicisation of the NZSIS in a way which is unprecedented at least since the Muldoon years.

    For nine years, first as Minister of Foreign Affairs and then as Minister of Defence, I maintained the total confidentiality of briefings from our security intelligence services.

    It has long been the convention that the Minister in charge of the Security Intelligence Service not comment on matters relating to security intelligence.

    That convention applied likewise to Ministers with access to SIS and GCSB briefings and to the Leader of the Opposition.

    As Leader of the Opposition briefings to me were strictly confidential. I did not comment on them. I was asked that the briefings given to me were given without the presence of staff or colleagues. Documents were not to be retained by me nor was I to take notes. I was not to comment to the media on any information I might have received.

    This convention was broken, first by the Prime Minister when he referred publicly to a briefing from the SIS in relation to Israeli backpackers who were suspected to have connections with Mossad, the Israeli Intelligence Service, that he says I was given.

    My position then and now is that I never received a substantive briefing on this matter, notwithstanding what the Director of the SIS may have recorded.

    The reason I can be confident of this is that having been Minister of Foreign Affairs and having dealt with the issue of Mossad agents criminally misappropriating New Zealand passports, I had a keen interest in the issue of Mossad agents operating in New Zealand. I would have recalled anything which might properly have been described as a briefing.

    The only explanation I can guess at is the Director may have said that there was a suspicion around actions of Israeli hitch-hikers in Christchurch at the time of the earthquake but there was nothing to it.

    No information of any substance was given to me or I would have recalled it.

    That, however, is not the issue under investigation.

    The issue is why John Key chose to raise the alleged briefing in a public and political context and how information held by the SIS was released into the public arena.

    My suspicion at the time, confirmed by material disclosed in Nicky Hager’s book Dirty Politics, is that material was disclosed to Cameron Slater who blogs under the name Whale Oil to facilitate his making a specific OIA request.

    Evidence for this is the specificity of Mr Slater’s request, even asking for any diary notation, his statement that he knew that the request was to be expedited expecting the documents to be released immediately, and his statement in a leaked email that he had been ‘sworn to secrecy’ about what he knew.

    The obvious explanation was that he had a source for this information which in the nature of SIS briefings could only have been either within the SIS itself or the Prime Minister or his Office.

    I would hope that the former is unlikely because it would represent improper conduct by the SIS.

    The Prime Minister and his Office however have close links with Cameron Slater whose blogs are used to attack political opponents of the Government.

    No one in the Prime Minister’s office would provide inside knowledge of what the SIS was saying or doing without the implicit or explicit approval of Mr Key.

    That is why I believe Mr Key should be asked to give sworn evidence on precisely who in his office had access to this information and the ground rules he set down for his staff as to how this information was to be treated.

    When I spoke to the Director of the SIS who phoned me suggesting he intended to release the documents immediately, he was coy about whether he knew of the identity of the Mr Slater who had requested the documents sought under the OIA. He then acknowledged that he did know who Cameron Slater was. The documents were to be released immediately until I challenged why the SIS was acting in the way he proposed. He at that point suggested he would delay the release for a number of days.

    It was unwise for the SIS to be drawn into a highly politicised debate. In my long experience of asking Government Departments for information under the OIA, it is unprecedented for a request to be turned around so quickly.

    I believe your Inquiry should examine the full political context of this matter and how and why material which would normally be held confidential was brought into the public and political arena.

    The use of SIS briefing material in this way undermines confidence in its role as an agency of state which has extraordinary powers.

    It effectively politicises the work of the agency and undermines expectations of impartiality and confidentiality in the way in which information which it holds is used.

    I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you and give sworn evidence on the issues under investigation.

    Hon Phil Goff
    MP for Mt Roskill
    8 September 2014

  21. karol 21
    8 September 2014 at 4:48 pm

    For those claiming Bradbury had deliberately added himself twice to the roll, and that he would have known there was an error, Bradbury has added this in a comment under his post:

    Hmmm – I honestly don’t think it can be on purpose. It came back as Martin, I sent it back as Martyn, I think someone has just failed to take Martin off the roll.

    • lprent 21.1
      8 September 2014 at 5:02 pm

      More than I would do.

      • ghostwhowalksnz 21.1.1
        8 September 2014 at 5:17 pm

        THis is an opening for us to raise the issue again of Key lying about HIS enrolling in Helensville electorate when he was living in Orakei Rd Remuera.

        National seemed to have laid this to rest a few years back when they asked the ‘Clerk of the house’ if it was ‘allowed’. No sign that they asked the Chief Electoral Officer who was the person for deciding these matters.

        • RedBaronCV 21.1.1.1
          8 September 2014 at 6:52 pm

          Good point. perhaps we could ask Key just how many times he has actually been in his electorate over the last three years.

          • Rich 21.1.1.1.1
            8 September 2014 at 11:44 pm

            10 trips to Hawaii = 1 trip to Helensville I’d assume.

            It might not even be that good. I’ve been trying to figure out a way to work out when he’s actually been there (Hawaii) other than asking the NSA but havn’t been able to solve that one.

  22. Thinker 22
    8 September 2014 at 7:22 pm

    I would have thought that:

    1. It would only be Bradbury’s problem if he created the duplicity, or if he tried to vote twice, based on it being there. If not, which is more likely, the problem is with the Elections people. And which political party funds and resources the Elections people, sufficient that errors like this shouldn’t happen?

    2. Slater could backfire on this one. Hager writes a book that informs those NZers with the stomach to believe it that Slater doesn’t just blog the news, but rather uses his site to discredit people whom he targets. Key implies it isn’t like that. Nek Minute, according to this article, Slater goes and reports a simple clerical error like it’s some kind of left-wing conspiracy. Anyone who read Hager’s book (or the media’s reporting of the book) and didn’t know whether or not to believe what they read should have had their eyes opened a little wider from that, in my opinion. It might turn off a few more undecideds.

  23. Awww 23
    8 September 2014 at 7:37 pm

    How petty. I guess this is part of the “double”.

  24. Cancerman 24
    8 September 2014 at 7:52 pm

    I love that The Standard endorses voter fraud.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 24.1
      8 September 2014 at 8:01 pm

      I love that right wing failures fail to develop substantive arguments in favour of vacuous drivel.

      Paging Drs. Hodson & Busseri.

    • framu 24.2
      9 September 2014 at 7:45 am

      what voter fraud?

      when the issue was discovered the person involved notified the relevant authorities.

      how is that voter fraud?

      explain yourself

      christs sake – what is it with you guys and your really stupid assertions?

Links to post