Oh, Cameron. Oh dear

27 comments on “Oh, Cameron. Oh dear ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Mark 1

   28 August 2010 at 1:53 pm

   Wow, this is one of the most spiteful blogs I’ve read in a while. Sounds like you’re jealous of Cams profile and would like some (profile) yourself.
   • IrishBill 1.1

     28 August 2010 at 3:02 pm

     Yeah, that’s why we post under pseudonyms. Because we want to be famous. You dick. And if you want spite then I suggest you go to Slater’s blog. He’s got it in abundance.
     • Mark 1.1.1

       28 August 2010 at 10:29 pm

       “You dick”

       Nice one, almost as amusing as watching Labour stumble towards the next election
       • Tigger 1.1.1.1

         29 August 2010 at 12:55 pm

         Oh Muck, no one outside of the blogosphere and the beltway has any idea who this clown is. And even among them he doesn’t have a ‘profile’, he’s just pitied.
2. outofbed 2

   28 August 2010 at 3:14 pm

   Posts like this just give the guy oxygen and are most unhelpful. The guy has obvious mental health issues and continually giving the oxygen to his anger management issues doesn’t help at all.
   He must be under tremendous pressure and possibly suicidal. probably best to ignore his ravings and not feed the anger
   I clocked he was mentally unstable when he photo-shopped pornographic images of the boy blogger.
   Why the msm has ever gone to him for comment is anyones guess.
   • IrishBill 2.1

     28 August 2010 at 3:19 pm

     I’d tend to agree with you on that oob but we’re a collective and each poster can put up what they want to.
     • lprent 2.1.1

       28 August 2010 at 5:23 pm

       And in this case it was a guest blog that one of us decided to post. I probably would have (because I don’t like the guy much). However I’ve been too busy.

       I saw it in the queue again this morning after reading the Hewitson interview. So I tacked it on the end with my comment on the clown
       • blueboy 2.1.1.1

         29 August 2010 at 9:41 am

         Nice of Andrew Williams to blog for you.
   • Julie 2.2

     28 August 2010 at 3:44 pm

     Sadly there is an exploitative element to some of the media. Slater’s story fits right into it. Wind him up and watch him go and not care about the consequences for anyone.

     I saw a story on Close Up a couple of months back about a family I know a little and I was astonished at how they totally exploited them, egging them on to say things, on camera, that showed some serious mental health issues. No attempt to genuinely help with the problems, but in fact making it worse by effectively publishing statements which were only likely to make these people feel more alienated and isolated than they already were. The way it was all presented effectively validated what was quite a warped world view, and would have made it harder for them to get much needed help imho.
3. felix 3

   28 August 2010 at 4:11 pm

   Further to what others have said about our voyeuristic and exploitative media culture, I suspect that a lot of Cameron’s “supporters” in the blogosphere have really just been egging him on because they want to watch the train wreck.
4. kriswgtn 4

   28 August 2010 at 5:21 pm

   Jail the womble because @ the end of the day he broke the law
5. Tanz 5

   28 August 2010 at 10:10 pm

   The law is an ass, and good on him for breaking it. Funny how every time a law is broken elsewhere, this blog seems to cheer the crims on, so anti th the Sensible Sentencing Trust, for example. Funny, that.
   • felix 5.1

     28 August 2010 at 10:57 pm

     “Funny how every time a law is broken elsewhere, this blog seems to cheer the crims on”

     Citation please?

     And no, opposing the SST doesn’t mean you support crime. It means you oppose the SST.
6. Bunji 6

   28 August 2010 at 11:11 pm

   I’m all for the suggestion I heard on the radio on friday. That the rest of the world grant him permanent name suppression and refuse him the publicity he so desperately wants.
   • felix 6.1

     28 August 2010 at 11:19 pm

     That would be the best outcome for all concerned. Including him, I suspect.
7. havoc 7

   29 August 2010 at 2:34 am

   TANZ – since when did being against a loonie like Garth McVicar mean someone was supporting criminals. This sort of flawed thinking makes me shudder….
   • prism 7.1

     29 August 2010 at 10:10 am

     Thinking?? TANZ and the other opinionated blobbers? It elevates shallow comment to compare it to thinking. What a useless waste of time blogging when its just revealing ignorance that probably will never be enlightened by reasoned thought.
8. just saying 8

   29 August 2010 at 1:19 pm

   The irony of his situation proving the necessity of welfare as a safety net, makes his repellant presence almost worthwhile at times. Especially as he, as per the ACT party line, made private provision for ill-health, and was still left without income and the apparent ability to earn it, and then, oblivious to the hypocrisy, immediately went cap in hand to WINZ and became a ‘bennie-bludger’ in order to meet his and his family’s basic needs.

   Not everyone can function at that level of cognitive dissonance.
9. roger nome 9

   29 August 2010 at 1:20 pm

   Can anyone on the right tell me why Cameron has ended up this way when he was raised by a rich Tory, who surely instilled a fine ethic of personal-responsibility? Cognitive dissonance much?
10. just saying 10

    29 August 2010 at 1:24 pm

    Snap
11. roger nome 11

    29 August 2010 at 1:38 pm

    hehe – where are all the rightists on this one anyhow? I almost feel like i have to fill the void myself. Ok, here goes ….

    National is really a left-wing party, and So Cameron’s the result of collectivist pathology. Wake up New Zealand! The only person with the correct political ideology is Redbaiter. When you socialise, you’re engaging in collectivist activity! The true rightist sits behind thier computer alone, spouting off opinion as fact, and not engaging with anyone. Redbaiter for Prime Minister!
12. Rex Widerstrom 12

    29 August 2010 at 3:09 pm

    But you denied the charges. You denied them, and then refused to appear in the witness-box.

    As is his right. And that of anyone facing prosecution by the state. Every single person who opts to be tried and not just plead guilty is, by definition, maintaining their innocence of some or all of the charges they face.

    The Waihopai protesters “denied” the charges… they didn’t deny the action they denied the black and white letter of the law applied in that instance in the way it would have done had they, for instance, broken through your fence and damaged your car.

    And remaining silent – even when prepared to vociferoualy defend yourself outside the court – is sometimes a necessary tactic unless you’re especially keen to make a martyr of yourself by pointlessly going to jail. It’s also usually the first advice given you by your lawyer. It’s certainly the first advice I give anyone in trouble and the golden rule I follow myself, unless the situation is very unusual. The burden is on the prosecution: make them carry it the distance.

    We’ve already got politicians drooling at the idea of removing the right against self-incrimination, double jeopardy etc.

    So what does this poster do? Lets his seething resentment of a not-very-important blogger lead to the publication of a post critical of someone for availing himself of legal protections. And yes, I get the hyprocisy angle. It’s still bloody stupid, IMO.

    I wonder if Rocky is around this weekend? I’d like to hear her perspective on “(symbolically) dying for the cause” versus “winning in court and living to fight another day” as she’s been there and done that – unlike, I suspect, our poster.
13. John Spavin 13

    29 August 2010 at 3:46 pm

    Expressing an opinion is fine. Attacking someone’s beliefs and actions under anonymity is gutless. I don’t know Slater and only occasionally read his extreme blog (and disagree with much of what I do read) but at least he puts his name to it.
    Whoever dislikes him enough to attack him in a blog entry should, at the very least, write under his own name.
    I accept that most blogs take anonymous comments, but anonymous in the main entry? What sort of weasel hides behind the pseudonym “Guest” and tries to destroy another’s reputation? Your opinion remains largely worthless while you slink about in the shadows.
    • Pascal's bookie 13.1

      29 August 2010 at 5:36 pm

      Your opinion remains largely worthless while you slink about in the shadows.

      Perhaps you could explain why. Make reference to the federalist papers and newspaper editorials if you think that might clarify your thinking.

      As I read it the post criticises Whale’s actions and words. Either the criticisms have merit, or they do not. The pseudonymity of ‘mako’ is completely beside the point.

      In contrast, you make an argument that is not based on the words of the post, or any defence of whale’s actions or words. Instead you note the fact of the pseudonym, and somehow declare that the arguments in the post are therefore worthless. You seem to think that because you post under what may well be your real name, that a text book example of an ad hom argument somehow becomes legitimate or worth taking notice of.

      If you’d care to explain how that comes about, I’d love to read it.
14. Cactus Kate 14

    29 August 2010 at 11:59 pm

    Crap lawyers you would all make. Cameron is the last person in the world you would ever want on the stand giving evidence. Any lawyer putting him voluntarily in the witness box should be disbarred.
    • Loota 14.1

      30 August 2010 at 1:30 am

      ^ +1

Links to post

1. The Standard: posted on 28 August 2010 at 1:06 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS