Rachinger on dirty politics 2

Written By: - Date published: 11:44 am, May 3rd, 2015 - 34 comments
Categories: Dirty Politics - Tags: , ,

For the background please read the first post in this series: Rachinger on dirty politics.

Ben’s story has reached an interesting point, check out the new posts (9, 10, 11) on his blog. Ben is producing more evidence, and making claims that can be checked.

We repeat our request not to put any pressure on Ben. He’s telling his story, leave him to it.


Can I (Anthony) add on a personal note that anyone that thought hacking this blog would lead them to any information that would embarrass Labour – lead to resignations FFS – is actually mad. La la land. There’s nothing to see here.

34 comments on “Rachinger on dirty politics 2”

  1. CnrJoe 1

    Hooton, Farrar and Slater. The D.P Team.

    Ben – ‘What did “without hacking of course” really mean? Why send this email to a hacker? Why deny the emails existence and then defame ruthlessly the ‘hacker’? Was Mr Hooton lying when he said he didn’t know anything about me?’

    Ben – on twitter Mar 5 – ‘ He’s (Matthew) the reason, IMO, we don’t have the news about DP we deserve.

  2. felix 2

    Curiouser and curiouser.

    Not knowing how westpac bank statements work I found that pic a bit confusing. Can anyone explain what’s going on there?

    • weka 2.1

      Deposits (presumably into Ben’s account) listed by who they are from. Multiple deposits over time (which is strange). Not sure why he put up two screen shots, but it’s the second one that offers evidence of who payments are from (bank account name and number, plus reference)

      • r0b 2.1.1

        Google the bank account number from which payments are received.

        • weka 2.1.1.1

          Heh, I wondered if it was the account he used when asking for money to pay his legal bills post-DP.

      • felix 2.1.2

        I get that, it’s just that Ben said Cameron’s company paid Ben $1000 as a deposit on a $5000 job.

        I count $14,500 from Cameron’s company in those statements.

        • weka 2.1.2.1

          $7,750 (the two statements are almost identical bar one transaction). But yeah, that does look odd.

  3. weka 3

    Good grief. So even after the Rawshark dumps and Hager’s book, the DP crew still leave electronic trails all over the place? I don’t know if that’s stupidity, or hubris that they can still get away with this shit because after all this time no-one is stopping them.

    Kia kaha Ben.

  4. weka 4

    In case there wasn’t enough reason before to see Lauda Finem as completely unreliable, I think there is now.

    • mickysavage 4.1

      Lauda Finem is heavily influenced by what Slater is saying. Almost makes you wonder if there is some sort of relationship …

    • lprent 4.2

      LF have been puppets for Cameron Slater for long time. This became quite apparent to me when I talked to one of the brothers at Slater’s high court appeal.

      Curiously the thing that tends to convince me about Ben’s account most was his reference to:-

      …meeting organized crime gang members regularly…

      That is something that Slater was and probably still is involved with, going back as far as his involvement in the failed security business. It is also something that isn’t widely known and that I stumbled over by accident (NZ is frigging small country).

      • Tracey 4.2.1

        and their pretence at being legal experts while struggling with poor grammar, mixed metaphors and laymans law

      • Sanctuary 4.2.2

        Although “organised crime” in this country is hardly the stuff of the Sopranos – more a bunch of dangerous clods at Highway 61.

        I guess dangerous clods are exactly the right fit for Slater.

        • lprent 4.2.2.1

          Hah I was reading your fiat paragraph and thinking what showed up in your second paragraph. I used to work the public bar in Hamilton in the very early 80s. I know what you mean.

          • felix 4.2.2.1.1

            Organised crime has come a long way in NZ since the 80s, clods or no.

  5. r0b 5

    Ben, since you’re reading these comments, if anyone ever approaches you claiming to represent The Standard, please check with me (Anthony R0bins / r0b is trivially easy to find). We haven’t contacted you, we aren’t intending to contact you, we don’t want to add to the pressures on you.

    • emergency mike 5.1

      Also, if someone called Rachel gets in touch with you claiming to be a concerned PR expert… yeah…

  6. mickysavage 6

    Can I (Anthony) add on a personal note that anyone that thought hacking this blog would lead them to any information that would embarrass Labour – lead to resignations FFS – is actually mad. La la land.

    Yep. I would estimate that 95% of posts here are written by people whose identities are known.

    Interesting that Ben has made this allegation a few times and the proof looks pretty compelling yet Slater has said nothing.

  7. ianmac 7

    Interesting stuff from Ben. Outcome could be interesting as well.

  8. RedLogix 8

    I’ve just spotted the fact that Ben is profoundly deaf.

    Of course deafness says nothing about a person’s intelligence, talents or anything else about them as a human being. But far from just a physical handicap, deafness is very much a social one that cuts them off from many of the cues and hints hearing people take for granted.

    I grew up with this in my family and it does affect a person very much. My brother once said to me he would much prefer to be blind than deaf. Their lives are not easy at all, nor do most of us hearing people really understand much about the stress and constant disappointments they face daily. All their lives.

    For this reason I absolutely applaud The Standard’s position of not putting any pressure on Ben. Whatever the political implications of this story (and frankly it’s too damn convoluted for me to understand quite where it is going) – I would very much expect the left to put Ben’s personal welfare first.

    • Sacha 8.1

      Thank you for noting that. Be fully rigorous about the content, but Ben’s expression and his timing are not fair game.

    • r0b 8.2

      Yes, Ben has enough problems without us adding to them.

      My father is profoundly deaf (since age 7, German measles). I grew up with it. It’s not easy for him.

    • Anno1701 8.3

      Lots of proficient hackers/phreakers are/have been deaf over the years

      the most important being John Draper ( capn Krunch )

      • lprent 8.3.1

        Indeed. It makes sense the instant you think through it. The nets provide a mechanism that allows communications despite many human fragilities.

        I saw that back in 1986 when I was doing a MBA at Otago. Even then Hank Wolfe at information sciences had a lot of gear on PCs of various kinds to help with various disabilities. If you hunt around the nascent net of the 1980s you’ll find a whole pile of BBS sites that were dedicated to helping people with various disabilities find a way to communicate with each other and with others.

        It is still the same today.

  9. Informer? 9

    Can someone with some semblance of legal smarts like a Mickeysavage please advise how someone who claims to be an actual police informant (as opposed to someone who went into a Station and met a Cop and got his card) can go on twitter and a blog and place detailed evidence of an alleged crime (hacking) all over both forums?

    You know, because wouldn’t that now completely jeopardise any possible prosecution?

    That’s where I cannot progress from with Ben’s story. It looks at the moment like he shook Slater down for cash and a job with his funder then when he didn’t get what he wanted has created a narrative to suit with being a police informant.

    • lprent 9.1

      Amongst the deluge of graphics behind his twitter, there are some shots of police property sheets for what he says are his electronics.

      I can’t see any reason to doubt those. I have seen a few of them over the years with various activists like my niece.

      I’ve been looking for inconsistencies. I think that Ben R probably inflates his role and motivations in everything about as much as many young people do. Most kids (which for me these days means people younger 30 😈 ) have a tendency to rush into things and figure out their motives afterwards.

      However I can’t see anything in the facts and image record that he has published that is inconsistent with other information that I know and that Ben isn’t aware that I know.

      I’m starting to get convinced that what he is describing is largely factual.

      So far I am less convinced that there is anything illegal in it. Distasteful, morally reprehensible, and politically suicidal – yes. But I lost my illusions about politicians, their supporters, and the police during the springbok tour in 1981.

      These tend to be the realms of blogging rather than the legal system. However, if there is a single illegal act in there somewhere, then there is a great criminal conspiracy charge waiting to get out.

  10. veutoviper 10

    Twitter has been very busy this morning on Ben’s revelations. Some here on Ben’s Twitter feed – https://twitter.com/B3nRaching3r

    Alastair Thompson, Scoop, has also now published an article on Scoop well worth reading.

    http://t.co/DKYVaYJuUl

    • lprent 10.1

      Pretty interesting looking through the images he has been dumping up there.

    • weka 10.2

      Great to see Thompson writing thoughtfully about the credibility issues and coming down on BR’s side. Also good to see him putting BR’s style and approach in the context of his generation, that strikes me as a crucial understanding.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts