Scum

95 comments on “Scum ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Dean 1

   31 March 2008 at 10:03 pm

   The post DPF linked to and the one you quite rightly draw attention to are two entirely different posts, and to suggest that doing the former immediately implies approval of for the latter is just stupid.

   That, plus the brown shirts reference, tells me that despite my distaste for Slater’s posts that you are nothing more than a reactionary who is no better than Slater himself.

   Your moral high ground is below sea level.

   IrishBill says: David has facilitated this shit. Tane pointed this out and David tried to wash his hands of it. As for the brownshirt remark, publishing photographs of Sutton’s private life and accompanying it with vile and aggressive smears sends the implicit message that she is unsafe because of her political views. Where I come from we call that fascism.
2. Tane 2

   31 March 2008 at 10:10 pm

   Interestingly the post has now been removed, barely five minutes after Irish Bill criticised it. Perhaps Whale and Eddy realised they’d crossed the mark.

   When I criticised David for his link the other day it was because I realised the “stupid fat white woman” comments were part of a sexist discourse that has no place in New Zealand politics. Eddy said there was more to come, and sure enough, he delivered.
3. Whaleoil 3

   31 March 2008 at 10:40 pm

   HTFU guys.

   1. The information posted is freely available in a public forum that Kate posted herself, including the photos.
   2. This woman is standing for parliament and her true views deserve to be known
   3. The post hasn’t been pulled it will be back up at a time that best suits us.
   4. It was a draft meant to be posted later and as more information comes to light about Ms Suttons beliefs more will be posted.
   5.Ms Sutton has stated publicly that all men are rapists and that all men force sex on women, therefore this post is relevant in that Deleted: defamatory.
   6. If Ms Sutton didn’t want this appalling behaviour noticed why then did she publish all the details including the photos in a public forum.
   7. David Farrar has ZERO influence over me.
   8. Decent adults do not stand for parliament with a history of saying one thing and doing in private the exact opposite
   9. The police will laugh in her face when they find out it was all posted in a public forum by Ms Sutton herself.
4. Policy Parrot 4

   31 March 2008 at 10:47 pm

   This from the son of a former National Party President. Is Cam in fact a chip of the old block?, and what does it say about the National Party if they are willing to elect someone who holds these values – [although I would struggle to refer to them as such] dear?
5. Whaleoil 5

   31 March 2008 at 10:50 pm

   I am nthing like my father and keep him out of this he has just got out of hospital fuckhead.

   BTW since when has a 40y.o. evre ansered to their Daddy, maybe is lickspittle land but not where I come from…Go on, try to rebut the points above instead of attacking my old man.
6. Whaleoil 6

   31 March 2008 at 10:51 pm

   Moderating me now, harden up girls
7. James Kearney 7

   31 March 2008 at 10:51 pm

   Whaleoil- you crossed the line by publishing that post, just admit it. It’s no coincidnce you’ve taken down. You might be a moron but you obviously know a thing or two about defamation.

   I’d suggest you be careful with your commments lest your words get you in even deeper trouble.

   [captcha- ‘system liquidated’. Kind of like Whaleoil’s blog?]
8. Whaleoil 8

   31 March 2008 at 10:52 pm

   Hard to be defamation when it is true, fool.

   If anyone crossed a line it is Ms Sutton. Care to rebut my points?
9. IrishBill 9

   31 March 2008 at 10:54 pm

   Steady Eddy claimed he got the story from a mutual friend, Cameron. That does not tally with your account. Either you or Eddy are lying. If you continue to try to spread your filth on this blog you will be banned.
10. Whaleoil 10

    31 March 2008 at 10:55 pm

    It isn’t filth, and it tallies perfectly with where the photos are, do you ant links.

    Answer the points if you can
11. Whaleoil 11

    31 March 2008 at 10:56 pm

    Steady just told me his friend sent him the links to the photos on Facebook
12. James Kearney 12

    31 March 2008 at 10:58 pm

    Your post, at least what I saw of it, relied heavily on allegations and innuendo. There was little if any actual fact and it relied entirely on hearsay and conjecture. That kind of shit doesn’t go down well in a court of law.

    You deserve to be taken to the cleaners over this. It really is the same old National party.
13. Steady 13

    31 March 2008 at 10:58 pm

    IrishBill, the post was in draft form and did not make the source sufficiently clear. The source directed me to these photos that had been publicly posted by Ms Sutton and the description Ms Sutton posted corroborated with the one I heard from my source. What laws have been broken here?
14. outofbed 14

    31 March 2008 at 11:00 pm

    where is hospital Fuckhead ?
    Seems a strange name for a Hospital
15. Whaleoil 15

    31 March 2008 at 11:00 pm

    James face the facts the information is there for all to see on Facebook, your defamation palaver is sounding as Hollow as this blog
16. IrishBill 16

    31 March 2008 at 11:02 pm

    None of the pictures of the party had Kate in them, Cameron and even the pictures of the party don’t show anything of the fetid fantasy your mate has woven. You’ve gone too far and now you are trying to bluster your way out of it like a child. I don’t know why you bother, you have no dignity or reputation to salvage. Frankly, I’m a little sickened to have you sullying our blog with your squirming comments.
17. James Kearney 17

    31 March 2008 at 11:03 pm

    Whale. The photos themselves aren’t defamatory. If they are what you purport them to be they show nothing incriminating from Kate and are relatively uncontroversial for a hen’s night. What is potentially defamatory is the spurious allegations your website drew from these photos. Even I’m amazed you would stoop to this level of personal attack.
18. Chemist Peter 18

    31 March 2008 at 11:05 pm

    If Sutton posted on her Facebook site then it is public knowledge. If you don’t want your employer to see what you do out of work stay away from Bebo, Facebook etc.
    Harden up you socialist wankers, watch out for other skeleton’s in the closet.
    
    IrishBill says: “socialist wankers” just won you a week’s ban.
19. Whaleoil 19

    31 March 2008 at 11:06 pm

    The story is there in black and white for you to read just like anyone else including her admission she was hammered and stayed wih an unlnown 65 y.o.

    it isn’t bluster and I haven’t tried to get away from anything. So far you guys haven’t even come close to rebutting the truth that I posted, in fact it is you guys who are in the ,ake shit up mode just like your attack on Steady for his factual post on John Minto.

    Your modus operandi is to make shit up when the truth doesn’t suit you.

    You can hardly claim to be upset about my so called sullying of your “perfectly clean and honest” site when it was you who posted about ME and Steady in the first place. You can hardly slag us off and then deny us the right of reply.

    Speaking of which care to attempt to rebut the questions above.
20. James Kearney 20

    31 March 2008 at 11:06 pm

    BTW since when has a 40y.o. evre ansered to their Daddy

    Whaleoil is 40?!?! Looking at his site (and his language) I’d pegged him at about 19.
21. Whaleoil 21

    31 March 2008 at 11:08 pm

    Still not even trying to rebut yet James, too hard for huh!

    How’s that defamation case coming along. Glad you’re not my lawyer.
22. illuminatedtiger 22

    31 March 2008 at 11:09 pm

    Despicable!
23. Steady 23

    31 March 2008 at 11:09 pm

    None of the pictures of the party had Kate in them,

    On Facebook, check Kate Sutton’s Photos – Arnas hens night and you will see a photo of Kate at the party and attendance confirmed.

    Cameron and even the pictures of the party don’t show anything of the fetid fantasy your mate has woven.

    What they show is a stripper, holding a woman by the hair and bending her over to simulate – presumably – anal sex. What else did we allege
24. James Kearney 24

    31 March 2008 at 11:10 pm

    I’m not planning one Whaleoil. Others might be. Last time I heard you were the one known for bandying about threats of legal suits. I’m just giving you advice to be careful- wouldn’t want you to get in trouble.
25. Whaleoil 25

    31 March 2008 at 11:11 pm

    Still no rebuttal James. Clearly too hard, have to attack the man instead.
26. Steady 26

    31 March 2008 at 11:12 pm

    When is the rebuttal going to start?

    IrishBill says: Rebuttal of what? Your fantasy life? You don’t warrant rebuttal Eddy. You barely warrant breath.
27. IrishBill 27

    31 March 2008 at 11:14 pm

    I don’t think that you will get done for defamation, Cameron. It’s a very hard charge to prove, and expensive. I would imagine that there would be enough evidence of a case to obtain a court order for Eddy’s details though.

    So far you have posted no corroborating evidence of your story and as far as I can tell Kate doesn’t have a public facebook page. This would imply you are lying to excuse your increasingly creepy and obsessive behaviour.
28. Paul 28

    31 March 2008 at 11:17 pm

    40 is the physical age, but we all know the mental age is pre pubescent.

    Who gets all horny about posting a pic of a house owned by someone. Socialists are allowed to own houses, even half million dollar ones. If that is journalism, or even thinly veiled cyber trash, it’s a pretty poor and sad attempt. Whale you are all very keen to expose said Minto, yet as soon as someone alludes to your identity or even ‘daddy’ you go all whoosie on it, wtf is with that?

    Still if Whale gets all hot up about that, putting hookers in his t-shirts and taking picks of them seems to be his thing too. Still I could photoshop a couple of logo overs buxom chests and think that’s funny if that is your sort of thing.

    Or is it simply that Minto has stirred a little jealousy in there somewhere?
29. James Kearney 29

    31 March 2008 at 11:19 pm

    Are you two creeps retarded or something? You can’t rebut wild accusations that have no evidence- it’s what Robinsod refers to as a “pig fucking” argument.

    What I can do is condemn your absolutely vile gutter politics and warn you that legally you are on very shaky ground.
30. Whaleoil 30

    31 March 2008 at 11:20 pm

    nope not lying, it is all there on Facebbok if you care to bother, which Steady did.

    The simple fact is that it is all true, and if you want to be an MP is is best not to have blog or a Facebook page with photos of yourself in drunken debauchery.

    I don’t care if I am sued or not. I won’t be because Kate knows as well as I do that it is all true.

    I’ll hardly be giving up Steady’s details either, just like you guys will never admit to being Labour sponsored flunkies.

    Now instead of making up stuff how about trying to disprove my assertions. Here’s a handy hint, you can’t because they ate true.
31. illuminatedtiger 31

    31 March 2008 at 11:21 pm

    It’s funny – you expect there to be an even back and forth between political blogs representing the two sides of the political spectrum however this doesn’t seem to be the case. Could you seriously imagine a left-wing blog resorting to this style of nonsense?
32. Steady 32

    31 March 2008 at 11:21 pm

    IrishBill, the information was shown to me by someone with access to her account, of of the hundreds of friends she has from across the political spectrum who can access her profile.

    This is the danger of putting photos on the internet. A number of Australian newspapers did exactly the same thing – access Facebook pages through mutual friends – to catch out a whole number of candidates such as this one http://andrewlanderyou.blogspot.com/2007/10/family-first-funsters-political.html

    IrishBill says: You don’t get it do you, Eddy? You’ve got no proof of your wild allegations and that means you are open to be prosecuted for defamation. Like I told Cameron, I don’t think it would be successful because defamation case rarely are but it offers an opportunity for your identity to become known and then you should start worrying about what information there is about you in the public sphere and whether you are willing to put your name and reputation to your behaviour.
33. burt 33

    31 March 2008 at 11:27 pm

    Steady

    She’s hot, so it’s OK to post pictures like that of herself. There is a line and some shouldn’t cross it. This family first chick has no lines to worry about, is she on any dating sites?
34. IrishBill 34

    31 March 2008 at 11:27 pm

    Cameron, you would give Eddy up in a flash. It’s that thing about bullies being cowards and you are very much both.
35. Steady 35

    31 March 2008 at 11:31 pm

    Give me up for what? You’re getting ahead of yourself Billyboy.
36. burt 36

    31 March 2008 at 11:32 pm

    IrishBill

    You could give Tane up in a flash, tell us what union he works for and then give up the details of what really went on when the standard was being hosted on a Labour party server. While you are at it can you tell us why Annette King appointed Peter Hausmann to the HB-DHB?
    
    IrishBill says: Burt, Tane has not implicitly threatened somebody’s safety. You’ve been warned about this many times before. Take a week.
37. killinginthenameof 37

    31 March 2008 at 11:36 pm

    This of course coudl just be a case of mr slater fucking pigs…

    http://newzblog.wordpress.com/2008/01/21/pig-fucking/
38. Steady 38

    31 March 2008 at 11:39 pm

    Tane is an EPMU hack.
39. Vic 39

    31 March 2008 at 11:42 pm

    Eddie’s post is misogynist crap and so are the comments justifying it – it’s not politics, it’s not even clever. Props to The Standard for getting stuck in.
40. IrishBill 40

    31 March 2008 at 11:43 pm

    Ha!
41. Matthew Pilott 41

    31 March 2008 at 11:45 pm

    Whale, how do you rectify your message of telling people to play the ball, not the man, with what was on your blog? Shouldn’t you be intelligently critiquing Ms Sutton’s political views as opposed to anything in her personal life?
42. burt_banned 42

    31 March 2008 at 11:49 pm

    Hey Irishbill

    So linking to a site which is defamatory to Cam Slater is OK but asking who Tane works for and for disclosure is not.

    Funny that you call for disclosure from WhaleOil over who ‘Steady’ is, guess we all have our own reasons for wanting disclosure and as it’s you blog I respect you have yours. Pity you can’t respect mine but simply react like a child and ban me before even considering the context of my message.

    See ya in a week.

    IrishBill: I never called for disclosure of Eddy’s ID. I just pointed out he had put that at risk. We appreciate our anonymity here because we don’t wish to be stalked in the manner Kate has been.
43. Mike Collins 43

    31 March 2008 at 11:50 pm

    “Shouldn’t you be intelligently critiquing Ms Sutton’s political views”

    I think he rather bluntly critiqued them by exposing her hypocrisy on feminist issues. Also by showing that she has backtracked on her statements admonishing the Labour party. She seems quite flexible does Ms Sutton (politically of course).
44. Tane 44

    31 March 2008 at 11:51 pm

    Matt, Whale isn’t capable of intelligent critique. He’s a clippings service and a filth-monger, and that’s about all he’s good for.

    There are a few on the right who encourage his filth, but they tend to be freaks and outcasts who’ll never have any real power. The more sensible majority on the right see him as an embarassment and a liability and are willing to call him on his shit. Sooner or later even the freaks will abandon him.
45. Tane 45

    31 March 2008 at 11:55 pm

    Hi burt, I’d prefer you kept me out of this. I haven’t threatened or potentially defamed anyone, I’m just trying to raise the standard of the New Zealand blogosphere.

    With the likes of Eddy about you can see why I prefer to comment anonymously. Perhaps one day I’ll be able to write under my full name, but while this kind of behaviour’s going on I’ll keep it to myself thanks.

    Anyway, you’re banned, which is a pity as I’ve been enjoying your comments lately. See you in a week I guess.
46. burt_banned 46

    31 March 2008 at 11:56 pm

    IrishBill

    I appreciate my anonymity as well, this is why I object very strongly to being required to put my name and residential address on anything I wish to wave around in protest expressing my political views. You support this disclosure yet post anonymously on this blog and you think you have the grounds to moderate people. You’re a contradiction of the worst kind.
47. dave 47

    31 March 2008 at 11:56 pm

    how can publishing photographs of someomes private lfe send the implicit message that she is unsafe because of her political views when these political views were not mentioned?

    You guys should stop acting like little children.
48. Razorlight 48

    31 March 2008 at 11:58 pm

    You people are so blinded by your hate for the other side you can’t see you are involved in the same tactics.

    Don Brash, Helen Clark and now John Key have been attacked personally by their political opponents for no reason other than they represent the wrong party. The thing is..that is politics.

    You enter the game knowing your past will come up and you have to be ready to defend yourself. Whether it is relevent to running the country or not does not seem to matter.

    Being called an ugly lesbian or a rich prick is now part of the game and bloggers on both sides are guilty of it.

    Using stolen emails to discredit a leader or following a party leader around a market place watching him sniff fruit is no worse than linking to embarrassing statements made by a candidate in the past.

    So everybody breath, hop off that moral high ground and accept this is all part of the game which we call politics.
49. Tane 49

    1 April 2008 at 12:00 am

    Razorlight, I think you’re referring to Eddy’s previous post, the one highlighted by Farrar. It was far more moderate than the one he put up tonight. If you’d seen that I doubt you’d be calling it just “part of the game” or accusing us of “being involved in the same tactics.”
50. Matthew Pilott 50

    1 April 2008 at 12:00 am

    Dave, that’s stupidity to the point that Jim Anderton would want you banned. “…political views were not mentioned”…?

    Think he chose her from the phone book?
51. Robinsod 51

    1 April 2008 at 12:05 am

    Um Dave – I don’t want to make you feel stupid but the only reason Eddy stalked Kate is because he disagrees with her political views. D’ya geddit? She’s like y’know a leftie and he’s like putting up a post that pretty much says “we’re watching you bitch” because he’s a rightie. It’s steady’s way of makinging himself feel big. Y’know ‘cos of his tiny cock and the fact he was bullied a lot at school because of his acne and well, that’s a long list.

    Oh and by the way, I know who eddy is and well, let’s just say he who lives by the sword…

    IrishBill says: ‘Sod, behave yourself. You’ve been good lately but one more attack like this and you’re banned for a week.
52. dave 52

    1 April 2008 at 12:10 am

    Yes, how do you know he has, like, a tiny cock? You must, like, know him pretty well, obviously. y’know.
53. Razorlight 53

    1 April 2008 at 12:14 am

    You are correct Tane, I am referring to the earlier post.

    I will also add I am not defending them but from where I am standing personality politics will always end up being dirty.

    Personal attacks has been a tactic of the left. ‘Rich Prick’ being the clearest example, and once you begin that game it will enevitably descend to gutter politics.

    We all get personal at times so noone is sqeaky clean.

    If you start throwing mud, dont cry when a grenade comes back you.
54. Paul 54

    1 April 2008 at 12:19 am

    wasn’t eddie the guy who was a sad old fuck who hurtled downhill poorly – rather apt?
55. dave 55

    1 April 2008 at 12:20 am

    To be honest I’m too angry to say much about this post other than I hope Kate gets the police involved and finds out who this little creep is.

    Jut ask the abusive Mike Porter. He knows. He should be able to help you.
56. Steady 56

    1 April 2008 at 12:33 am

    Apparently you do Mr Porton, by all means reveal away. Don’t make cheap insinuations though.
57. Robinsod 57

    1 April 2008 at 12:45 am

    Nah Eddy – I’ve got plans for you.
58. Steady 58

    1 April 2008 at 12:47 am

    Oh, do tell Soddy. Just a hint of what you’ve got cooked up?

    I suspect you don’t even know my first name.
59. Robinsod 59

    1 April 2008 at 12:48 am

    Oh and Dave? It’s Mike Porton. If you’re gonna try that shit you can at least get my name right…
60. Steady 60

    1 April 2008 at 12:51 am

    Do tell what these grands plans are Mickey. Throw them a hint by telling them my real first name.
61. Robinsod 61

    1 April 2008 at 12:54 am

    Oh I think I’ve got a pretty good idea Ed. I could be wrong but it won’t take me too long to find out.
62. Steady 62

    1 April 2008 at 12:56 am

    Bzzzt! Wrong.
63. Robinsod 63

    1 April 2008 at 1:09 am

    Oh you poor thing. Don’t worry bro, someone will give you the attention you desire so much but I’m done with feeding your insecurities for the night. Drop me another email if you still feel lonely. If I can be bothered I might reply to you this time…
64. AncientGeek 64

    1 April 2008 at 1:33 am

    I suspect that this campaign against Kate is just the start.

    I think it has more to do with the Epsom electorate race than anything else. Kate Sutton is the labour candidate in an electorate that is split between two right wing candidates. With a split vote there is a good probability a third candidate could go right through.

    Running hidden smear campaigns about candidates for political purposes is an old and time smeared tradition of the extremist right (and sometimes the extremist left). It isn’t hard to bring them to mind.

    In my opinion (different to a few comments above), there is a considerable difference between the ‘smear’ campaigns by the left and right wing extremists. The right concentrates on peoples personal life. The left concentrates on peoples public life and policies.

    I suspect that this interesting whisper campaign is probably from some of Act’s more idiotic supporters. I can just see the snigger campaign being pretty intense and extremely dirty in Epsom this election.

    Congrats to Irish and the standard for bringing it up. Now it’d be interesting to trace the links back into the political motivations of the perpetrators.

    captcha: recovered strategie
65. travellerev 65

    1 April 2008 at 3:37 am

    Dear people,

    or should I say “my dear boys” all of you,both left and right.
    No woman took part in this discussion so far and that should be a warning sign.
    My name is Evelyn Gilbert, I like sex, and alcohol, I don’t like stalking, but I do like being in the nuddy. Don’t get exited boys, I am not of the Paris Hilton age.
    Now while we’re at it can we address John Key and the subject of sex?
    Johnny baby admitted to going to a strip club remember? Now I don’t really care about that with me not having a problem about nudity
    http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/John_Key_admits_to_visiting_strip_clubs
    but it turns out his bank has a nasty attitude to women: http://healthresources.caremark.com/topic/sexdiscrim
    http://www.management-issues.com/2006/5/25/blog/merrill-lynch-hit-by-new-discrimination-claim.asp
    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=a_17Uu0NazR0&refer=latin_america
    I really wish you guys would get a proper editor, that allows inserting hyperlinks because it makes telling a story so much easier
66. Psycho.Milt 66

    1 April 2008 at 6:50 am

    No woman took part in this discussion so far and that should be a warning sign.

    Of what, exactly? In my experience, women are well used to encountering dim-bulb misogynists like Steady Eddie and prefer not to give them oxygen, so the lack of comments by them is no surprise. That imposes no obligation on the rest of us.

    NB: if I turned up on a feminist blog to patronise its readers and call them “my dear girls” I’d well deserve getting my arse kicked off it. Just saying.
67. Ruth 67

    1 April 2008 at 7:23 am

    Irish Bill mentioned that DPF enables this repulsive stuff, others disagreed.

    Whale oil’s blog is well known as one of DPF’s favourites, and he heavily promotes it. He isn’t responsible for the post, but he most certainly facilitates this sort of thing. Glenn Greenwald wrote on this enabling, and it is just as relevabt to NZ:

    [The top wingnut right blogs operate]by promoting and courting the most extremist and hateful elements for political gain while trying to keep a safe distance so as to evade responsibility…

    That’s how the right-wing always works. The more respectable venues promote more tepid versions of the filth being spewed by the darker corners of the noise machine, so as to keep a safe distance while simultaneously ensuring that it ends up widely circulated.

    These same people honk on about Obama’s preacher and can’t see that they are the equivalent.
68. Inventory2 68

    1 April 2008 at 8:08 am

    So Ruth, you wouldn’t be drawing any parrallels between the relationships between Kiwiblog/WhaleOil and The Standard/Kiwiblogblog would you? You could argue that because some of the “names” that are seen here also pop uo on blogblog that one endorses the other – or is that too cryptic?
69. Inventory2 69

    1 April 2008 at 8:12 am

    After all, Tane regularly link-whores to both the Standard and Kiwiblogblog on Farrar’s site. Does that mean that he endorses EVERYTHING that is posted on blogblog?
70. IrishBill 70

    1 April 2008 at 8:12 am

    IV2 – we are proud to endorse KBB. They do some good work and I’m pretty sure they have never put up a post that was anything like the filth Whale posts. Did you see Eddy’s post? If you did and you still feel KBB is akin to WhaleOil I think you really need to recalibrate your moral compass.
71. higherstandard 71

    1 April 2008 at 8:28 am

    Is this going to be the level of discourse going into the election ‘He had strippers’ ‘she had strippers’, ‘brown shirts’, ‘socialist wankers’.

    Good God grow up the lot of you !
72. Whaleoil 72

    1 April 2008 at 8:30 am

    Still you continue with the filth comment like it is our fault that Kate puts it on Facebook. If it is anyones filth it is Kates and therefore you should be calling for her to resign as a candidate for publishing such filth in the first place.

    Unless of course you are holding some sort of candle for her.
73. Ruth 73

    1 April 2008 at 8:35 am

    I have no doubt that The Standard would denounce KBB if they put up anything like Whaleoil’s post.

    Like it or not DPF controls a large swath of online political discourse. He is well aware that some of the sites he endorses are not benign, but are truly noxious elements that no responsible political blogger should be seen endorsing.

    The right are constantly calling for the left to denounce/renounce extremists, while being joined to the hip to extremists in their own party with no consequences whatsoever.
74. Ruth 74

    1 April 2008 at 8:36 am

    *at* the hip
75. Whaleoil 75

    1 April 2008 at 8:48 am

    Actually Ruth the only person in the blogosphere who always calls for renouncing and denouncing is your very own Tāne. But hey don’t let the facts get in the way of your argument.

    No-one has yet satisfactorily answered why it is filth to publish something that has already been published by a Labour candidate?
76. Julie 76

    1 April 2008 at 9:03 am

    I didn’t see Steady Eddy’s post but I have seen the photos of Arna’s hen’s night (as a Facebook Friend of Kate’s) and the description Kate wrote. I strongly identify as a feminist and while I wouldn’t want to have a stripper at my own hen’s night I see nothing inherently wrong in people a) choosing to be strippers or b) choosing to have a stripper at their party. I do worry a bit about the exploitative lifestyle that seems to go on for some women in the stripping scene, but that’s not relevant here.

    I’m not quite sure how Kate’s strong stance against rape (ie sex without consent) is somehow at odds with attending a hen’s night with a stripper where both stripper and the object of his attention consented to everything that took place.

    Kate putting pics up on Facebook is one thing, other people taking those photos out of their context (and incidentally, breaching copyright as they have no right to publish those pics) and accompanying them with nasty slurs is quite another altogether.

    Seems to me this whole thing is yet another chance for nasty people to show their true colours. Thank you to The Standard for standing up to this crap and calling it what it is.
77. Tane 77

    1 April 2008 at 9:03 am

    Whale, I seriously doubt Kate called herself a ‘sexual deviant’ and posted your allegations of illegal behaviour.
78. higherstandard 78

    1 April 2008 at 9:26 am

    Ruth

    [The top wingnut right blogs operate]by promoting and courting the most extremist and hateful elements for political gain while trying to keep a safe distance so as to evade responsibility

    That’s how the right-wing always works. The more respectable venues promote more tepid versions of the filth being spewed by the darker corners of the noise machine, so as to keep a safe distance while simultaneously ensuring that it ends up widely circulated.]

    So what say you to the performance by Trevor Mallard (likely endorsed by higher echelons) baiting Don Brash in the house regarding afairs ?
79. Whaleoil 79

    1 April 2008 at 10:04 am

    Uhmm..actually Tāne everything in the post was written first by Sutton in her comments on the pictures. So again you fail in your pathetic rebuttal.

    The filth you all speak of is actually Sutton’s filth. How about you call for her dismissal as a candidate, in fact why don’t you get DPF to call her into line.
80. IrishBill 80

    1 April 2008 at 10:15 am

    Cameron, you’re lying. You need to grow up and stop your squirming. It’s creepy and does you and your cause no good.
81. Whaleoil 81

    1 April 2008 at 10:22 am

    Saying I’m lying doesn’t mean I am lying. I’m not a Labour Party member so it isn’t something I do.

    If Sutton has removed the comments, that’s ok, I have screen shots.
82. Policy Parrot 82

    1 April 2008 at 10:33 am

    “Saying I’m lying doesn’t mean I am lying”

    Isn’t that there a lie in itself? You can’t have it both ways.
83. IrishBill 83

    1 April 2008 at 11:01 am

    Cameron, if you have screen shot in which Sutton admits to the filth you have spread I’ll be very surprise and I doubt you would have pulled the post. You are embarrassing yourself and I suggest you cut your losses and apologise.
84. dave 84

    1 April 2008 at 11:19 am

    Sorry Mike, I was inadvertantly fusing Porton and Wilter. Of course I know your name is Porton.
85. Robinsod 85

    1 April 2008 at 11:22 am

    That’s it Dave – say my name.
86. randal 86

    1 April 2008 at 12:43 pm

    and in comes stationary dave with another slimy insinuation…only paranoids want to know information about people and he definitely needs treatment…before he flips completely
87. ghostwhowalks 87

    1 April 2008 at 12:51 pm

    Slater has even boasted of getting the police to give me a warning beacuse I have pricked the pompous balloon of His Excellency Captain Dr Richard Worth OBE MP VC(for being very clever).

    Of course nothing has happened since He seems to have used confidentail adresses of letters to the NZ herald to pin the tail on the wrong donkey. And the police acted on this nonsense !!

    Perhaps the NZ Herald is the employer of this ‘Steady Eddy’ which would explain why they can dig up material at will
88. Draco TB 88

    1 April 2008 at 2:43 pm

    Whaleoil
    Apr 1st, 2008 at 10:22 am

    Saying I’m lying doesn’t mean I am lying. I’m not a Labour Party member so it isn’t something I do.

    If Sutton has removed the comments, that’s ok, I have screen shots.

    Considering your penchant for photoshopping I, for one, wouldn’t trust those screenshots at all. Or, to put it another way, about as much as I trust you to actually tell the truth.
89. Ari 89

    1 April 2008 at 5:17 pm

    Thanks for naming and shaming, Irishbill. 🙂
90. Psychobunny 90

    1 April 2008 at 7:06 pm

    @Mike Collins:

    Thanks for the tip, I’d forgotten “feminism” is a hive mind where everyone has exactly the same views on everything, especially (ZOMG) hen’s nights.
91. IrishBill 91

    1 April 2008 at 7:12 pm

    No worries Ari, I’m always a bit worried about lapsing into chivalry with this kind of thing though. 🙂
92. the sprout 92

    2 April 2008 at 12:05 pm

    more than enough there to sue Slater as publisher.
    i wonder how it’ll affect dad’s recovery when he finds out he’ll have to fork out the price of a new house for his embarrassment of a son?
    and it’ll be useful to bring the public’s attention to the works of slater and his associates.

Links to post

1. The Standard is Naming and Shaming « Still Truckin’: posted on 1 April 2008 at 4:52 pm
2. Down the club at The Standard 2.01: posted on 26 May 2008 at 10:10 pm
3. National: targeting the victim at The Standard: posted on 10 June 2009 at 8:48 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS