Scumbag Slater attacks child sex victim just to get some attention

104 comments on “Scumbag Slater attacks child sex victim just to get some attention ”

• Comments are now closed

1. fizzleplug 1

   12 January 2010 at 9:32 am

   Wasn’t this covered the other day?
2. gitmo 2

   12 January 2010 at 9:35 am

   You both appear to need help.
3. deranged 3

   12 January 2010 at 9:40 am

   deleted – breaching suppression order. Eddie
4. vidiot 4

   12 January 2010 at 9:49 am

   Probably pay to delete deranged’s post, before anyone reports this blog to the authorities.
   • lprent 4.1

     12 January 2010 at 10:15 am

     Yeah another moderator got there before I did. Now lets make sure that nutter doesn’t come back
     • logie97 4.1.1

       12 January 2010 at 10:40 am

       It would appear that the authorities are pursuing this fool with some vigor now and we should not supply him with any more oxygen. I think Jo Blo will rapidly draw his own conclusions about the nature of the “man” – not from his blog but from his public appearances.
       • Crash Cart 4.1.1.1

         12 January 2010 at 10:42 am

         Every time I see the idiot on TV I wonder why the MSM breath any life into his bloated corpse.
         • Get-A-Life_Cameron 4.1.1.1.1

           12 January 2010 at 11:08 am

           I just proved that Cameron is scum. He claimed that for every 50 positive comments on his blog, 1 is negative. That is because he deletes all those comments he does not like.

           How can anyone trust a scumbag like that who censors comments to make a point?

           How much credibility does Cameron have left? NONE.

           All my comments about contempt of court were deleted because he doesn’t like them.

           Poor little rich boy is right. The sooner that scum is locked up the quicker we can all get back to being normal law abiding citizens.
           • infused 4.1.1.1.1.1

             12 January 2010 at 11:32 am

             Same thing use to/still does happen here.
           • SJ Hawkins 4.1.1.1.1.2

             12 January 2010 at 12:23 pm

             Hilarious, this really gets up your nose doesn’t it? BTW all your comments are right there, not deleted.
           • Cadae 4.1.1.1.1.3

             12 January 2010 at 12:36 pm

             You have confused Cameron’s ranking mechanism with deletion. Your comments are on Cameron’s site – you have simply failed to understand how the comments section works.

             You’re hardly in a position to talk about someone else’s credibility.
5. Chris 5

   12 January 2010 at 9:52 am

   Deranged is Cameron Slater – who more than a post that (rightfully) tells it like it is – needs professional help of the kind that is not available here on the web.
   • Chris 5.1

     12 January 2010 at 10:01 am

     I should point out that the post I am referring to is Zetetic’s post, not Cameron’s post.
6. millsy 6

   12 January 2010 at 9:59 am

   How does blubberboy know what the people he named are the correct people?
   • Killinginthenameof 6.1

     12 January 2010 at 5:32 pm

     Yes, it is astonishing that his primary tactic appears to be perjury. I’m sure by the end of it he will be very thankful for the fact that lawyers are not allowed to turn people down ($$ and existing business aside), strange how the right tends to forget that rule when ever they seek to slander lawyers?

     Anyway, honestly, me and my friends stopped playing bull shit semantic games about writing things in code about age 12? He looks to be inline for some serious “reality interface”.
7. Mako 7

   12 January 2010 at 10:15 am

   Z, might pay to amend the post to reflect the fact that Blowhole isn’t on bail. He was never arrested – he’s simply been charged with several breaches of the Criminal Justice Act, and his hearing has been adjourned.
8. Sanctuary 8

   12 January 2010 at 10:20 am

   You should hand over any IP information you have on “deranged’ to the police, since if they can trace it back to Mr. Slater it will add to the body of the prosecution case.
9. Scott 9

   12 January 2010 at 10:32 am

   “no jail for a rich boy”

   Or a poor boy. The maximum penalty for breaching section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act is a $1000 fine.

   That Slater could face a different type of charge may be wishful thinking on your part. However, we shall see.

   “But I reckon that committing another offence while on bail on related charges has got to be in contempt of court. That’s imprisonable.”

   I think you’d be wrong. Any fresh breach of section 139 would be a separate offence.

   Finally, I don’t know a lot about media law, but I would have thought that continuing to impugn Slater’s character in this manner while he is before the courts may give rise to a sub judice issue. I wonder if anyone with a media law background and who might be reading this has any thoughts on whether that might be the case.
   • lprent 9.1

     12 January 2010 at 10:43 am

     Ummm that is an interesting thought. I’ll have a look over at Prices website. I seem to remember that there was a a series of posts there on the subject.

     I seem to remember that the fine was on a per day basis.

     Finally, I don’t know a lot about media law, but I would have thought that continuing to impugn Slater’s character in this manner while he is before the courts may give rise to a sub judice issue.

     As far as I’m aware the whole thing is in public and there are no suppression orders. That means it is fair game as far as we are concerned. The sub judice issue is really one for the lawyers in the case (assuming that CJS has manged to get one willing to touch his case), and the courts.

     If the courts do not want this discussed (as the courts are effectively the complainant), then they should put a suppression order on it.
     • Scott 9.1.1

       12 January 2010 at 10:57 am

       I think you’re confusing two issues.

       The doctrine of sub judice doesn’t prevent discussion of the case. We are allowed to know who is involved and what is happening. The doctrine exists to ensure that people are not allowed to publish anything that creates a real risk of prejudice to a fair trial.

       Calling Slater a scumbag, saying he’s guilty or should have the book thrown at him – all those kinds of things might risk a sub judice issue.

       But, as I say, media law isn’t my area 🙂
       • Bright Red 9.1.1.1

         12 January 2010 at 11:05 am

         people were calling Slater a scumbag well before this latest affair.

         and I don’t think sub judice applies to ordinary members of the public expressing their opinions on current legal cases. If it did all the talkback shows would have been closed down long ago.
         • Scott 9.1.1.1.1

           12 January 2010 at 11:19 am

           I’m not sure it’s quite that clearcut. I recall a few months ago another prominent right-wing blogger got into legal difficulties over comments made by others on his blog about a prominent criminal trial that was ongoing at the time.
   • Bright Red 9.2

     12 January 2010 at 10:49 am

     You should have listened to RNZ this morning. The Police were saying that they would talk to the judge and a charge of contempt was possible.

     Remember, Slater has already been charged with breaching the Court’s suppression order. To then do it again, and openly acknowledge you are doing it, that is contempt of the Court’s authority and the decision-making of the judges who made the suppression orders in light of the facts.
     • Scott 9.2.1

       12 January 2010 at 11:10 am

       I’m not sure if contempt is relevant. The latest allegations against Slater relate to a different suppression order – as far as I know he has not been accused of breaching the same order again.

       The law provides a clear penalty for breach of a suppression order – i.e. section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act. Parliament clearly thought that a fine was a sufficient penatly for such a breach, otherwise it would have provided for some other penalty in the Act.

       No doubt the authorities are looking at what further steps they might take, but they are probably struggling themselves.
       • Bright Red 9.2.1.1

         12 January 2010 at 11:18 am

         These are not just offences, they are direct, calculated, and repeated challenges to the authority of the court. Other penalties have been provided for – contempt and perverting the course of justice, both of which the police have said are possible charges.

         Of course, I’m sure you know the law better than the Police.
         • Scott 9.2.1.1.1

           12 January 2010 at 11:25 am

           No, I don’t. I’ve already said I’m not an expert in media law.
         • lprent 9.2.1.1.2

           12 January 2010 at 12:11 pm

           Of course, I’m sure you know the law better than the Police.

           Protesters know the law better than the police…… Ask rocky.

           Bearing in mind Scotts profession I’d say he would know it better than someone who has been whacked through a 6 month course where the law is a minor component.
           • Scott 9.2.1.1.2.1

             14 January 2010 at 8:44 pm

             I hate to say “told you so” * but it looks like Slater won’t face contempt charges.

             http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3231114/No-contempt-charge-for-blogger

             * This is a lie 🙂
   • Get-A-Life_Cameron 9.3

     12 January 2010 at 11:00 am

     WRONG. Slater himself focused the media spotlight on himself, most of the talk I have seen is not about what was said at his hearing, but what he has said to the media or on his blog.

     Therefore, no rules or laws have been broken.

     Cameron has bought this all upon himself.
10. Ag 10

    12 January 2010 at 10:38 am

    Whatever you think of Slater, name suppression orders are unworkable in this day and age.

    What’s the point in a useless law?
11. Bill 11

    12 January 2010 at 10:40 am

    Maybe he just wants his fucking insurance back.

    Just thinking aloud, but the insurance was paid for depression and an inability to function in a work environment…

    …and then as part of his defence we’ll hear that his actions are symptomatic of depression + whatever else…

    ….and then he gets back on the case of the insurers.

    Question is, how much of a hit will he take in seeking to secure $100 000 p.a.?

    Okay, maybe he’s not that cunning. Maybe he’s just a shallow, crass idiot.
12. todd 12

    12 January 2010 at 10:41 am

    Funny but I guess im not bright enough to get the code that Slater put on his blog,but got it in minutes when I read the HOS story so why arnt they being put before the beak.
13. Bill 13

    12 January 2010 at 10:52 am

    Maybe he’s just trying to get pats from ‘Uncle johnny’, ’cause uncle johnny has expressed a certain disregard for suppression orders. Remember the smiling smarmy TV clip as he made a pitch to become ‘one of the boys’ with a knowing nod and a wink over whoever/whatever suppression order it was at the time?

    Anyway, drop suppression orders and pretty soon our banner headlines will consist of nothing else but MP x, y or z is a sheepshagger.

    Can’t wait.
14. Get-A-Life_Cameron 14

    12 January 2010 at 11:07 am

    I just proved that Cameron is scum. He claimed that for every 50 positive comments on his blog, 1 is negative. That is because he deletes all those comments he does not like.

    How can anyone trust a scumbag like that who censors comments to make a point?

    How much credibility does Cameron have left? NONE.

    All my comments about contempt of court were deleted because he doesn’t like them.

    Poor little rich boy is right. The sooner that scum is locked up the quicker we can all get back to being normal law abiding citizens.
15. Robert Winter 15

    12 January 2010 at 11:38 am

    I don’t condone Mr Slater’s actions, but I note some of his friend’s comments elsewhere about the man, which suggest that he is a severely challenged person, with any number of personal problems. When I did read his blog, is struck me then that some of its contents were driven by affliction rather than rational analysis, and I see no reason to change that judgement. I would hope that we could rise above the personal here, and focus on the issues. Is “scumbag” the appropriate level of conversation?
    • Robert Winter 15.1

      12 January 2010 at 11:43 am

      Apologies: “friends'”
      • felix 15.1.1

        12 January 2010 at 11:58 am

        Na, you probably had it right with the apostrophe.
    • lprent 15.2

      12 January 2010 at 12:08 pm

      I suspect it is a reaction to Cameron himself and the way that he portrays other bloggers. Scumbag would be a typical Cameron level comment about another blogger, along with corrupt, lickspittle, and many more

      Personally I thought that Z was rather restrained (for him).
16. ak 16

    12 January 2010 at 11:39 am

    Funny innit how the bare word “blogger” is getting max usage in the media: if it were the Standard it’d be “Labour blog” or at least “left-wing blog”, but in this instance such typical descriptions as “extreme right-wing shock-blog” and “mentally ill son of former top Tory who pasted PM’s face onto porn and broadcast it to the world” are curiously absent.

    Looks like another case of “tarnish the competition by association, but don’t upset the boss”. If there’s a blogger association of any sort, some rapid distancing might be in order.
17. grumpy 17

    12 January 2010 at 12:09 pm

    The Herald on sunday narrowed the possibles down to three. If the other two had come out and said “it’s not me”, would they have been breaching the suippression order?
18. grumpy 18

    12 January 2010 at 12:10 pm

    The Herald on sunday narrowed the possibles down to three. If the other two had come out and said “it’s not me’, would they have been breaching the suippression order?
19. randal 19

    12 January 2010 at 12:13 pm

    last night on teevee he was slobbering and doing the chlorpromazine shuffle.
    maybe he should spend more time at the therapists and less at the gym hoisting dumbells.
20. randal 20

    12 January 2010 at 12:56 pm

    cadae.
    who are you.
    whats your claim to fame and who gave you the power to decide what is credible or not?
21. sonic 21

    12 January 2010 at 1:12 pm

    Cammy is such a censor that the very word “sonic” gets replaced by ******* if you type it (go ahead and try)

    Great post, nailed it Z.
22. flame 22

    12 January 2010 at 1:39 pm

    blubber boys oil that keeps him going are the pats on the back from comments off his blog and his self-dillusions of adoration of being important and saviour to the down trodden, when in reality he’s just a sad fat fuck – who can afford not to get a real job and spend his time throwing stones at others. It will be nice when one of those targets gets up and cracks him one.

    The recent TVNZ coverage of him (which he just loves) really does reveal nicely that he truly is a fat fuck – whale oil or CS sweat really is an appropriate name for his site
    • Jewish Kiwi 22.1

      12 January 2010 at 2:30 pm

      Look up ‘whale oil’ at the urban dictionary
      • Crash Cart 22.1.1

        12 January 2010 at 2:50 pm

        That is pure gold and surprisingly accurate.
23. Mako 23

    12 January 2010 at 2:41 pm

    As other commentators have noted, let’s not lower ourselves to the level of the sewer in which Slater operates. Let’s remember that, at heart, he’s probably a decent person, who …

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Sorry, found it difficult to maintain a straight face there. Ahem. Better now.
24. Mako 24

    12 January 2010 at 2:52 pm

    But there is one thing about which I WILL comment, simply because I find it odd. Slater has recently made a big deal about quoting scripture. Why? I doubt that he believes in the principles for which he’s citing “the Holy Book. He casts nasty, bigoted slurs on people who annoy him. Not Christian. He breaks laws with the intention to promote his own self. Not Christian. He cavorts with prostitutes. Dirty, self-promoting, attention-seeking whores. Not Christian. (And God help his long-suffering wife.)

    And yet he purports to live by Christian principles? Nah.
    • Chris 24.1

      12 January 2010 at 3:08 pm

      I suspect we are watching a train wreck in slo-mo which is morbid but secretly fascinating. It’s like rubber necking.
    • Gosman 24.2

      12 January 2010 at 3:13 pm

      “He cavorts with prostitutes.”

      ???

      Do you mean he shares his blog occasionally with Lisa Lewis?

      I’d hardly call that cavorting unless you have evidence he does something else.

      As for being Christian or not there is ample evidence in the Bible that Jesus hung out with all sorts of unsavourary characters, including prostitutes. So your argument falls down on that point.
      • Jewish Kiwi 24.2.1

        12 January 2010 at 3:43 pm

        Yes, and to quote Jesus in Matthew 5:17:
        “Fucking dole bludgers. Truely they are not blessed.”

        I also like Luke 1:32, where he says:
        “That lawyer prosecuting me? He represents scum, he does”
      • felix 24.2.2

        12 January 2010 at 3:47 pm

        Yes you’re absolutely right.

        He’s so obviously a christian. Obviously.
        • Gosman 24.2.2.1

          12 January 2010 at 4:40 pm

          Hey I didn’t bring his Christian credentials into this discussion, Mako did.

          All I am pointing out that it is a bit ridiculous to claim he ‘Cavorts with Prostitutes’ if the reference is to Lisa Lewis and even if he did that would be entirely in line with what Jesus did anyway.

          I personally think it is idiotic to bring this into the discussion but Mako thinks he is being clever making some sort of point.
          • felix 24.2.2.1.1

            12 January 2010 at 4:54 pm

            So you don’t believe Slater is a christian either then?

            What’s he playing at?
            • Gosman 24.2.2.1.1.1

              12 January 2010 at 5:14 pm

              I don’t know, perhaps you can ask him directly on his blog?

              I personally don’t like his style, he’s the Right wing equivalent to Martyn Bradbury of Tumeke.

              Although the way he gets under certain leftist noses is entertaining to see I must admit.
              • felix …

                12 January 2010 at 9:48 pm

                he’s the Right wing equivalent to Martyn Bradbury of Tumeke

                Pretty facile comparison. Perhaps you’d like to back it up by pointing out the most offensive thing you can find from Bradbury and I’ll see if I can find something worse from Slater.

                You start.
              • mickysavage …

                12 January 2010 at 9:57 pm

                Bradbury is interesting and funny. Whale needs professional help. There is no comparison.
              • Gosman …

                13 January 2010 at 7:26 am

                Here’s just a couple of examples of Martyn Bradbury’s style

                “Thanks for contributing moron, you do know what extreme weather means right? It is EXTREME, moron. ”

                and

                “I see why you both post anonymously, it’s because you are both idiots. ”

                Yes, very funny and interesting don’t you think? Why he decided to add the personal insults to his replies is beyond me. Do you support this sort of posting style then?

                Bradbury, like Slater, has an intellectual arrogance about him that means if you disagree with his position you are treated as a fool or denied a chance to put you view forward on his comments sections.

                Interesting that he refuses to allow me to post on his site anymore yet his fellow Blogger Tim Selwyn has no problem with what I write. My comments have not been any different to how I post here but he just doesn’t like someone pulling him up. I think it damages his ego.

                All in all I’d say Bradbury and Slater are cut from the same blogosphere cloth.
              • felix …

                13 January 2010 at 9:56 am

                Is that it?

                Bradbury calling people morons and idiots?

                You seriously want to compare that to the racist, sexist, homophobic, hateful filth posted by Slater on a regular basis?

                You’re having a laugh.
              • Gosman …

                13 January 2010 at 10:39 am

                I’d class regulaly labelling people idiots, morons, racists, facists, as well as supporting racist statements made by people like Hone Harawira, and also demanding NZ goes to war against Japan, puts Bradbury in the same boat as some of the outrageous piffle that Slater makes.

                You of course are free to disagree
              • felix …

                13 January 2010 at 4:56 pm

                So calling someone a bigot is the same as being a bigot.

                I don’t think you’re discussing this in good faith Gosman.
          • Mako 24.2.2.1.2

            13 January 2010 at 12:45 pm

            I just spoke with Jesus, and he thinks you’re an idiot.

            Seriously, do you not see the irony of Slater claiming, on the one hand, that he abides by Christian values (I have my doubts about his motives here – I think he’s simply trying to target the right-wing fundamentalists), and on the other, his obvious obsession with Lewis. It goes beyond his simply allowing her to blog on his website. (Although perhaps one ill-informed and ungrammatical post hardly counts as “blogging”.) He’s twittered on attending a photo shoot, and made a number of other references about her, to the general idea of “whoar”. I think he’s just excited that a good-looking woman is paying attention. Poor Juana.

            As for the nasty, bigoted slurs he casts? He’s posted on his fantasy to kill Helen Clark, for chrissake. So, if I were God, I would definitely exclude Slater from my kingdom.
            • God 24.2.2.1.2.1

              13 January 2010 at 12:50 pm

              So would I. Slater, you’re an abomination.
              • jesus …

                13 January 2010 at 1:07 pm

                Get a life dad.
      • Rich 24.2.3

        12 January 2010 at 6:42 pm

        he shares his blog occasionally with Lisa Lewis

        Poor woman. She certainly earns that $1k an hour.
25. Julie Fairey 25

    12 January 2010 at 3:37 pm

    I don’t really see the point in attacking Slater on the grounds of his physical appearance or jabs based around his well-known mental health issues. It’s awful to have to trawl through a thread like this on The Standard to see if there are actually any new insightful comments to be read, as opposed to that rubbish.

    [lprent: I can’t see much point either (and don’t). However I have commented before on his lack of technical abilities that doesn’t match his ego.

    However I really have very little interest in expending effort protecting Cam on anything but the most egregious attacks. For some reason he brings out the vindictive pugnacious male in me.

    I’ve actually been surprised at how few comments I’ve needed to do (none). However as you noted there are a lot of ones that don’t hit my quite high thresholds. ]
    • QoT 25.1

      12 January 2010 at 7:48 pm

      Agreed, Julie – and it’s just such laziness, too. Who goes for “is fat and has depression” when “‘shopped the PM’s head onto porn” is available?
26. Westminster 26

    12 January 2010 at 5:47 pm

    It is delicious irony that the ever boastful Slater claims to have witnessed a desperate breach of our drug laws and failed to raise any legal or moral issues with that. Turns out Cameron’s moral compass is heavily influenced by fame and hits on his awful cesspit of a blog.
27. The Voice of Reason 27

    12 January 2010 at 6:20 pm

    TV3 have led tonight with the likelihood that the C slug will face contempt charges. That will mean arrest, a swift court appearance and bail, almost certainly with blogging restrictions as part of the conditions.

    Stand by for the charmless shit to try and spin this as an attack on media freedom.
    • rocky 27.1

      12 January 2010 at 8:16 pm

      As much as I hate his blog, I don’t want to see Slater banned from blogging – that would be a severe limit on his rights. Much as Sue Bradford had her condition not to protest struck down by the High Court. A condition not to breach any further supression orders on his blog would seem appropriate however.
28. Sanctuary 28

    12 January 2010 at 7:10 pm

    “…It is delicious irony that the ever boastful Slater claims to have witnessed a desperate breach of our drug laws and failed to raise any legal or moral issues with that…”

    WTF is he thinking with that?? It is a big, fat, conspiracy charge right there.
29. gitmo 29

    12 January 2010 at 7:59 pm

    I’m an obnoxious troll but some of the garbage and hate filled bile I’ve seen written on this post appears to be actually meant with feeling …………… I can’t see why anyone would get so filled with hate over an odd chap who has a little right wing blog in NZ… and you call Kiwiblog the ‘sewer’ .. even at their vilest I’m not sure they could match this.

    [lprent: I guess it because of some of the crap he has said about me – and my partner because he can’t spell. ]
30. B 30

    12 January 2010 at 8:41 pm

    Could he not simply be remanded for psychiatric assessment?
31. get-a-life-you twats 31

    12 January 2010 at 8:45 pm

    [Deleted. You have been banned]
32. James 32

    12 January 2010 at 8:53 pm

    So what do you guys think of Michael Laws’ apparent breach of suppression orders, when – just over a year ago – Laws publicly released details about three of the complainants involved in the prosecution of convicted sex offender Peter Ellis? And why haven’t police charged Laws? I would hate to think there’s one law for some and one law for others.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DkQ5B3e_yo
33. get-a-life-you twats 33

    12 January 2010 at 9:08 pm

    [Deleted. You have been banned.]
    • mickysavage 33.1

      12 January 2010 at 9:34 pm

      Cameron?
      • The Voice of Reason 33.1.1

        12 January 2010 at 9:49 pm

        Timmeh!
34. get-a-life-you twats 34

    12 January 2010 at 9:17 pm

    [Deleted. You have been banned.]
35. get-a-life-you twats 35

    12 January 2010 at 9:30 pm

    [Deleted. You have been banned.]

    [lprent: permanently. Looks like d4j.. ]
36. mickysavage 36

    12 January 2010 at 10:06 pm

    I wonder if the Standard’s efforts could be put into more substantial issues like it normally is. Much as I detest Whale and oppose the damage he is doing to the victims of the people whose names he is publishing I wonder if he should be ignored rather than focused on.

    His recent use of biblical passages as justification for his political views are really scary. This is normally not a good sign. Professional help is often required.

    The media is focussing on him. I would prefer that it was focusing on the policy decisions being made by this Government that are causing huge harm.

    [well, we have discussed the merits of ignore vs condemn. We feel the angle taken by Zet hasn’t been addressed by the msm. Typically, they just give the surface events, and hadn’t started looking at Slaters’ motivations until we raised them. And this is the biggest political story of the day, we can’t just ignore it. Plus, since the media aren’t giving out his url, probably for fear of breaching the suppression orders themselves, so lots of people are goggling ‘cameron slater’, ‘whaleoil’, etc and a hell of a lot of them are ending up reading what we have to say about him, and our stats package shows a fair portion of people who enter the site having googled a topic to do with this affair end up reading our substantive posts and comment threads too. Worthwhile, don’t you think? Eddie]
    • lprent 36.1

      12 January 2010 at 10:13 pm

      In general I’d agree. However it is the summer holidays. There is no longer the queue to get content posted. Posters write what they choose.

      Apparently Z is writing about a bug.

      And I don’t have an overpowering to urge to defend or stop. In fact I feel like writing a post…..
    • mickysavage 36.2

      12 January 2010 at 10:43 pm

      Yeah although I guess I am always disturbed that a nonentity like Cameron should occupy the centre of political debate in NZ. I am conflicted because I really think he needs help right now.
      • Armchair Critic 36.2.1

        12 January 2010 at 11:03 pm

        I’ve been wondering whether this needs to be approached as both a medical and a criminal issue.
        It is likely a crime has been committed, even now the name of an ex-MP is decodable off CJS’s site, and having done a bit of whale watching over the last six months or so I can only conclude he is probably quite unwell.
        Though the cynical side of me wonders whether this is just a ploy and he is trying to prove something to his insurers.
        Capcha – oils, how did you know?
37. Killinginthenameof 37

    13 January 2010 at 1:59 am

    In regards to the biblical quotes, he started follow some sect earlier this year, Mor(m)on rings a bell, I can’t be sure off the top of my head. Its the same one that Glenn Beck follows, looks like whale is trying to model himself off that creep.

    (9-10 years ago Slater was actually a relatively normal person and quite a good role model, oh how times have changed.)
    • Mach1 37.1

      13 January 2010 at 11:29 am

      Slater reckons he’s a good SDA who attends Papsda
38. RedBack 38

    13 January 2010 at 10:13 am

    I can’t understand some of the thick sh**s that are coming out and defending this deluded tosser Slater. There are reasons we have name supresion orders in countries like NZ. Its to stop loud mouthed unhinged vigil-ante’s like Slater and his small band of followers deciding who should and who shouldn’t have the right to anonymity in high profile court cases.
39. Hayley 39

    13 January 2010 at 8:54 pm

    I can’t believe that loser Slater would stoop as low as he has. I lie, I can believe it. He turns crimes into chances to get attention. Really he’s like any other tory, loving the photo ops and attention. And he’ll certainly do anything to get it. That poor girl. What happened to her was bad enough without Slater giving away suppressed information that could potentially reveal her identity. Having what happened to her was awful, and if people found out who she was it would only make her feel worse. People would always treat her differently. But none of that matters to Cameron “the jerk” Slater. And of course, on top of this, he’s deluded enough to believe that he did the right thing. People don’t pay attention to him because they think he’s the brave blogger fighting for victims and for freedom of speech or anything. He thinks he’s that person. People pay attention because he posts the stuff no one else has the bad taste to publish. I think he’s had too many chances. He needs to get a wake up call that all of these things he’s doing aren’t just little things that won’t get him into heaps of trouble like petty theft. He’s an attention seeking loser who can’t think of anything but promoting himself, and people need to give him a kick in the behind.
    • mickysavage 39.1

      13 January 2010 at 9:01 pm

      Well said Hayley.
40. Clint Heine 40

    14 January 2010 at 4:52 am

    The laws surrounding name suppression really do need a good looking at. The huge publicity that Whale is getting stems from the mere fact that people WANT to know who the offenders are. Sadly people don’t give a shit about the victims because of the huge amount of secrecy surrounding the offenders.

    How many people rush to Google to find out who a 14 year old victim is? Compare that to the incredible amount of interest from nosy Kiwis (including I bet everybody here) who wanted to know the who the entertainer/ex MP/sports figures were.

    It is mischeivous to call Kiwiblog the sewer when all you seem to be doing is attacking Whale for being “mental” etc. I am sure with the combined intellect on this blog *somebody* might be able to write something a little more clever than that.

    [lprent: I think that authors here are usually calling him a scumbag. I think that you’ve got us confused with Cactus Kate. ]
    • heiny 40.1

      14 January 2010 at 5:45 am

      waiting, waiting, waiting
    • Eddie 40.2

      14 January 2010 at 8:12 am

      Just because people want to know doesn’t mean their right to know outweighs the right of the victim to privacy.
    • felix 40.3

      14 January 2010 at 8:26 pm

      Never seen an author here attacking Slater for being “mental”. Very rarely a commenter either, and they get jumped on when they do.

      Attacking him, on the other hand, for being a fuckwit, a bigot, a fool, a philistine, a nasty vicious prick? Sure. And why not?
    • Descendant Of Smith 40.4

      18 January 2010 at 7:37 pm

      Compare that to the incredible amount of interest from nosy Kiwis (including I bet everybody here) who wanted to know the who the entertainer/ex MP/sports figures were.

      Not me. Not even an inclination to look. In my observation in abuse cases the courts show pretty good judgment about these orders.
41. Stever 41

    14 January 2010 at 7:49 am

    Maybe next time the hidden message should be done this way:

    http://xkcd.com/257/
42. Hamish Gray 42

    14 January 2010 at 7:00 pm

    I cannot believe the virtiol expressed in this blog. Perhaps Slater is tastless, but The Standard is plumbing new depths with this post. What is the point of this blog if it is just to crudely abuse someone? You’ve lost all credibility, regardless of the other side’s views. Quite awful really.
    • Zetetic 42.1

      14 January 2010 at 7:11 pm

      No. He earned it. We don’t usually condemn people in such terms. Take a look at the other posts. Deep, analytical, informed.

      This guy is levering children’s suffering to get the fame he craves. I’m proud to damn him unconditionally and completely.
    • RedBack 42.2

      15 January 2010 at 1:25 am

      Hamish – There is airing your veiws in a cvilised manner and then there is Slater’s odd idea of political debate of just making vicious s**t up or breaking privacy laws just because it suits his deluded self PR. I’m a big one for attacking the issues not the man. On this occasson, and like many before, the issue is the man and his lack of judgement, intentional or not, about what contstitutes informed political debate. Sadly the few vigil-ante’s that prescribe to Slater’s anti-social rhetoric still be seem to be confusing bullying and social harrasment as informed debate.
      • Zetetic 42.2.1

        15 January 2010 at 8:31 am

        The man and the issue are fundamental inseperable here. He is doing this for his own self-aggrandisement. Not because of any actual concern about the law. Therefore, there is no point engaging in a debate over the law. Rather, expose and attack what he is actually doing.
43. Hamish Gray 43

    18 January 2010 at 6:41 pm

    Once again, justifying your own repugnant behaviour. The Standard used to be fairly thoughtful, even enjoyable and thought provoking. Now it’s just descended to the depths of name calling and condescension. “Deep. analystical. Informed”? Maybe once upon a time. You’re proving to be a real turn-off for the left-wing perspective. What a shame.
    • lprent 43.1

      18 January 2010 at 7:31 pm

      If the guy wishes to act like a scumbag, then writers here will call him that.

      Having you go about an unspecified repugnant behavior doesn’t help the debate. It simply looks like a troll whining.
44. ConorJoe 44

    18 January 2010 at 7:51 pm

    i believe a poem:

    wail – boil
    flail, toil
    mail – soiled
    hardluck self (pausepause)
    foiled

Links to post

1. Whale-watching: gathering storm clouds? « Ethical Martini: posted on 13 January 2010 at 8:55 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS