Slater smears again

Written By: - Date published: 8:33 am, October 18th, 2021 - 104 comments
Categories: Dirty Politics, jacinda ardern, labour, Media, uncategorized - Tags:

There was this weird article in the Herald yesterday by some guy who owns a wedding venue in Gisborne.

Apparently Jacinda Ardern and Clarke Gayford had been negotiating with the proprietor to hold their wedding at his venue.

I have some experience of the modern day concept that is known as a wedding.  A family member had their wedding recently.  It was at a beautiful location and a wonderful gorgeous event.  But the proprietors of the venue were pretty weird.  They ran the premises with military precision and were really upset when a car with an elderly relative parked in the wrong place.  And on the next day when I was 15 minutes late for the clean up they were on the phone demanding to know where I was.  It was recommended that a wedding planner was used as a shield between their uber control impulses and the emotional responses of people who just want to publicly acknowledge they love each other and want their family and friends to have a good time.  The Gisborne venue’s proprietor’s behavior was very similar.

I had the impression that more than a few wedding venues are highly capitalised business models owned predominately by cashed up entrepreneurs who tweak their business model to make sure that their investment is maximised.  Ah capitalism, seeking to garner a financial return from the most important personal ceremony most of us will go to.

So when I read the Herald attack article on Jacinda yesterday memories of my earlier experience flooded back.  Imagine attacking the Prime Minister publicly because Covid delayed her wedding and she wanted to get a real chef to cater for the event.  Especially when it appears that your own culinary abilities may not be optimal.

I have not seen the details of what was signed but the proprietor’s statement that “it was too expensive and we couldn’t agree on the finer details” makes me wonder if there was actually an enforceable contract.  And the throwing of toys out of the cot when he found out that someone else was preparing the food was pretty weird.  And not something that would engender good public relations or future business opportunities.  Except maybe among Ardern book turners.

But here is where it gets really strange.  It appears this story was a Cameron Slater smear.  You would think the Herald would know better.

https://twitter.com/nealejones/status/1449524709280796676

And to further the dirty politics links Jordan Williams and the Taxpayers Union are seeking details of Ardern’s assistant’s involvement.  She has been a good friend to Ardern and has organised a number of events for Labour in her spare time in the past but this does not stop an attempted further smear.

The decision to publish the story on the front page speaks volumes about the Herald business model with a number of twitterers cancelling their subscriptions because this was one click bait story too much.

The problem is that the subscriptions fund the likes of Simon Wilson, Matt Nippert and David Fisher’s deeper dives into important issues.  The clickbait generates its own income.

Simon sums it up as follows:

This is a tough issue and I personally maintain my subscription because I can see the importance of funded journalism that does not require the shock and awe of social media clicks to be published. Without the subscription my fear is that it would be wall to wall reckons from the likes of Mike Hosking, Heather Du Plessis-Allan and Bill Ralston.

But the Herald echoing a story shopped by a failed smear merchant makes it really difficult to take it seriously.  Especially when the lightest of examination may have revealed that there was nothing of substance into the complaint.

104 comments on “Slater smears again ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Visubversa 1
    18 October 2021 at 8:50 am

    I cancelled my subscription to The Herald in 2005. I won't have it in the house. I know they do still employ a few decent journalists, but as most of their content is material that can be better sourced elsewhere or the politically motivated ranting of "opinionists" who have no ethics or scruples, I see no need to give them 1 red cent.

  2. Reality 2
    18 October 2021 at 9:07 am

    The item was headlined in the most grubby way possible. Slater is disgusting. And Judith Collins is his friend!

  3. chris T 3
    18 October 2021 at 9:08 am

    Sounds a bit of a mess tbf.

    Think both sides need to take a look at their egos.

    Amusing bit, is Ardern probably didn't have anything to do with it given how busy she would be with covid, just got caught up.

    But that is what happens.

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/pms-wedding-stoush-jacinda-ardern-and-clarke-gayford-given-5000-bill-jilted-venue-owner-robin-pierson-says-dealings-insulting/KHSROFLW2FTBJAWYWHOADDN254/

    • mickysavage 3.1
      18 October 2021 at 9:15 am

      Why should Ardern look at her ego? She has said nothing.

      It is their big day. They wanted a particular chef to cook their food. Venue owner disagreed. Matter not concluded. Venue owner has a rant on the front page of the Herald. I can't see what Ardern has done is wrong and from what I have seen so far I don't see why there should be any payment of money.

      • dv 3.1.1
        18 October 2021 at 9:24 am

        Good answer MS

        • chris T 3.1.1.1
          18 October 2021 at 9:28 am

          Well not really.

          If you actually bothered reading my post I said Ardern probably had nothing to do with it.

          She just got caught up in the clash of egos.

          But hey. Why bother reading peoples post when you can make shit up they said.

          • dv 3.1.1.1.1
            18 October 2021 at 9:34 am

            What is making shit up in this statement?

            “They wanted a particular chef to cook their food. Venue owner disagreed. Matter not concluded. Venue owner has a rant on the front page of the Herald. I can't see what Ardern has done is wrong and from what I have seen so far I don't see why there should be any payment of money.”

            • chris T 3.1.1.1.1.1
              18 October 2021 at 9:40 am

              "Why should Ardern look at her ego? She has said nothing."

              I never said Ardern should have to take a look at anything

              My post

              "Ardern probably didn't have anything to do with it given how busy she would be with covid, just got caught up."

              This is called making shit up

              • dv …
                18 October 2021 at 10:23 am

                From your post at 9.08

                Think both sides need to take a look at their egos.

                • chris T …
                  18 October 2021 at 10:35 am

                  And…

                  By both sides I meant Ardern's organiser and not Ardern.

                  Which is kind of why I didn't say Ardern and said sides.

                  The uber sensitivity someone might be criticising Ardern is frankly stupid given her popularity. She is a big girl and I wasn'teven talking about her.

                  The article is talking about her associate organising it ffs

                  • dv …
                    18 October 2021 at 10:38 am

                    OK so write more clearly.
                    (Makes me wonder who is making up shit!!!!)

                    • chris T …
                      18 October 2021 at 10:40 am

                      Or you could just read my ffng words as they are written and not read shit into it.

                      And then make stuff up you think people have said

                    • chris T …
                      18 October 2021 at 10:43 am

                      "(Makes me wonder who is making up shit!!!!)"

                      What the hell does this mean?

                    • dv …
                      18 October 2021 at 10:44 am

                      mycf'ing ??/

                      Many of your posts have spelling errors / typos so reading your words to get a clear meaning has it difficulties.

                      OK so write more clearly.
                      (Makes me wonder who is making up shit) Translation its you making up shit in my opinion
                      Sorry for being confusing.

                    • chris T …
                      18 October 2021 at 10:50 am

                      Not 100% sure what message you are trying to get across there, but all good 🙂

                      IFor what it is worth, think we just had a bit of a clash of communication, as I have in the past criticised Ardern's actions.

                      You probably just assumed I was doing it again.

                      I make no apologies. I will criticise thing I don't agree with. But if anyone thinks atm she has a huge amount to do with her wedding plans and hasn't tried as best to allocate it, they are an idiot

                    • Jimmy …
                      18 October 2021 at 11:08 am

                      I understood what Chris T meant, but then, I had read his comment.

                    • chris T …
                      18 October 2021 at 11:14 am

                      BTW re the spelling thing. I have always been a bit dyslectic. It is waht it is, and I apologise if this confuses the convo'.

                      Probably should have been more open about it

                  • cathy-o …
                    19 October 2021 at 7:44 pm

                    "By both sides I meant Ardern's organiser and not Ardern. "

                    you didn't make that clear

  4. John Drinnan 4
    18 October 2021 at 9:10 am

    It was a weak story – especially for the front page But The AStandard's attack on everybody who run s a wedding venue, is the same sort of bullying we have come to expect from Slater. Despite what fans of the government say, media are allowed to question the Prime Minister – as they don for the leader of the Opposition

    • mickysavage 4.1
      18 October 2021 at 9:37 am

      My “attack” was on two different venue owners who in my view showed similar authoritarian tendencies. I would not describe it as bullying and deliberately did not name one or give any identifying details about the other.

      I then delved into what I thought was the most interesting part of this incident, the Herald’s use of clickbait verses the Herald’s use of what are quality writers for deeper stuff funded by subscriptions. I thought I was actually being even handed!

    • tc 4.2
      18 October 2021 at 10:12 am

      This is what 'funded journalism' herald styled is.

      The rare long quality pieces are in the minority for the shock jock approach of duplicity, hosk and wtf an ex national MP had to say etc.

    • Sacha 4.3
      18 October 2021 at 2:02 pm

      Media certainly are obliged to question the PM, John. Just not about things like her social life. Editors and journalists seem to have forgotten what 'public interest' means and the ethics that flow from it.

  5. Ad 5
    18 October 2021 at 9:19 am

    Occasionally I wonder what a unity government of national reconstruction might look like, but then I just pull off Dirty Politics from my shelf and remind myself how truly dark these people within and around the National Party really are.

  6. Patricia Bremner 6
    18 October 2021 at 9:22 am

    The contract was not totally agreed, and because the venue had food safety issues previously, the proprietor was insulted by the agent's wish to hire their own caterers.

    In dispute was the cancellation fee.

    • Dennis Frank 6.1
      18 October 2021 at 9:39 am

      Interesting. I'm not a lawyer but I bet a legal contract doesn't exist until it is signed by both parties. I mean, I'm aware that the ephemeral notion of a verbal contract does get tossed around from time to time. Maybe courts nowadays even recognise such & I'm being too old-fashioned. If Gayford & Ardern pay the 5k, that's the conclusion I'll reach. A cancellation fee would only apply if an enforceable contract exists.

      • Stuart Munro 6.1.1
        18 October 2021 at 10:03 am

        There's a thing called consideration – some kind of value received – before a contract becomes real. Historically this was done by means of a small gift – a peppercorn, or, in the case of marriage, a ring. This gift was called a wed, hence the term wedding.

        • Dennis Frank 6.1.1.1
          18 October 2021 at 10:15 am

          Google says "Old English weddian, from the Germanic base of Scots wed ‘a pledge’ so the usage you mention is likely to refer to that, Stuart. Pledge tween marriage partners. Can't see how the 5k fits into that, can you?

          • McFlock 6.1.1.1.1
            18 October 2021 at 10:55 am

            Marriage is a legal contract. It gets tweaked every so often, but it's legal status mostly about property. So e.g. in Victorian times if you proposed to someone and broke it off, they could sue for "breach of promise". A breach of the contract to sign the wedding contract, as it were.

            Weddings and business contracts are similar, and have the same roots: in UK & commonwealth law, those roots include the early medieval period of britain and northern europe (pop over to the section on pledges).

            • Dennis Frank 6.1.1.1.1.1
              18 October 2021 at 11:08 am

              F'king oath! "One of the most common applications of truth-seeking in these sources occurs in the swearing of oaths. Instances of oath-taking and oath-breaking, therefore, are critical textual loci".

              Yeah, I get that part. Just not the bit about third-party contract involvement. I await clarification of that legal point…

              • McFlock …
                18 October 2021 at 11:21 am

                third party? I thought you were going on about "consideration"?

                Hence the suggestion to go to the section on "pledge", pp38-46, and its subtype of "vow".

                • Dennis Frank …
                  18 October 2021 at 11:29 am

                  A misunderstanding. I was querying the viability of the 5k claim by the third party – cancellation fee – after Patricia mentioned that the contract wasn't finalised. Perhaps Stuart's reference to `consideration' was a misunderstanding of what I wrote…

                  • McFlock …
                    18 October 2021 at 11:42 am

                    There are only two parties: restauranteur and the couple (their reps).

                    The cancellation fee only comes about if there is a contract.

                    In addition to evidence of the contract (verbal vs written and witnessed such as a lease), stuart mentioned the concept of valuable consideration as the requirement for a contract to exist. Then he mentioned how the origins of this links to our concept of weddings, and we went from there.

                    • Dennis Frank …
                      18 October 2021 at 11:57 am

                      But Stuart's reference was to the trad anglo-saxon origin – gift as pledge tween marriage partners. So he was referring to the marriage contract. I was referring to the caterer contract (hypothetical at this stage) in relation to the caterer's cancellation fee claim. The three parties involved in that commercial contract – if it exists – are the caterer, the PM, and her partner.

                    • McFlock …
                      18 October 2021 at 1:35 pm

                      His comment applied to both. His mistake was adding a different, but interesting, observation about the common history between commercial contracts and wedding contracts. This appears to have thoroughly discombobulated you.

                      The three parties involved in that commercial contract – if it exists – are the caterer, the PM, and her partner.

                      Only if the contract existed and the happy couple decided upon being jointly and severally liable for the costs, rather than there being a single signatory for the purchaser.

          • Stuart Munro 6.1.1.1.2
            18 October 2021 at 5:33 pm

            Well the caterer is not party to the marriage contract, I assume.

            And I haven't seen anything that could be called consideration mentioned given the happy couple by him, so I expect the 5k is wishful thinking, or perhaps sour grapes.

            A shame really – a celebrity wedding of this stature would probably have done his business the world of good.

            • Dennis Frank 6.1.1.1.2.1
              18 October 2021 at 5:47 pm

              No the contract I was referring to was the hypothetical catering contract – the apparent basis of his claim for the 5k cancellation fee.

              I get the impression a verbal deal must have happened, but with nothing signed until details were clarified & confirmed – which became unsatisfactory when examined, so it fell through. Does seem cheeky for him to claim the fee on that basis (but you know what capitalists are like).

        • Anker 6.1.1.2
          18 October 2021 at 10:35 am

          interesting Stuart. Never knew that.

        • Patricia Bremner 6.1.1.3
          18 October 2021 at 12:28 pm

          In these covid times the old method of "spit in the palm and shake' to 'seal the deal' would not do, which apparently replaced "cutting the palm and mingling blood to create an agreed bond', later replaced with "my word is my bond" perhaps the beginning of "oral contracts".

      • KJT 6.1.2
        18 October 2021 at 12:48 pm

        A verbal contract in common law is equally valid. The problem is, proving it exists.

        For a contract to exist there has in general to be "offer" "acceptance" and "consideration". Something of value has to change hands. A money deposit is normal. Though it doesn't have to be.

        Interestingly if both parties act as though a contract exists. For example if someone turns up to do a job and you start paying them, it is considered a contract.

        • Dennis Frank 6.1.2.1
          18 October 2021 at 1:01 pm

          Okay, an `evidence of intent' principle, I get it. Thanks. Wonder if the details will come out or there'll be a payment to keep it quiet.

          Understandable if the thing was agreed in principle, then satisfaction proved unattainable on the practical arrangements. No blame.

          • KJT 6.1.2.1.1
            18 October 2021 at 1:05 pm

            Until "acceptance" and "consideration" it is still a negotiation, with "offer" and "counter offer".

            I doubt that it got past that stage.

            The same rules apply whether verbal or written.

            • Patricia Bremner 6.1.2.1.1.1
              18 October 2021 at 4:22 pm

              Yes enquiring, setting a tentative date while negotiations continue does not mean final settlement was agreed is my understanding. Thank you for you clear and pertinent points KJT.

  7. Tiger Mountain 7
    18 October 2021 at 9:24 am

    The steaming pile, assembled in some grotesque mockery of the human form–Mr Slater–sure has a long half life.

    I gave him the benefit of the doubt for a while, silly empathetic lefty me, regarding his alleged stroke and mental health issues. The Paparazzi video stalk of Siouxsie Wiles showed him to be feeling much better, and back to his nasty old self.

    After reading Micky’s stomach turning link, Clarke and Jacinda choosing an actual Chef seems essential!
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3568092/Restaurateur-loses-final-legal-bid

  8. Anker 8
    18 October 2021 at 10:03 am
    • Wedding venues owners are probably one of the most vulnerable during the pandemic. More so than bars and cafes. So I have some sympathy if they are behaving in an uptight way or even losing it, as the Gisbourne chap has done.
    • the NZ Herald ran this story from Slater. The Dom Post published an add, full page, full of lies about the Israel/Palestine situation (so I am told by a reliable friend who follows the situation there. I don’t subscribe to either of these papers).
    • yet the Herald and other news outlets barring the ODT refuse to publish an add from SUFW simply saying “women, adult human female” (dictionary definition). This is despite the fact that a High Court Judge ruled SUFW are not a hate group and the broadcasting standards upheld that the add was not objectionable and should go ahead.
    • I think the story about SUFW having their add (and their meetings) shut down is by far a worthier story.
    • I Feel Love 8.1
      18 October 2021 at 11:34 am

      It wasn't "simply saying" that at all. It's under handed & disingenuous, slippery as. But then you probably know that.

      • Anker 8.1.1
        18 October 2021 at 12:06 pm

        I feel love. The aim of the add was to pique the attendtion of readers so people would go to the link to find more. SOP59 has flown under the radar of the vast majority of NZders and the Greens initially tried to piggy back it onto legislation about making Births, Deaths and Marriages Bill in 2018, after public submissions had closed.

        I am not sure what you mean by slippery as. I don't believe that phrase would be accepted at face value in a court of law. By any definition, I don't think the add was slippery. And anyway since when has "being slippery as" as reason to ban an add.

        I guess if gender ideologists are going to come out and say "trans women are real women"., its not surprizing that people who don't agree would push back by publishing the dictionary definition of a woman. Or is it not o.k. to disagree with trans ideology? Because this seems to. be what is happening across the Western world

      • Gypsy 8.1.2
        18 October 2021 at 12:55 pm

        So publishing a comment that contains a biological truth is now 'under handed & disingenuous'? Clearly we do live in a post-truth era.

        • Ghostwhowalksnz 8.1.2.1
          18 October 2021 at 6:29 pm

          Its not a biological truth at all

          As Auckland Starship Hospital says

          'It is inappropriate and inaccurate to make comments that imply sex (male/female) and gender (boy/girl) are binary concepts which cannot be changed.

          Sex and gender are of course different things.

          This binary quasi religious belief is fine to have but cant be pushed as fact.

          • Gypsy 8.1.2.1.1
            18 October 2021 at 8:07 pm

            That Starship quote just shows how much some people have lost their collective minds. Have they not considered that sex being binary (given a proper understanding of what that actually means), and the idea that someone could change their sex within that binary, are not actually mutually exclusive?

            But back to the issue. The Oxford Dictionary definition of woman is “an adult female human being.” That is a biological reality. Whether you believe sex is binary or not.

            • Ghostwhowalksnz 8.1.2.1.1.1
              19 October 2021 at 8:00 am

              Medically its just not true. As a childrens hospital they have newborns who are not biologically male or female. You have a closed mind so cant see what is medically known.

              I understand there are even more differentition that isnt so easily seen soon after birth

              The reason you might have trouble with your ads is many media could see it as bigotry and prejudice dressed up in non factual biology.

              • Gypsy …
                19 October 2021 at 10:44 am

                "As a childrens hospital they have newborns who are not biologically male or female. "

                Of course they do, which is why I was careful to note about binary sex – "given a proper understanding of what that actually means". Perhaps you would prefer the term 'bi-modal'. Either way, there are two sexes, and a tiny number of exceptions that prove the rule.

                "The reason you might have trouble with your ads is many media could see it as bigotry and prejudice dressed up in non factual biology."

                And so we return to the beginning, where a biologically, historically and literally correct definition of word is considered 'bigotry'. A more anti-science attitude is hard to imagine.

                • Ghostwhowalksnz …
                  19 October 2021 at 6:13 pm

                  You dont know Science from a bar of Soap. You are welcome to your beliefs but then use outdated views as a vehicle for discrimination and prejudice for trans people is bigotry. This isnt the 1960s in medical Science any more

                  Statement from Endocrine Society in their Journal Endocrine Reviews

                  Both sexes have all classes of reproductive hormones such as estrogen, progesterone, and testosterone, albeit at different levels. Differences in sexual development may result in a person's biological sex not aligning with these traditional definitions.

                  Biological sex is separate from gender identity, which may or may not align with an individual's biological sex. Transgender or gender diverse individuals should be screened for sex-specific medical conditions such as prostate cancer and cervical cancer based on body parts and tissues that are present, according to the Society's Clinical Practice Guideline on Endocrine Treatment of Gender-Dysphoric/Gender-Incongruent Persons.

                  • Gypsy …
                    19 October 2021 at 6:47 pm

                    What is the relevance of your references, other than to prove my point?

                    For example "Biological sex is separate from gender identity, which may or may not align with an individual's biological sex. " Well I'm posting about biological sex, not gender.

                    There are two sexes, whether you like it or not, with rare exceptions that prove the rule. These are not my beliefs. This is the science.

                  • Anker …
                    19 October 2021 at 7:47 pm

                    https://williamaferguson.substack.com/p/im-upping-the-prize

                    Claim the prize then Ghostwhowalksnz Interesting there is over a millon dollars at stake, but no one has claimed the prize.

                    So glad to be the little boy in the Emperors new clothes who knows what material. reality is

                  • Anker …
                    19 October 2021 at 7:51 pm

                    Ghostwhowalksnz "Transgender or gender diverse individuals should be screened for sex speciic medical conditions such as prostate cancer and cervical cancers based on body parts and tissues that are present"

                    Who would have thought that biology matters and trumps gender identity.

  9. McFlock 9
    18 October 2021 at 10:21 am

    Saw this. Thought it was a great way to stop high profile guests from even considering it as a venue.

    The catering is one thing, but bitching about them bringing their own security? The PM? lols

    Betcha he'd do backflips to accommodate anyone Thiel or Cameron might require.

  10. AB 10
    18 October 2021 at 10:26 am

    A lot of people have had to organise weddings and know how fraught they are. So bad move by the Herald and the TPU, because it won't convince anyone except already confirmed Ardern-haters. And it won't do anything to improve National's terrible performance with getting support from women.

  11. Pete 11
    18 October 2021 at 10:28 am

    In reality, those who complain loudest about the quality of the press and its bias for Ardern, want the media as it is to die and it consist solely of "wall to wall reckons from the likes of Mike Hosking, Heather Du Plessis-Allan and Bill Ralston."

    • tc 11.1
      18 October 2021 at 3:06 pm

      Personally I've no issue with the opinionated as long as it's clearly flagged as such and gets fact checked.

      A model which would see the ZB militia and ex nact MP's struggle with as they're used to ranting unchecked.

      • Pete 11.1.1
        18 October 2021 at 3:27 pm

        Clearly flagged as such? That seems to suggest that readers don't have the critical skills to discern what is fact and which is opinion so they need to be told.

        Facts checked? By whom?

        • tc 11.1.1.1
          19 October 2021 at 11:08 am

          Thanks for explaining why. I lost count years ago at people who thought the opinionated were journalists rather than the shills they actually are.

  12. Anne 12
    18 October 2021 at 10:37 am

    Read the piece online over the weekend. First name that flashed through my head : CAMERON SLATER. Then told myself to stop being silly. He doesn't have a hand in everything.

    It is no coincidence this latest chapter of dirty politicking is happening under Judith Collin's watch. They must be desperate!

    It worked well under the Key regime. They temporarily killed at lot of people with their dirty lies and even dirtier innuendos. Remember, the attacks on Cunliffe, Shearer, Phil Goff and others… each time the journos went into hyper-drive as if the world’s existence was dependent on the outcome. So they are trying it on again under Ardern's rule. Watch out, Grant Robertson and co. Any one of you is next in line!

    Btw, I know Barbara Ward and can confirm she and Jacinda have been personal friends for years. I might add Barbara is an intelligent and competent person and I'm sure Jacinda counts herself lucky to have someone like that running her electoral office and assisting her (out of work hours) as a personal friend.

    I guess Slater and Co. don't know that some people in politics do actually work in an ethical manner. Its a foreign notion to them and Slater in particular.

    • Patricia Bremner 12.1
      18 October 2021 at 12:36 pm

      Friends would be foreign to the Slater. No-one met him after court. He cut a lonely figure.

  13. Pete 13
    18 October 2021 at 10:49 am

    Let's go with Jordan Williams on this. All staff employed by politicians be wired and taped so there is a record of what they are doing and when they are doing it. Employed on a salary not on set hours? Recorded full-time.

    Someone employed as a comms person obviously shouldn't be getting a coffee for the boss.

    Williams seeks anything he can to attack Ardern. It shows his level of desperation for relevance is as serious as that of the National party. He presents differently and he is the front person for an organisation but that can't hide that he's just a Cameron Slater in disguise.

    Speaking of which … When I as a tax-payer was paying the wages of Jason Ede what work was he actually doing? For whom? And was it the sort of work a government employee should have been doing?

    Or since it was in John Key's office it didn't matter?

    • Stephen D 13.1
      18 October 2021 at 11:29 am

      Isn't that use of money something The Taxpayers Union should look into?/sarc

      • Pete 13.1.1
        18 October 2021 at 11:42 am

        The use of money is something The Taxpayers Union should look into.

        That's why I can't understand them enquiring on one person working for the taxpayers. All of a sudden. They merely accept that none of the staff of any other ministers or opposition members aren't doing private stuff for their bosses?

        Or they only care if it involves Ardern? Or they only care because the polls aren't good?

    • Gabby 13.2
      18 October 2021 at 1:44 pm

      And what's Jason Evel up to these days?

    • Patricia Bremner 13.3
      18 October 2021 at 4:42 pm

      Good points Pete. Perhaps they are used to walking the high wire of sharp behaviour, so project that to others.

    • garibaldi 13.4
      18 October 2021 at 4:57 pm

      Pete I gather that what you are basically saying is that John Key had full knowledge of their activities so Jason Ede became the instant fall guy, and I totally agree with you. I also concur with your opinion of Jordan Williams.

  14. Treetop 14
    18 October 2021 at 11:29 am

    I'd like to know if other people who held their wedding at the Bushmere Arms venue in Gisborne hired a separate catering firm?

    As well how the proprietor markets the business?

    Ardern and Gayford are entitled to have their privacy when it comes to discussions about their wedding.

    • Ghostwhowalksnz 14.1
      18 October 2021 at 5:19 pm

      The Bushmere Arms is a rural pub/cafe with a nice garden and wedding venue on the side.

      The place mentioned by Slater is the Bushmere Estate Winery and Wedding Venue which is again outskirts of Gisborne but very different to the old pub venue

      Has Slater got them confused as the Bushmere Arms is really his 'story' location.

      • Treetop 14.1.1
        18 October 2021 at 8:27 pm

        I will look up both venues and I am curious as to whether they have separate owners.

        • Ghostwhowalksnz 14.1.1.1
          19 October 2021 at 7:54 am

          It seem the owners of the Winery Estate venue has different names than the Pierson connected to the Bushmere Arms

  15. Tricledrown 15
    18 October 2021 at 11:58 am

    Desperately digging dirty politics.When you throw mud in politics it bounces back more often than not some times it has a delayed effect due to the piles of #%it mounting up.

    This is not going to do anything for the right wing infact it's going to cost them.

    It looks like the political managers in National and their fan boys's herald and hosking haven't figured out that this is causing their downfall. 20% and droppings.

    • Treetop 15.1
      18 October 2021 at 12:21 pm

      Agree strongly without considering if defamation could be taken in the future.

      Do our defamation or privacy laws need tightening along with parliamentary privilege.

      • McFlock 15.1.1
        18 October 2021 at 12:28 pm

        Well, who can afford to sue?

        That'll tell us who tightened defamation and privacy laws, as well as tightened parliamentary privilege, will actually protect.

        • dv 15.1.1.1
          18 October 2021 at 12:41 pm

          Talking about suing any thing from Peters yet?

        • Treetop 15.1.1.2
          18 October 2021 at 1:09 pm

          Tightening so the loopholes cannot be used to have an advantage.

          Yes the ability to pay is a big issue.

          • McFlock 15.1.1.2.1
            18 October 2021 at 1:22 pm

            Just to walk back and be sure, what do you mean by "tightenting" laws on defamation – making more stuff defamatory, or making less stuff defamatory?

            • Treetop 15.1.1.2.1.1
              18 October 2021 at 2:32 pm

              Tightening to not abuse the process when a disadvantage.

              • McFlock …
                18 October 2021 at 2:39 pm

                so to make it more difficult to bring a defamation case?

                • Treetop …
                  18 October 2021 at 3:09 pm

                  To make it more difficult to get off when someone has defamed a person.

                  • McFlock …
                    18 October 2021 at 3:37 pm

                    Which means to make it easier to successfully sue someone for defamation. It's a civil thing, not a criminal offense.

                    A millionaire take a car to a panelbeater and doesn't ask for a quote, panelbeater does the work and charges what the millionaire feels is an exhorbitant fee. The millionaire calls a panelbeater a crook. Panelbeater calls millionaire a liar.

                    Case a: panelbeater sues millionaire for harming his business reputation. Case b: millionaire countersues.

                    How do you think that will work out?

                    Because I think the panelbeater will be able to afford Dennis Denuto, while the millionaire will get the other guy.

                    And we'll get more SLAPP suits.

                    • Treetop …
                      18 October 2021 at 4:01 pm

                      I have seen counter suing on some American court programmes. The actions the people took and the cost of the problem to either party is decided by the judge.

                      Sullying a person's reputation is what defamation needs to address.

                    • McFlock …
                      18 October 2021 at 4:13 pm

                      NZ is not an american court programme.

                      We've already seen what millionaires can do in NZ if they're prepared to throw money around – long court cases they eventually lose, but still managed to inflict years of stress upon their victims. Most people can't afford to defend as well as countersue.

  16. Michael who failed Civics 16
    18 October 2021 at 12:39 pm

    Isn't Slater supposed to be bankrupt and too disabled to front up to the courts in various proceedings? Is the Official Assignee happy for him to be running another troll farm? I think we should be told.

  17. gsays 17
    18 October 2021 at 1:02 pm

    The crux of the post is Mickey's guilt for directly funding this churnalism via subscription.

    It reminds me of, the usually tory sort, who resent their tax $ being spent on the poor, Maori, immigrants etc. The idea that subscriptions pay for the quality stuff, while click bait revenue is keeping Slater gainfully employed.

    My hunch is more revenue comes from the digital side of the business than from subs. I could be well wrong.

    Wilson's defence of his employer is better directed at the editorial staff, not someone making a political decision and cancelling their subscription.

    We cancelled our paper a few years back when they published a large photo on the front page of a spectacularly tatooed ne'er-do-well giving a one finger salute from the dock.

    • Ghostwhowalksnz 17.1
      18 October 2021 at 7:59 pm

      The comments side is straight out of Kiwiblog. So digital subs are what you would expect from Angry white men central .

      But like Talkback they have orchestrated National/ACT supporters to flood the comments.

      The have a report tab on comments to report for 'house Rules breach'

      However the House Rules page has disappeared …suddenly . I think someone called them out on its non observance in a media Council complaint.

  18. Barfly 18
    18 October 2021 at 2:02 pm

    Well this is all pretty simple to me…..It's bullshit – the $5000 headline is just bullshit clickbait that's all! Typical right wing mudslinging yeah it's a lie but they will get away with lying and they have done so many times before.

  19. Puckish Rogue 19
    18 October 2021 at 2:18 pm

    I remember when we booked our venue we were lucky because the date we wanted was available because of a cancellation, they kept the deposit from the previous people

    I'm sure he won't be out of pocket by this turn of events

  20. georgecom 20
    18 October 2021 at 4:31 pm

    The Herald decided to deliver some toilet paper to peoples letter boxes that day obviously. Have to stockpile that story in case I run short of purex. Seems they had run out of actual news to report. As for slater, if the report of him trying to shop the story true, what a loser.

    • georgecom 20.1
      18 October 2021 at 4:33 pm

      not sure, did I say if the report of slater trying to shop the story is true, it shows what a loser he is?

      oh yup, I did

  21. JustMe 21
    18 October 2021 at 5:27 pm

    I do actually wonder if Cameron Slater or Jordan Williams would be willing to ask other couples who have cancelled a wedding venue as to THEIR reasons for cancelling out of the venue(s)???!!!! Because the stupid pickiness of Slater and Williams shows they are either bored out of their minds during COVID19 or just being plain old spiteful(which is something Judith Collins is expert at).

    What some may not realise is the venue that Clarke and Jacinda were going to use had been caught up in 2010 for food poisoning: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3568092/Restaurateur-loses-final-legal-bid.

    I think the guy is just wanting his 15 minutes of fame and behaving like a child yet again.

  22. Ghostwhowalksnz 22
    18 October 2021 at 5:30 pm

    Its seems the reporter Carolyne Meng-Yee does a lot of these sorts of 'scandal stories'.

    The escort and the Opthalmologist and the dead wife.

    Sex workers at Blenhiem motel

    Stories featuring restauranteur Leo Molloy…a Slater acolyte if there ever was one.

    or even more shocking

    A senior newspaper reporter who secured the first interview with murder victim Sophie Elliott's family has been condemned for attending a fancy dress birthday party as the dead student.

  23. Ghostwhowalksnz 23
    18 October 2021 at 7:48 pm

    In light of the Slater connection and the quite rabid PR that NZME is providing for Colins and ACT via ex politicains and ex broadcasters, retired CEOs and such

    In the last week they have had opinion pieces by Collins, Bayly, Van Velven as though made from thin air.

    This story in NT Times about the Former Austrian Chancellor Kurz …yes another right winger.

    Elected the same year President Donald J. Trump took office, Mr. Kurz was quickly seen in Europe as the poster boy of an ascendant right for a new generation, a political Wunderkind who had salvaged conservatism by borrowing the far right’s agenda, buffing it up and bringing it into the mainstream.

    It seemed too good to be true. And, it turns out, it was.

    Prosecutors now say that many polls before that election were falsified and that Mr. Kurz and a small cabal of allies with cultlike devotion to him paid off one of Austria’s biggest tabloids to ensure favorable news coverage. Once in power, prosecutors say, he institutionalized the system, using taxpayers’ money to elevate the appearance of his own popularity and punish journalists and media outlets that criticized him.

    Sound like Dirty Politics to a whole new level. WE can clearly see NZME has already gone out beyond the normal news and opinion cycle in its bias against The current government.

  24. UncookedSelachimorpha 24
    19 October 2021 at 12:53 am

    Occasionally when my baser side wins out I look at the Herald for the juicy and salacious gossip around a current event.

    Otherwise I go months without looking at it – it is mostly juicy and salacious garbage – and horribly right wing.

  25. cathy-o 25
    19 October 2021 at 7:51 pm

    i still have a soft spot for the herald since their headline many years ago about a convention of people in the banking industry = "A Wunch of Bankers".

    plus i hang in there for those articles of Simon Wilson