Slater’s attention-seeking attack on sex abuse victim

Written By: - Date published: 10:03 am, January 11th, 2010 - 73 comments
Categories: crime, scoundrels - Tags:

So, Slater wants to be a martyr. Fits well with his personal myth of the hard done by battler fighting this PC world. Yes, it must be hard being the son of a former National Party President. Living the welfare queen lifestyle ripping off an insurance company. Daddy always around to bail you out.

But life isn’t all roses for this man-child of privilege. You see, his blog sucks. I mean, it really really sucks. Because it sucks, nobody reads it. The graph of his pageviews he put up to show off how much readership he has got from exploiting a victim of crime actually shows his background level is pathetic, a couple of thousand a day at best. The fact he’s removed the scale suggests it’s much lower.

His online persona is the centre of Slater’s existence, so it’s a problem to have a crappy unpopular blog. Naturally, Slater blames everyone else. Damn pinko country, ignoring his piece of sh#t blog. How to get attention for it? He doesn’t have the brains to do analysis. His rhetoric would embarrass Bush. Hmm. How about hitching his name to society’s three big turn-ons – sex, crime, and celebrity? Bingo.

And so Slater is purportedly trying to make a martyr of himself. Getting himself charged for breaching a suppression order. Don’t think he came up with it himself, probably Farrar’s idea.

Of course, he’s fighting for a just cause, you know. No special rules for celebs. Justice must not only be done. It must be seen to be done. Ra ra ra. Except, that’s a load of crap.

He’s charged under 139(1) of the Criminal Justice Act: “No person shall publish…any name or particulars likely to lead to the identification…of any person upon or with whom [a sex] offence has been or is alleged to have been committed…unless— That person is of or over the age of 16 years; and The court, by order, permits such publication.”

In this case, identifying the alleged offender identifies the alleged victim. Slater isn’t standing up against a court giving special protection to some celeb. The name suppression in this case comes automatically from the law. Not the judge. Parliament put it there to protect victims of sex offences.

It is that victim and his or her rights that Slater has attacked in this pitiful attempt to bolster his readership of his crappy blog. Slater’s in it for all that external validation. All that attention.

It would be sad if it weren’t so sickening. But the scumbag’s got the attention he craves. That’s all that matters to him.

73 comments on “Slater’s attention-seeking attack on sex abuse victim ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. vidiot 1
    11 January 2010 at 10:23 am

    Z – so by you advertising/re-posting his graph and case are further extending his 15 minutes of fame.

    Congrats !

  2. Bright Red 2
    11 January 2010 at 10:29 am

    What a scumbag.

    It’s a tricky thing eh? Attack the f*cker for his behaviour and give him what he wants, attention, or ignore him and let him get away with this crap.

  3. BLiP 3
    11 January 2010 at 11:00 am

    That entire blog is predicated on the creation victims.

  4. Bored 4
    11 January 2010 at 11:21 am

    Surely the Mental Health Act has some teeth to protect this very sick individual from having to cope with reality…….

  5. Brett Dale 5
    11 January 2010 at 11:25 am

    Zetetic:

    I dont read his blog, but I dont think its very nice to say that it sucks, and does it really matter how many hits a blog gets?

    McDonalds gets the most customers but it anit the best resturant.

  6. Rob Carr 6
    11 January 2010 at 11:52 am

    I agree his blog is probably awful but I wouldn’t discredit it by way of page views a day. Blogging isn’t meant to have everyone in the country reading it. Just because he targets a smaller market doesn’t mean he doesn’t cover it well.

    • snoozer 6.1
      11 January 2010 at 12:03 pm

      yeah, but to Whale what matters is that people are listening to him. by that measure, his graph shows it sucks.

  7. Whaleoil 7
    11 January 2010 at 11:55 am

    Nice defamatory first paragraph.

    The only person I give figures to is Tim Selwyn.

    [lprent: Nope, I can’t see anything defamatory in it. It is well within the known facts. Possibly a harsh interpretation – but you like those. ]

    • felix 7.1
      11 January 2010 at 5:27 pm

      Wouldn’t worry anyway Lynn, he seems to have a bit of trouble finding a lawyer who’ll go anywhere near him in public.

    • Mako 7.2
      11 January 2010 at 9:59 pm

      Nothing defamatory about it at all, even assuming Slater has a reputation worth protecting. But interesting to see the self-aggrandising champion of “free speech” (read “self-publicity, website-hits, f*ck the principles and f*ck the consequences”) resort to casually name-dropping one of the common law’s mechanisms for preventing unwarranted slurs against one’s name. I-fucking-ron-fucking-ic. And not intentionally.

  8. democracymum 8
    11 January 2010 at 12:04 pm

    I disagree – how can identifying the alleged offender possible – identify the victim?
    Unless the victim is part of the offender’s family (Which is the only time I think name suppression should be used.

    I had a victim of abuse comment over at my blog the other day regarding this matter, and she believes, along with many other former victims that name suppression should not be granted in these cases.

    http://www.democracymum.co.nz/2010/01/here-we-go-again-another-name-suppressed.html#comments

    • snoozer 8.1
      11 January 2010 at 12:14 pm

      Obviously the identity of the offender can be a “particular likely to lead to the identification” of the victim. Don’t be silly.

      Funny how you rightards are all tough on crime until it’s your mates in the rich elite breaking the law.

  9. Brett Dale 9
    11 January 2010 at 12:14 pm

    But the attacker’s name was all over the internet anyway, Slater was just doing what hundreds of people were writing on message boards all over place.

    Also Wasnt the victims name already out in the media???

    Didnt they do an interview saying how bad it was, that their attacker couldnt be named?

    Am I thinking of the right case??

    This is the case of the teenage girl and the well known celeb isnt it???

    • snoozer 9.1
      11 January 2010 at 12:29 pm

      So what? Hundreds of people shoplift, it doesn’t make it OK for me to do it.

      Really, stupid comment Brett. Really stupid.

      You would probably be well advised to steer away from anything that could identify the victim but I think you’re thinking of the wrong case. Try reading the news.

  10. Daveski 10
    11 January 2010 at 12:15 pm

    A couple of points to note.

    1. The needless comment about DPF simply highlights the fact that many here are just as likely to carry on mindless agendas based on personalities not policies. As a NY resolution, how about get over DPF and John Key.

    2. There is a fine line here that you’ve quickly over looked. Many here have rejoiced in Rocky I, II, III etc and supported her right (and others) to break laws in defence of a good cause. Trespassing in Levin springs to mind. We have laws for good reasons so Whale should face the consequences of these actions, as should all who break the law, regardless of the cause. Or is there some convenient flip flop that will excuse certain actions?

    • Pascal's bookie 10.1
      11 January 2010 at 12:29 pm

      Who has said anyone should get away with breaking the law?

      If people were saying the police should exceed their authority to go after whale you’d have a flip flop, but I doubt anyone will be saying that either.

      • John 10.1.1
        11 January 2010 at 3:34 pm

        My understanding is that Rocky has consistently said that if she is breaking the law she doesn’t have a problem with getting arrested. It is when the police act illegally that she comes out strongly.

        [lprent: Yes. She also doesn’t break the law often and it is always deliberate when she does.

        For some reason the police prefer to arrest her for things she doesn’t do or on trumped up charges that either have no real relationship to what actually happened or have no basis in the law.

        It really signals a failure in the police that they keep doing the same idiotic things repetitively. You get the idea that the organization is pretty moribund and incapable of learning. ]

    • snoozer 10.2
      11 January 2010 at 12:34 pm

      Honestly, Daveski, you’re more intelligent than this. Of course there are times when breaking the law is more acceptable than other times, Daveski. There is a proud tradition of civil disobedience for just causes in this country and others – Parihaka, Ghandi, Rosa Parks, objectors in WW1, the 1951 Lockout, the Springbok Tour.

      If Whale was geniunely opposing special treatment for famous people, I would be supporting him. But he’s not, he is adding to the victimisation of an innocent person to satisfy his own insecurities and need for attention.

      • felix 10.2.1
        11 January 2010 at 12:55 pm

        Honestly, Daveski, you’re more intelligent than this

        [Citation needed]

      • Daveski 10.2.2
        11 January 2010 at 1:11 pm

        As I noted, Whale has no excuse and needs to take responsibilities for his actions as should all who break laws. I’m not supporting Whale – I’m simply pointing out that in Whale’s view the ends justify the means. You end up in very delicate ground when you have to select the justification for breaking the law as this becomes exceptionally subjective.

        • snoozer 10.2.2.1
          11 January 2010 at 1:22 pm

          “You end up in very delicate ground when you have to select the justification for breaking the law as this becomes exceptionally subjective”

          of course you end up on delicate grounds.

          You see, Daveski, in anything but the most narrow, reactionary worldview, morality and ones position on any issue has to be made in light of the individual facts, not by kneejerk reference to some black and white absolute.

          You yourself surely believe that Rosa Parks and Ghandi were justified in breaking the law. Unless you’re a fascist (ie unless you believe that might is inherently right), you must also believe it was right to break the Holland Govt’s laws against supplying food and aid to the families of the waterfronters locked out in 1951. See, you agree that there are times when breaking the law is OK.

          There is no black and white – ‘the law is always right’. It is a matter of whether breaking it is moral and justified in the individual cirucmstances, and, yes, that’s delicate grounds but humans are moral and sophisicated creatures, we can deal in moral delicacy, we don’t need to kow-tow to moral absolutes and blindly follow the leader.

  11. Brett Dale 11
    11 January 2010 at 12:56 pm

    The victims name was already out there, they had done interviews with the media?

    The victim WANTED the accuse to be named. They wanted it, but the judge didnt grant the victim’s wish.

    The case Im thinking of is the teenage girl who got concerned that her friends went into the alley, so she went in and got assualted.

    • Bretrummm 11.1
      11 January 2010 at 1:25 pm

      you’re obviously thinking of a different case dipshit.

      The Court would hardly agree to hear the case if the victim’s name was not suppressed.

      • grumpy 11.1.1
        11 January 2010 at 1:31 pm

        Nah, it’s one of the cases.

        We have had quite a spate of “Civil disobedience” over the last few weeks. From Rocky going over the fence at Levin, to the demonstrators arrests at the tennis and now Whale’s problem.

        In all cases the instigators took whatever action they did knowing the likely consequences and accepting responsibility for their actions.

        Like it or not Rocky, Minto and Whale have got a bit in common.

        • felix 11.1.1.1
          11 January 2010 at 1:40 pm

          Only one of them is such a chickenshit that he denies his actions though.

          • gitmo 11.1.1.1.1
            11 January 2010 at 1:43 pm

            Yeah Minto’s a complete tosspot.

            • grumpy 11.1.1.1.1.1
              11 January 2010 at 1:48 pm

              Nice one!

              • gitmo …
                11 January 2010 at 1:50 pm

                I was going to go with the “I suspect they’re all the same person” but I thought the trolling I came up with was better.

                Lynn the captchas are real grainy at the moment ?

                [lprent: Odd – no code updates. I’ll log out and have a look. You could just login and then you don’t get them at all. ]

            • felix 11.1.1.1.1.2
              11 January 2010 at 1:51 pm

              Funny I don’t recall Minto saying “no I never meant to protest at the tennis”.

              I also don’t recall Rocky’s statement that “I never meant to go over that fence”

              Slater, on the other hand, cowardly denies that he intended to disclose the suppressed identities of the people in question by posting pictograms, despite simultaneously attempting to garner notoriety by battling the name suppression laws.

              Big fucking wimp.

          • grumpy 11.1.1.1.2
            11 January 2010 at 1:49 pm

            Whale’s not “denying his actions” – just getting maximum publicity for his cause – just like to other two.

            • felix 11.1.1.1.2.1
              11 January 2010 at 1:54 pm

              He’s repeatedly made that claim, grumpy. He says he never intended to disclose the suppressed identities by posting pictograms.

              • gitmo …
                11 January 2010 at 1:57 pm

                Do you have a thing for the whale……. that would be worse than consorting with gingas !

              • grumpy …
                11 January 2010 at 2:00 pm

                Wasn’t Minto a ginga – before he went grey?? And Rocky is trying to look like one??

                Thank God Whale still has his looks!

                • lprent …
                  11 January 2010 at 2:36 pm

                  No and no. What is it with you and gingers. Do you have some kind of pathetic obsession. Perhaps you could do to seek psych help.

                  Next thing you know you’ll be attacking people because they are not your clones

                  • gitmo …
                    11 January 2010 at 2:38 pm

                    “Next thing you know you’ll be attacking people because they are not your clones”

                    He he the irony is beautiful on the back of today’s posts !

              • felix …
                11 January 2010 at 2:39 pm

                I don’t consort with gingas.

                And yes, Cameron is a very handsome lad but no, I don’t have a thing for him. Unless by “thing” you mean “trivial degree of slightly condescending pity”.

              • gitmo …
                11 January 2010 at 2:51 pm

                That’s a relief I was about to send the men in white coats around…… I will recommend you visit an optometrist though as it’s just possible that if you find the whale handsome you might suddenly find DPF handsom as well which suggests there may be some eye trouble setting in ?

        • rocky 11.1.1.2
          12 January 2010 at 7:57 pm

          Wrong.

          Neither going over the fence at Levin nor protesting at the tennis broke any laws. I can’t prove that to you all until the court cases, but look forward to proving you all wrong in the long run. If it is found I have broken any laws I will happily accept the consequences.

          There are cases where I have intentionally broken the law fully prepared to accept the consequences. Strangely, those examples (stealing my exes emails and putting spyware on his phone and computer, breaching suppression orders on this blog etc), even though public, have not resulted in me being arrested.

          I’m not a utilitarian, I don’t believe that the means justifies the ends.

          I only break the law when it doesn’t cause wider issues. For example, my breaking of the suppression orders in the Oct 15 case would not prejudice a trial or break name supression which is often put in place for good reason (such as to protect the victim).

          I simply said 7 words talking about the legality of the police actions as ruled my a judge. It wasn’t subject to any specific supression order for any specific reason – it was simply covered by the blanket supression order over pretty much everything to do with that case.

          Civil disobedience is another matter – you intentionally break the law, you accept the consequences. Meanwhile whaleoil is bitching on about how unfair it is that he has been charged!

          I don’t get where your comparison lies!

  12. Brett Dale 12
    11 January 2010 at 2:48 pm

    If Cameron’s blog is viewed by so few, why the hatred for him here???

    So he totally has a different point of view of the world than you guys, whats the big deal?

    Have any of you guys actually meet him?

    What does it matter what he looks like?

    Its his blog, he can write what he likes.

    Just don’t go to his blog if you dont like what he says.

    [lprent: Apparently the spinner of bullshit has been going around claiming the “blogosphere” is behind him. It isn’t – in fact a lot of the bloggers are cheering on the judge. Over the years he has attacked this site and its writers many times. We’ve had to put up with the dogwhistles when he gets the trolls coming here.

    Basically none of us like him and think that the blogs would be better off without his one. He displays the worst features of a blogger, and that image rubs off on us all. ]

  13. mickysavage 13
    11 January 2010 at 3:03 pm

    Oh Dear

    Now this.

    The original posting is not difficult to translate.

    Whale does not realise that he is being used by the media. His commenting on identity lets them then provide clues about who had the benefit of the suppression order.

    As others have said it is strange that someone so insistent on law and order does not think that the rule of law applies to them.

  14. Julie Fairey 14
    11 January 2010 at 3:59 pm

    I think gotcha is down now due to the latest breach?

    Can someone please correct me if I am wrong but it seems to me there have been four high profile name suppression cases in recent months and Slater has now breached three of them:
    1. Well known entertainer puts woman’s head into crotch (he pled guilty, got permanent suppression)
    2. Olympian allegedly assaults and rapes woman
    3. Well known comedian allegedly sexually assaults girl
    4. Ex MP allegedly sexually assaults girl

    But he hasn’t breached the third one has he? Or did I miss that?

    In which case… why the difference?

    • Julie Fairey 14.1
      11 January 2010 at 4:23 pm

      Also I notice that Gotcha/Whaleoil is no longer on Kiwiblog’s little list of “external posts”…

    • Bright Red 14.2
      11 January 2010 at 4:30 pm

      He said he hadn’t done anything on no.3 because it involved a child.

      of course, he broke that supposed moral stand with his post today on the ex-mp.

      because he’s really just an attention-seeking arseh%le.

      • Julie Fairey 14.2.1
        11 January 2010 at 4:38 pm

        Thanks Bright Red, that does seem to have gone by the by with this latest one. It worries me that he thinks he is better placed to make moral judgements about which victims deserve name suppression and which don’t, than a judge who actually has a lot more information at their disposal 🙁

        I don’t always agree with name suppression (I think it’s ludicrous for 1. above), but the cavalier way in which Slater is effectively outting victims as he breaches suppression on alleged offenders is another way of taking power from people who have already been abused.

    • Mako 14.3
      11 January 2010 at 10:26 pm

      Julie, he’s actually identified, indirectly or otherwise, each of those cases. He made a big thing about not identifying no. 3, but he dropped huge hints on his own and Farrar’s webiste. He can yarp on about his motives, but at the end of the day I think it boils down to “I know a secret, I promised not to tell, but …”

      He’s just a fucking schoolboy who never grew up, and is longing for the attention of the cool kids, or at least his father …

  15. Sanctuary 15
    11 January 2010 at 5:48 pm

    Slater is going to be convicted. He will get a jail sentence unless he is very, very lucky. I wonder if he has actually thought that one through. Home detention would probaably be an option – but I imagine a judge would ban him from blogging during the duration of the Home detention…

    • felix 15.1
      11 January 2010 at 6:26 pm

      Who else thinks jail time for contempt is likely?

      • Rich 15.1.1
        11 January 2010 at 7:16 pm

        Not possible.

        Maximum $1000 fine.

        I don’t think that, given that revealing an embargoed name is a specific offence, that Slater could be charged with contempt under the Crimes Act? It does beg the question of what could be done if he keeps breaking the law and either paying or racking up $1000 fines. ISTR UK judges can or could jail people until they purged their contempt, but that doesn’t happen in NZ (probably a good thing).

        Maybe he could just be sectioned.

        • felix 15.1.1.1
          11 January 2010 at 10:19 pm

          It does beg the question of what could be done if he keeps breaking the law and either paying or racking up $1000 fines.

          That’s the possibility I’m curious about. What sort of boundary do you have to cross to be guilty of contempt?

        • mickysavage 15.1.1.2
          12 January 2010 at 7:45 am

          He is certainly up for consideration of contempt of court and also perverting the course of justice. I am sure the authorities are thinking of something more serious this time.

        • rocky 15.1.1.3
          12 January 2010 at 8:03 pm

          What can be done is a bail condition not to breach any further court supression orders be put in place. Whale says he isn’t on bail, but he is – it’s just called being “remanded at large”. Conditons can still be put in place.

          If he were to breach a bail condition he could be held in prison until the defended hearing, and get a conviction and sentence for breach of bail.

    • burt 15.2
      11 January 2010 at 9:11 pm

      Is banned from blogging on home detention likely to be as effective as banning people from taking drugs or using cellphones in prison ?

      • rocky 15.2.1
        12 January 2010 at 8:05 pm

        Banned from blogging would be an unlawful condition of bail. As stated, he hasn’t been charged with an imprisonable offense, so can’t get home detention. Bail conditions have to be very specifically related to the offense alleged – so while they could say “no breaching supression orders on your blog”, they couldn’t just say “no blogging”.

  16. Arthur 16
    11 January 2010 at 7:14 pm

    I read him and Farrar and a few other right wing loonies every day. They help reinforce my prejudices.

  17. rob 17
    11 January 2010 at 8:59 pm

    The guy is a tool….

    quotes from an interview with Cammy

    “It’s not what you write, or how you write; it’s not even the content,” he says. “It’s about getting attention.”
    “. “I do boxing training, I talk about it on my blog. I weigh 100kg, but I’m not super-fat”

    from
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/features/2583835/Internet-warrior

    based on recent pictures I would say he is over 100kg and is lying about not being super fat…..

  18. wrapster 18
    11 January 2010 at 9:07 pm

    I hope our judiciary makes an example of this twerp.

  19. ScootsNZ 19
    11 January 2010 at 9:38 pm

    Looking at Slaters hair I would say it is dyed black and permed. It is simply too black for a person of his age and the curls are far too tight for it to be real.

  20. Sam 20
    11 January 2010 at 10:29 pm

    What do National say in Parliament when they’ve run out of lame lines to run? Relevancy Deprivation Syndrome? I think Blowhole defines the term.

  21. Hamish Gray 21
    15 January 2010 at 4:04 pm

    Once again, this blog plumbs the same depths as Slater’s blog. Hypocrits.

    [lprent: Always the sign of a poorly worded argument and a probable troll – lousy spelling. ]

    • Bright Red 21.1
      15 January 2010 at 4:23 pm

      This is nothing like Slater. I don’t see the authors of the Standard taking advantage of sex crime victims to their 15 minutes of fame.

      In what way does this post ‘plumb depths’? Because it’s language is strong and damning? Toughen up.

    • The Voice of Reason 21.2
      15 January 2010 at 4:46 pm

      Care to give some examples Hamish?

      I reckon the comments in this post are pretty mild and well considered given the obvious temptation to lay into Slater, who has never shown any restraint when attacking anyone he doesn’t like, including many people who post here. Given his weight, hair and mental health problems, this post and it’s comment section could be full of the nastiest vitriol, but it’s not. It’s actually focussed on the issue; his release of details that cause further harm to an alleged victim of sexual crime.

      If you want to call anyone hypoctical, the C slug is the bloke to start with.

Links to post