Slater’s attention-seeking attack on sex abuse victim

• Zetetic
• 14 years ago
• Categories: crime, scoundrels

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.