Students as stakeholders

40 comments on “Students as stakeholders ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Santa Claws 1

   14 November 2007 at 5:38 pm

   So Tane

   Would you support the students having a say in grading their teachers, and perhaps demoting or docking the pay of those that are ineffective?

   If not, why not?
2. Adam Smith 2

   14 November 2007 at 6:51 pm

   Wellington High School did this back in 2005 when a panel of students from all five year levels interviewed candidates for the two vacant deputy principal positions, inline with the opinion to that of Onslow’s principal. It resulted in two very fine teachers being appointed who are very popular with students and staff.
3. The Prophet 3

   14 November 2007 at 9:40 pm

   Read Ricardo Semler.
4. Santa Claws 4

   14 November 2007 at 9:53 pm

   Read William Golding.
5. Barnsley Bill 5

   14 November 2007 at 9:55 pm

   Oops, guess who is in trouble with his employer?
   Lynn Kelvin Prentice……..
   Perhaps you should have a look at whaleoil and then maybe the sits vacant…….
6. Nih 6

   14 November 2007 at 9:58 pm

   Perhaps if his shitty website would ever load. What is it with morons and not being able to find decent hosting?

   Want to be a little more specific about whatever you’re raving about while the page loads? You have a few minutes.
7. Nih 7

   14 November 2007 at 10:02 pm

   It loaded.

   Oh dear.

   Going by his glee at mixing imagery of children and gay porn you’d already have realised he’s eventually going to hang himself with the rope he has been given.

   This post is just that. I wouldn’t want to be whaleoil right now, or ever.

   Also: omgzor I used to live near this Lynn person. Awesome!
8. Barnsley Bill 8

   14 November 2007 at 10:10 pm

   more defamation nih, nice one. you are really ramming home your hosts problems. keep it up junior.
9. William Tell 9

   14 November 2007 at 10:16 pm

   Gee, Whaleoil seems worried. Unfortunately for him he hasn’t got a leg to stand on.
10. Nih 10

    14 November 2007 at 10:17 pm

    You smaller thinkers are missing one important aspect that perhaps the rest of us failed to hold your hand and explain to you: It’s not defamation if it’s true.

    I have no doubt that whaleoil isn’t looking at a civil case. It would be criminal. You can’t behave towards children the way he has. It doesn’t matter if his excuse is bad chemicals in his head or just bad ideas.

    It really is time the axe dropped on that suffering individual.

    Most of the time once someone starts throwing around threats of lawsuits in earnest it’s usually a good indicator that they’re:

    a. Stupid
    b. Scared
    c. Convinced if they act first they can’t be sued

    Nobody who is seriously going to sue someone talks it up on their blog. He deserves to be handed to the police for the sum of his behaviour.
11. Peak Oil Conspiracy 11

    14 November 2007 at 10:27 pm

    Um, Nih, I hate to burst your bubble but there’s no such thing as criminal defamation in New Zealand – it’s a civil proceeding.
12. The Prophet 12

    14 November 2007 at 10:29 pm

    Maybe the boys could do a bit of work on their disclosure page tomorrow…..cause I have a feeling that the oil has more…….and more.
13. Barnsley Bill 13

    14 November 2007 at 10:29 pm

    I can only assume that the blog owner (Lynn Kelvin Prentice) is off line tonight, You fellow members of his biscuit club are certainly doing him no favours tonight with your defamatory posts. keep it up kids, you probably wont be here tomorrow.
14. Nih 14

    14 November 2007 at 10:30 pm

    I didn’t write “criminal defamation” – where did you read that?

    The sexual nature of whaleoil’s harassment makes it very clearly criminal. The police would take a very dim view of him harassing a child as it is even without that aspect.

    Don’t tell me you’re one of these people who think that image isn’t from a gay porn shoot.
15. Nih 15

    14 November 2007 at 10:35 pm

    defamatory posts.

    Please point out any defamation that occurred in this thread. Just the stuff you think is defaming whaleoil.

    Also, do you think your part in encouraging this supposed defamation will have any bearing on the issue? Even if there is defamation, is it still defamation if whaleoil or his associates deliberately provoked it in order to act like sue-happy bullies?

    Have you heard of a summary judgment?

    Are you interested in being successfully sued for excessive threats of legal action?
16. Nih 16

    14 November 2007 at 10:38 pm

    By the way, while whaileoil doesn’t have a shitshow in hell of even having a defamation case heard, do you realise you’ve stepped well beyond the boundaries for being taken to court yourself?

    Just advice mind you, it wouldn’t be me suing you. It would be all of the people mentioned in that post on whaleoil’s blog.
17. Peak Oil Conspiracy 17

    14 November 2007 at 10:39 pm

    Nih:

    No, you’ve taken the wrong starting point. Whaleoil is the intending plaintiff. So you need to consider this from his perspective. His beef: comments that have slighted his character (in his view). I can’t see what other criminal case you could possibly have had in mind other than criminal defamation.

    As to your other question, the “gay porn” is a slight misnomer, I think. Others will be more qualified than me to talk about porn, but I would have thought that “gay porn” would involve depictition of sexual activity between two guys or gals. An image of someone masturbating might be porn, but not necessarily gay porn.
18. Barnsley Bill 18

    14 November 2007 at 10:40 pm

    Twat, sue me. There is room in my garage for another car, and the taps on the boat need replating.
19. Nih 19

    14 November 2007 at 10:52 pm

    Are you honestly trying to excuse someone who superimposed the image of a child with pornography in order to demean, belittle and intimidate said child? Sure, we’re all assuming it was gay. Maybe it was intended for women. Maybe both men and women. What’s the relevance of what sexuality is attached to it?

    The rest of your comment is confused nonsense. Whaleoil seems to think he can head off impending police action. Perhaps it’s already in motion and we don’t know about it. Perhaps that’s what triggered this outburst. Why do YOU think prosecution of a crime would be paused for a civil action against the victim?

    In all, your stance is sickening. I usually refrain from criticising the ethics of others but in this case I know your behaviour is a long way from your personal morality. I’ve respected and enjoyed what you’ve had to stay up until now, why are you suddenly defending this guy? Can you possibly believe it’s good for you politically somehow?
20. Robinsod 20

    14 November 2007 at 11:03 pm

    Nih – unfortunately nobody’s gonna sue anybody. Which is a shame ‘cos something like that would shine a great big media light into the dark recesses of the blogosphere and the right would come out as looking like psychopaths thanks to the likes of “you’d be going home in a wheelie bin” Barnsley. What’s happened is Whale’s been called on his behaviour and doesn’t like it. Poor wee whale.
21. Peak Oil Conspiracy 21

    14 November 2007 at 11:04 pm

    Nih:

    I think you’ve completely misunderstood my comment, so allow me to clarify.

    First, please show me where I’m “defending” Whale Oil’s conduct. I haven’t – and certainly wouldn’t want to see myself (or a close friend or family member) depicted in that way. I’ve never expressed support for Whaleoil’s image. My point in that paragraph (in case you missed it) is the focus on “gay”. I didn’t say it’s not pornographic. You’re reading into my posts sub-text that simply isn’t there.

    Second, I don’t know Whale Oil personally, and I’m certainly not close to the action so I simply have no idea whether there’s a police investigation on foot. I was commenting on the legal implications of your posts as I saw them.

    Third, I don’t understand your point about criminal prosecution. Regardless of whether Whale Oil is seeking to “head off” (in a non-sexual way) impending police action, he’s the intending plaintiff in civil proceedings. And civil proceedings and criminal proceedings can co-exist – they can both proceed through the court system independently of each other.
22. Nih 22

    14 November 2007 at 11:10 pm

    If you’re not defending him then I’m happy. It’s that simple. I prefer most of the world around me to be sane.

    There has in fact been an incident where a man accused of sexually assaulting someone attempted to bring a civil proceedings against them during their trial as an intimidation tactic. I believe it was a defamation case too. It was thrown out immediately. If I can remember when it was I’ll try to find the herald article on it.

    Robinsod’s right though, nobody is going to end up suing anyone. Like I said at the beginning of this discussion, it would be a very bad move on whaleoil’s part.
23. Peak Oil Conspiracy 23

    14 November 2007 at 11:20 pm

    Nih:

    If you could kindly track down that article, I’d be quite interested to see it. It seems consistent with criminal and civil proceedings being able to co-exist.

    On a different note, any particular reason why this blog isn’t loading too well? I have to refresh multiple times, and each time there’s only a 50:50 chance that it loads.
24. Nih 24

    14 November 2007 at 11:23 pm

    I’m not making any promises, I can’t remember any of the useful details.

    The server has always been like that for me. Kiwiblog too. Neither of them seem to run particularly well. Kiwiblog however is on a professional host, so it could be doing a lot better considering. I think The Standard is run on someone’s own hardware.
25. r0b 25

    14 November 2007 at 11:24 pm

    Looks like whale knows how to use whois. Frankly, I’m surprised.
26. Tane 26

    14 November 2007 at 11:25 pm

    Hi Peak, we’ve been having server problems for the last couple of days. I think it’s got something to do with load as we crashed out just after the Herald linked to us the other day, but we’ll have to look into it to see if it’s anything more complicated.

    As for the Whaleoil fiasco, I’m pretty familiar with defamation law from my experience in a former life and I can assure you he doesn’t have a leg to stand on. He sounds like a man who can’t handle being called to account for his behaviour, and it’s all boiled over into this embarrassing little outburst. A pity really. His photoshop skills could be put to such better use.
27. Nih 27

    14 November 2007 at 11:29 pm

    I had a cursory look and I don’t have a remote hope of finding it. If you’re superkeen for it, perhaps you could call the Herald themselves. I peg it as happening between 2 and 4 years ago.

    I’m sorry I can’t be more helpful, especially since I’m basing arguments on it.
28. Robinsod 28

    14 November 2007 at 11:32 pm

    I went over to Whale’s site to have a bit of a chat and after a few exchanges. My IP address got banned and now he’s requiring registration to comment. Who the hell would bother registering to comment on that fiasco of a site?!
29. Nih 29

    14 November 2007 at 11:38 pm

    Perhaps he’s so convinced he can sue a third party for someone else’s comments that he’s now worried The Standard will retaliate.
30. Peak Oil Conspiracy 30

    14 November 2007 at 11:53 pm

    Nih:

    No worries – I’ll dig around and see what I can find.

    Tane:

    Thanks for clearing that up. I figured that the refresh problem had something to do with the server load. I’ve never had the same problem with Kiwiblog, but the fact it’s on a professional server would explain it.

    As to your other comment, I’m not a defamation lawyer and I have no vested interest in this matter either way. But I’m intrigued to see how Whale Oil formulates any statement of claim. As a matter of general corporate law, one normally sues a company and/or directors, not individual shareholders (Companies Office records show that there’s only one director in this case – GAIN, Dennis Terrance).
31. Nih 31

    15 November 2007 at 12:05 am

    Tane, could you possibly go to your WordPress dashboard and add the Akismet Antispam module? You’re getting hammered with pharmaceutical spam and it’s destroying your rss feed. It only takes a moment and it’s a brilliant bit of code.
32. Insolent Prick 32

    15 November 2007 at 12:33 am

    WO’s case against the Standard is fairly straight-forward.

    One of the commenters claimed that WO was a paedophile. Subsequent comments identified WO by name, as well as his father. The comments were clearly intended to be malicious. The comments followed a stated claim that the commenters would continue to dig the dirt on WO.

    When I objected to the tone of the comments, I was accused by other commenters as supporting a paedophile, and justifying kiddy-porn. Had I been identified by name, in the way that WO was, then I would have an action also.

    Commenters further accused DPF of supporting a paedophile. That statement was, in my view, clearly designed to smear DPF’s reputation.

    I made repeated requests of the Standard today to remedy the offending posts, by issuing an apology to WO, DPF, and myself for comments that were clearly intended to defame the three of us. I further suggested that those concerned should be admonished for the offence they caused. Tane’s response, along with many other commenters, was to continue to attack WO, and refuse to apologise.

    The tone of many of the comments in this post is to continue to attack WO, and shows that the Standard has no remorse for publishing utterly defamatory, and outrageous claims about WO, DPF, and myself.

    That is utterly shameful conduct. I really can’t see how the Standard, which purports to represent the interests of the Labour movement, and Tane as the principal publisher of this blog and employee of the EPMU, looks at all good in this affair.
33. Peak Oil Conspiracy 33

    15 November 2007 at 12:33 am

    Nih:

    Ok, I’ve located the story you mentioned: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=169&objectid=10393433.

    A taster:

    “LOS ANGELES – Riverdance star Michael Flatley today won a court ruling allowing him to proceed with a US$100 million ($163.23 million) extortion and defamation lawsuit against a woman who claimed he had raped her.”.

    Interestingly, the Police weren’t interested in laying criminal charges, so there was no other proceeding on foot.
34. Nih 34

    15 November 2007 at 12:39 am

    The one I read was a local case and the man in question was found guilty of whatever sexual crime he was being charged with. The civil case was definitely thrown out in that incident.

    It’s good to know the guy in your case could proceed. False rape claims are a terrible thing. Sort of not surprising in sue-happy USA.
35. Peak Oil Conspiracy 35

    15 November 2007 at 1:16 am

    Nih:

    I’ve gone one step better, and located the actual court judgment: “A” V Hunt (17 May 2006). If you’re interested, you can download it at http://jdo.justice.govt.nz/jdo/Search.jsp (in the search engine, put “2003 485 2553” in the file number).

    Your recollection isn’t quite correct. I’ll briefly quote from the judgment:

    “[1] These are claims and counterclaims arising out of the publication by the defendant of a book about Court proceedings involving the plaintiff.

    …

    [5] In February 1995 a woman I will refer to as ‘W’ complained to the Police that a male health professional had indecently assaulted and sexually violated while treating her. The complaint was facilitated by W’s barrister, Mr D B Collins QC [interestingly, the current Solicitor-General]. That male health professional was ‘A’, the plaintiff in this proceeding.

    …

    [14] The following dates provide a broad time frame for the events I have outlined:
    “¢ November 1995: A arrested and charged.
    “¢ July 1996: A acquitted on his trial on the criminal charges.
    “¢ July 1998: Judgment reviewing disciplinary proceeding against A.
    “¢ May 2001: W’s civil claim against A for exemplary damages settled.

    [15] In May 2003 the defendant published her book.

    [16] A became aware of the book in June or July 2003 when his wife, having earlier noticed an advertisement for the book in a periodical, located it in a bookshop. Upon leafing through it, she immediately recognised it as being a book about the criminal and civil proceedings against A which I have detailed.

    [17] This proceeding was commenced on 21 November 2003. That same day
    orders were made suppressing A’s identity and the subject matter of the proceeding, followed by the orders on 8 December 2003 recalling the book.”

    Again, as with the Flatley case I mentioned above, the plaintiff was acquitted of criminal charges, but this case involved holding the defendant to a confidential settlement. But in terms of your original argument, I don’t think it has much bearing on Whale Oil’s cause of action.

    [Apologies for the length post]
36. Peak Oil Conspiracy 36

    15 November 2007 at 1:34 am

    Hrumph – I’ve just discovered the Court of Appeal sequel:
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=249&objectid=10456145. But I don’t think it changes anything. Anyway, I won’t bore you guys any more about this.
37. Nih 37

    15 November 2007 at 8:08 am

    That’s still not the one I meant, but it’s a good read nonetheless. In the one I call the guy bringing the civil case was definitely guilty almost without question. I’ll shut up about it now though since nobody can find it. 😉
38. Nih 38

    15 November 2007 at 8:08 am

    #REcall
39. Dark Watcher 39

    15 November 2007 at 8:34 am

    I’m 90% sure Finsec is behind this site. It’s got their fingerprints all over it. What makes me even more sure is their ‘unofficial’ blog is run on the same wordpress format and it’s mysteriously gone down for ‘maintenance’ just as thestupid has ramped up its activity. Coincidence? I don’t think so. http://finsec.wordpress.com/
40. Killinginthenameof 40

    15 November 2007 at 12:58 pm

    Very good of Onslow College to be doing that, fantastic school also! (lets just hope none of them come and read this thread)

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS