For some time until last Friday, a large number of interconnected salacious “hints” of corruption regarding an alleged police cover-up of a claim that an MP had raped someone appeared on the blogs Whale Oil, The Hive, Roar Prawn, Clint Heine, No Minister, Matthew Hooton and some others.
They lied in unison, to revive a phrase from another year.
The material they were publishing was so slanderous that it included
outrageously false claims that even the deputy police commissioner was involved. While utterly baseless, the lurid nature of the claims, their detail, and their publication on blogs followed avidly by much of the press gallery meant a number of journalists were soon pursuing them.
Today, Russell Brown on Hard News posted an account of what was behind them, which I reproduce here in full:
A few people will be aware of allegations that a Labour MP committed a sexual assault that was covered up by police. It’s not true. Indeed, the whole thing was a hoax.
So far as I can tell, it happened this way: the person responsible, posing as the wife of a police officer, emailed Cameron “Whaleoil” Slater with a fairly detailed account of the alleged scandal. Slater replied and assured her of confidentiality. Then, in another email, he wrote:
“Thanks for your reply. I have spoken to Phil kitchin and he will take this as easily quietly as you wish. It is important to get the story told and so we will go as fast as you are comfortable. As you may have noticed I have started leaking select titbits but certainly no specific details. Phil Kitchin is a DomPost/SST journalist and is a good honest guy. He has agreed to protect you as our source. He would like to chat to introduce himself so you can get comfortable with his approach and then arrange to meet later once the rules have ben established. hope that gives you some comfort.”
Indeed, Slater had begun “leaking select titbits”, as had his friends, including Clint Heine and Matthew Hooton. They hinted, darkly and smugly, about a brewing scandal. They implied they had deep Beehive sources on the matter. In fact, all they had was an email full of eminently checkable “facts” they did not appear to have tried to check, so great was their glee.
Eventually, the hoaxer sent a email claiming a “critical error” and that the subject of the scandal was not the Labour MP,
“… but actually National Party leader John Key. I apologise for this mistake and assure you I will be more careful about my facts in future.”
It was a pretty dumb stunt, if only because it could easily have gone badly wrong. And the hoaxer seems to accept that. “She” told me by email that:
“To be honest I thought whaleoil would be the only one to print it and did not think other people would believe it. Feel very guilty at how this worked out and would appreciate it if you could write something to clear things up.”
Slater, demonstrating his trademark lack of self-awareness, has now switched from drooling on his keyboard to expressing moral outrage at this despicable attempt to smear the name of a poor Labour MP. Or something.
An interesting feature of this sordid incident is that those who attempted to use the email now claim in hindsight they “knew” all along that it was a hoax. Clint Heine for example has written this:
“Of course as the case stands, the people who saw the email were aware it was a wind up and the publicity that transpired afterwards led to the issue being flushed out quicker because the author of it chickened out.”
Oh yes? Russell Brown gives the lie to that by describing how Whale Oil, on receiving the email, went straight to Phil Kitchen alerting him to the “story” and seeking to act as a go-between. This demonstrates that Whale and friends believed the email was genuine and they were seeking to inflict maximum damage with it. Whale even describes the emailer as “our source,” the “our” apparently meaning the bloggers involved in promoting this muckrake.
The drip-feeding of palpably false tit-bits day after day by the bloggers was about the sickest thing I have seen in the local blogosphere and after Russell Brown’s article today I started making some inquiries.
My inquiries very quickly led to this bullying email to me tonight from Whale Oil, which I also reproduce in full:
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 22:08:25 +1300 [22:08:25 NZDT]
From: Cam Slater
To: poneke@slingshot.co.nz
Subject: You
I note with some interest that you are trying to run a story on me and how I tried to supposedly stitch up xxxxxx xxxxxxxx. Much and all as i dislike Russell Brown he at least has got closer to the truth than you are even trying. His post today was a reasonable summation of events.
Let me tell you one thing though Poneke, get anything wrong and I’m going to gun for you on the blog.
–
Cameron Slater
m: 021 535724
e: camslater@gmail.com
w: www.whaleoil.co.nz
An attempt at intimidation like this, from someone who daily throws false and misleading allegations all over the blogosphere, needs no comment at all. It speaks for itself.
49 Comments
October 3, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Whale is right though. Russell told the truth and you are trying to make it into something it isn’t.
A hoaxer, obviously somebody who has little experience in this, got scared and had to ‘fess up before his/her little prank made the MSM. I’d be interested in the political background of this joker.
I’d be interested to see what “angle” you are going in as well.
October 3, 2008 at 11:55 pm
You think that is bullying, boy you lead a very shelter bus catching life. Bet you still wear cardies.
David, might i suggest you put the cap back on the flagon, put the flagon in the cupboard and go have a lie down.
October 4, 2008 at 12:00 am
It’s taken a good part of a week to get this much information out to the public kept in the dark about this incident.
I’m fed up with this – the continued inferences – no names, oblique references etc etc etc.
How about giving us a break, those of us outside the precious and internecine insiders in the ‘blogosphere” .
I was taught that good form and manners precluded publicly engaging in private conversataions.
If it is at all important then put it in the hands of appropriate authorities or at the very least stop protecting the identities of the players.
Thank you.
October 4, 2008 at 12:05 am
It’s taken a good part of a week to get this much information out to the public kept in the dark about this incident.
There was no “incident.” It was a total fabrication and obviously so from the start. That is why some of us who prefer to deal in the truth haven’t wanted to give oxygen to a smear campaign.
October 4, 2008 at 12:06 am
Or shut up about it
There was no “incident.” It was a total fabrication and obviously so from the start. That is why some of us who prefer to deal in the truth haven’t wanted to give oxygen to a smear campaign.
Sorry, cross post.
I accept your statement.
Nevertheless, “outsiders” have had to observe a large quantity of verbage over the last week with no basic information as to what/who it involved.
Very tedious reading.
Now we get second/third hand reports without identities.
October 4, 2008 at 1:12 am
The claims were baseless but their lurid nature and their publication on blogs followed avidly by much of the press gallery meant a number of journalists were soon pursuing them.
That bit is actually disturbing. I mean, what self-respecting person (let alone ajournalist) would read the sewer?
October 4, 2008 at 1:20 am
Poneke, even Hard News admits there was an incident, but won’t reveal their source.
What I am interested about is how somebody would trivialise rape and implicate one of their own MPs just so to make Whale look bad?
Richard, I have posted details on my blog – as has other blogs. We just don’t know who the person is who emailed Whale – Hard News knows, but won’t reveal. With time I am sure the answers will come out.
October 4, 2008 at 7:44 am
wow, way to turn that one on its head clint.
slater fell for a honeytrap and jumped at the chance to make himself look like someone.
what i fail to see is why the identity of the emailer is important? is it so cameron can “gun for [them] on the blog”
@cameron mate, you need to admit you’ve been played for a sucker. and take your own advice about getting off the bottle.
October 4, 2008 at 8:01 am
Well, they (if they even exist) have defamed an MP.
My understanding is that the gallery journo’s were told to chase the story by their news editors; they made a few calls, established that it was all bullshit within a matter of minutes and dropped it.
It’s a pretty stark contrast to the loathsome manner in which idiots like Slater, Heine, Hooton and Queen Bee at the Wellington Hive conducted themselves.
October 4, 2008 at 9:15 am
no, i’m not sure it’s defamation. the claim wasn’t made in a public forum – it was send as private correspondence between two individuals – and the name of the MP wasn’t published (afaik)
so, what we actually have is a baseless allegation sprung upon by a munter and his cronies.
October 4, 2008 at 9:30 am
no, i’m not sure it’s defamation. the claim wasn’t made in a public forum – it was send as private correspondence between two individuals
You are probably right. What was grossly defamatory, though, were all the posts claiming the deputy police commissioner, who was named, was in on the “cover-up” at the behest of the Beehive. Other police officers were also named in their posts.
October 4, 2008 at 9:36 am
Ahhh, if the person in question *really* thought it would be between them and Whale and nobody else then they are bloody stupid at best.
He/She freaked out when they relaised their little joke was spiralling out of control.
Makes me chuckle that none of you three saw the emails and yet seem to be experts. I did and acted accordingly to help flush out the little troublemaker.
October 4, 2008 at 9:52 am
Poneke, I started reading your blog because of your excellent pieces on the Peter Ellis case in particular but also some great posts on Sensing Murder, climate change, etc. What happened? You seem to have lost your way. This latest post comes across as “Look, everybody, he’s being mean to me”. You chose to wade into this affair and it seems like it has more to do with your strong dislike of Whale Oil and a “holier than thou” attitude to other bloggers than anything else. As a reader who enjoys a wide range of blogs and each for different reasons, please credit me with the intelligence to figure out what’s relevant and what’s not. I urge you to drop your fixation with what everybody else is saying and return to writing those aforementioned interesting posts … maybe less about the buses, though!
October 4, 2008 at 9:54 am
I’m sorry Heine, you’re going to have to explain this to me slowly. How did repeating rumours from the email and predicting that it would be a huge story that would ’sink the Labour government’ help to ‘flush out’ the troublemaker?
October 4, 2008 at 9:55 am
Goodness gracious, I do believe the carapice of self important puffery around the likes of Mr. Heine and Slater is neigh impenetrable.
October 4, 2008 at 10:01 am
Danyl, it worked didn’t it? Silly bugger ‘fessed up and the question begging is WHY do it in the first place? None of you have asked that and instead have engaged in faux outrage against Whale and other bloggers.
October 4, 2008 at 10:05 am
There’s nothing faux about it, Clint. You and your mates fell for this hoax and worked overtime for days to try to promote it. Since being caught with your pants down, you’ve tried to say you knew all about it all along. Your own posts show that is false, but the smoking gun is Whale’s email about Phil Kitchen. You can’t escape that one.
October 4, 2008 at 10:13 am
Actually I see that acording to Mr. Heine the whole thing is now Helen Clark’s fault.
Such is the hubris of the Mr. Heine and co. that they can’t just fess up, instead they are now concocting another piece of the elaborate fantasy alternative reality in which they all seem to live.
Truth version.2.1 is now that this whole sorry episode is a conspiracy hatched on the ninth floor to discredit and silence their noble voices of dissent. Oh yesand Eurasia has always been at war with Oceania.
October 4, 2008 at 10:24 am
Where did I say it was Clarks fault Toms?
Poneke, the email was obviously a hoax, the dates in question led to suspicions immediately being bought up. That and the different fonts in the email showed that too. I am surprised that as a journo for “over 20 years” you are so quick to dismiss this when you never saw the emails and are relying on 3rd hand evidence….. do you REALLY hate Whaleoil that much?
Perhaps it’s best you stuck to buses in Wellington, you’re good at that.
October 4, 2008 at 11:12 am
couldn’t have put it better myself.
@clint
what the hell are you talking about? of course they thought cameron would ‘go nuclear’. and that’s exactly why he and you are suckers.
but it’s not defamatory because the name of the alleged raper was not published. the actual defamation was behaviour like the publication of name like the police commissioner as a conspirator!
now, i didn’t bother to follow the little circle-jerk that was you and slater posting about this honey-trap, so i might have my sequence wrong.
at the end of the day though, you all look like fools.
October 4, 2008 at 11:34 am
I also think you should leave these other bloggers to what you call the ‘echo chamber’ and get back to writing about other stuff. Any journalist that’s daft enough to pick up on their fantasies has it coming to them, as far as I can see – especially if their in-house lawyers aren’t capable of spiking it.
I don’t mind the pieces about the buses since the local rag so frequently fails to do its. These wallies only rag you about it because actual reporting on something real is beyond their comprehension.
BTW, when are you going to write a piece on the latest report from the Hadley Centre that I sent you the link to?
October 4, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Yeah, get back to writing about buses, tulips and why you are the best blogger in all the world because you are a journalist too.
I have heard you described as sanctimonious, I think churlish and sanctimonious would be more accurate.
Nice to see that you have finally accepted that it wasn’t me that initiated this whole smear, that it was in fact a failed attempt by someone known only to Russell Brown to get me to publish crap.
That someone from the left would actually dream this shit up about one of their own is the real smoking gun…..oh and the fact that you can’t seem to keep any job you get because of your excessive sanctimony.
October 4, 2008 at 1:17 pm
@clint – You are an unmitigated falsifier of veracity. You got jacked and you know it. Dont come over here spinning your bullshit, claiming you are some sort of hero that flushed out a troll. You sir are the troll. You come here trying to blow smoke up our respective arses but you forget that we all saw you gleefully promoting this smear in all the comments section of the Axis of Banality (WOBH, The Hive, RoarPrawn, Hooton).
I think the best thing to come out of this sorry tale is the Axis’s credibility, well the tiny bit it had before this, is now completely shot with the Gallery. Next time one of your ilk comes to Ms Young, Watkins, or any other respected journo with your filth, you are likely to be shown the door after nearly making them look like plonkers for following this smear up.
And the only place your smut and innuendo can infect is sewer of the blogesphere you children like to call home.
October 4, 2008 at 1:22 pm
You can defame someone else even if just email one other person about it. That’s publication.
Also, you can defame someone without identifying who you’re defaming explicitly – there just needs to be enough indication that the person being defamed is actually that person.
There are numerous clear prima facie cases of defamation in this matter all over the blogosphere. Be careful Poneke, because you have given them added oxygen.
October 4, 2008 at 1:32 pm
‘the email was obviously a hoax, the dates in question led to suspicions immediately being bought up’
And what better way to confirm it than to immediately contact a journalist…and begin seeding the ground with ‘leaks’ eh?
This whole episode is fraught with immaturity from go to now.
October 4, 2008 at 1:40 pm
“even Hard News admits there was an incident, but won’t reveal their source”
Clint, I don’t know you from a bar of soap but that statement is plain lying.
The first para of Russell’s post (http://publicaddress.net/5384#post5384) says: “A few people will be aware of allegations that a Labour MP committed a sexual assault that was covered up by police. It’s not true. Indeed, the whole thing was a hoax.”
Don’t know how much clearer you need it to be.
October 4, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Well, from what I can see – I agree with Poneke. Whaleoil clearly thought he was onto something. At the end of the day tho, who cares!
October 5, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Poneke,
I’ve said this before but I’ll say it again. To say this story was being avidly followed by much of the press gallery is utter bullshit.
October 5, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Hi Poneke,
As always, I enjoy reading your posts. Despite the nasty words from these humourless pieces of ‘work’ I will continue – which is more than I can say for them.
Keep up the good work Poneke, to the others – get a better hobby.
Pete.
October 5, 2008 at 8:43 pm
To say this story was being avidly followed by much of the press gallery is utter bullshit.
Yes I am sure. Who claimed that?
Without wanting to semanticise like Ian Wishart, I wrote: “the lurid nature of the claims, their detail, and their publication on blogs followed avidly by much of the press gallery meant a number of journalists were soon pursuing them.”
Quite a different thing. The blogs concerned are avidly followed by the gallery.
Nonetheless, a number of journalists, including Phil Kitchen himself, were pursuing this fantasy at Whale’s behest.
I suspect they have learned their lesson.
October 6, 2008 at 6:56 am
I would rebutt, but I did yesterday and it didn’t get past moderation. If I was to worry about people who never saw the emails, or anything to do with it over what I saw first hand, then I would spend more time to reply.
I’m glad none of you are currently on jury!
October 6, 2008 at 11:30 am
If you have evidence that Russell lied to his readers, then I’d suggest you front with it, Clint.
October 7, 2008 at 6:14 am
No Sacha, Russell was straight up, he had the person responsible for sending the allegations real name and reason for doing it. I’d love to hear the reason behind it. I’m talking about the people here who didn’t see the emails and were very quick to jump up and down about something they heard 3rd hand at best.
Far as I’m concerned I’m chalking it up to another thing Labour and its supporters will do to win an election. Desperation is an understatement.
October 7, 2008 at 6:52 am
Get over it Clint. You and your mates have been sprung. There is no way you can worm your way out of it.
October 7, 2008 at 10:29 am
Right, Clint, so when you said “Hard News admits there was an incident” you were talking about some other incident than the fake one at the centre of this hoax. Or was the hoax itself the incident in your eyes? Very postmodern of you.
October 7, 2008 at 2:01 pm
“Far as I’m concerned I’m chalking it up to another thing Labour and its supporters will do”
Okay, I’ll be the idiot who asks the obvious question: WHY do you think that? On what grounds? How does it follow from the fact you are lazy and easily fooled by a malicious prank that there is some organised conspiracy by the
Labour Party?*
And further: didn’t your last foray into detective work (you know, the utterly false and unfounded defamation campaign?) teach you anything – anything at all – about jumping to stupid conclusions?
*Yes, these are basic questions with, it’s safe to assume, obvious answers. Sometimes though – say, if you are seeking to impugn a public figure on baseless lies – you might want to consider starting with some basic and obvious inquiries before shooting your mouth off.
October 7, 2008 at 2:37 pm
I am rather with Karen on this one. i.e. Too much personal stuff, and bus stories.
However, having seen some rather tacky looking work from Phil Kitchen, I am interested in seeing if you could expand, please Poneke, on exactly what you know re Kitchen. What exactly did he do on receiving the story? Did he publish anything? If not, how do you know he gave the story much attention?
I guess this one is a kind of litmus test of gullibility and ability to check things out effectively before posting or publishing any story. Just knowing who fell significantly short in this case, and if those people show any signs of learning from this mistake, along with information on if they have failed similar tests in the past might be useful in assessing and assigning accurate levels of reliability to various bloggers and reporters.
For example, it is useful to know that reading “Investigate” may not reliably tell you very much about what is happening in the real world. So it may only be useful reading for psychologists investigating biases and what real conspiracy theories look like.
I am also grateful to have more information on Matthew Hooton that suggests he is also unreliable and biased.
October 7, 2008 at 2:43 pm
I am rather with Karen on this one. i.e. Too much personal stuff, and bus stories.
Jonathon, I will write what I like on my own blog.
However, having seen some rather tacky looking work from Phil Kitchen, I am interested in seeing if you could expand, please Poneke, on exactly what you know re Kitchen. What exactly did he do on receiving the story? Did he publish anything? If not, how do you know he gave the story much attention?
Phil is one of New Zealand’s best journalists and I am sure he responded professionally to Slater’s approaches to him.
I am also grateful to have more information on Matthew Hooton that suggests he is also unreliable and biased.
As I have told you before, Hooton makes no secret of his bias. He is proud of it.
October 7, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Thanks Poneke for returning to politics despite threatening to avoid them until after the election. Whaleoil, Clint and Hooten’s involvement almost guarantees any allegation will be false but what on earth is the Hive doing in their company? I thought the Hive claimed to be above party-politicing? Apparently not.
I agree that this is a low-point in the blogosphere, however I fear it’ll get lower. The National Party mightn’t condone their behaviour, but I wonder why it doesn’t reprimand them? And why would any journalist take seriously anything this troika of fools ever said? I don’t know Kitchen’s work, I’d struggle to name more than a handful of journos however, but they ought to have an idiot’s list with Slater at the very top.
October 7, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Ben, I think you got me confused with somebody else. I have never engaged in a defamation case, but top research there pal!
Keep it up.
October 8, 2008 at 7:46 am
You’re just trolling, Clint. He didn’t say you were engaged in a defamation case. The campaign you waged with Whale and Co was highly defamatory. I am surprised the deputy police commissioner for one has not caused a “We act for” letter to be sent.
Now go play in your cave like a good little troll.
October 8, 2008 at 12:14 pm
@ Karen and Jonathon Harper
Poneke pretty much sums up content of the post in the title… if you’re not interested in buses or tulips don’t read the posts.
@Poneke
keep up the great work – I appreciate the variety
October 9, 2008 at 8:50 am
[...] (if you want the goss, so to speak, then you need not go past this post on Public Address and this one on Poneke’s Blog). Ben, who now politically edits the news for the National Business Review, had this to say in response to Clint Heine’s assertion that the [...]
October 12, 2008 at 9:56 am
Slater should be bought to account for the creditors of his security company PSCS which was put into liquidation after the assets were sold off to a rival when it was known as CPP Security.
What happened to the money Whaleblubber ?
October 12, 2008 at 6:27 pm
I had a company called CDP Security of which i was a 49% shareholder. My business partner systematically stole hundreds of thousands of dollars from the company and as the person responsible for staff and finance (I was Sales) he failed to pay IRD amongst others.
As a Director i put the company into liquidation against the wishes of my business partner. The business owed hundreds of thousands of dollars. my business partner promptly declared himself bankrupt leaving me to face the creditors. I have systematically paid all of the debts. At this point I know of no creditor that is owed money.
I have at all times acted within requirements of the Companies Act and have nothing to hide over this episode I would rather never had happened. It did though, I have fronted.
For your commenter to troll through company records on some sort of dirt hunt shows the pathetic levels that your mates will stoop to try to get a hit on me.
GWW thinks he is anonymous, he is not. I suggest he gets his facts right or suffer the consequences.
October 12, 2008 at 7:30 pm
So the security company was itself being stolen from ??
Who would have guessed..
That would have made for a interesting sales pitch.
Im sure the other director has a different story!!.
Maybe the SFO instead of spending its time on a certain list MP of no fixed abode had kept a close eye on CDP Security instead.
Because no one else was.
And by the way, tell your contact at the NZ herald who has been supplying you info on letter writers names and addresses not to bother, and possibly the photos of a house in Sandringham you have used on your blog
October 12, 2008 at 8:08 pm
The Bandar, the pygmy poison people, is the only tribe that know the secret of the Phantom, the Ghost Who Walks. They live in the secret valley in the Deep Woods with The Phantom. They are feared by all of the jungle as their weapons are dipped in a poison of which one scratch means instant death.
October 12, 2008 at 8:33 pm
The whale must think we are stupid as he continues to lie in unison.
His bankrupt partner didnt ‘….promptly declared himself bankrupt’ as he claims, instead the debtor register shows him as being bankrupted due to a debtor application.
Who would have guessed ?
And as well his occupation is listed as sales & marketing , I suppose thats why he was responsible for staff and finance in the failed company. Or was it the other way round ?. Who really knows.
However he is currently employed by someone else, lets hope its not in ’security’
I dont put much credence in the whales other claims…..
Oh dear , I imagine the poor old taxpayers took a bath on this one.
October 12, 2008 at 9:08 pm
oops ..Ive got my debtors and creditors mixed up in a bankruptcy application