Whaleoil blooger charged with flouting name suppression laws
Tilly
Police have laid charges against an internet blogger who allegedly posted
clues identifying people with court-ordered name suppression, as well as a
victim of a sexual offence.
Police say Auckland's Cameron Slater, who writes the blog Whaleoil, broke
name suppression by posting pictorial clues identifying the individuals in
two high profile sexual offence cases, one an Olympian and the other, a
well-known entertainer.
He faces five charges, relating to breaching court orders suppressing the
names of the accused, and also one of the victims.
Victims of sexual offences have automatic name suppression.
It is the first time a New Zealand blogger has been taken to court rather
than just warned.
Police advised him to take the posts down as they could attract more charges
for each day they were up.
The articles are no longer on the website.
Slater will appear in the Auckland District Court on January 5.
Brian Dooley
wrote:
Do we now see how much influence his father has?
--
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
peterwn
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 16:47:53 +1300, "Tilly" <paul1...@gmail.com>
1. Unlike Helen Clark's Labour Government, National does not
interfere in day to day law and order matters.
2. There is no certainty that daddy would try and come to the rescue.
3. Daddy's influence may be quite limited. The two key ministers that
could be involved (Crusher Collins and Chris Findlayson) would seem
too independently minded than be bossed around by Cam's daddy.
Brian Dooley
But you think he might try?
Rich...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>On Dec 25, 5:44�pm, Brian Dooley <bria...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
I still don't know who Cameron's father is. The comment seems to be
more about whther his many problems relate to parenting than to other
contributors to the sewers.
peterwn
>
> I still don't know who Cameron's father is.
Thus showing profound ignorance of NZ's political affairs.
He is John Slater a former National Party chairman and currently
chairman of Citizens and Ratepayers Now in Auckland.
ChristianKnight
"Tilly" <paul...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hh1cld$7ps$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
speacial.
Christ's love
Apteryx
If Cameron Slater were John Key's lovechild, a case could be made that
knowing that was knowledge of "NZ's political affairs" (as a play on the
word "affairs"). Knowing that he is the (presumably legitimate) son of a
former National Party chairman and Auckland local body politician
certainly isn't.
Even the fact that John Slater was once National Party chairman and now
a local body politician in Auckland is not "NZ's political affairs". It
is National Party history (and arguably an arcane bit of NZ history) and
Auckland's political affairs.
Which of those do you think is required knowledge for all NZers?
Apteryx
Enkidu
> On Dec 25, 5:44 pm, Brian Dooley <bria...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 16:47:53 +1300, "Tilly" <paul1...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Police have laid charges against an internet blogger who allegedly posted
>>> clues identifying people with court-ordered name suppression, as well as a
>>> victim of a sexual offence.
>>> Police say Auckland's Cameron Slater, who writes the blog Whaleoil, broke
>>> name suppression by posting pictorial clues identifying the individuals in
>>> two high profile sexual offence cases, one an Olympian and the other, a
>>> well-known entertainer.
>>> He faces five charges, relating to breaching court orders suppressing the
>>> names of the accused, and also one of the victims.
>>> Victims of sexual offences have automatic name suppression.
>>> It is the first time a New Zealand blogger has been taken to court rather
>>> than just warned.
>>> Police advised him to take the posts down as they could attract more charges
>>> for each day they were up.
>>> The articles are no longer on the website.
>>> Slater will appear in the Auckland District Court on January 5.
>> Do we now see how much influence his father has?
>> --
>>
>
> 1. Unlike Helen Clark's Labour Government, National does not
> interfere in day to day law and order matters.
>
sure that what they do will be ineffective and inappropriate.
Cheers,
Cliff
--
The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change,
the same old personalities show through.
Enkidu
the last election, but they seem to have disappeared or gone underground.
Rich...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>On Dec 25, 10:02�pm, Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
Nobody important in other words.
Peter Metcalfe
d...@paradise.net.nz says...
> Do we now see how much influence his father has?
What? Do you think his father has more influence than, say, the current
national party president?
--Peter Metcalfe
Geopelia
"ChristianKnight" <Christi...@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:iH8Zm.83567$Wd1....@newsfe15.iad...
>
> "Tilly" <paul...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hh1cld$7ps$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> Police have laid charges against an internet blogger who allegedly posted
>> clues identifying people with court-ordered name suppression, as well as
>> a victim of a sexual offence.
>>
>> Police say Auckland's Cameron Slater, who writes the blog Whaleoil, broke
>> name suppression by posting pictorial clues identifying the individuals
>> in two high profile sexual offence cases, one an Olympian and the other,
>> a well-known entertainer.
>>
>> He faces five charges, relating to breaching court orders suppressing the
>> names of the accused, and also one of the victims.
>>
>> Victims of sexual offences have automatic name suppression.
>>
>> It is the first time a New Zealand blogger has been taken to court rather
>> than just warned.
>>
>> Police advised him to take the posts down as they could attract more
>> charges for each day they were up.
>>
>> The articles are no longer on the website.
>>
>> Slater will appear in the Auckland District Court on January 5.
>>
>>
Why didn't he just email an overseas friend and let him put it on his own
blog?
Could the NZ government do anything about that?
But who cares anyway? Word of mouth will soon have everyone knowing who
these ratbags are.
John Cawston
> "ChristianKnight" <Christi...@operamail.com> wrote in message
> news:iH8Zm.83567$Wd1....@newsfe15.iad...
>> "Tilly" <paul...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hh1cld$7ps$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Police have laid charges against an internet blogger who allegedly posted
>>> clues identifying people with court-ordered name suppression, as well as
>>> a victim of a sexual offence.
>>>
>>> Police say Auckland's Cameron Slater, who writes the blog Whaleoil, broke
>>> name suppression by posting pictorial clues identifying the individuals
>>> in two high profile sexual offence cases, one an Olympian and the other,
>>> a well-known entertainer.
>>>
>>> He faces five charges, relating to breaching court orders suppressing the
>>> names of the accused, and also one of the victims.
>>>
>>> Victims of sexual offences have automatic name suppression.
>>>
>>> It is the first time a New Zealand blogger has been taken to court rather
>>> than just warned.
>>>
>>> Police advised him to take the posts down as they could attract more
>>> charges for each day they were up.
>>>
>>> The articles are no longer on the website.
>>>
>>> Slater will appear in the Auckland District Court on January 5.
>>>
>>>
>
> Why didn't he just email an overseas friend and let him put it on his own
> blog?
He could have, but his point is that there are too many
undeserving cases who get name suppression because of position or
power or, in another current case to avoid the defendant's 92
year old grandmother finding out.. this to protect a man who beat
the snot out of an 86 year old lady.
> Could the NZ government do anything about that?
>
> But who cares anyway? Word of mouth will soon have everyone knowing who
> these ratbags are.
Surely, in return for a relatively benign justice system we
should at least name and shame all but for where there will be
real hardship caused to the innocent.. and protecting old ladies'
rose tinted views of a grandchild comes nowhere near this standard.
JC
>
>
whoisthis
"Geopelia" <phil...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
Ahh yes, lets try them on the internet and find them guilty before the
trial, that is the only fair way.
whoisthis
John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
I have no issues with name and shame once they are found guilty, but
beforehand... no way.
John Cawston
It (no name suppression) is the default position for a fair
justice system. It meets the right of freedom of expression of a
liberal democracy for citizens to know who has been charged,
regardless of their wealth and/or position, and mostly,
regardless of any embarrassment to family and friends.
The accused is nearly always named when he comes to trial anyway.
Naming the accused is also a potentially huge safety factor as
people can ensure the safety of themselves, family, property etc
until the trial. That might be hard on the accused and his
family, but public good and safety override that.
Finally, the effect of disclosure often gives members of the
public the courage to come forward with their own experiences of
the accused behaviour. In fact, in some cases, police argue for
name disclosure as a public safety factor and to encourage
victims to come forward.
On balance and taking long human experience into account,
openness in disclosure of the accused beats secrecy hands down.
JC
Sailor Sam
You missed the bit where he (allegedly) named a victim.
whoisthis
John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
Unfortunately "people" like to think the worst of others, so there is
the too often automatic presumption of guilt, and equally that stench of
guilt follows them once they have been found innocent.
Rich...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Or even if they are found not guilty.
liberty
Richbot is just being a smartarse he has all the information at his
finger tips.
Rich is right in the labour camp. If he is not at top level he is
pretty close to it.
John Cawston
Well, if you followed some obscure clues you could find out the
name of the man charged.. and tie that to media reports which
show the man, a former Olympian, is up for 13 sex and violence
charges, including raping his wife.
However, name suppression throws suspicion on a tiny number of
people who have represented NZ.. hardly fair or just. Also, if
the man lives in say, Auckland, name suppression is possible, but
in a small town everyone will know within a day. Where's the
fairness in that?
Some good arguments here from the "Truth" in 1925 on the
inadequacy of name suppression laws. Laws, morals and culture has
changed since then of course, but it gets to the nub of the issues.
JC
Sailor Sam
Which is equal argument for his occupation (claim to fame included) and
home town to be suppressed.
There is another (current) case, the comedian accused of sexual
misconduct with a 4 year old, he claims innocence because he was drunk,
and had no idea what he was doing (IOW he did do it, but was drunk)
According to the papers, every comedian in the country, and there are
even fewer of them than Olympians, are feeling the heat, one even being
asked to sign a disclaimer that he is not the accused.
None of which would have happened had the persons occupation been
suppressed (the victim was the daughter of .. someone he was in a
relationship with, I forget if the child was his or not)
John Cawston
> In article <hh4bgd$srk$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>> I have no issues with name and shame once they are found guilty, but
>>> beforehand... no way.
>> It (no name suppression) is the default position for a fair
>> justice system. It meets the right of freedom of expression of a
>> liberal democracy for citizens to know who has been charged,
>> regardless of their wealth and/or position, and mostly,
>> regardless of any embarrassment to family and friends.
>>
>> The accused is nearly always named when he comes to trial anyway.
>>
>> Naming the accused is also a potentially huge safety factor as
>> people can ensure the safety of themselves, family, property etc
>> until the trial. That might be hard on the accused and his
>> family, but public good and safety override that.
>>
>> Finally, the effect of disclosure often gives members of the
>> public the courage to come forward with their own experiences of
>> the accused behaviour. In fact, in some cases, police argue for
>> name disclosure as a public safety factor and to encourage
>> victims to come forward.
>>
>> On balance and taking long human experience into account,
>> openness in disclosure of the accused beats secrecy hands down.
>>
>> JC
>
> Unfortunately "people" like to think the worst of others, so there is
> the too often automatic presumption of guilt, and equally that stench of
> guilt follows them once they have been found innocent.
But once there is a trial the man's name comes out, and depending
on the nature of the crime may be in the public eye for weeks.
His guilt or innocence also come out, so all you are trying to
protect is a man's name for a relatively short period of time.
Once the trial is underway the problems of presumption of guilt
etc come into play regardless.
JC
John Cawston
But that just shows an equally valid argument for disclosure.
You'd end up with a leading sentence in the media of "Man accused
of indecency, name, address and occupation withheld by order of
the court". Thats nor a democracy or a free press because you
have given the State (courts) total control over whats published.
JC
ChristianKnight
"Geopelia" <phil...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:hh41s4$s3u$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
It's taken this long for the police to savy to the technology.
Christ's love
Sailor Sam
You prefer the victim(s) to be dragged through life with everyone
knowing what happened to them?
Freedom of the press does not extend to victimising the victims (again)
If the media are to lead with "Man accused of indecency, name, address
and occupation withheld by order of the court".
Then they should be given license to explain the courts reasoning,
because of the fear of victim identification, just as they give reason
now (the rather preposterous "because the entertainer is likely to be
punished beyond the punishment such a crime should be..etc")
Thus giving the public ample information on the necessity of the
suppression.
Be aware, I was not in favour of the above case receiving suppression,
but I respect the courts decision.
Brian Dooley
I only found out recently because like any right-minded citizen I
have been profoundly uninterested in the National Party's affairs
since I read its original constitution and realised that, far
from abiding by it, the only thing it is interested in is winning
elections. I think I looked it up when Muldoon was running for
PM.
peterwn
>
> >He is John Slater a former National Party chairman and currently
> >chairman of Citizens and Ratepayers Now in Auckland.
>
> I only found out recently because like any right-minded citizen I
> have been profoundly uninterested in the National Party's affairs
> since I read its original constitution and realised that, far
> from abiding by it, the only thing it is interested in is winning
> elections.
Which of course is the over-arching objective of any political party
whetheer such objective is included in its constitution or not.
John Cawston
I take your point, but it is a dangerous responsibility to hand
to officials.. especially when they have misused it in this case,
the other I mentioned involving the 86 year old victim and others
where the accused offended whilst on bail.. often fatally so.
There is another point, mentioned by one judge not that long
ago.. its that the courts are not set up primarily to respect the
rights of victims, but to dispense public justice to offenders,
and various judges and the police have mentioned concerns for the
victim's privacy is one of the chief weapons we hand to say,
serial sex offenders.. they hide behind the secrecy and can
easily reoffend because (some) friends and family, and the public
is not aware of the danger such offenders pose.
JC
Sailor Sam
That's confusing bail with name suppression.
> There is another point, mentioned by one judge not that long ago.. its
> that the courts are not set up primarily to respect the rights of
> victims, but to dispense public justice to offenders, and various judges
> and the police have mentioned concerns for the victim's privacy is one
> of the chief weapons we hand to say, serial sex offenders.. they hide
> behind the secrecy and can easily reoffend because (some) friends and
> family, and the public is not aware of the danger such offenders pose.
>
> JC
>
Definitely, and the argument there has been to change the naming of
various charges, from incest, to just child sex offences, and, if that
were the case, then I would be all for name suppression to be restricted
even more so.
However, even if the name of the offence were changed, there is still a
high chance of the victim being identified by family and friends, or,
worse, the general public.
This, however, does not justify flagrant disregard for the law, with the
apparent _excuse_ that a political point was being made.
Especially when the victim(s) were also being identified.
WorkHard
You have violated his right to privacy unless he has been found
guilty of a crime.
You have initiated an action of force against him whereby he is
subject to a level of publicity (unhealty) he may not ever have
wished for. Humiliation goes along with that.
You actually cause him harm if he in fact is innocent of a crime
he has been charged with.
The whole idea of a society that recognizes rights is to protect
those rights, not violate them.
You are totally wrong on this JC.
Prgamatism has it's place, but not here.
Rich...@hotmail.com
He may not be a past National Party president anyway - I don't recall
Jim Mora having him talking on National Radio in his afternoon
programme . . .
Rich...@hotmail.com
Sorry that should have been chairman.
whoisthis
John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
Why should it come out , why can it not wait until AFTER the trial AND
having been found guilty ?
Exactly WHERE has the public good come into an innocent person having
their reputation destroyed ?
whoisthis
Sailor Sam <hih...@merry.oh> wrote:
I would like to see the person(s) who release this sort of information
being held liable for involuntary manslaughter if the victim suicides
because they can not cope with the shame of what has happened to them,
though I am sure that they will cry innocence and demand that they not
be held accountable......
Geopelia
"whoisthis" <w...@am.i.spammer> wrote in message
news:who-8A5468.1...@news.orcon.net.nz...
Aren't we talking about name suppression after the trial?
Before is a different matter altogether.
Brian Dooley
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 15:18:37 +1300, Peter Metcalfe
<metc...@quicksilver.net.nz> wrote:
>In article <ofg8j5ttq9v85udsr...@4ax.com>, brian-
>d...@paradise.net.nz says...
>> Do we now see how much influence his father has?
>
>What? Do you think his father has more influence than, say, the current
>national party president?
I didn't say - do you know?
whoisthis
"Geopelia" <phil...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
After is OK so long as the victims can not be identified (for particular
crimes). Before suppression should be the norm.
Sailor Sam
Hmm, I'm not sure about that either. In some cases, when the offender is
identified, more information and other complainants can come out of the
woodwork (esp. Sex cases and Fraud cases)
John Cawston
Thats a complete reversal of centuries of open justice.
Sure there's been a more of a move to protect *some* victims in
the last century or so, but the principle of open justice is
still the Gold Standard.
Here's the Law Commission on the matter:
JC
peterwn
No, it is President for both Labour and National, and the Communist
Chinese was once Chairman Mao.
hellicopter
>
<snip>
>
> Slater will appear in the Auckland District Court on January 5.
>
>
This case is no before the courts and should not be being discussed????
Least we create a viral chain of cases.
whoisthis
Sailor Sam <hih...@merry.oh> wrote:
When you have a daughter who has been raped, then make your decision...
I have not, but I have a close friend whose daughter is the victim of
sexual abuse from a family friend.... we are VERY VERY concerned about
what she may do if her name ever came out....
whoisthis
John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
Gold standards change, it was for thousands of years believed womens
minds were not strong enough to own property and have the vote.... we
know better now, so too with justice, we are beginning to understand the
victims rights MUST be taken into account, why should we victimise them
twice to feed the publics puerile fascination.
Sailor Sam
For all you know, I may very well do so.
> I have not, but I have a close friend whose daughter is the victim of
> sexual abuse from a family friend.... we are VERY VERY concerned about
> what she may do if her name ever came out....
Now, the problem you may be having is thinking me being against a
blanket suppression of every offender, vs what I have been advocating
(you can read can't you?), and that is the status quo, where suppression
is decided upon on a case by case basis, where the circumstances of the
victim are paramount.
Brian Dooley
But which is the chicken and which the egg?
Rich...@hotmail.com
wrote:
I agree, but in this case the accused himself sought publicity for the
charge against himself. For many cases, nz.general has been a good
example of the sort of irrational frenzy that many on the right like
to whip up - usually based on very limited information from news
media. We would often be better off with no media reporting at all -
but there are cases where publicty does assist in bringing to light
other crimes, or in even more limited cases where it is reasonable for
people in a local area at least to be aware that a person has been
released on bail.
Rich...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>On Dec 26, 10:17�pm, Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
Thanks Peter. I wrote president and then after sending read the
earlier post which said chairman. It's all largely irrelevant to the
Subject of the thread anyway.
Cameron
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 23:56:33 -0800 (PST), peterwn
>
>
>
> <pmiln...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 25, 5:44 pm, Brian Dooley <bria...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 16:47:53 +1300, "Tilly" <paul1...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >Police have laid charges against an internet blogger who allegedly posted
> >> >clues identifying people with court-ordered name suppression, as well as a
> >> >victim of a sexual offence.
>
> >> >Police say Auckland's Cameron Slater, who writes the blog Whaleoil, broke
> >> >name suppression by posting pictorial clues identifying the individuals in
> >> >two high profile sexual offence cases, one an Olympian and the other, a
> >> >well-known entertainer.
>
> >> >He faces five charges, relating to breaching court orders suppressing the
> >> >names of the accused, and also one of the victims.
>
> >> >Victims of sexual offences have automatic name suppression.
>
> >> >It is the first time a New Zealand blogger has been taken to court rather
> >> >than just warned.
>
> >> >Police advised him to take the posts down as they could attract more charges
> >> >for each day they were up.
>
> >> >The articles are no longer on the website.
>
> >> >Slater will appear in the Auckland District Court on January 5.
>
>
> >1. Unlike Helen Clark's Labour Government, National does not
> >interfere in day to day law and order matters.
>
> >2. There is no certainty that daddy would try and come to the rescue.
>
> >3. Daddy's influence may be quite limited. The two key ministers that
> >could be involved (Crusher Collins and Chris Findlayson) would seem
> >too independently minded than be bossed around by Cam's daddy.
>
> But you think he might try?
> --
>
> Brian Dooley
>
> Wellington New Zealand
Of course he wouldn't you idiot. And I doubt he has any of their
numbers, whereas i do and i would never place them in the position of
having to justify any action. This is my battle and mine alone.
Why anyone thinks a 41 year old man needs his fathers help or
assistance on anything is beyond me.
Sailor Sam
And yet, most of the material on your blog appears to come from daddy.
WorkHard
LOL Bitter and twisted SS does it again. Can't help himself. Poor
little diddums mumsy boy.
Brian Dooley
>Of course he wouldn't you idiot. And I doubt he has any of their
>numbers, whereas i do and i would never place them in the position of
>having to justify any action. This is my battle and mine alone.
>
>Why anyone thinks a 41 year old man needs his fathers help or
>assistance on anything is beyond me.
How brave of you, Cameron, to post to this newsgroup where nobody
can censor anyone else providing that they keep it reasonably
clean - unlike your usual blog where the owner can decide whether
to let a post run or not.
On Usenet nobody is safe.
Lyndon Watson
> On Usenet nobody is safe.
Unless they've worked out you're a dog. . . .
LW
Brian Dooley
That's got Sam the whippet worried.