I would not consider Slater ever saw the people or wider political issues – he seems to be all about power and hate.
I've thought about this a fair bit, and the only thing that makes sense (short of frankly offensive armchair psychiatry diagnosing him with a genuine disorder) is that he sees himself as part of a larger machine. It's his job to do the distasteful things so that the rest of the guys on his "side" (a side that, admittedly, fluctuates a little) can do what they need to do to win. He's not really in it for the politics per se, and I wouldn't be surprised if similar personality types appear across the political spectrum occasionally.
I guess when you're raised in a family like his, the politics are a given, it's just how you pursue them that's the question. (Although I personally know of at least one daughter of a right wing MP who has rebelled quite successfully, though there is the complicating factor of matters of sexual orientation that make the shift to the left a reasonable response anyway.)
Could we call what Hager and his source did, whistle blowing. And are there legal protections for that yet?
The Protected Disclosures Act specifically applies only to employees.
On a different note, I assume the situation we're in at the moment suggests Slater hasn't identified the perpetrators of the DDoS attack yet? Given that he must have lost some ad revenue due to the attack, I'd have thought identifying and prosecuting those folks would be a priority.
The guy who runs the Ruminator blog says that when he was a civil servant he was pressured to respond to Slater’s OIO request ASAP
I'm disturbed but not surprised by that. Government departments game the OIA process all the time, and it's clearly not something being driven by the overworked and underpaid public servants who put their names to the emails.
Asked about the suggestions that Labour’s records of the incursions pointed to his own offices, Mr Key said: “I don’t think that’s right. It’s nothing to do with our office.”
Mr Slater and a National Party Headquarters staffer were able to gain access to Labour’s records because of a security flaw on the party’s website.
Mr Key suggested that even if Mr Ede had accessed the records, “of course it would be fine to go and do that” because they were unprotected.
Asked if he stood by Mr Ede, Mr Key responded: “Yeah absolutely.”
Mr Ede left Mr Key’s office this year and is now working at National Party headquarters on its re-election campaign.
I know I’m normally a fairly cynical person, but jfc that’s shocking even to me.
No mention of the prisoner transfer stuff on Stuff or the NZ Herald, do we think Collins has had the lawyers out already?
On a different note, I’m a little surprised by how few actual denials I’m seeing today. Even Mr Slater’s denials aren’t really denying much of anything.
I suspect that's because the official response hasn't been terribly coordinated. One moment they're insisting this is a terrible breach of privacy and an outrageous crime, and the next they're suggesting there's no emails at all, only "allegations". I think we'll see firmer denials tomorrow, when they figure out which approach is more likely to convince supporters.
The Herald's main coverage on their website is "PM's office: Book's claims 'unfounded'", the second story listed after a feel good human interest piece. Have to go quite far down the page to find another piece, but the opinion and politics sections have a fair few pieces.
Stuff only has one article visible, in the rather neglected politics section.
But I require slightly more evidence than the burblings of someone like Slater, who I’ve long considered an incurable fantasist.
The claims come from "correspondence between Cameron Slater and one of Key’s senior staffers" to quote Danyl's post.
I'm guessing here with very little concrete evidence, but I would assume Slater hired someone(s) to come to his place and provide tech support during/after the attack. It's unlikely he does his own tech support. That opens up additional avenues as to how information was accessed.
I’m honestly confused about how Orsman’s column was published. I mean, I know it fits a narrative, but surely some fact checking would have been in order? My impression is that Orsman is generally pretty good, so I don’t understand what happened here.
ETA: I see I should have asked Google before posting.
Which one? Finance/Insurance/Real Estate? Oil? Military? Police?
Telecommunications. IT geek libertarians and financial climber/grasper salesfolk.