Letters to Kent Parker

1/
From: nostalgia-nz
To: kent@counterspin.co.nz
Subject: Counterspin
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 09:26:41 +1300


Hi Kent,

I have listed the following matters in paragraph order as a broader perspective of my earlier 2 letters to you, which remain unanswered. I guess you are busy and no one is home at Counterspin because they're out to lunch.

Para a….

I’ve been made aware that following your decision to ban me as nostalgia-nz, you started a thread on the subject (Banning) in which you made comments about the decision and about me which of course I was unable to answer on your site anyway.

I now formally ask you to forward the posts I made and all the responses to them. I also request a copy of the thread you started about me titled Banned and any responses to it. I need to study what I said, and compare it with what others on your site say, to determine if you are not simply running a site preferential to your own views and indeed a site fostering hatred and exclusion of those that don’t share your views.

Para b….

I also would like a copy of your site rules generally, and specifically on the matter of 1) banning those that don’t agree with the sites intention to vilify David Bain (or others) to ensure that he is not compensated for false imprisonment, and to further vilify the Christchurch Jury who found David innocent. There is much hateful and inflammatory material on your site about the Jury. And 2) The site being used (or not used) as a rallying point to encourage or undertake illegal, immoral, activities not in the public interest.

Para c….

I assume that if you believe your site can withstand scrutiny against my allegation that it is a hate site you will be forthcoming in co-operating with my inquiries.

Para d….

I have told you that material from your site has been copied and saved and it could very well be that I have full access to that, however, I think it would be a fair assumption that a site controller on a public message board you will have no objection in releasing the material to me in a formal way so that I can satisfy myself of a position before considering if I might bring your site to the attention of the appropriate authorities including the host of the site or the Ministry of Justice. You're not operating a secret site are you kent, it looks that way.

Para e….

I am aware that prior to Christmas you placed your site into ‘close down’ and I am interested in the reasons for that and what the Counterspin Site’s policy is on the matter of complaints from the public or from legal authorities to reconcile with your ‘close down’ decision prior to Christmas. The ‘closedown,’ along with anecdotal and other material evidence displayed that Counterspin operate in at least two distinct ways. Firstly, by largely excluding any views countering your own, fostering others to reach Counterspin’s views with inaccurate and misleading material, and by failing to respond in a measured, ordered fashion to complaints. Secondly, by encouraging members to heckle, band together against other posters on other sites and complaining at any opportunity to have them banned. In both these ways members of the public are targeted, information is sought about them and members are encouraged to stalk and harass them. Included in this is a claim by a one of your sponsors, Mike Stockdale, that he approached a Crown witness to scrutinise their evidence, which I have said earlier may be an attempt to pervert the course of justice (by attempting to have the witness change their evidence, or by using the information on your boards or elsewhere in an attempt to gain support for your petition,) and now say, additionally, that had that witness been aware, or become aware of Stockdale's connection to your site and others she may have considered she was being intimidated. I am also aware of identities being revealed, of calls to ‘go get’ people, of physical threats, of solicitations to source information about those yourself and other Counterspin members consider as a threat to your activities and purpose. This happens on line, and there is much anecdotal and material evidence that it happens off line by email and other means of communication - some of this was displayed during the ‘close down’ and would indicate a propensity to initiate strategies that display a willingness to adopt subversion. This all happens on your boards without comment, clearly showing the sites acceptance, tolerance, and initiation of such behaviours.

Para f...

Do you personally accept full responsibility for the activities on your site and that which might follow from them? And do you understand that your site might be seen as a party to all illegal behaviour resulting from the activities of your members and that private transmissions between your members that result, or have resulted in, any illegal behaviour are recoverable to the appropriate authorities in the instance of a complaint from myself or others?

You may feel assured that I have strong and complete supporting information regarding everything I have said in this letter, everything I said on Counterspin and everything I said in my two previous letters to you.

Additional to the material I have requested from you, I feel it is very important that your answer, in detail, issues I have raised in Para e and f above. I note that on your site much is made about suppression orders, the truth being told and so forth, if you are consistent in those beliefs I feel confident that you will respond with the information I have requested and explanations regarding the issues in Para e.

Resulting from your full, and anticipated co-operation, and at your request, I will consider a response to your material as to what I believe a reasonable, informed, person could conclude is (or, is not – as the case maybe) in fact evidence of your site not being a hate site active in cyber stalking, bullying and harassment before considering my options.

On the basis that this is a straight forward request, I invite you to respond by Tuesday the 23rd March or sooner. Thanking you in anticipation.



Yours faithfully



Nostalgia-nz

2/
From: nostalgia-nz@hotmail.com
To: kent@counterspin.co.nz
Subject: Your site.
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 14:05:46 +1300

Hi Kent,
Clearly you don't have what it takes to try to disguise that your site is not a hatesite. I gather you're no spring chicken but anyway education is one thing but pure intelligence is another and it's obvious you missed out on both. You should reconsider your position, you are achieving nothing, only proving that you are a adminstrator of a hate site that refuses alternative views and whose ambition is to persecute others with misinformation and ignorance. You may think you are holding a position that will prevent David obtaining compensation and of course, like your dream that Karam asked the courts for a Pardon, you're wrong. Good luck with that.

Nos.

3/
From: nostalgia-nz@hotmail.com
To: kent@counterspin.co.nz
Subject: Hate Sites
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 16:25:33 +1300

Hi Kent,
This is something else to lose some sleep over. Your site is plainly full of derogatory posts about real, named people. Your site identifies targets on other message boards to 'go after.' Your site outs, or attempts to out, real people's identities on other legit message boards. Members of your site target other posters on other sites to have them banned. Vic Perkiss has made public threats against Bain and Karam and he is a member of your site. Your site is home for a poster named 'supur' who brags about contacting a Crown witness and speaking with her about her evidence. Supur is so stupid he doesn't see that contacting a Crown witness about their evidence may well be a criminal offence of attempting to pervert the course justice. I have numerous examples of your members cyber stalking and harassing. The common core event is that it is all linked to your site Kent. That is why your site is hopeless, infiltrated and recorded but you already knew that didn't you Kent? It's an unsolveable problem for you in that you know can't divorce yourself from your own activities or those of your fellows - you'll all lumped together, achieving nothing in a hate site. I could go on Kent, but I suspect you're incapable of absorbing anything but the smallest doses of reality. You will have noted that I anticipated being banned from your site and said so in at least two posts, you're very predictable Kent, incapable of walking into traps you set yourself, incapable of seeing that your closed up, only for hater's site, is visible for what it is to the outside world and that despite your claims you're not aligned with 30% of the population, although perhaps 30% may disagree with the verdict, the greater NZ population (including the 30%) don't agree with Jury's and the Justice system being attacked. Congratulations on the evidence you have provided so far and thanking you in anticipation of the more that will follow.

Nos
And the most recent, 18/7/10

Kent,

You'll recall we've discussed defamation before on Counterspin, rather one-sided argument. Because I didn't agree with your interpretation of what defamation is, you as big boss of Counterspin kicked me off the boards. I wonder how you feel about the subject now? I feel a little vindicated.

As you'd imagine I'm not writing to pass the time but to move onto something else you perhaps don't realise about being a publisher. What ever you publish on your boards may well be judged as a release of material into the mainstream media additionally to any other point where it is published. Currently defamatory material is being released from your site into the mainstream cyber space. My suggestion that because you have a number of issues on your plate already is that you don't disregard the harm this material going into cyber-space is causing. In some ways you're granny Herald Kent, whatever you display on your sites (I use the plural) similarly to any printed matter in the Herald, you are responsible for. The printed matter being released from Counterspin could be moving beyond defamation.

Using a strictly pragmatic view you could well be advised to shutup shop with your sites to stop further damage, and using that opportunity settle the matters you already have at hand. You were always a biased publisher Kent, which I'm sure you'd at least generally agree with. But I don't think you appreciated that being a publisher without rules, changing poster's posts and leaving them on line and ridiculing them on the board after they'd been banned for not agreeing with you, holding silent when people made threats against others on your board, or hatched plans to persecute or stalk others was all your own decision, some things happening with your consent and most often with your input. Anyway, that's how I see it Kent and I might well be wrong.

All the best with sorting things out in the best interests of everyone.

yours

etc