That time in the High Court when I argued how much I loathed Cameron Slater

It was a pretty surreal moment in the High Court yesterday arguing with a High Court Lawyer how much I loathed Cameron Slater…

“Do you loathe Cameron Slater Mr Bradbury’?

“Loathe just isn’t strong enough a word”.

“Why did you call Mr Colin Craig Comrade Mr Bradbury”?

“Because I’m to the left of Marx”.

“Are you being flippant Mr Bradbury”?

“I haven’t begun to be flippant”.

“What do you think of this poem Mr Bradbury”?

“I like poems that rhyme, the metaphor isn’t very good and needs more alliteration”.

“Are you prone to hyperbole Mr Bradbury”?

“I’m a colourful bloke, I know my way around a joke.”

Oh the lols, and yes, those are pretty much the actual quotes…

‘POLITICAL SADISTS’

Political commentator and blogger Martyn Bradbury on Friday afternoon told the court that Jordan Williams was “manipulative” and akin to a “venomous spider”.

Bradbury had the jury in fits of laughter as he also explained his disdain for Whale Oil blogger Cameron Slater.

“Loathe is not strong enough a word,” he said.

His descriptions prompted Williams’ lawyer Peter McKnight to suggest Bradbury was being “flippant”.

Bradbury gave evidence of Williams’ character and criticised his relationship with Slater.

Williams’ leaking information about Craig to Slater was for Williams’ “own political ends”, Bradbury thought.

He approved of the circulation of Craig’s leaflet which called Williams dishonest.

“As far as I was concerned, I thought the leaflet was an appropriate response to a pack of political sadists,” Bradbury said.

“I think this [trial is] an angry fight between two people who don’t like each other much. It’s very, very important for the jury to find the truth in this.”

…and this…

‘Pack of hyenas’ turned on Craig
Media commentator and blogger Martyn Bradbury was also called today to give evidence about his previous experience with Williams.

He claimed in court that in the past Williams had lied to him directly and “created a fake email identity” which he used to “send a false tip-off”.

He said Williams had embarked on a “political hit job” against Craig and described him as one of “a pack of hyenas” who had turned on the former politician.

“I thought (Craig’s pamphlet Dirty Politics and Hidden Agenda) was an appropriate response to a pack of political sadists,” Bradbury said.

He told the jury he thought Williams and a number of others he felt were involved in the practice of dirty politics in New Zealand were “a cancer on the body politics in this
country”.

Bradbury was asked what he thought the defamation trial was about and replied: “an angry fight between two people who don’t like each other much”.

Under cross-examination Williams’ lawyer Peter Knight grilled Bradbury about his posting blogs that had “derogatory, horrible and sleazy” comments about his client before he gave evidence.

He asked Bradbury if he thought it appropriate to “attack” Williams online given he was coming to court to give evidence against him days later.

Bradbury admitted posting about the trial last week but said he had not posted about his own evidence.

“Did you think it was appropriate given you were going to be a witness, to do that?” said McKnight.

“My understanding was that I could not talk about my evidence, I didn’t realise I couldn’t blog about breaking news,” he said.

…my favourite moment was when William’s lawyer tried to argue with me that Williams was a whistleblower like Edward Snowden.

Decision will be out next week.