Labour hit with a slightly damp very light very small bus ticket
I am disgusted. The Police have said they will issue a warning [oh how scary] to Labour if they infringe again, but despite *another* prima facie finding of the law being broken, there will be no prosecutions at all. Fucking Incredible.
I actually agreed with Police decisions not to prosecute for paintergate, for Hodgson’s technical assault and for Benson Pope’s assaults. While I was critical of the Ministers making excuses for what they did, I have said that the offending wasn’t so serious as to need prosecution. I have been relatively balanced on the Police using their discretion.
However this case is very different. The over-spending was massive and letting them off just makes a mockery of having spending limits. A $400,000 over-spend is huge.
The Police rationale is also bizarre. You see they have found a prima facie case in relation to the pledge card not being authorised but have said they do not have enough evidence on the charge of over-spending.
Now if you conclude that the pledge card needed to be authorised, then you have concluded it is an election activity because otherwise it would not need authorisation. And if you have done that then that must count towards their spending limit. I can’t see how it can be one but not the other.
I also believe for the record that National should have been charged over the GST mistake with the broadcasting allocation. National admits there was a mistake and too much broadcasting was booked, so the law was broken. I would have expected a Judge to be lenient based on a genuine mistake but believe charges being laid would have been appropriate.
My respect for the NZ Police have just shrunk to near zero. Both the Chief Electoral Officer and the Electoral Commission independently concluded that the pledge card was election spending and Labour over-spent. For the Police to conclude otherwise against the two specialist agencies is astonishing.
This is the Police Force which decides to prosecute an Opposition MP for driving a tractor up some steps, yet time and time again bends over backwards to never take action against infringements by members of the Government.
The fact that Crown Law were meant to consider this matter for another week and a decision has been rushed out today suggests to me they had overlooked the deadline and have rushed this decision through. I look forward to seeing OIAs on the reports and correspondence, though I suspect they will suppress some of it.
Well this has really fired me up and my motto is don’t get mad, get even. If one needed motivation for 2008 you now have it.
March 17th, 2006 at 4:38 pm
Disgusted seems a good word for it, but shouldn’t your headline read “Labour and National hit with slightly damp very light very small bus tickets”?
March 17th, 2006 at 4:38 pm
I don’t believe it’s political bias by the police, I think they’re lick-spittles to whoever is in power, regardless of party. But it’s incredible that Labour can illegally outspend National, and get absolutely no punishment whatsoever. Has Labour been sending election observers to Zimbabwe, to learn how it’s done?
March 17th, 2006 at 4:39 pm
Great News! The Police new they had nothing that would stand up in court against Labour.
The ploy of trying to cause a snap election by having UF & NZ1 withdraw support for the govt failed
Well guys you were out smarted again by an experienced Labour Party Campaign team.
Craig you said…..
Cadmus, don’t you think the Electoral Commission, Chief Electoral Officer, Police, Crown Law Office and the judiciary are a little more qualified to judge the merits of this case than you?
Yes Craig I accept the verdict. As I said,…
“Im fair, I’m prepared to accept the ruling that comes out, again are you?”
Well Craig you have had another loss? get used to it. In the words of Mike…lets to move on
March 17th, 2006 at 4:44 pm
Cadmus Cadmus Cadmus
March 17th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
Cadmus:
I think it’s fucking sad, actually – and no thinking person on any side of the political spectrum should be celebrating tonight. Enjoy your hollow and ugly little “win”, because there’s now precise no chance we’re ever going to see any meaningful reform. Why not just print the Electoral Act on a scroll made of scented 2-ply and be done with it?
March 17th, 2006 at 4:53 pm
Trout, You see son, The Rt Hon knows just like Cadmus how to pick a winning team.
That’s right Trout winners and losers. I pick winners what do you pick, other than your nose?
March 17th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
I agree a decision totally lacking in integrity.One would have hoped that with the departure of Robinson the Police would have sought to recapture their traditional high repute. It seems that the administration has been captured by Public Service types all well aware that a successor to Robinson is due to be appointed by this Liabour goverment.
March 17th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
It becomes ever more clearer why Clark was determined to get rid of Commissioner Peter Doone all those years ago by lying to the Sunday Star-Times. She wanted her own men in charge.
Investigate magazine, incidentally has just posted the full details of the transcripts from the various Doonegate reports, which you might say gives a “prima facie” case that Clark well and truly lied.
The story also covers how the media covered it up.
Got to http://www.tbr.cc/ for details.
Now, we can see how the police are just compliant pussies when it comes to the Liar-bour Party.
Liar-bour have obviously bought the Boys in Blue just as it has bought an election.
What other agents of state have they bought?
We have seen, albeit with few exceptions, how the Liar-bour Party has won over the media, its reporters being so much in love with Helengrad.
Yes, I use the term Helengrad, likening NZ to some former Soviet State, though banana republic can equally apply.
But who watches the powerful and strong?
Who watches whether a government behaves lawfully and is accountable?
We are seeing the pillars of democracy at great risk here.
We have a Prime Minister who admonishes the media for believing in free speech.
We have a prime minister and ministers who regularly break the law and go unpunished.
We have a governing party who has so brazenly broken the law and goes unpunished. At least National owned up to its mistakes.
We have ministers who lie, twist and use deceit all the time.
Something is rotten in the State of New Zealand.
This is not a matter of some technicality over election spending that some might claim; instead our fundamental freedoms, our democracy is at stake.
Shame on you NZ Police.
Now get back on those highways and collect Cullen more money.
March 17th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
What do expect? The badly bred Liabour voter has got no morals anyway.
March 17th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
Cadmus said: “Great News! The Police new [sic] they had nothing that would stand up in court against Labour”.
I say:
Newsflash! Cadmus, you are wrong! Read the media release at http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/2345.php
“Acting Deputy Commissioner Carson said that in the case referred by the Chief Electoral Officer relating to the Labour Party pledge card and leaflet there was sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case in respect of an offence under s221 of the Electoral Act. Section 221 prohibits advertising promoting a party unless the secretary of the party gives written authorisation.”
For your edification, Cadmus, the key words are “there was sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case in respect of an offence under s221 of the Electoral Act”. This is in the specific context of the Labour Party pledge card and leaflet.
Sometimes I wish that partisanship extended further than the length of Cadmus’ nose (and the noses of others of a similar mind).
For bloggers other than Cadmus, I’m slightly troubled by the following paragraph in the media release:
“Acting Deputy Commissioner Carson said that recent commentary around the time limits for bringing charges under the Electoral Act was academic in nature.
“The fact is that we have made a decision not to lay charges and the recommendations were made before the time limit expired. Crown Law’s involvement in this case has been and continues to be to provide legal advice to assist with the various investigations but decision-making is and has been entirely a matter for Police,” said Mr Carson.”
I find the circular reasoning in the statement and quotation very disturbing: the time limit is an academic issue; we made the decision before the time limit expired; we rely on Crown Law for legal advice; we make our own decisions.
For heaven’s sake, and perhaps as a lawyer my view on this, the jurisdictional time limit would almost certainly have been the FIRST point of challenge in any legal proceedings.
For the Police to summarily dismiss the matter as a non-issue smacks to me of an underlying “we must tread carefully where politics, the law and Police discretion intersect”. Unbelievable!
March 17th, 2006 at 5:07 pm
Craig, As I said before Labour may have run the Legislation past someone like Chen/Palmer and were told it was full of loop holes, and took a punt knowing the likelyhood of a court case was next to zero. This is politics Craig, or are you still on your moral high horse at the moment.
Craig, National should have looked at the spending legislation before the Election and did some reseach. They didn’t, and in someways have only themselves to blame
Lets support what Mike Williams said…It time to move on.
March 17th, 2006 at 5:07 pm
Sorry, just to avoid any confusion, my last paragraph was somewhat elliptical. It should have read: “… perhaps as a lawyer my view on this is coloured…”.
March 17th, 2006 at 5:08 pm
Didn’t get your way, so blame the police. It’s just churlish behaviour on your part.
Say’s a lot for Nationals Treasures bench, when the can’t even get the GST right.
Did you think a decision was going to go your way just because you try to beat the police into submition.
Nothings’ stopping National now from sponsering a bill to tighten up the Electoral Act.
March 17th, 2006 at 5:11 pm
Have no limits on campaign spending at all and allow the parliamentary leaders fund to be spent on political activity of any kind. I dare the Labour Party to sign up to that.
March 17th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
I’m off now to celebrate, see you later
March 17th, 2006 at 5:27 pm
Cadmus:
Once more, your fellatious partisan hackery is amusing, but disturbing. And did I understand you believe any lawyer, let alone a high profile public law firm like Chen & Palmer, would advise a client to break the law? I think Sir Geoffrey, Ms. Chen, and the Law Society might take exception to that.
Still, thanks for the insight into your thought processes – no wonder your kneel (and suck then swallow) before the altar of Winston Peters.
March 17th, 2006 at 5:36 pm
Without wishing to upset anyone, it would seem that the Brethren are quite lucky. Compared to the others, that’s the case where there is a clear intention to deceive. Inventing a fake address is a pretty clumsy way to cover your tracks, isn’t it?
Cheers,
RB
March 17th, 2006 at 5:39 pm
The whole episode has reflected poorly on all involved. Unlike Cadmus I may let out a small sigh of relief, but I fully acknowledge that some rather outdated and unclear law has been bent as outtashape as it can go. And it is worth tempering all the invective that Labour had used the Parliamentary party fund for the pledge card before without sanction so it is clear that the Electoral Commission has been remiss in failing to be absolutely clear about how it was going to treat the spending.
If nothing else this should motivate the entire political community to have a long hard think about how election campaigns are funded….whether we abandon the spending rules altogether, or go to some form of bulk funding. There are disadvantages to all the methods I can think of….
March 17th, 2006 at 5:46 pm
Well it now seems clear that democracy in New Zealand is pretty much dead.
We have a corrupt government who have bought their way into power against the country’s law supported my a corrupt police department.
This truely a very sad day for NZ.
March 17th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
RB – absolutely. One of the reasons I’m so disappointed with all these decisions is that some of the complaints of electoral law breaches are at the high end of potential ‘illegal practices’. I’m having difficulty thinking of any factual situation in which the police would lay charges of an illegal practice; it seems to me that this is now a law that will never actually be enforced.
And was the conviction of TVNZ for its breach of the Broadcasting Act really more in the public interest than a prosecution for an allegedly fraudulent authorisation?
March 17th, 2006 at 5:53 pm
RB:
Sorry, so what’s your point exactly? If that material was not properly authorised (and forget the conspiracy theories), then the people concerned should have been prosecuted too. Sorry if that’s not sufficiently partisan for you, but that strikes me as a no-brainer. And “everyone did it” is a form of reasoning unworthy of five year olds – and I suspect it’s gets rather short shift when it comes out of your sons’ mouths -, let alone the Police spokesman I heard give a rather… um, evasive interview on Checkpoint.
March 17th, 2006 at 5:56 pm
I see Liar-bour in Britain has had similar funding problems.
Blair gets sectret loans from rich backers, allegedly min return for political honours.
Now, there’s something Clark might want to consider.
But at least Tony Blair admits some change is needed here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4813156.stmSocialists really have huge problems with their lust for other people’s money, especially that of taxpayers.
March 17th, 2006 at 6:09 pm
Is there a single supporter of Labour that thinks party DID break the law and those that authorised the over-spending (theft) deserves to be prosecuted?
Is there one?
March 17th, 2006 at 6:12 pm
Craig – I think it’s relatively clear – the Brethren’s alleged decision to actively falsify the authorisation on one of their pamphlets is an allegation of a more serious factual nature than the allegation Mike Williams didn’t put his name and address on the Labour pledge card.
To be perfectly honest, I agree with the Police decision not to pursue that particular charge against the Labour Party.
RB – I’ve got to say that I disagree that the Brethren were the luckiest (my earlier agreement being with your second sentence) – National were luckier in not facing a fine of up to $100,000, and the various people in Labour were also luckier because they faced imprisonment and losing the possibility of being voting and being MPs.
March 17th, 2006 at 6:13 pm
Logix wrote:
If nothing else this should motivate the entire political community to have a long hard think about how election campaigns are funded….whether we abandon the spending rules altogether, or go to some form of bulk funding. There are disadvantages to all the methods I can think of….
I reply:
Call me cynical, but what motivation is that? In case you didn’t notice, both main parties have effectively gotten a pass for what I consider far from trivial breeches of election law. The system works – for political parties, anyway so if it’s usefully broken, why make any effort (let alone a meaningful one) to fix it? It not like this is anything serious, like retrospectively changing the Electoral Act under extreme urgency to avoid a by-election in New Plymouth.
Sorry for sounding so bitter, but I actually like living in a country where we’re not perfect, but neither do we just shrug our shoulder and accept corruption and fraud in public life is just the way things are done. That didn’t just happen, and I think we take it all too much for granted.
March 17th, 2006 at 6:13 pm
Mr Nobody,
Your hyperbolic diatribe is ludicrous. All the parties have bent the rules one way or the other. What didn’t get much scrutiny at all was how National managed to run a far longer and larger media campaign, both on television and with a massive billboard presence, than Labour, and yet appear to have stayed within the rules. More than a few people have suggested that “mates rates” and “soft money” played a big part in National’s campaign, and much of National’s noise making over the pledge card has sufficed as a very convenient distraction from that far more subtle and potent question.
After all if we allow the question of “soft money” and undisclosed “trust funds” to encroach further into our electoral landscape, there is no question that Natioanl would stand to benefit the most. Yet Labour is not especially motivated to have it’s “off balance sheet” spending from within the Unions challenged either.
At the same time we are nowhere near the utterly bizzare and genuinely corrupt US system, where candidates are selected by their parties, pretty much solely on their ability to raise funds and electoral success is measured to a very large degree, on how much television time is purchased. And the NZ voting system is exceedingly robust and accurate, compared to the corrupt and deeply suspect game-playing and electronic shenanigans that have marred the last three US elections and called the legitimacy of those results into question.
It is right to be vigilant about our electoral system, and I fully support on-going reviews and scrutiny of it. At the same time declaring “democracy is dead” in this country is as daft a bit of emoting as any I’ve seen here recently.
March 17th, 2006 at 6:21 pm
How much did Christine Rankin spen don the conference?
March 17th, 2006 at 6:26 pm
But the issue remains.
Liar-bour stole money from the taxpayer and overspent by $400,000.
The police say there’s a “prima facie” case and do nothing.
Liar-bour figures have often done things wrong, being investigated by police, who say there is a “prima-facie case” but still the police do nothing.
Just what does a Labour bigwig have to do to get prosecuted?
There is a worrying pattern here.
A few mishaps we can understand, forgive maybe, but there seems to be consistent corruption within Liar-bour, with the ruling regime abusing its power when it can.
March 17th, 2006 at 6:38 pm
Is it possible for national to sponsor a civil prosecution instead? Or someone who can find a lawyer to take it pro-bono?
March 17th, 2006 at 6:45 pm
Cadmus – what you are forgetting as you “back the winner” is that only the pigs win in the end and the horse gets sent to the glue factory.
Spam – I agree; Im willing to help fund any cause of action around this – Im pretty sure we can fund enough people that the lawyer doesnt need to be pro-bono
March 17th, 2006 at 6:48 pm
darren,
Debating with children that keep repeating silly names has just one solution. From now on it is “Baby Fucker Brash”.
In the meantime, I would point out to you that the $400,000 spent was money that always was available to the Parliamentary Labour Party to promote government policy. It was always going to be spent promoting Labour government policy. If perchance the government DID choose to “pay it back”, then it could turn around and spend it the day after promoting some other policy pledges.
The problem is NOT that the money was “stolen”, or that the spending of that money “stole the election”….the problem is that the boundary between what is “Parliamentary Party” and “Political Party” spending has been blurred. Clearly only one party benefits from being on the Treasury benches, and thus only one Party can make use of these funds to it’s advantage in any given election, and this bends the intent of the electoral spending rules….but the funds are NOT fricken stolen.
And darren….the reason why Labour can do whatever it likes is that it really does have the dirt on the “Baby Fucking National Party”….
March 17th, 2006 at 7:19 pm
If what you say is true Logix, then I call on you to publish your evidence of paedophilia.
We have heard from Cullen that he has a dirt file, so go on, let’s have it out in the open.
What you say about Don Brash and other Nats is very serious and certainly one that has not been noted before. They are or were not in the public domain, even journalistic gossip, until now.
March 17th, 2006 at 7:30 pm
Oh darren darling that is so easy:
We all know that having sex with someone under the age of 16 is paedophilia, and that National is supporting Ron Mark’s Youth Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill that will throw 12yr old’s into prison….where no doubt they will be raped. ergo…the National Baby Fucking Party.
March 17th, 2006 at 7:32 pm
Ignore the legal issues, we are talking about which party on balance has more integrity: National or Labour?
Which party stepped, with malice aforethought, the furthest over the line?
I think everyone knows the answer, whether or not they wish to publicly admit it.
Elections in this particular country are actually one of those cases where the result is less important than how the game is played. Labour broke that rule. However, in doing so they have set a precedent and stepped the country over a line. They weren’t entitled to do that. Who do they think they are? This is our democracy we’re talking about, it’s bigger than all of us currently alive, put together.
If mens rea (guilty mind) was not involved, then I think I would feel differently. However it was clearly a conscious calculation, using my money, which makes it cynical to boot.
And the police thought it was nothing serious.
March 17th, 2006 at 7:45 pm
Sad to say, but the New Zealand Police are now clearly corrupt.
March 17th, 2006 at 7:47 pm
> the reason why Labour can do whatever it likes is that it really does have the dirt on the “Baby Fucking National Party”
Having dirt and being an accessory to the crime by hiding it and using that information to blackmail others into not revealing their own crimes and corruption should hardly be considered a good trait no matter how you look at it.
In fact is is somewhat worse than just the pure crime.
March 17th, 2006 at 7:48 pm
DPF, I think you may have made a spelling error
You mentioned a Police “force”.
Farce is the word.
March 17th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
Thanks for that wind-up Logix.
Just shows how the issue has got to you.
Deep down you know Liar-bour are in the wrong.
And your response, of blackmail, just highlights what is wrong with the ethics of Liarbour and the left in New Zealand.
So much for the improved standards of government that your liar-bour leader promised way back in 1999.
March 17th, 2006 at 8:01 pm
darren,
The difference is that I know that my silly wind-up is just that….but sadly you seem to believe your own.
March 17th, 2006 at 8:15 pm
Lets have the Police view on the National Partys transgressions:
In the matter of the alleged over-expenditure on television broadcasting by the National Party, Police were not able to attribute responsibility for the mistaken GST over-expenditure to either the NZ National Party or to the Party’s media buying agency and do not intend to charge either.
A number of complaints were referred by the Chief Electoral Officer relating to the Exclusive Brethren:
March 17th, 2006 at 8:39 pm
Actually, Maurice, you appear to have conveniently “skipped over” some facts. Read the Police media release again, since you’ve quoted from it so selectively:
(a) Labour Party pledge card and leaflet – the Police found that “there was sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case in respect of an offence under s221 of the Electoral Act”.
(b) Alleged over-spending by the Labour Party – the Police found that “there was insufficient evidence to indicate that an offence under s214b of the Electoral Act had been committed”.
(c) Alleged over-expenditure on television broadcasting by the National Party – the Police “were not able to attribute responsibility for the mistaken GST over-expenditure to either the NZ National Party or to the Party’s media buying agency and do not intend to charge either”. I think that we can safely interpret this as meaning there was not a strong evidential case.
(d) Exclusive Brethren – various investigations here but, in summary, “no evidence to take the matter any further”, “no further action was required” and “insufficient similarity or association between the material and the New Zealand National Party on which to base a charge”.
(e) Three unions – The Police decided that “[n]o prosecutions will be taken in respect of the publications distributed by the three unions”. Hmmm… but the unions appear to have breached the law, yes?
So the point, Maurice, is that the National party and the Exclusive Brethren was not found to have breached the law. Hmmm… a case was established against Labour and three unions.
So, while I would fall into Craig’s camp, in that the law should be applied equally to any trangressor, the Police apparently found the evidence to be very one-sided against Labour and the three unions… so let us not hear any more suggestion that the National Party and the Exclusive Brethren got off lightly.
March 17th, 2006 at 9:04 pm
I am really amused in a sad way about this. I was quite certain that there would not be any action because it was quite simply not in H1’s or the labour Party’s interest for there to be any, and quite simply they get their way. The Police have no spine and are quite corrupt, but they know which way the wind blows, you want to keep your job, keep on side. One to go, now let’s see Field not prosecuted because it “wouldn’t be in the public interest”.
The bretheren, bogey men for frightening the children. They at least spent their own money. Helen Clark spent ours.
For all those of the left who are pleased, just think where this leads, welcome to corruption city, you are all tarred with this same brush.
March 17th, 2006 at 9:22 pm
Maurice – only a blind person or a moron could claim I skipped over the National Party trangression when I specifically blogged that I believe they also should have been charged.
March 17th, 2006 at 9:28 pm
Maybe it’s not corruption, but pure terror. If the police make anything of this, then Labour will make their lives hell.
March 17th, 2006 at 9:57 pm
Oh and Logix I’m trying to think of a single reason I should not ban you. There is nothing humourous about linking a political party to pedophilia.
March 17th, 2006 at 10:47 pm
David,
As you can see I was giving darren a silly windup, and I have already stated as much. At the same time you seem to have no problem with the endless repetition of equally silly “Liar-bour”. Once or twice was humorous, but many of the extremists here now believe their own cleverness and are carrying on as if the NZ Labour Party was a regime akin to the Stalinists. Well unlike most New Zealanders, I have stood on the “Road of Bones” as it wound inland through the Kolyma, and I have stood in the place where the T-34 tank was made in the tens of thousands and I have witnessed the horrendous suffering the Russian people went through, both at the hands of their own leaders, and simultaneously at the hands of the Nazi armies. If not for their sacrifice which destroyed 85% of the German military land capacity….the outcome of that war would have been so very different. The contrast between the suffering of those people, and the modern nation of New Zealand could not be more stark.
Carrying on as if these minor electoral shufflings spell the end of democracy in New Zealand, is an insult to the billions of humans who have suffered under real tyranny and whom one and all, could have only dreamed that a liberal, principled and safe nation such as ours, might ever exist outside of a fantasy.
As someone who has been shaken down by cops in a handful of different countries, I laugh weakly when the mookies who post here describe the NZ Police as “corrupt, revenue-gatherers”…no…it makes me angry that our Police force, that by any global or historic standard must rank as one of the least corrupt, most service-oriented and dedicated group of men and women, are denigrated so. Perfect they are not, and they struggle to retain the senior level of people they need to make better judgment calls sometimes, but overall our Police can be best appreciated if you have lived in a country where most people fear them.
Now I’ve gone and made one extremist statement that you don’t like, and it sure has your attention. And David, that is what it is like reading through all the nut-job bollocks that the extremist right-wingers constantly spout forth. Most days I treat it as tenditous drivel …but by contrast should one leftie say something annoying and the buzzer goes off. And yes I accept there is nothing humourous about linking a political party to paedophilia…just as it is it no more hilarious making similar baseless claims about a Minister of the Crown.
March 17th, 2006 at 11:00 pm
“Oh and Logix I’m trying to think of a single reason I should not ban you.”
You could try the fact that you haven’t been in the habit of banning people for the use of “Benson Grope”, which is actually more insidious because it twists actual allegations into a shape that a misinformed reader could actually think that Benson Pope was accused of innapropriate touching of students. Particularly when the likes of Judith Collins have been calling the man a pervert in parliament on the basis of absolutely zero evidence.
I’d say that’s much worse than “Baby fucker Brash” which is obvious stupid hyperbole. If you were to take to banning for that around here there wouldn’t be a single one of us left commenting!
March 17th, 2006 at 11:42 pm
Logix I’m trying to think of a single reason I should not ban you.
Because its difficult to imagine how you could ban Logix without also being forced to ban most of your supporters, who’ve made even more vile, bizarre and unsubstantiated claims dozens of times without even a hint of reproach.
March 17th, 2006 at 11:44 pm
I guess we’ll see how partisan the police are when the next INVESTIGATE hits the newsstands Monday morning then, won’t we…
March 17th, 2006 at 11:48 pm
DPF, You threaten Logix with expulsion for calling your beloved National Party a name i’m not about to repeat.
But you set the tone for this blog site.
For the likes or Rightkiwi and others to call the police in New Zealand Corrupt is just a discrace. They are not even close to being corrupt and to call them so is quite frankly imoral.
I would expect that most bloggers on this sight would class themselves as intelligent people and from most of the posts’ i would agree, but some of the language and immaturity of some certainly dispells that thought.
Intelligent discussion does not include some of the bullshit and vemon a few of your contributors post.
So DPF how about you setting a bit higher standards on this blog site that others should follow
March 17th, 2006 at 11:57 pm
Actually JohnD…gotta disagree with you.
As a police reporter for 15 or so years I once would have agreed with your suggestion that there is no corruption.
But I still have good links into the force, and I know there is.
Some concrete examples from my own career: During Winebox investigation when I was at TV3 we found some senior business figures allegedly involved in laundering serious drug money.
We took info to a police detective inspector who conceded police knew of this, but it was worth more than their jobs to investigate the men…”Wellington would shut it down” he told me.
My stomach sank to the floor. Then later, after the High Court and Court of Appeal and Privy Council had all ruled on the illegality of the Winebox deals, and Crown Prosecutor Simon Moore had issued a legal opinion expressing the belief there was a prima facie criminal case against certain named businessmen and their staff, I put all of that information including the court rulings and the documents in front of police national headquarters.
PNHQ refused to even investigate the complaint or the documents, nor that of another lawyer.
Yes, there is corruption at National Headquarters level.
You are living in cloud cuckoo land if you believe otherwise.
March 18th, 2006 at 12:29 am
Ian,
Cheap shot really. The nexus between the police and the political is a fraught one in every nation on earth. How much more raw material do you think you might have to work with if you resided in Australia, or the US, or Zimbabwe?
Many years ago I was told the name of a National Cabinet Minister allegedly involved in protecting the importation of hard drugs via fishing boats so I’m not kidding myself that corruption is impossible and never happens here in NZ. Nor am I suggesting that it isn’t a fair target for exposure and prosecution wherever possible….yet at the same time it is the nature of our relatively small political community that it is impossible to keep secrets, and by and large really bad secrets are a terrible liability that eventually catch up with their owners.
The reality is that there are no perfect people, and if all you fill your nostrils with is stench…then you miss the gleaming white teeth.
March 18th, 2006 at 12:47 am
Logix…the “gleaming white teeth” appear to be the crocodile smiles of whomever is occupying the Treasury benches…and currently it’s Labour.
I’m not saying the police are corrupt in a banana-republic sense, but on every major politically sensitive case I can recall since 1992 they’ve folded.
Ultimately, democracies fail when rot like this sets in. If we can’t hold the lawmakers accountable under the law, then voting becomes meaningless – the kind of empty exercise that inspires things like the Boston Tea Party.
March 18th, 2006 at 1:14 am
I would hate to be the lame duck who made that decision to let Liar-bor get away with that. When National win the next election their heads are going to roll so fast they will not even know about it.
I look forward to reading Investigate when it comes out, how much longer can there be one law for Liar-bor and one for the rest of us.
Cadmus is only celebrating because he is relieved, even he was worried about it, why else is he celebrating along with his low life associates?
March 18th, 2006 at 3:46 am
The simple moral point here is that the Labour Party used taxpayer’s funds to campaign and overspent enormously. Had National done it, Labour would be spitting venom and called it corrupt and spending money that should have gone on hospitals and schools on campaigning.
It is WRONG! Whether or not the Police are gutless little puppets of the government, or the law is unclear – it is wrong.
Had this happened in East Timor or any country where NZ might send election monitors we would have said it was an inappropriate practice – it is something Mugabe should be proud of. I don’t care if National, Labour or Libertarianz did it – it is disgustingly wrong and anyone in Labour defending it should look in the mirror and think how they would feel if any other party did it.
There isn’t a word for how hypocritical it is.
March 18th, 2006 at 7:07 am
I believe Labour will come to very much regret this incident. They have cemented in the minds of NZers the perception that for the first time in the nation’s history, the Police are actually in the pocket of the governing party and as a consequence that party has a free hand to commit whatever malfeasance it pleases. This was the desease I perceived to exist in the otherwise beautiful country of Argentina when I first went there.
It would have been much smarter to have allowed a prosecution to proceed and to have arranged for some pet judge to have seen it off. At least there would have been some semblance of process.
DPF is right. This will make for one of the defining issues in Labour’s eventual defeat.
March 18th, 2006 at 7:45 am
This is the third time the Labour Party has managed to manipulate the Police into finding a prima facie case but the Police have chosen not to prosecute. Set that against the background of her venal campaign to get rid of a Police Commissioner and we have the odour of a corrupt Government. There will be a politcal sanction for this and I guess that is what the Police are counting on. But the vicious campaigns by the Police and Solicitor General against two National MPs leaves one with a very uneasy feeling there is a double standard operating in Wellington. We are not at the tipping point yet but National has lifted its game in Parliament though the star peformer is Judith Collins and I think she is just wonderful.
March 18th, 2006 at 8:05 am
hey Ian, hope you’re well – if you read this i just wanted to say i used to always listen to your show on Radio Pacific and really enjoyed and appreciated it, wish you were still on! and i loved the article you wrote on http://www.insidelook.co.nz! cheers**
March 18th, 2006 at 8:19 am
Scott,
spending money that should have gone on hospitals and schools on campaigning.
You do your case no good whatsoever by ignoring the elementary fact that the monies in question were already allocated to promote Government policy. There can be no sense in which schools or hospitals were robbed, that claim merely obscures the real point…that the rules around electoral spending in the country urgently require fixing up. There are any number of ways in which the current system could be abused and putting in place constructive legislation to fairly address the loopholes and “inappropriate practices” demands some clear-headed cross-party co-operative thinking….not the kind of hyperbolic venom being spat out here.
March 18th, 2006 at 8:48 am
> You do your case no good whatsoever by ignoring the elementary fact that the monies in question were already allocated to promote Government policy.
Maybe governments over the years have arranged this in part to ensurethey have a slush fund for cheating in elections. But regardless of that it should have been used for less corrupt purposes.
> that the rules around electoral spending in the country urgently require fixing up.
It doesnt matter how tightly you define the rules there will always be ways around it unless it is based on the spirit of the law not the letter. BUT that is a different issue – from the police comments it would seem labour breached the law so even if there are holes labour didn’t use them. so what we need now is just enforcement
March 18th, 2006 at 10:11 am
Genius,
Couldn’t agree with you more. The rules will always get bent unless there is an across the board willingness to observe the spirit of them. That is fundamental point that is often overlooked. Now while we are on the same wavelength here, how about explaining how National managed such a dramatically longer and more intensive campaign on the back of the numbers they reported? Of course there is game-playing going on here.
Now clearly some of National’s supporters would like no rules at all, in the expectation that they would have the backing of limitless amounts of business-friendly money to buy whatever elections they like….much as the US model. Of course holding to that line, while accusing Labour of stealing elections is a desperately transparent hypocrisy….so I have to assume that someone from the right-wing side is willing to propose a sane starting point to the discussion.
The rules will be observed in both letter and spirit, if they are seen to be both fair in principle to all parties, transparent and predicable in action, and enforceable if broken. The current arrangement is not.
March 18th, 2006 at 10:29 am
I’m amazed at the arguments by people that because some people nickname Labour Liarbour, that this is morally equivalent to calling a party a party of baby-fuckers.
I’m not going to censure the vast majority of insults on this site because I have a life, but there is a line and Logix stepped well over it with that remark. I am not banning on this occassion as he also contributes well to most debates.
And on several occassions I have warned posters about overly personal comments on Helen Clark etc. As I say there is a line which I will enforce.
March 18th, 2006 at 10:46 am
David,
I’ll accept that it was an excessive bit of rhetoric that is not worth repeating.
March 18th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
As far as Police corruption goes you would have to look at what end of scale the NZ Police would fit into. In my view at the very bottom end of the scale. Then I suppose if a cop caught a family member speeding they are unlikely to give them a ticket, you could also call that corruption.
In this case the Police would have to be very careful. As Graham Millar said the police had a prima facie case against Labour, sure, but could the Police prove it beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law? I think not. It would look like the Police are biting the hand that feeds them if they lost, which seemed on the cards. It could also be said the Police are in the pocket of the Right if they did take Labour to Court, but let off National. The Police would have to weigh it all up. If certtain Police took a case against Labour & Lost the chance of promotion for those officers would be next to nil, while the govt are still in office. We are told the Police Commisioner is totally independent, but at the end of the day he is a govt appointment, so who’s side is he on? I would have no doubt the police would take action if they had what you might say all the evidence in the bag, and the case could be proved beyond any scrap of doubt. But no, they didn’t have a water tight case, and were not prepared to go against their political masters with what evidence they did have.
Also the NZ Police want to be seen as having a good Public image, meaning the working masses will support them, elsewhere the Police couldn’t give 2 stuffs about what their public image is as long as they have govt backing. The NZ Police are also not taking on one MP, who say got caught Drinking over the limit and they let off, sure the public would be screaming and the talkback lines running red hot, if that ever happened.
The Police if they did proceed were taking on the Govt of the Day plus the entire Labour Party support base. It was stacked against the police if they didn’t have an open and shut case. And they new it. I wouldn’t care if National were in power and this happened. I believe the outcome would be the same.
Also if a situation such as above was taken to court it could cause elements in society, maybe leftwing supporters to start trouble around the country, that would also be one of the things the Police wouldn’t want. We only have to look at France to see that if enough fuel is added to the fire public law and order could be out of control in certain areas.
In my view the Police took the sensible option, by not having a water tight case against the Labour Party, and let them off with a warning.
As I said before this is were National or any opposition should instead of going out trying to take out opposition MP’s. They instead look at putting new legislation in place concerning election spending, but time will tell.
prima facie case
March 18th, 2006 at 3:12 pm
“My respect for the NZ Police have just shrunk to near zero”
If my experiences are anything to go on, next time you really actually need them for something important your respect will bounce back pretty fast.
Who you gonna call?
March 18th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
Ben:
Well, I’ve learned from experience that the only reason to call the police the next time my home gets turned over is for insurance purposes.
And I sure don’t think it’s anti-Police to wonder why it never seems to be “in the public interest” to prosecute Government ministers despite determining there’s a primae facie case to answer… and Roger Carson did not like being asked that very question by Mary Wilson on Checkpoint last night.
March 18th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
Ben – on the contrary when I did last need the police in relation to a serious issue of threatened harm, I found the response very very poor.
March 18th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
Cadmus, after reading your last comment, an image appeared in my head of how you see the police. The image was that of Sergeant Schultz, off Hogan’s Heroes:
I see NOTHING, I see NOTHING!
I really expect a little more from our police force, and I am very disappointed in them. One of the consequences of this decision, is that the hard-working frontline staff will once again wonder who the hell is running the force.
March 18th, 2006 at 7:36 pm
Cadmus: “The Police would have to weigh it all up. If certtain Police took a case against Labour & Lost the chance of promotion for those officers would be next to nil, while the govt are still in office. We are told the Police Commisioner is totally independent, but at the end of the day he is a govt appointment, so who’s side is he on?”
I’ll assume that you were suffering from delirium tremens when you were typing that, which might explain the spelling.
That aside, yours is one of the most stupid arguments I have ever heard. Public servants are supposed to carry out their duties without fear or favour.
Note, too, that Police and Defence personnel pledge an oath of allegience to the Crown (that is, the institution of state) – NOT the Government (that is, the elected, and transient, personalities who govern us).
Cadmus, please read this s-l-o-w-l-y.
When those who govern us are above the law, we are in very dire straits. Revolutions have started over that very issue.
A final point: I remember a comment Mike Moore (the former PM, not that Fahrenheit 911 nutcase) made in a speech about the linkages between gangs and organised crime in 1997: “If our Police ever become corrupt, we will have lost something far more precious than we could ever imagine. And once we have lost it, it will be gone forever.”
Cadmus – don’t ever complain if you are convicted, or suffer disadvantage in any way, on the basis of false information from the Police, or supplied to the Police. You have been warned.
March 19th, 2006 at 11:30 am
Craig, getting your house turned over is hardly 111 material. Insurance purposes is about all they can contribute most of the time, so it’s all they do, when they’re good and ready. I know it would be nicer if they rushed out, but I wouldn’t expect it personally.
David, was the threat imminent? My experiences wrt to violence is that they get there damned fast. And they judge it on many factors – how serious does it really sound, are weapons involved, is it a big mismatch (ie group on one, man on woman, adult on child) and are there people there already? The more serious the faster. Sure, when some guy says he’s gonna bash you you fear for your life, but I think they get there a lot faster when the yelling gets louder, blows are heard etc…otherwise we’d need 10 times as many cops – violence is like that – threats are far more common than action, and action requires immediate action – threats can wait sometimes.
And again I ask – who you gonna call anyway? What was your instinct?