Investigate’s allegations against the Police
Ian Wishart in Investigate Magazine has made a huge number of staggering claims against top police officers, including Commissioner Howard Broad who has already admitted that at least one allegation of a bestiality video (involving a man fornicating with a chicken!) did happen, even though he claims not to have been in the room at his house when it showed.
The allegations are not just of private consensual conduct, but include:
* A 1984 child sex [illegal], bondage [not illegal if consensual] and bestiality [illegal] ring operating in Dunedin in 1984 run by the father of a police officer and attended by at least one Labour cabinet minister [I think this refers to someone who was a Labour Minister in 1984]
* the existence of videotapes of police rapes and bestiality involving police officers
* Indecent assaults by current high ranking police officers
* Dunedin and Christchurch Police had arrangements to turn a blind eye to organised crime – including underage sex and drug dealing – in return for sexual favours from brothels
* Dunedin police officers, former and current, have been involved in multiple rapes of junior female police staff, prostitutes and civilians, drug deals, and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, including falsifying charges
I have not read the full article, and can not judge the reliability or authenticity of the allegations except to note that the Commissioner has confirmed at least one aspect is correct.
If the allegations can not be substantiated, those named should sue for defamation to clear their names. These are very serious allegations.
Wishart has called for a royal commission of inquiry into the performance of the New Zealand Police, with wide terms of reference and full powers to subpoena, compel and take evidence on oath. I would like to know why some of this info was not placed before the Bazley inquiry, and whether maybe the PCA (so long as it does not use any current Police officers) could not investigate the claims?
May 13th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
So who’s going to judge the judges and the gatekeepers now? Could we have the Privy Council back by say, 8am Monday?
May 13th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
This is either the end of Wishart or the end of Labour.
From The Briefing Room:
“MEDIA RELEASE FROM INVESTIGATE MAGAZINE
EMBARGOED TO MIDDAY SUNDAY MAY 13 2007
POLICE COMMISSIONER LIES TO PUBLIC ABOUT BESTIALITY VIDEO SCREENED IN HIS HOUSE
Police Commissioner Howard Broad has watched bestiality videos at his house with his fellow police officers and groped other female staff while stationed in Dunedin, reveals the latest issue of Investigate magazine in an unprecedented special report.
The allegations, by some of Broad’s former colleagues, are likely to see the Police Commissioner step down, and represent the tip of the iceberg in a massive investigation of police corruption and misconduct by Investigate magazine.
In this morning’s Herald on Sunday newspaper, Broad admits a bestiality video was screened at a party in his house but denies knowing about it until later in the evening.
“Later on in the night someone played a pornographic film. It was reported to me. I didn’t see it. Later on it was reported to me as a film of the type you are talking about. It was in my private house,” Broad told the paper.
Broad told the Herald on Sunday he was adamant he was not in the lounge at the time the film was played and did not even see the rugby films played that evening.
“I was in the kitchen talking to people. When I found out about it I was annoyed and irritated but there wasn’t anything I could do,” he told the paper.
On that basis, says the newspaper, Broad continues to have the confidence of Police Minister Annette King and Prime Minister Helen Clark.
However, Investigate can confirm that the real sequence of events contrasts sharply with what he has told the public. A former police colleague of Broad’s is prepared to testify on oath to a Royal Commission that:
“He was there, reveling in the video. He loved it. I was standing with him. The video also featured a pig, and the actors appeared to me to be mentally handicapped. Broad was laughing.”
Magazine editor Ian Wishart says Broad appears to be doing a Bill Clinton.
“To suggest he didn’t see the bestiality video and was unaware of it is a lie that has about as much credibility as Bill Clinton’s admission that he used to smoke marijuana joints ‘but I didn’t inhale’.”
Bestiality videos were (and remain) prohibited objectionable material and their screening is illegal.
Wishart says the magazine’s two year inquiry has pinpointed Dunedin and Christchurch as the hub of police corruption in New Zealand, with officers engaged in organised crime, drugs, rape, extortion, underage sex, kidnapping and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
“Some of the key figures in the corruption allegations were senior detectives on the David Bain case,” Wishart confirmed today, “and we are breaking major new ground on that case as a result.”
The devastating allegations, based on taped statements made by victims and on magazine interviews with witnesses willing to testify to a Royal Commission of Inquiry, also drag in no fewer than six Government MPs, including Attorney-General Michael Cullen, Social Development Minister David Benson-Pope and one of Helen Clark’s closest advisors, Pete Hodgson.
The magazine alleges Cullen and Benson-Pope helped police cover-up details of an alleged pedophile, bestiality and bondage and discipline ring in
Dunedin
in the 1980s, while the other MPs were aware of major corruption allegations about Dunedin Police in 2000, but failed to launch any proper investigation.
Wishart adds that Howard Broad’s admission that bestiality videos were screening adds credence to some of the other specific allegations about bestiality in Dunedin, which are specified in the magazine out today.
The following major allegations are contained in a 17 page special investigation in the June issue of Investigate magazine, the result of two years of background inquiries and six weeks of intensive investigation:
1. That current Police Commissioner Howard Broad had, and was watching, bestiality videos at his going away party from the Dunedin CIB at
19 Arawa St
2. That current Police Commissioner Howard Broad fondled junior staff whilst stationed at the Dunedin CIB
3. That Howard Broad, when he stated that only a “few” officers were involved in sexual misconduct, either knew or should have known of the extensive sexual misconduct in the Dunedin CIB
4. That Police National Headquarters, Dunedin Police and the Labour Government helped quash an investigation into a child sex, bondage and bestiality ring operating in
Dunedin
in 1984 run by the father of a police officer and attended by at least one Labour cabinet minister
5. That current Attorney-General Michael Cullen and the current Minister responsible for CYFS, David Benson-Pope, helped run damage control over the child sex, bondage and bestiality case in 1985
6. That current Labour coalition MPs Pete Hodgson, Tim Barnett, George Hawkins and Matt Robson were aware of major allegations of police misconduct from 2000 onwards, including the existence of videotapes of police rapes and bestiality involving police officers
7. That by failing to rein in police corruption brought to their attention in the eighties and again in 2000, the Labour government has permitted the culture of corruption to widen in that time, wrecking more lives
8. That former Wellington District Commander and current Police National Headquarters officer, Superintendent John Kelly indecently assaulted a number of women, including the daughter of a previous police commissioner
9. That
Dunedin
and Christchurch Police had arrangements to turn a blind eye to organised crime – including underage sex and drug dealing – in return for sexual favours from brothels
10. That police have maintained files on key politicians and public figures capable of being used to blackmail the government, judges, lobby groups and even police association members into supporting the status quo
11. That Dunedin police officers, former and current, have been involved in multiple rapes of junior female police staff, prostitutes and civilians, drug deals, and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, including falsifying charges
12. That several of the top officers in the David Bain case, including Milton Weir, were allegedly corrupt police officers
13. That the officer involved in the alleged rape of a court worker, detailed in our last issue and cleared by Police National Headquarters last month, is also a corrupt officer
14. That the culture of police corruption, far from being localised to the Bay of Plenty or historic, extends to a large number of jurisdictions because of staff movements, and continues to the present day
15. That the only way to weed the bad cops out of the force is a Royal Commission, because the Old Boys Network within the police is currently looking after its own interests and bringing discredit to the many hardworking honest police who do not have the institutional power to bring change
Investigate has been shown the names and specific allegations about a large number of current and former police officers alleged to have been involved in multiple rapes, drug deals, extortion, perversion of the course of justice, sexual misconduct, abuse of power, bringing the police into disrepute, abduction and kidnapping, fraud and a range of other crimes. Multiple police districts and National Headquarters are involved. There is far, far more than we have published in this major investigation.
The magazine is calling for an immediate, full Royal Commission of Inquiry into the performance of the New Zealand Police, with wide terms of reference and full powers to subpoena, compel and take evidence on oath. Our informants do not believe the police have sufficient integrity to investigate these allegations against senior officers, and no other independent law enforcement agency exists capable of investigating the police.
Posted by iwishart on May 13, 2007″
May 13th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Embargoed to Midday Sunday?
Serious allegations are held up to suit a media deadline.
Maybe this is more about Wishart than the police!
I wont be bothering to watch the news tonight since it will be full of nonsense , with all the attention on the serial allegator
May 13th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
I wont be bothering to watch the news tonight since it will be full of nonsense , with all the attention on the serial allegator
Posted by Selma Bouvier | May 13, 2007 2:12 PM
Posted on May 13, 2007 14:12
…You’re either a policeman or a politican?
May 13th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Where is Sonic these days.Selma is every bit as silly.So the question of the day is:Is Selma just Sonic after a sex change op.
May 13th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Ian Wishart is one of the few journalists in the country who earns his pay. Most are merely megaphones for socialist policy and advocates for greater and greater government at the expense of personal liberty. Right or wrong on this issue or any issue, Wishart deserves credit for having the guts to take the Labour party and senior police on.
He’s a welcome change from the pro government mainstream media journalists, who have long ago forgotten what their role in society really is- To protect us from predatory government, and to alert us to corrupt politicians, untrustworthy public officials and legislation that attacks our freedoms.
I say good luck to Mr. Wishart. I admire his courage and conviction. How sad for NZ that journalists such as he are so few and far between.
May 13th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Ditto RB.
May 13th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
The terms of reference on the Bazley Commission Inquiry excluded any complaints against Police Other than those of a sexual nature. Very clever of the Prime Minister!
Frank
May 13th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Am I missing something? I cannot see how this would be the ‘end of Wishart’, nor can I see how this would be the ‘end of Labour’ in the alternative.
Given Wishart’s reputation for bluster over substance, it all seems a bit hysterical with little in the way of factual basis (as usual). Aside of course from Broad, and even that is trivial.
I certainly do not want to waste millions on an inquiry on the basis of someone like Wishart’s claims (Investigate seems more an more like the Weekly World News each copy). Does he have any proof, or is this just another ‘the facts are just around the corner’ stories?
If he has real proof of corruption then lets have it, plain and simple.
Can someone please enlighten me? Is there a factual basis for a commission of inquiry, or is it mere speculation in the hope such an inquiry will unearth some corruption?
May 13th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
James,
Ever heard of the libel laws James? Wishart can be sued to Siberia for this if he’s not substantially right.
If he is right, this is a lot bigger than Watergate and the Profumo Affair combined (albeit they happened in more important countries). There would be several by-elections and I don’t see how the Labour-led Gov. could survive. Look at all the trouble they’ve had since losing “Tiler” Field.
May 13th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
I dont have any problem with the porno thingy, (I went to at least two screenings organised by the police during the 1970′s). There is also nothing new about police perverting the course of justice as favours to friends or collegues.(a member of my own family has benefited from such favours on at least two occassions). What I have a problem with, is the nieve perception of the public, that people in high office are liley-white and above reproach. They are simply skilled in the art of playing the public as fools.
May 13th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Yeah James, well.. you managed to silence Rod Hide with your constant whining about “muck raking”.. quite a victory for you. Wishart’s the target now right? Same methods, hopefully the same results- right?
May 13th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
The Terms of Reference drawn up by the Prime Minister for the Bazley Commission of Inquiry excluded all complaints against police other than those of a sexual nature.
This excluded all other complaints of corruption in the ranks of the police.
Frank
May 13th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
In all the articles “Investigate” has published including the controversial ones that wind people up so much, I don’t recall Wishart being sued once. If his allegations are false and without foundation, surely someone by now would’ve taken a crack at him and won
May 13th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
The allegation of chicken-rape films being played in the police commissioner’s house is ludicrous. Nobody should believe such nonsense. It just goes to show the depths to which Investigate magazine will go. Grow up New Zealand and ignore this stuff.
Oh, hang on. The Police Commissioner admitted it. Well then, everything else is nonsense.
May 13th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
What kiwi in america said.
If hes making it all up all the time where is the legal action, where are the retractions, where are the denials?
May 13th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
The terms of reference laid down by the Prime Minister very cleverly excluded from the Bazley Commission of Inquiry all other complaints against police.
Frank
May 13th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Sensible people ignore him becuse he’s an idiot. Just read his blog for any length of time and you’ll soon get the picture. It’s the loony tunes with Andrei.
“This is either the end of Wishart or the end of Labour”
“is a lot bigger than Watergate and the Profumo Affair combined”
Yeh right.
Delusional sex obsessed retards is closer to the point.
May 13th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
OUR country is VIOLENT ,shit a man beaten up and burnt to death in front of neighbours,so are you shocked at anything,what,, did the police film themselfs bonking a chicken ,,(CHICKEN LICKING GOOD)better than a pig , they would never live that down .I worry when you call the police???? they never come, are you going to be raped robbed beaten up or are they going to bonk your cat or dog or visit the fowl house
May 13th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
It is important to realise that this must also have been a case of extreme animal cruelty.
May 13th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Exactly who in the Labour Party has he specifically defamed, and by stating what?
May 13th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
If you called the police a bunch of chickenfuckers they would be kicking you fowlhouse door down wanting what is due to them , they are SO silent,HINT OF TRUTH ,so i dont think Ians articale is all chicken shit
May 13th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Okay, I want to express my support for the police.
I’m sure there are individual cases such as Ian Wishhart suggests. I’m equally sure others are likely to be exaggerations at best. But this happens in every police force. Being a policeman (or woman) is a brutal experience, and inevitably, some fall by the wayside, morally. This does not make NZ police worse than elsewhere. In fact, I think they are better. But still human.
And who are Ian Wishhart’s sources, anyway. They wouldn’t be criminals, by any chance? Criminals with a history of lying and a grudge against the police? What does he have, hearsay that somebody would testify under different circumstances? That’s pretty pathetic. Put up or shut up, I say.
Meanwhile. SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL POLICE. Or would you rather have the place run by the Mogrel Mob? By all means, let’s clean out any undesirable elements. But remember, many of these men and women are heroes. If you can’t support them, why not enlist and do the job yourselves.
May 13th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Delusional sex obsessed retards is closer to the point.
Hmmm
Seems to me watching movies of apparently retarded people having sex with animals is much more than mere “looney tunes”. Its down right creepy as well as illegal.
I prefer James Stewart movies myself.
May 13th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
I wouldn’t be surprised if Broad is gone by 11pm tonight or at least, within the next day or two. This matter has serious politcal consquences for the current Govt, especially on top of the Bain matter. If people have loss faith in the judicary (political appointments) and the police heirachy (political appoinments), then it has the potential to bring them down. I assume that next in line for the Commissioner’s job is Rod Pope? He won’t last long either. This sounds very, very messy to me. Could this be a matter of the chickens comming home to roost???
May 13th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Helen Klark at Labour Party strategy meeting-
“Hmmm, doesn’t look good. We need an angle that generates some sympathy for Labour. I know..!! Let’s think of a way to work the Exclusive Brethren in to it.”
May 13th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Anon says, “The allegation of chicken-rape films being played in the police commissioner’s house is ludicrous.”
Who alleged that a chicken was raped?
May 13th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Is the media aware of this complaint.
19 04 2007
Police Commissioner Howard Broad
Office of the Commissioner
PO Box 3017
Wellington
Dear Commissioner
Allegations of breaches of the Crimes Act 1961
HELEN CLARK’S PLEDGE CARD FUNDED BY PARLIAMENTARY SERVICES
No 3. ROLE OF POLICE IN THEIR INVESTIGATION OF THE ELECTORAL COMMITTEE
COMPLAINT OF OVER EXPENDITURE OF ELECTION EXPENSES?
The role of the police in this investigation has been to pull the wool over the eyes of the public. To date they have succeeded but are now undone by their own recorded accounts of their “comprehensive investigation” into the Electoral Commission’s complaint.
Firstly
Commissioner you must consider how the police’s “comprehensive investigation” could be regarded as a “comprehensive investigation” when the critical time line relevant to such an investigation as per an Act of Parliament, was either negligently or purposefully ignored thus resulting in the investigation being worthless, meaningless and a total waste of taxpayers money.
Secondly
Commissioner you must consider how the standard of investigative work by police in this matter portrays any understanding of responsibility and accountability on their part.
At best, it displays a preconceived and determined effort to torpedo a legitimate complaint. At worst, it displays simply that the police have acted “negligently”, “ corruptly”, “negligently” and “ corruptly”, or “deliberately corruptly”.
Enclosed documents are prima facie evidence that police “deliberately corrupted” the report of the investigation into the Electoral Committee Complaint that was lodged with them. Some of the evidence is contained on the Streamline disc “Electoral Advertising 23/06/06” forwarded by your Office under the Official Information Act 1982, after a request from the Ombudsman.
I allege that Dr A R Jack Chief Legal Officer, Office of the Commissioner, directed to review the report of the Police INVESTIGATION OF THE ELECTORAL COMMITTEE COMPLAINT OF OVER EXPENDITURE OF ELECTION EXPENSES, breached section of the Crimes Act 1961 as set down on Page 2.
Enough said.
Frank
May 13th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Kiwi_Donkey I agree with you 100%. Overall the cops do a great job. Its the quality of the top management that is the problem. They are all political appointments, endeavouring to run an effective police force in an in an era of political correctness. (Its a similar fiasco over at TV1 ..kowtowing to their masters and and be all things to all people, and wonder why they’re losing money for Pete’s sake). Imagine if we had a top cop like Gideon Tait running the police force instead of a bunch of political pantsies. None of this shit would be going on and our crime rate would be down 50% +
May 13th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Just been over to the TVNZ website.
Obviously its journos have found time to deal with the deceased Samoan leader, seeking and gaining comments from the PM and John Key.
The pair thought it worthwhile to comment on the death, so one hopes that the situation with our police force merits the attention of Clark and Key as well as the media.
Just glancing through the list of allegations, never mind the 17 page report, it shows that it is not just a matter of who saw what porno movies, but corruption right, left and centre, or should I say, left, left and left.
Here we see a corrupt police whose corruption is covered up by Labour.
Then, Labour is corrupt and the police say it is not in the public interest to prosecute.
Stolen election anyone?
May 13th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
When DBP did not come out all guns blazing to shoot wishart down over the “panty slut boy” it ended. Nobody would lay down for the stuff that wishart has thrown at him unless they were guilty. The media will do nothing more than what they have done already. Which is help Broad try and spin his way out of it in this mornings paper.
I find wisharts allegations to be incredible. Surely nobody in their right mind would be stupid enough to make it up?
If the ministers and cops involved do not sue (and win) they will be guilty in the court of public opinion
May 13th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
My apologies. The date on my previous letter to the Commissioner was shown as 19 04 2007. This was my error. It should have been 17 10 2006.
However to keep the record clear i willprint the first page of my complaint 19 04 2007 to the Commissioner.
19 04 2007
Police Commissioner Howard Broad
Office of the Commissioner
PO Box 3017
Wellington
Dear Commissioner
Allegations of breaches of the Crimes Act 1961 by Members of Parliament and those involved in the investigation of breaches of the Electoral Act 1993
I allege that all those Members of Parliament who voted for, or abstained from voting on the: “Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill” are in breach of the Crimes Act 1961, under Part 6 Crimes affecting the administration of law and justice (s 99 to s [122): Bribery and corruption.
The breaches of the Electoral Act 1993 were not accidental (illegal acts) but deliberate (corrupt acts). It is not hyperbole to say a prison term was warranted for those responsible. They ignored the law, and lied to the Chief Electoral Office with impunity. The non prosecution of National was almost as baffling. National actually effectively pleaded guilty. They admitted what had happened, and accepted responsibility for it.
The remedial action taken by the passing of the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill” was contravention of Part 6 Crimes affecting the administration of law and justice (s 99 to s [122): Bribery and corruption. Particularly 116 Conspiring to defeat justice
At the time of voting on this Bill, Members of Parliament were aware that at the last election police refused to lay charges over any of the 16 complaints referred to them under the Electoral Act.
However most of the Members of Parliament are aware of the complaint10 February 2006 lodged with Acting Commissioner Steve Long under the Crimes Act 1961:.
“Misuse of Public Funds by the Labour Government on behalf of the Labour Party and constitutes an offence under the Crimes Act 1961”. Police revealed, despite assurances to the contrary, some 9 months later that the complaint was not investigated.
The Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Act 2006, in layman’s terms, resulted from the Government’s intention to pass legislation retrospectively validating unlawful spending by party leaders and members of Parliament. So the Bill supposedly validated “previous illegal practices” in breach of the Electoral Act 1993. The bill was needed to validate the $1.17 million in election spending Auditor-General Kevin Brady found unlawful. It needed also to cover the previous expenditure for Helen’s Pledge Cards in the 2002 and 1999 elections, where public funds from her Leader’s funds were provided to pay for this expenditure, which wasn’t included in previous Electoral Expense Returns to the Electoral Commission, and continued as a matter of right in following elections.
Set out below is the Purposes of The Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Act 2006:
May 13th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Executive summary: Someone allegedly put on a dirty video at a cop’s house. And some other named coppers and politicians were ‘aware of allegations’. And some other unnamed coppers are alleged to have been corrupt. But not when National was in power.
Don’t stop the press just yet.
May 13th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
JUST WANT TO REMIND EVERYBODY THAT I POSTED WISHART’S SUMMARY OF THE ALLEGATIONS AT THE TOP OF THIS THREAD!!!
“Exactly who in the Labour Party has he specifically defamed, and by stating what?
Posted by james cairney | May 13, 2007 3:50 PM”
James, it is only defamation if it is NOT TRUE. You can’t say it is defamatory at this stage.
Specifically named CURRENT politicians are:
Michael Cullen, David Benson-Pope (surprise!), Pete Hodgson, Tim Barnett, George Hawkins, Matt Robson, but there are other politicians mentioned as well.
May 13th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Ben Wilson – Your point please
May 13th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Ben Wilson, your “executive summary” left out:
“organised crime, drugs, rape, extortion, underage sex, kidnapping and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.”
Any reason for that?
May 13th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
I dont care whether cops or judges watch pornos, engage in beastility (other than perhaps inflicting cruelty upon animals); engage in group sex or whatever, or anywhere else their dicks might lead them (other than children and rape of course). All I want them to do is catch, and lock-up the bastards that keep nicking my car! Sheesh!
May 13th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Sg5, stating a person’s name is not defamatory. And you can state whether something is defamatory without knowing the truth of it, you simply read the words. If it happens to be true then the person who stated it has a total defence (sorry, if they can prove it to be true, they have a total defence).
So for all these people drawing conclusions about a defamation charge (or lack of), including yourself, point exactly to the words you think are defamatory (of Labour politicians, in the absence of any defence). I am genuinely interested.
So my initial statement holds true, and remains unanswered. Being “Exactly who in the Labour Party has he specifically defamed, and by stating what?” Point to the words, because you seem awfully excited and I can’t for the life of me see why.
May 13th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Paul, now you know why they are “too busy” to attend!
Wishart has started posting some of his sources online.
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/
May 13th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Paul, now you know why they are “too busy” to attend!
Wishart has started posting some of his sources online.
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/
May 13th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
sg5, ‘And some other unnamed coppers are alleged to have been corrupt.’
Chuck, my point is to give it more time when it’s more substantial than just unspecified allegations as a teaser to read a mag which is clearly obsessed with trying to sling dirt at Labour, no matter how lame.
May 13th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
The Hon Justice Goddard
Police Complaints Authority
PO Box 5025
Wellington
Dear Madam
You have substituted “Your Enquiry” and “Proper enquiry” for “Investigation” within the full meaning of the Act. This is clear as you have quoted s.18 (2) of the Police Complaints Authority Act 1988, which refers only to investigations. The term “Proper enquiry” does not come within the scope or meaning of the Act.
The attitude you have adopted is clearly one of being above the Law and clearly designed to protect fellow public servants and their masters, the politicians. The writer’s attitude is negligent and highlights the key weakness of the entire New Zealand democratic process. This is where servants of the public fail to be honest, independent and totally transparent in their dealings with the people they represent, and through these actions knowingly and deceptively mislead the public.
The above is clearly endorsed by your closing remark to me:
“I advise that the Authority is not subject to the Official Information Act 1982”.
I advise that you, like any other person, is subject to the Crimes Act 1961.
However, I must thank you for acknowledging my letter 23 March 2007 in your letter of 11 April 2007.
In this present response, you have emphasised your previous response of:……” enquiries have been made by the Authority and the following advice received from Dr A R Jack, Chief Legal Adviser. Dr Jack advises that he does not accept your criticisms nor your allegations that he has conspired to defeat justice. He explains the matters you raise as follows:” 4 bullets follow.
You have accepted these 4 bulleted explanations pursuant to s.18 (2) of the Police Complaints Authority Act 1988
You have thus knowingly also accepted pursuant to:
37 Offences
Every person commits an offence under this Act and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $2,000 who,—
(a) Without reasonable excuse, obstructs, hinders, or resists the Authority or any other person in the exercise of their powers under this Act
(b) Without reasonable excuse refuses or fails to comply with any requirement of the Authority or any other person under this Act
(c) Makes any statement or gives any information to the Authority, or to any other person exercising powers under this Act, knowing that the statement or information is false or misleading.
You endorse all the above by encompassing them in your present response of “Proper enquiries were made”.
You confirm that a “proper enquiry” is an ‘investigation”
In the execution of your duties you clearly confirm that it is right and proper for you to confer with, enquire of, and take the advice of one of the persons complained to be in breach of the Crimes Act 1961, to close the file under the Act, without providing clear reasons to justify your actions
This in my view sets a new low for justice in this country, but it is par for the course. However I leave the following thought with you:
Crimes Act 1961
Part 6 Crimes affecting the administration of law and justice (s 99 to s [122)
Misleading justice
116 Conspiring to defeat justice
Frank
May 13th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Ben, admittedly, some of the allegations are unspecified. However, the one against Broad is not. Even if Broad’s claim that he did not watch the video is true it is still serious matter.
What would you do if someone showed such illegal videos at your house without you consent?
What would you do if the videos were child porn instead of bestiality?
This matter is surely worth investigating as were the matters relating to Rickard>
May 13th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Amazing how Mr. Broad has a crystal clear memory of a specific event 27 years ago, yet the PM cant even remember events of 2 years ago.
May 13th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Unfortunately after his last couple of fuck=ups, Wishart is deep into ‘boy who cried wolf’ territory.
If hes making it all up all the time where is the legal action, where are the retractions, where are the denials?
If you were an MP and Wishart printed an untrue story about you, how well do you think your private life would stack up when Investigates lawyers got to question you under oath? Ever smoked a joint? ‘Dope Fiend MP: Life of Depravity!’ Ever looked at porn on the net? ‘Sex Addict Minister Tells about Sex Perversions!’ Martial problems? Any of your kids ever been in trouble? Do you really think Wishart would hesitate for a second to ruin your life or your family to shift a few more copies of his rag?
May 13th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
danyl. What exactly has wishart cried wolf about?
May 13th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
DIM, perhaps the voters of NZ have more brains than you. Have alook at the latest TV3 poll results out tonight.
May 13th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Chuck, if it had been child porn that would be a completely different matter. I’d be really pissed off, as would all other viewers, especially if they were cops, and the person would probably end up getting prosecuted. But bestiality porn, despite being deviant, is not even in the same ball park. I’d probably tell the person off, and leave it at that.
So no, I don’t think it’s worth investigating 20 years later. It’s like trying to bust someone because someone else smoked a joint in their house. A tenuous connection to a very minor crime a long time ago. I’d personally say going 15kmh over the speed limit is a much more serious one.
May 13th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
think your private life would stack up when Investigates lawyers got to question you under oath? Ever smoked a joint? ‘Dope Fiend MP: Life of Depravity!’ Ever looked at porn on the net? ‘Sex Addict Minister Tells about Sex Perversions!’ Martial problems? Any of your kids ever been in trouble? Do you really think Wishart would hesitate for a second to ruin your life or your family to shift a few more copies of his rag?
Posted by Danyl Mclauchlan | May 13, 2007 6:27 PM
Perhaps DM if politicians were more honest about their failings as human beings, the public would cut them a lot more slack. Instead, they act like arrogant pack animals, lie and cheat and treat the electorate as fools.
May 13th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Ben Wilson, it won’t work. Broad’s fucked, you’re phouched and Labour doesn’t know whether it’s being bored or reamed.
For you to seriously suggest that a Police Comissioner could confess to this sort of activity and keep his job indicates you do not have the slightest idea of what is acceptable behavior on the part of those who occupy positions of priviledge and power.
Does it not occur to you that we have a police force which, at it’s senior levels, is devoid of any sense of principle? No of course it does not. For you leftists this is simply normal.
You must realise that from now on you will be derided as simply another bunch of chook fuckers. Do you prefer Black Orpingtons or White Leghorns
May 13th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
James,
For example, don’t you think naming specific M.P.s as covering up a paedophile ring is defamatory (from Wishart’s statement above: “Cullen and Benson-Pope helped police cover-up details of an alleged pedophile, bestiality and bondage and discipline ring in Dunedin”).
Danyl,
“after his last couple of fuck=ups, Wishart is deep into ‘boy who cried wolf’ territory”
What “fuck-ups” would those be?
May 13th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Ben doesn’t care about the chook.
Hes saying fuck the chicken???
May 13th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
So no, I don’t think it’s worth investigating 20 years later. It’s like trying to bust someone because someone else smoked a joint in their house. A tenuous connection to a very minor crime a long time ago. I’d personally say going 15kmh over the speed limit is a much more serious one.
Posted by Ben Wilson | May 13, 2007 7:05 PM
Perhaps the PM then, is well placed to make a call on this one???
May 13th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Actually, they didn’t have to watch child porn, the were peeling back real life 14 year olds – and an under 9yo (although that was an Alsatian)
I wonder who the former Labour MP was who used to attend ?
May 13th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Isn’t it amusing watching pinko-liberals being made to squirm in the sebaceous exudate of their own political correctness !
May 13th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
“The video also featured a pig, and the actors appeared to me to be mentally handicapped.”
Sounds like a late Muldoon-era cabinet meeting.
May 13th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Sounds like tomorrows cabinet meeting…Polls, police,pigs and bird flu (and toss in the odd shooting or two!)
May 13th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Sums up this government pretty succinctly I reckon.. you can be any kind of lying sniveling depraved creep, as long as you suck on the socialist kool aid, they’ll promote you to high office.
May 13th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Of course, james cairney is probably quite correct, these comments are not defamatory of the various labour politicians, because to be defamatory would mean that they weren’t true. If Wishart is correct in what he alleges, of course they’re not defamatory.
May 13th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Thank you Ian,DPF, Redbaiter. Thank you, someone’s finally got the guts to confront this issue. Wishys going to have field day on this one.
[Paragraph defeated as potentially defamatory of another poster. Please do not repeat]
May 13th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
I suspect most of you guys here eat animals right? Yet you object so strongly to someone raping an animal?
Actually I think that both are dispicable acts, after all I deplore human canibalism and raping of humans, though I do actually think of canibalism as a worse offense.
May 13th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Bestiality is major problem in New Zealand and we all know it, especially chicken sex, just ask chuck bird. Apparently the zoo is rife with this kind of thing. Thank god someone has spoken up, it was probably the chicken.. ….
Posted by J | May 13, 2007 8:44 PM
Yes, bestiality is a major problem in NZ. Statistical evidence suggests that at least 50% of all-farm hands engage in it. Yet perhaps less than .005% of the population are ever charged with it. I think there was a case heard recently in ‘Wellington’ (no pun intended), where a woman was charged with committing indecencies upon a horse. (though Im not sure whether it was the plaintiff or the defendant, who was actually found guilty). No doubt Sue Bradford will be burning the midnight oil to come down hard on this, as we speak.
May 13th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Have you had a look at Wishart’s “taste of the evidence”?
Oh boy, I sure hope he has something better than that. Unreservedly believing witness statement and unindentified voice recordings of Donald Duck are only true when presented by the Crown.
May 13th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
sg5, I agree those words are defamatory, and they were specifically about DBP and MC. I missed that comment when I first read it, I thought he had been very careful not to make direct ‘hits’ on individual Ministers, but clearly not in that case.
So you are right, the question is will they sue or not. Keeping in mind Wishart can claim common law qualified privilege, I doubt that an expensive law suit would be worth the money. I would sure sue him if it was false, but then he wouldn’t get CLQP if he defamed me, so it is of little consequence. It is an expensive game, and given QP, not suing does not prove anything true.
May 13th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
“Statistical evidence suggests that at least 50% of all-farm hands engage in it (Bestiality) . ”
Farm hands are gonna hate you. I’d love to see that research. Did they fill out a questionaire in “farming weekly?”
May 13th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Personally I’d like to see all sex banned.
May 13th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
phillipjohn – your logic is just so crap it is embarassing. You find canibalism a bit worse than raping humans. You are a vegetarian and can’t really decide morally which is worse – eating a animal or shagging it. Pathetic.
May 13th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
hey pacman psst…well ya see you do have to kill it to eat it and then ya know it doesn’t live again..it’s dead…….. which the bird finds very annoying. Bird morality eh?
May 13th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
I kid you not. I last had a look at these stats during the 1970′s, when a freezing works acquantice of mine was incarcerated for committing indecencies upon a goat. Im not sure wether these stats are still collected, but I suspect not… (probably something to do with the Privacy Act)
May 13th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
J.. wtf? Is this what NCEA has really given us.
May 13th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
pacman – your comprehension skills are just so crap it is embarrassing. Complicity in Murder, Rape – I think that both are horrible and deplorable. What part of this don’t you understand?
May 13th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
“J.. wtf? Is this what NCEA has really given us.”
No I went to one of Aucklands top schools in 1980′s. Ya got kind of a point though, the schools system back then were shit….you could just float through.
Its just pj has a morality that goes something like this. Killing life,..it may be matched by a crime but it can’t be bettered in it’s immorality.
It’s very good morality but we all still eat meat because its a fucking huge addiction and it may not have an equal in meat sobriety. Ya know addiction like posting on this all the time.
May 13th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
“I suspect most of you guys here eat animals right? Yet you object so strongly to someone raping an animal?” I can do english (and appologise to DPF for the diversion) and have no problems in distingushing the diffenernce detween being a carnivores and condoning shagging an animal.
May 13th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
“when a freezing works acquantice of mine was incarcerated for committing indecencies upon a goat”
How well did you know this guy? a goat, Jeez…and they kept records. How could they tell?
Ian Wishart should definitely write this story.I’m becoming a vegetarian immediately.I’m not eating anymore New Zealand roasts until Ian checks this out.
Labour again I bet ya.
May 13th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
“carnivores with a big brain that’s developing a morality all the time and one day that morality says ,”we don’t own the planet, we can’t continue killing the planet, is there any other way than killing the other living creatures?”
answer: herbivore.
May 13th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Thats nothing. You should have seen what the Union Rep did to freshly dressed pig carcasses. Life is a rich tapstry.
May 13th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
I mean try and eat your cat. It should be easy.You’re a carnivore right. I mean imagine if I ate your cat? You’d be pretty pissed off.
May 13th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
“You should have seen what the Union Rep did to freshly dressed pig carcasses. Life is a rich tapstry.”
Unions huh, they’re always fucking animals. Get writing wishart and remember I want a writing credit.
May 13th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Ok, so I think that choosing to eat animals or not is a moral decision, and you don’t. Guess I can agree to disagree. Actually I also apologise to DPF for the diversion, and so I won’t be part of continuing this particular line discussion (even though I think it’s interesting).
May 13th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Phillipjohn. I for one, envy your intellect and is most likely, way beyond mine. But my education is from the university of life. Whence come yours?
May 13th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
It’s very interesting and its not a major diversion pj. It’s a movie about manchicken sex, disgustingly pathetic (almost to the point of almost hysterically laughable) but still not sufficient enough to raise as a heavy moral question when we kill and eat the stars of the movie frequently. Cop gets a pass.
I mean is that going be the measure of our character from now on? Imagine a job interview?
“My last question before I give you this job is have you ever seen or heard about manchicken sex and sir,please don’t lie?
May 13th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
Vegetables and fungi have rights too, they are living organisms. Putting tomatoes and mushrooms into a blender and hitting the switch is barbaric.
Vegetable Rights & Peace !
May 13th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Why oh why is bestiality illegal…? who’s rights are violated if some saddo decides to slip one into his animal? Its nasty and sick making certainly….but is it a crime? No.
Is the illegality of it a handover from primitive Christian dogma that’s polluted our laws with a subjective dislike posing as morality…?
May 13th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
And yet again debate is hijacked by clowns. Trying to steer the argument towards the morality of eating meat is a swerve and diversion worthy of Mr 9to5 himself.
The deeper labour fall into the pit of filth, the further you apologist fucktards will go. There is no decency of thought amongst you Labour defenders. The only possible path to reelection for clarke is to up her efforts to get all normal people to move to australia a bit faster.
May 13th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
“But my education is from the university of life.”
Paul, parts of that school are really fucked up. Enroll in a real university and learn to read stats and history.It’s good for the brain.
“My last question before I give you this job is have you ever seen or heard about manchicken sex and sir,please don’t lie?
May 13th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
“Vegetables and fungi have rights too, they are living organisms. Putting tomatoes and mushrooms into a blender and hitting the switch is barbaric. ”
If you can prove a conciousness yes but it’s never been proven. Do you know otherwise?That’s a really poor contribution to the issue by the way.University for you my boy.
May 13th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Why oh why is bestiality illegal…?
but ya know we do eat them. I don’t want eat a sheep that you’ve had sex with. Fuck christaianity on this one ,No to Bestialty on carnivore reasons,not sex issues….or no because its disgusting to most of us…no to not disgusting me.
May 13th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
J. Take a warm glass of milk and go to bed. Its way past your time.
May 13th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
“The deeper labour fall into the pit of filth, the further you apologist fucktards will go.”
I’m with you on this one, jeez I didn’t know those guys were fucking fucktards…but hey …. how do you know about the pit of filth. Whose been talking? That’s a secret.
May 13th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
NZ Music Month too – lets hear it for “Love in the Fowl House”…its more than Geo Orwell could have come up with…pig: “I fell in love, with a pretty little hen, I asked her once & I asked her again!!!”…what’s Howard Morrison, Ray Colombus & paul Holmes got to say about all this….yee ha!!!!
The Red Barren’s pining for the days when it was just “LA International Airport” she had to worry about…oh to just be a simple cottager’s wife again…
loving it watching PJ, james C etc pretend this doesn’t matter – no defamation case = no problem!!!…yeah right! You’ve been apologists for all sorts of sick shit, but this…I guess,… whateva feels right for you…moo…cluck…oink!!!
May 13th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
“J. Take a warm glass of milk and go to bed. Its way past your time”
You’re probably already in bed Paul.Ya know, one hand free to type,and one under the covers.
May 13th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
J, I’ve been to University, but I did something actually mentally challenging – engineering, Honours to boot. BTW, Haven,t you got ruminants or poultry to fuck ?
May 13th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
pork flavoured chicken (that’s good man, what a topical name) the point is the chicken thing isn’t gonna bring a government down or even get a cop fired unless we are idiots.
That’s todays news. We’ll see what tomorrow brings. Ian W doesn’t have a great record and his first story in this maybe bigger story is predictably weak.
May 13th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Shouty, I’m against mananimalsex, please read the posts. That disturbs me you didn’t get that. You’re not in the freezing works are you?
Paul do you know this guy?
Engineerings a good degree.It asks for proofs not speculation.
May 13th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
*sigh*
having lost the intellectual argument it seems that character assignation is the only option for some.
Once upon a time people debates policies and who ever made the best case one the day.
It’s a real shame that so many are willing to indulge this
May 13th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Boy the trolls are turning out tonight (from about 8.44).
Tell me “James”, does Labour pay you uni grads more than the minimum wage for this? Do you get paid extra for working unusul hours?
Whatever became of Sonic?
James C.
They are not the only pols accused of criminal acts.
And speaking of defamation, if I was this copper I’d be calling my lawyer (or packing my bags for overseas if it’s true):
“that one police officer named in the magazine was also filmed having sex with a dog”
Wait till the animal rights people hear about the cat.
May 13th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
It all just sounds like a regular Southern Kinx AGM, eh panty-slut-boy…..no?
May 13th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
Boy the trolls are turning out tonight (from about 8.44).
You just can’t take debate. What’s the point of discussing politics here if everyone agrees.Do you just want constant pats on the back for thoughts that don’t ever get to put to the test? Don’t you think that’s a recipe for disaster?
and if wishart doesn’t make something of importance stick this time I think we should really take him and his credibilty to pieces.I’m getting sick of this shit. There’s real politics going on.
May 13th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
“Once upon a time people debates policies and who ever made the best case one the day.”
What fucking year was that? 19fuckingneverhappened…. and door keys were as thin as paper and milk was free at schools and if there was a rainbow everybody got the day off.
May 13th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
As much as I think anyone who watches bestiality porn has a mental disorder, we are being distracted from the wider problem.
If the Police have engaged in lewd acts like ‘freebees from whorehouses’, ‘underage sex & drug dealing’, ‘key Police figures in the Bain case freebee-fucking 17yo Laniet Bain in a Dunedin slapper house’, ‘sending down Joyce Blondell in the most bizarre of circumstances’. This needs wider investigation.
How in hell are the public expected to trust the Police ?
May 13th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
SG5 – But Milton Weir didn’t eat the cat, although he bludgeoned it to death with a BBQ tool, he didn’t eat it.
Perhaps he should’ve fucked it ? (That would have made it perfectly acceptable)
May 14th, 2007 at 12:31 am
Clark would be a fool if she does not consult with Dame Margaret Bazley before confirming Broad in the job. Bazley faced a lot of interference from the Police during her inquiry. We have the perception rightly or wrongly that Broad was perhaps guarding his own patch. Plus we have the allegations of two senior MPs involved. This is a pretty kettle of fish for Clark.
May 14th, 2007 at 3:44 am
Police can be quite hard-core and watching a bestiality video is often done from a sense of the bizarre rather than any sexual interest in chickens.
I remember a young blond post-doc scientist who works today at the Garvan Institute in Sydney describing a video she had watched at a party showing a woman having sex with a greyhound and show not the slightest trace of embarrassment about the admission. And I dont think she was attracted to greyhounds as a result. And thats not the only time I have been part of that kind of discussion, although I can truthfully plead innocent to any such viewing myself (I am not sure if that is such a commendable thing or an indication of a sheltered life)
The bottom line, can the chooks of the South Island sleep safely in their nests tonight?
I believe they can.
May 14th, 2007 at 5:16 am
“J”:
You may call what you are doing “debate”, I call it trolling – trying to disrupt the thread by taking it well off topic.
How much do Labour shills make?
Shout:
“SG5 – But Milton Weir didn’t eat the cat, although he bludgeoned it to death with a BBQ tool, he didn’t eat it.”
I said nothing about who did what to the cat, I only raised the subject of the fate of the cat.
May 14th, 2007 at 7:55 am
Helen says she isn’t aware of any allegations outside of the Broad affair, but Cullen sure knows more, and has called Wishart a delusional who needs care rather than attention.
The little fishes have risen to the bait, but the MSM are reluctant to publish any other allegations. Most likely, Cullen will open his mouth first, repeatedly. No word from Benson Pope. Hardly surprising.
May 14th, 2007 at 8:19 am
I have always found it very sad when people say that somebodys lack of morals don’t mean they can’t do a good job in a position of responsibility to the public. Sad and illogical. If somebody is prepared to lie to their own family then does anyone really think they will hesitate to lie to the public? The country is sinking in a cesspit of moral relativism that has ensnared everyone from the top to the bottom and now the chickens are coming home to roost. No wonder people from the older generation look at the country and hang their heads in shame. We are a disgrace.
May 14th, 2007 at 8:24 am
My $5 says that Ian Wishart has been particularly careful to make sure at least some of these allegations stick. Those attacking Ian Wishart personally should ask themselves this: why don’t those at the centre of these allegations bring defamation proceedings? It’d be a humdinger, wouldn’t it? Or maybe not?
Oh – and speaking of Ian Wishart – we’re still waiting to hear back from PANTY SLUT BOY about how his Southern Kinx sexploits are going. Another story broken by Ian Wishart.
[last sentence deleted by DPF as potentially defamatory]
May 14th, 2007 at 9:49 am
Adolf, “For you to seriously suggest that a Police Comissioner could confess to this sort of activity and keep his job indicates you do not have the slightest idea of what is acceptable behavior on the part of those who occupy positions of priviledge and power.”
Confessing to having a party in which you weren’t in 100% of control of every drunk dickhead there is pretty normal, and I’m glad we have people in positions of power who are normal.
May 14th, 2007 at 9:55 am
A large part of the later allegations appear to be based on the testomy of a twice convicted killer. The killer claims to have been threatened with having a friend raped/killed by a policeman to confess the first time and then railroaded by police to cover up a police sanctioned murder the second time.
Either the corruption is very serious or the corruption is minor and extended fantastically by a fantasist.
May 14th, 2007 at 10:09 am
“No wonder people from the older generation look at the country and hang their heads in shame. We are a disgrace.”
Um… “older” generation? We’re talking something that happened in 1981 right? (well as far as the chicken video is concerned)
Aren’t these people the older generation? Now the younger generation is disgusted at their behaviour.
May 14th, 2007 at 10:22 am
I’m glad we have people in positions of power who are normal.
Hello Ben??? Do you think it’s “normal” for a man (if the allegation is correct) to guffaw at chicken sex videos (contrary to his claim to be in the kitchen at precisely the time he needed to be)??? At the moment we have Broad’s version and an unidentified witness’s version, so the truth is anyone’s guess. But even so, your definition of “normal” certainly leaves wide scope for Police Commissioners with skeleton-infested closets, don’t you think?
May 14th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Ben (and all the other police apologists) – it will all be cleared up when the cruelly maligned “victims” of IW’s various exposes sue him for defamation…unless, of course (like David Benson-Pope aka Panty-Slut-Boy) they don’t sue him…because, well…just because!
Damn! Fair cop! No defence.
May 14th, 2007 at 11:01 am
“Hello Ben??? Do you think it’s “normal” for a man (if the allegation is correct) to guffaw at chicken sex videos”
It’s not outside the realms of the average New Zealanders attitude to sex, even given if it was an absurd once in a lifetime “some weirdo bought a video to my party” incident. I mean come on , is that the measure of deviancy?
May 14th, 2007 at 11:37 am
I mean come on , is that the measure of deviancy?
No, you’d be right that is not a measure to be concerned about.
The article alleges he also condoned paedophilia and sexually assaulted his employees and was aware of/active in the acceptance of bribes. These are worrying.
Watching a video of a chicken being raped to death at a party sometime in the 80s, not too much of concern.
May 14th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
“The article alleges he also condoned paedophilia and sexually assaulted his employees and was aware of/active in the acceptance of bribes. These are worrying”
You’re right. If that’s true fire and jail him, if it’s not true ……Wishart, I’m looking at you.Whats’s the penalty for constant bullshit?
For the record…the police are hardly pals of mine.
May 14th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
The readership of Investigate seems to be those who don’t know the difference between proof and allegations and those who don’t care.
May 14th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
You’re right. If that’s true fire and jail him,…
Who is going to do that? Corrupt police are extremely likely to have bias against investigating police corruption.
if it’s not true ……Wishart, I’m looking at you.Whats’s the penalty for constant bullshit?
The thing is that Wishart does not get to be proven wrong unless he gets the thing he says he wants. The only chance of him losing is if he gets his way.
May 14th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Interesting that Matt Robson is listed as a current politician – he didn’t get back into parliament as an mp for the progressives after the election.
May 14th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
He says he wants a Royal Commission type enquiry.
May 14th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
“Whats’s the penalty for constant bullshit”
What constant bullshit would that be J? Please give us some examples.
The almighty Danyl Mclauchlan tried to tell us that Investigate magizine was way into boy who cried wolf territory, yet he is strangely silent when someone asked him to give us an example.
All over the blogosphere this morning I have been reading you lefties saying that Wishart lacks credibility, that he’s a conspiacy theorist, a liar and fuck knows what else, not one of you has managed to give us an example. Just because you don’t like the guy and what he says doesn’t make him wrong.
So tell us J: what has Ian Wishart said that has proven to be bullshit? You must have a few examples considering you went as far as to say it’s “constant bullshit”
Put up or fuck up and stop trolling.
May 14th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Allegations from 1984 are going to bring down the government in 2007?
That crazy Wishart, always in touch with todays news, whats the next investigate scoop, Hitler to recoccupy the Rhineland?
May 14th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Just an observation: as reported in Kiwiblog, the police, MPs from several parties and the news media have recently been contacted by a man who alleges that a mobile comms device has been implanted in his brain as part of a campaign of torture by Peter Jackson and others. They have all heard this allegation. This is not the same as the allegation being true.
May 14th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
I have just read Investigate, and I am very disturbed about the claims. In particular, the conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, the police gangsters, and the apparent cover up at a senior level of the police.
I don’t think you can blame the local politicians for circulating the results of an official report. That is not a cover up. Michel Cullen and David Benson Pope have done nothing wrong in that respect.
But the accusations of corruption, especially against the two particular officers, are extremely worrying. Bear in mind:
- Some convictions obtained by these officers have been shown to be unsafe.
- Two of them unsuccessfully sued Joe Karam for defamation.
- The accusation of pornography with bestiality has been confirmed by the Police Commissioner.
- The accusation that it was impossible to complain about police wrongdoing in Dunedin has been confirmed by the Police Commissioner.
I want an enquiry into this. David Bain is just the tip of the iceberg. Who else have they put in jail? Why is Police Headquarters protecting them? The more the Government drags its feet on this, the more it will start to smell, especially given David Benson Pope’s history and the apperance of an orchestrated cover-up at the senior levels of police.
Prime Minister. You stood by Philip Field and said he was guilty of nothing more than being helpful. Please don’t make the same mistake again. You have shown leadership in the Police rape enquiry. But the job is not finished. Nor is your legacy set. Jesus suffered the children and prostitutes to come unto him. In Dunedin, the police stand acussed of preying on them.
This is beyond politics. If the Prime Minister and the Police Commissioner do not act, they are unfit for office.
May 14th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
I read my copy last night and the allegations goes far beyond the police commissioner allegedly watching some beastiality videos in the 1980s.
The issue the media should raise is wholesale police corruption and the culpability of Labour politicians i.e the government,
in this.
Do we want a police force that has top officers
‘groping’ younger staff, or putting new rookie females through a sexual initiation ceremony?
Do we want a police force whose officers get freebies from prostitutes in return for turning a blind eye to their activities?
Do we want a police force that issues threats against individuals? A police that has files on politicians for use in potential blackmail?
Do we want politicians helping to downplay or cover up allegations of paedaphilia, porn and beastiality rings?
It becomes all the more significant when one
politician named becomes the attorney general, deputy prime minister and finance minister all rolled into one. No wonder Michael Cullen is Investigate’s cover boy in what is supposed to be his budget week.
Then, we have another politician named- one who has been named before as a member of Dunedin’s bondage sex scene, Mr Panty Slut Boy, now finding himself of allegedly being involved in the cover ups.
In addition, we have other ministers or senior MPs named for knowing of similar alleagations and not doing anything about it.
So we have widespread allegations of the police being corrupt. And a whole raft of political leaders doing nothing or downplaying the matter, perhaps because of files kept on them?
Think about it, the police do wrong and Labour politicians in power do nothing about it.
Then, Labour politicians do wrong and the
police then find it not in the public interest to prosecute.
‘Stolen’ election anyone?
Can you join the dots as well?
This is an issue above party lines. It goes right to the heart of democracy, a free country. For if we cannot trust our police, who can we trust? If we cannot trust our political leaders and they are culpable of similar corruption, then what has become
of New Zealand?
Finally, while the MSM have focussed on the bestiality video, at least that incident was found to be largely true, or else the commissioner would not have offered
his resignation.
No doubt the rest remains to be verified over time, though the sworn affadavits from the people making the claims looks a sound enough defence for me.
And already some of these statements are being placed on http://www.tbr.cc if only to dispel the disbelievers.
Anyway, here’s what Helen Clark and Michael Cullen have to say in today’s Herald.
Both Helen Clark and Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen criticised Investigate magazine.
“Investigate magazine has been out trawling for dirt on anything on anybody for years,” she said.
Dr Cullen said editor Ian Wishart was “a delusional paranoid who needs care rather than any other sort of attention”.
However, I would say those who are truly delusional paranoids are those who think Labour and the police have nothing to hide over the matter, that nothing untoward happened at all.
Sadly, not only do many of these inhabit this blog, but alas the corridors of power and in in some of the country’s newsrooms.
Investigate cannot be ignored this time.
It seems like a battle to the death this time, either for Ian Wishart and our corrupt government.
May 14th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
I read my copy last night and the allegations goes far beyond the police commissioner allegedly watching some beastiality videos in the 1980s.
The issue the media should raise is wholesale police corruption and the culpability of Labour politicians i.e the government,
in this.
Do we want a police force that has top officers
‘groping’ younger staff, or putting new rookie females through a sexual initiation ceremony?
Do we want a police force whose officers get freebies from prostitutes in return for turning a blind eye to their activities?
Do we want a police force that issues threats against individuals? A police that has files on politicians for use in potential blackmail?
Do we want politicians helping to downplay or cover up allegations of paedaphilia, porn and beastiality rings?
It becomes all the more significant when one
politician named becomes the attorney general, deputy prime minister and finance minister all rolled into one. No wonder Michael Cullen is Investigate’s cover boy in what is supposed to be his budget week.
Then, we have another politician named- one who has been named before as a member of Dunedin’s bondage sex scene, Mr Panty Slut Boy, now finding himself of allegedly being involved in the cover ups.
In addition, we have other ministers or senior MPs named for knowing of similar alleagations and not doing anything about it.
So we have widespread allegations of the police being corrupt. And a whole raft of political leaders doing nothing or downplaying the matter, perhaps because of files kept on them?
Think about it, the police do wrong and Labour politicians in power do nothing about it.
Then, Labour politicians do wrong and the
police then find it not in the public interest to prosecute.
‘Stolen’ election anyone?
Can you join the dots as well?
This is an issue above party lines. It goes right to the heart of democracy, a free country. For if we cannot trust our police, who can we trust? If we cannot trust our political leaders and they are culpable of similar corruption, then what has become
of New Zealand?
Finally, while the MSM have focussed on the bestiality video, at least that incident was found to be largely true, or else the commissioner would not have offered
his resignation.
No doubt the rest remains to be verified over time, though the sworn affadavits from the people making the claims looks a sound enough defence for me.
And already some of these statements are being placed on http://www.tbr.cc if only to dispel the disbelievers.
Anyway, here’s what Helen Clark and Michael Cullen have to say in today’s Herald.
Both Helen Clark and Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen criticised Investigate magazine.
“Investigate magazine has been out trawling for dirt on anything on anybody for years,” she said.
Dr Cullen said editor Ian Wishart was “a delusional paranoid who needs care rather than any other sort of attention”.
However, I would say those who are truly delusional paranoids are those who think Labour and the police have nothing to hide over the matter, that nothing untoward happened at all.
Sadly, not only do many of these inhabit this blog, but alas the corridors of power and in in some of the country’s newsrooms.
Investigate cannot be ignored this time.
It seems like a battle to the death this time, either for Ian Wishart or our corrupt government.
May 14th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
“He says he wants a Royal Commission type enquiry.”
He also says things like this.
“If you believe that (species can evolve), then you’ll believe life is not special and mankind is the master of all her surveys. You’ll believe there is no God and free yourself and your family from any moral code.” (John Roughan review)
Ian Wishart is not one of our elected leaders; he is a journalist who has a record of sensationalism and has research methods that would see him fired if he worked for most media outlets.
A royal commission is expensive and draining and the cops shouldn’t be dragged into the gutter over this article until real proof is produced and examined.
Alternatively if Wishart has again failed to bring a well researched case to the public forum he should be held accountable for unjustifiably trying to ruin innocent peoples lives,as should the headline writers and editors of our major press outlets who use him as a source to sell papers.
May 14th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
I read my copy last night and the allegations goes far beyond the police commissioner allegedly watching some beastiality videos in the 1980s.
The issue the media should raise is wholesale police corruption and the culpability of Labour politicians i.e the government,
in this.
Do we want a police force that has top officers
‘groping’ younger staff, or putting new rookie females through a sexual initiation ceremony?
Do we want a police force whose officers get freebies from prostitutes in return for turning a blind eye to their activities?
Do we want a police force that issues threats against individuals? A police that has files on politicians for use in potential blackmail?
Do we want politicians helping to downplay or cover up allegations of paedaphilia, porn and beastiality rings?
It becomes all the more significant when one
politician named becomes the attorney general, deputy prime minister and finance minister all rolled into one. No wonder Michael Cullen is Investigate’s cover boy in what is supposed to be his budget week.
Then, we have another politician named- one who has been named before as a member of Dunedin’s bondage sex scene, Mr Panty Slut Boy, now finding himself of allegedly being involved in the cover ups.
In addition, we have other ministers or senior MPs named for knowing of similar alleagations and not doing anything about it.
So we have widespread allegations of the police being corrupt. And a whole raft of political leaders doing nothing or downplaying the matter, perhaps because of files kept on them?
Think about it, the police do wrong and Labour politicians in power do nothing about it.
Then, Labour politicians do wrong and the
police then find it not in the public interest to prosecute.
‘Stolen’ election anyone?
Can you join the dots as well?
This is an issue above party lines. It goes right to the heart of democracy, a free country. For if we cannot trust our police, who can we trust? If we cannot trust our political leaders and they are culpable of similar corruption, then what has become
of New Zealand?
Finally, while the MSM have focussed on the bestiality video, at least that incident was found to be largely true, or else the commissioner would not have offered
his resignation.
No doubt the rest remains to be verified over time, though the sworn affadavits from the people making the claims looks a sound enough defence for me.
And already some of these statements are being placed on http://www.tbr.cc if only to dispel the disbelievers.
Anyway, here’s what Helen Clark and Michael Cullen have to say in today’s Herald.
Both Helen Clark and Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen criticised Investigate magazine.
“Investigate magazine has been out trawling for dirt on anything on anybody for years,” she said.
Dr Cullen said editor Ian Wishart was “a delusional paranoid who needs care rather than any other sort of attention”.
However, I would say those who are truly delusional paranoids are those who think Labour and the police have nothing to hide over the matter, that nothing untoward happened at all.
Sadly, not only do many of these inhabit this blog, but alas the corridors of power and in in some of the country’s newsrooms.
Investigate cannot be ignored this time.
It seems like a battle to the death this time, either for Ian Wishart or our corrupt government.
May 14th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
It MUST be true, otherwise Peter Jackson would have sued him.
May 14th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
what has Ian Wishart said that has proven to be bullshit?
Kay Goodger, who’s now a senior Government adviser (and who still mixes with Marxist organisations in Europe), authored in 1973 and 1974 a series of documents for New Zealand’s Socialist Action League which set out a long term plan for changing the face of New Zealand society.
as also reported in the NZ Herald, for which a public retraction was made, because it was … bullshit. Wishart, as far as I know, has never apologised for, or retracted his allegations.
May 14th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
J; real proof.
The article names names, support claims with many verbatim comments, and identifies places and times. It includes confirmation from multiple sources about the same events.
Read it. Ask yourself. Why did the Police Commissioner say
- There was a bestiality film
- It was impossible to complain about it.
The second statement alone prevents us having any confidence in the 1985 report saying there was insufficient evidence to lay charges in the sex ring case.
THE POLICE COMMISSIONER SAYS YOU COULDN”T COMPLAIN ABOUT POLICE MISCONDUCT AT THAT TIME. For gods sake, what does it take to realise that there might be a problem. Don’t you care about perversion of the course of justice to protect corrupt police linked to a underage sex and bestiality shows? I do.
May 14th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
A royal commission is expensive and draining and the cops shouldn’t be dragged into the gutter over this article until real proof is produced and examined.
This is the gutter, Investigate resides here. A royal commission elevates this to a point where the claims are either verified or dismissed impartially.
By whom shall this proof be produced and examined otherwise?
Alternatively if Wishart has again failed to bring a well researched case to the public forum he should be held accountable for unjustifiably trying to ruin innocent peoples lives
Even if he is, he has named sources. These will be the victims of the counter attacks by the police officers.
Wishart is doing pretty well at this point to either concoct a story or tell the truth.
May 14th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
“Wishart, as far as I know, has never apologised for, or retracted his allegations.”
Because the challenge was based on mere pedantry, I’d guess.
May 14th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
J,
Why did you quote from John Roughan’s review, instead of from Wishart’s book? He doesn’t say that in the book, Roughan altered the quote.
May 14th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
“THE POLICE COMMISSIONER SAYS YOU COULDN”T COMPLAIN ABOUT POLICE MISCONDUCT AT THAT TIME. For gods sake, what does it take to realise that there might be a problem. Don’t you care about perversion of the course of justice to protect corrupt police linked to a underage sex and bestiality shows? I do.”
Yes, justice is very important to me and you. It’s the source that worries me and his past delusions.
I have no real love for the police. I think a pretty good argument could be made to overhaul our police system and most police systems but I have problems with a delusional journalist on a moral crusade making the case.
May 14th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Because the challenge was based on mere pedantry, I’d guess.
Where pedantry is getting your facts right? Surely that’s the whole point?
May 14th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
J,
“Why did you quote from John Roughan’s review, instead of from Wishart’s book? He doesn’t say that in the book, Roughan altered the quote.”
If that’s true then I withdraw the quote and
apologise. John Roughan is supposed to be a journalist. If it’s true that’s an example of more incredibly poor journalism in this country.
Wishart is known as a “big god” believer so the quote didn’t seem out of character. You must have the actual quote? Please post.Does anyone know John Roughan? Why would he misquote from a book?
May 14th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
J,
So having religious beliefs is suddenly a viable reason to call someone’s professionalism into question?
Pathetic.
The level of religious intolerence in this country is becoming disgusting.
May 14th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
I have problems with a delusional journalist on a moral crusade making the case.
As do I. Only way to do that is to take it out of his hands.
May 14th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
“So having religious beliefs is suddenly a viable reason to call someone’s professionalism into question?Pathetic.The level of religious intolerence in this country is becoming disgusting”
I guess it’s a question of intensity ,but yes guilty as charged.
I feel strangely uncomfortable eating at Osama Bin Ladens Pizza and Burger Palace even though the fries are quite frankly delicious.
and to go all rational on your arse, religion is the ultimate delusion.A white bearded God sitting on a cloud waiting for us to die so he can send us to hell.I’m not voting for that.
May 14th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Radio New Zealand reports: “Mr Broad denied claims in the magazine of sexual initiation rites for female recruits, that police sought sexual favours from Dunedin brothel owners, and that police tried to cover up a Dunedin sex ring. He said the sex ring allegations were looked into at the time and some officers were moved out of the city. ”
Why were some officers moved out of the city?
- Was it for no reason at all?
- Or was it becase they did something wrong, but were above the law? You or I go to jail for 10 years. Police just get moved out of the city.
Anybody care to take a swing at that one?
May 14th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
“As do I. Only way to do that is to take it out of his hands”
Good point. That has to happen. I agree.
May 14th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Sonic’s keeping a low profile these days. Is it just me or has “J” taken over Sonic’s trolling duties?
May 14th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Question: Were the police who were “moved out of the city” in response to the sex ring allegations charged with criminal or disciplinary offences? If so, what was the outcome? If not, why not?
Question: What role do the police who were “moved out of the city” now hold in the New Zealand police force ?
May 14th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
I don’t think J is chronic. He was trolling last night which is not normal for bubonic who only normally trolls when somebody is paying him
May 14th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
I recall David Parker resigning as AG after Wishart exposed information in the public domain that MSM had not exposed – I cannot recall MSM exposing anything that has led to a Labour politician resigning. Does this mean perhaps that Wishart has uncovered the only wrongdoing by any Labour polly or more likely MSM is incompetent or perhaps complicit in such areas.If Wishart has prima facia evidence then a court case is the only way the public stand any chance of learning the truth and this is doubtful given the critism of our highest judges by the privy council that effectiely they did not understand NZ law and court procedures, unless they did and simply ignored them “in the public interest”. And to those nationalistic defenders of Wilsons unconstitutional removal of appeal to the privy council, who are world renowed for Jurisprudence, I say, have or will any of our supreme court judges ever be asked to sit on international courts of justice – I think & hope not.
May 14th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Frankly, the results in the Bain case suggest that the whole system is ready to forgive corrupt police, from police bosses, to civil servants, politicians and the courts.
Fortunately, the Privy Council stood up for the law and identified a substantial miscarraige of justice. This miscarraige of justice clearly came from deliberate deception by the same Dunedin police that stand accused by Investigate.
The Prime Minister and the Police Commissioner need to show that they will not stand for corrupt police. Or perhaps they could just move them to another city?
May 14th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
“I don’t think J is chronic”.
I’m sure most of you are redbaiter but then of course that begs the question, “who is redbaiter?”
but I’m not sonic. I agree with “most” of Sonics posts but not all.
but for the record and to distinguish us I think Chris Hitchens rants on religion are amazingly brillant even if his rants on politics are kind of confused.I’m j.
May 14th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
iirc Rumpole, Parker resigned and then it turned out he had done nothing wrong.
Yet another triumph for Mr Wishart!
May 14th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
” Is it just me or has “J” taken over Sonic’s trolling duties?”
Trolling is when you deliberatly try to piss people off. I’m just asking questions. I’d love to see a strong sensible opposition Party. I want to be well off and I want you to be well off. I want debate on this.
May 14th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Parker resigned. Then after a week or so, he miraculously found a letter that exonerated him.
Guess what, I’ve got a bridge for sale.
May 14th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Dyson. Samuels. Dalziel
May 14th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Look, there’s nothing to see here, can’t we just move on?
May 14th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Parker resigned and then it turned out he had done nothing wrong.
And you can quote the Dunedin police on that.
May 14th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Danyl
Is that the same Samuels that claimed it was OK to have sex with a girl who had been 16 for 3 days – Now what is that technicallity about the age of consent being 18 when somebody is in your care and/or employed by you. Funny, I don’t reall that technicallity being mentioned when they were scrambling to to tell us it was OK because she had just turned 16…
May 14th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Im almost feeling sorry for the Socialists Talk about death by a thousand cuts.Unless those accused take and win a defamation case against Wishart at least some are going to believe him. The Blazley Inquiry is looking more and more like a Claytons one.Designed to shut the kids up and not let the rest of the revelations get out.
This coming on top of the fifth wack around the ears in six years by the Privy Council against our judical system is giving NZ all the impression of a little banana republic at the bottom of world.
May 14th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Lynne Provo for commissioner – you heard it here first !
May 14th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Someone asked: what has Ian Wishart said that has proven to be bullshit?
This is from Wishart’s blog, Nov ’06.
“Word inside Parliament is that David Benson-Pope returned to Dunedin this morning to discuss his crisis with family members, and may be on the verge of resigning.
He is specifically and expressly refusing to deny involvement with BDSM.
Developing.”
…and we’re still waiting.
Linda A
May 14th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
As stated elsewhere, a member of my family has used his contacts in the police to pervert the course of justice and, in another instance, used them to attempt to intimidate a defendant in signing a bogus affadavit. Apparently, the Police Complaints Authority investigated and moved one or two cops out of town. The whole thing was hush-hush, and I was denied any details and Ive never bothered to follow up. Are all PCA enquiries accessible to the public? Can someone let me know whether this is possible and I’ll go have a look-see and post back?
May 14th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Sonic
If Parker did nothing wrong he would be AG.Claiming to have a AGM and passing a resolution when the other person says it never happened is only not wrong if tested in court – it wasn’t. I note that Parker is also in some strife over an unpaid 4 year power bill for his electorate office – now paid I accept and perhaps Parker should not be expected to be aware of every detail of expenditure but most would notice the lack of a payment for power over 4 years so he is accountable and with the company return situation in mind should he not have learned to be more careful over financial matters especially as I understood there were also questions of dubious dealings over certain assets of his insolvent company that never seemed to be answered, perhaps the official assignee deemed this “not in the public interest” after all they would be following in the footsteps !!!
May 14th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Danyl
yes they resigned – forgot them – thanks.
May 14th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Joe Karam (self-proclaimed “White Knight” on Morning Report this morning) is a very interesting character.
All that talent, all that commitment, yet unfulfilled promise.
This is his legacy; http://www.sportsfreak.co.nz/show-column.asp?ID=302#
May 14th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Joe Karam (self-proclaimed “White Knight” on Morning Report this morning) is a very interesting character.
All that talent, all that commitment, yet unfulfilled promise.
This is his legacy; http://www.sportsfreak.co.nz/show-column.asp?ID=302#
May 14th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
” I note that Parker is also in some strife over an unpaid 4 year power bill for his electorate office ”
Wow, hold the front page..
No offence Rumpole but is that it?
May 14th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
“What constant bullshit would that be… Please give us some examples.”
How about the theory that the Iranians may soon be able to deliver, from the deck of a boat no less, a nuclear weapon powerful enough to trigger an EMP strong enough to knock all the airliners out of the sky and destroy the electronics in the bulk of the continental US.
Or that the Indonesians are secretly planning a seaborne invasion of Australia
Or that the George bush appointed Lutheran judge that smacked the silly out of Intelligent design in the Dover case is a liberal secular activist
Or the theory that the guy that was mailing death threats and pig products to Muslim women in Wellington a while back, was probably a liberal false flag operation to promote hate speech legislation. Wouldn’t be surprising Ian thought.
May 14th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
“What constant bullshit would that be… Please give us some examples.”
How about the theory that the Iranians may soon be able to deliver, from the deck of a boat no less, a nuclear weapon powerful enough to trigger an EMP strong enough to knock all the airliners out of the sky and destroy the electronics in the bulk of the continental US.
Or that the Indonesians are secretly planning a seaborne invasion of Australia
Or that the George bush appointed Lutheran judge that smacked the silly out of Intelligent design in the Dover case is a liberal secular activist
Or the theory that the guy that was mailing death threats and pig products to Muslim women in Wellington a while back, was probably a liberal false flag operation to promote hate speech legislation. Wouldn’t be surprising Ian thought.
May 14th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
If National wins the next election, will Ian Wisheart look for dirt on National Party members?
May 14th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm_(video)
For what it’s worth, and I personally couldn’t care less: this could be the video being discussed.
Linda A
May 14th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
J,
Wishart has a discussion of the Herald review by Roughan altering the quote here:
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2007/05/nz_herald_alter.html#comments
I don’t agree with what Wishart originally wrote in the quoted passage, but it isn’t as silly as what Roughan made him appear to say.
May 14th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
“Kay Goodger, who’s now a senior Government adviser (and who still mixes with Marxist organisations in Europe), authored in 1973 and 1974 a series of documents for New Zealand’s Socialist Action League which set out a long term plan for changing the face of New Zealand society.”
as also reported in the NZ Herald, for which a public retraction was made, because it was … bullshit. Wishart, as far as I know, has never apologised for, or retracted his allegations.
Quite. Wishart went much further than the Herald and refuses to even acknowledge that he recklessly defamed a good person. I talked him through it in a thread on this site: he just won’t even face it. (Even people on the Menz group forums agreed that Goodger has been personally helpful to them, she didn’t write what he claimed she wrote and the claim that she “still mixes with Marxist organisations in Europe” is simply laughable.
It now appears that Pete Hodgson “covered up” the allegations made by Wishart’s source, Joyce Conwell, by asking Tim Barnett to go to Christchurch Women’s Prison see see her and hear her case. Some cover-up, huh?
Wishart has now posted the affadavit Conwell gave in Barnett’s presence. How does it read? It reads like the statement of someone with paranoid delusions. Wishart is presumably too crazed to realise it, but I think it basically blows his story out of the water.
May 14th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Probably not Sonic, possibly the tip of an iceberg. Interesting to have your current view on the poll showing the parties/leaders current ratings!
May 14th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Russell Brown joins the Labour led chorus seeking to denigrate Wishart. No doubt Joe Karam, just vindicated by the Privy Council, will suffer the same fate. His commentary on Morning Report was devastating. If Mother Theresa rose from the dead and vouched for the accuracy of thse allegations she too would be pilloried by Lefterati.
May 14th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Linda A
That title matches the general content as I remember some of it from a party where it was on during the 80′s. It was a trophy video, as must see and/or have of the well connected and the wanna be’s. Being banned it was highly sought after and traveled pretty widely throughout NZ. The one I saw snippets of was horrendous quality, copy of a copy etc. Please don’t get me wrong on this, I think the movie was horrendous. I have never owned a copy or screened it myself.
I have had a good scan of the Investigate mag. It’s a stunning report. If it’s even half true then there are going to be some heads rolling.
Is it just me that has noticed the timing coincidence with the David Bain case. Karam was just on the news saying he also has people who would be prepared to make statements backing up Wishart’s story.
Game on!
May 14th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
So many people who comment on this blog are filth. I’ve decided to stop reading it. Sorry David. It’s just become crap.
May 14th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
Russell…your constant carping about Goodger is in danger of landing you with a defamation writ because of your constant inaccuracies…
Investigate’s story was slightly different from the Herald’s. Upon review, it needed no retraction because we hadn’t made the error (albeit minor) that the Herald made. This is a matter of public record and was in fact clarified in the following issue of the magazine.
Goodger wrote exactly what we claimed she wrote, but good ol know it all Russ (who admits to only ever having “investigated” one Investigate story), didn’t read ours carefully enough, or the clarification that followed (contrary to his ongoing assertions above).
We even pointed out for idjits like Russ exactly how we knew what Goodger had written and what she hadn’t.
We said she still had contact with Marxist groups because she magically appeared on a signature list on a Marxist website, but IIRC we accepted her later explanation as to the innocuousness of that.
But Russ, ya bunny, the saddest thing of all is that you could read the feature article and assume it was about Kay Goodger per se…when it was abundantly clear to everyone else it was about the Marxist vision she laid out for radical feminism in NZ.
It wasn’t a profile on Goodger, but an article on what she wrote, and yes, she did write it (with others in some parts). Her wishlist came true, which made it an interesting story about how society had changed so much in 30 years.
You were so hooked up on taking a crack at me you didn’t even check for differences between the Herald and Investigate stories, you simply assumed that the failure of one must mean the failure of the other.
Halfwit.
Your inability to get your facts right, even in the short stories that you do Russ, is why you are only a columnist, not a real journalist.
When you can string 130,000 words together on numerous occasions naming knights of the realm and leading business figures as crooks, when you’ve had your home and office burgled on a number of occasions and had manuscripts stolen by – I dunno, must have been pixies – when you recieve death threats from criminal organisations, when you wake up one morning and find the brakes on your car don’t work (inconveniently on the motorway as it happened) because someone sabotaged them in a bid to stop a book being completed, then perhaps you can lecture me.
Until then, you remain a journalistic gadfly, the ultimate epitome of the Ponsonby latte set, famous for having an opinion but not much else.
Get your facts straight from here on or I’ll start getting litigious. I’m getting a sense of deja vu here.
May 14th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
“What I argue in the book is that Darwinism, as it is taught by atheist science teachers, is loaded with anti-Christian baggage deliberately. And it is this widespread approach to pushing Darwinism in this way that has damaged society.”- Ian Wishy
“Nah, that’s dumb” – sane people
May 14th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
J
Lets not forget that Darwin’s writings were a product of his time. The key barrier he had to advancing his theories was the church. Does it really surprise you that he may have referenced his finding ‘against religion’ because he was introducing the only “believable *” alternative to creationism?
* Believable in the sense that one had to ignore the only acceptable teachings of the time, look at it from a logical and scientific perspective. Not an easy ask in a society so dominated by the churches at the time.
I’d agree it’s written like that, I however don’t feel the need to write about it myself or denigrate somebody who has chosen to do so.
But I’ll just say thanks Ian for confirming something I had pondered myself. History eh, the context is so easily overlooked…
May 14th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
“Your inability to get your facts right, even in the short stories that you do Russ, is why you are only a columnist, not a real journalist”
Dude, Russell Brown is one of the most amazing journalists in the world today. I fucking read and watch them all and he’s up there with the best.
I want to know what’s going on.So do you.This guy is a freak(talent) at reporting on what’s important, importance is shit that will make your life better if you understand it.
and genuinely…come to the light man. You’ve got talents. Give em to us not redbaiter. Please…..Jesus Christ you’re a fucking christian. Remember that.Ya know the jesus christ guy, the sweet forgiving socialist guy who smashed churches up. Live up to that guys love.
May 14th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
J
I don’t believe Christ would have stood idly by if he had information like this dropped in his lap.
The lord works in mysterious ways.
May 15th, 2007 at 12:11 am
“And it is this widespread approach to pushing Darwinism in this way that has damaged society.”
I don’t like this bit Burt (and Ian), it’s wrong. Society is not damaged by atheism, it’s massively helped.
Atheists are people who have to constantly think how to improve what maybe their one stab at consciousness for the eternity of this universe. Read that passage until you understand what it means to them.
They are on average the best most rational people in the world. It’a real motivator for action knowing that this life is that special.
This is there only world. It’s Heaven.
May 15th, 2007 at 12:37 am
“I don’t believe Christ would have stood idly by if he had information like this dropped in his lap.”
Well sit down Ross,
Jesus was a radical Jew who became so disgusted at the hypocrisy of his own church that he decided “enough was enough” , fuck the Jewish god , he would change Jewish society back to its core values of tolerance and “giving a shit.” He failed.
But 30 years later a bunch of reformed frat boys saw him as a kind of moral compass and said, “Hey tolerance and love might actually work” and proceeded to start the great religious chain as we now know it, “McJesus.”
But what ya know, overtime people kept changing the ingredients of the infamous McJesus love and tolerance burger until in time , it tasted pretty bad.
Jesus really does need a second coming. He can come down again and can kick the shit out of the McJesus franchise owners (Popes,Ministers,Fathers, Nuns and Arch Deacons) like he did that great beautiful day in the temple of Jerusalem. .
May 15th, 2007 at 7:51 am
Russell…your constant carping about Goodger is in danger of landing you with a defamation writ because of your constant inaccuracies…
You’re a rather nasty little man deep down, aren’t you?
May 15th, 2007 at 9:19 am
J
I agree with your last two posts. You should stick to religion, your politics is nowhere near as articulate
May 15th, 2007 at 9:36 am
DPF: How did you allow this thread to become so obsene?
In what way do “J’s” (Joke?) posts have anything to do with your original post?
Would you allow anyone on this blog to write disgustingly offensive comments about Allah & Mohammed?
J is entitled to his/her opinion but the comments above are uncalled for, virtiolic and incredibly offensive.(to me anyway)
J is trolling on your website and you seem to have no problem with her comments or hatred of her creator.(whether she believes it or not). I find her filth as offensive as anything D4J ever wrote. So am I to accept that is ok to abuse God, but not ok to abuse other bloggers?
May 15th, 2007 at 9:54 am
wtf: what has Ian Wishart said that has proven to be bullshit?
Pascal’s Bookie: the Iranians may soon be able to deliver…a nuclear weapon … the Indonesians are secretly planning a seaborne invasion of Australia … George bush appointed Lutheran judge … the guy that was mailing death threats and pig products to Muslim women in Wellington a while back, was probably a liberal false flag operation
Oh come on! According to RedBaiter, you’re just being pedantic!
May 15th, 2007 at 10:04 am
Craig, I think that if Ian is allowed to accuse pixies of stealing his manuscripts with no one defending them, then pretty much any imaginary friend should be fair game.
May 15th, 2007 at 10:23 am
This is interesting:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4060316a10.html
Especially this bit from Ms King:
“What bemuses me is that we have just had a three-year inquiry into police behaviour, nationwide,” she said.
“Mr Wishart (Ian Wishart, editor of Investigate) had the opportunity to place those claims before it. He did not.”
Linda A
May 15th, 2007 at 10:58 am
I laughed when I saw this comment from Redbaiter…
‘Helen Klark at Labour Party strategy meeting-
“Hmmm, doesn’t look good. We need an angle that generates some sympathy for Labour. I know..!! Let’s think of a way to work the Exclusive Brethren in to it.”‘
Then I saw this headline on the Stuff site…
“Brethren’s PI was porno cop – King”
May 15th, 2007 at 11:33 am
Craig,I was bought up a Christian. The baptist church I attended is now a petrol station.This was my religion. I have every right to comment on it.Like Jesus and the Jewish church.
The wishy link explained: Ian Wishart believes in a “big bossy god” that wants to send me to hell. It informs a lot of his hysterical writings.
I didn’t mean to offend you but your fantastical beliefs probably make that impossible.Your post kind of offends me but I forgive you.
“Would you allow anyone on this blog to write disgustingly offensive comments about Allah & Mohammed?”
He should, they certainly shouldn’t be free from rational inspection.
May 15th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
J – please stop trolling and stick to the topic. You are beginning to show a pattern of hijacking threads in a distracting way that Dad4Justice became notorious for.
May 15th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Ian, I am sure you will be up with defamation law or Investigate would not still be in business. I see Labour Ministers are claiming that Wayne Idour brought the bestiality video to the function.
If Idour did not and he sues for defamation is not onus on those making the accusation to prove he did? I read that he denies doing so. I wonder if he sues.
May 15th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
So… Wayne Idour is being denigrated because he apparently screened the Video…
I think he is just the person to be investigating, clearly he knows the players and the lay of the land. Our dim-bulb Police minister might suggest it destroys his credibility – I think it enhances it.
Still it’s all about clutching at anything that provides some cover… PCA will sort it eh. They have already looked into this in the past – please move on – yeah right!
May 15th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Linda,
The article suggests that the terms of that style of inquiry were insufficiently wide and independent. Like a similar inquiry into pedophilia in Dunedin in early 80s was flawed in its findings in comparison to the evidence the article has presented.
May 15th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Amid all the media coverage so far, which seems to be somewhat skirting around the issue, nothing much has been said about the big fish also named.
I refer to the attorney general, finance minister and deputy prime minister Michael Cullen.
TV1 in its late bulletin referred to “Labour MPs” being named, without saying who they are, though they did show the magazine cover that has the attorney general as cover boy.
Mr Cullen has been named as one of those who downplayed the possibility of a porn ring and all sorts of unsavoury practices in Dunedin.
The other accomplice in this act was fellow Dunedin MP , one David Benson Pope.
Now, David Benson Pope has been ‘outed’ shall we say, as a member of the Dunedin bondage scene, something he never denied other than to say he was too busy for such activities.
So, let us think for a moment. What did David Benson-Pope have to gain by downplaying or covering-up a possible enquiry into various sexual-related activities in Dunedin.
Was it because he would be outed as “Panty Slut Boy”, not a pleasant thing for someone who then aspired to government and actually made it.
Is it this, or does David Benson-Pope have something greater to hide?
And what about about Michael Cullen? Surely the biggest fish in all this?
What did he have to gain by suppressing a potential enquiry into various abuses in his home city?
Did he have something to hide too?
Did the police have something on him?
Already, while there is some debate over the details, a beastiality video was shown and the police commissioner has offered to resign over this.
Though we can cast doubt on Annette King’s proposed inquiry, obviously enough credence is being given to the other stuff to make even the government call for some kind of enquiry.
Thus, Ian Wishart’s allegations are gaining more credibility as time passes.
Questions for the media.
To Michael Cullen.
Why did you take part in the downplaying or cover up of reports of sex abuse, porn rings and other activities in Dunedin in the 1980s?
What did you hope to gain from this?
Do you believe the police have some kind of ‘dirt’ file on you?
What do you believe it might contain, if such a document existed?
Do you believe the police have similar documents on other politicians? How healthy is this?
You have made strong attacks on Investigate magazine. Do you think it is healthy for politicians to slam independent media in this way, when it appears their allegations seem increasingly true.
I repeat Mr Cullen, what are you trying to hide?
Questions for David Benson-Pope
Why did you take part in the downplaying or cover up of reports of sex abuse, porn rings and other activities in Dunedin in the 1980s?
What did you hope to gain from this?
Was it connected in some way to your alleged activities in the Dunedin BDSM scene?
Do you believe the police have some kind of ‘dirt’ file on you?
What do you believe it might contain, if such a document existed?
Do you believe the police have similar documents on other politicians? How healthy is this?
I repeat Mr Benson-Pope, what are you trying to hide?
Finally, didn’t someone make some really disgusting allegations about Micahel Cullen on this blog about a year ago?
I cannot remeber what they were but maybe they are connected in some way?
May 15th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Wayne Idour has now issued a press release confirming that he is the source for Wishart’s story about the bestiality video.
Mr Wishart is again proven a liar.
May 15th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Gee Sonic, wish I was as smart as you cos’ being a simple conservative, I jus’ can’t figure it out.
You see, Wishart said there was a beastiality movie shown. Idour says there was too. So does Howard Broad. Idour says he was A source, not THE ONLY source about the movie. Ian says the same.
Can you offer your god-like brilliance to a simple hick like me and show how that makes Ian Wishart a liar?
You see, cos’ by your logic, when Wayne Idour says he was not the source of the movie, that makes Helen Clark a liar.
May 15th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Mr Wishart said, quite openly, that Idour was not his source, Mr Idour says he was.
Someone is lying, lets have Mr Wishart clear it up.
May 15th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
What I am specifically interested in in this quote
“Investigate can confirm that the real sequence of events contrasts sharply with what he has told the public. A former police colleague of Broad’s is prepared to testify on oath to a Royal Commission that:
“He was there, reveling in the video. He loved it. I was standing with him. The video also featured a pig, and the actors appeared to me to be mentally handicapped. Broad was laughing.””
Idour or not?
May 15th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Please give evidence that Wishart said Idour was not his source. And please clarify, source of what ?
I’m not being smart, I genuinely haven’t seen anything you speak of.
May 15th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Here you go Mr Tips, from http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2007/05/media_release_f.html
“For the sake of everyone using this blog, I’ll say the following, but further repetition of King’s allegation is defamatory and I won’t be party to that.
Investigate has given numerous interviews to media in the past 24 hours stressing our ongoing policy of not naming sources generally, and in this particular story because there are a range of people who can testify to a Royal Commission who we don’t want interfered with.
We have documentary evidence of police trying to interfere with witnesses.
Now, I know it is really hard for excitable lefties, but slow your thoughts down for just a moment and think about this:
On the one hand the government is insisting Idour is one of the sources for the Investigate story on the bestiality film.
On the other hand, the government also wants you to believe that he himself possessed the film and screened it to 100 people, yet nonetheless invited huge media scrutiny of the bestiality incident.
I’m sorry, that’s cloud cuckooland conspiracy theory that is so logic-defying that it shows just how stupid our daily Mainstream Media have become.
Doesn’t it seem odd to any of you that the Government’s favourite target in Dunedin is mysteriously fingered as the purveyor of bestiality 26 years ago as well?
I’m waiting for the news release from Helen’s office that Idour was on the grassy knoll in Dallas.
I suggest to you the real person behind the film is either lying very low or is trying to deflect attention from he and his fellow corrupt cops.
Every journalist in Dunedin knows Wayne Idour. Every major current affairs journalist on TV has come across Idour in various cases, as have I.
I like the guy, he’s genuine and honest and approachable, as many other journalists who know him would agree.
He had the misfortune to be hooked in by the Exclusive Brethren issue last year, but as I’ve said previously Investigate’s coverage did not rely on anything from Idour.”
A pretty clear-cut denial you would agree?
May 15th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Here you go Mr Tips, from http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2007/05/media_release_f.html
“For the sake of everyone using this blog, I’ll say the following, but further repetition of King’s allegation is defamatory and I won’t be party to that.
Investigate has given numerous interviews to media in the past 24 hours stressing our ongoing policy of not naming sources generally, and in this particular story because there are a range of people who can testify to a Royal Commission who we don’t want interfered with.
We have documentary evidence of police trying to interfere with witnesses.
Now, I know it is really hard for excitable lefties, but slow your thoughts down for just a moment and think about this:
On the one hand the government is insisting Idour is one of the sources for the Investigate story on the bestiality film.
On the other hand, the government also wants you to believe that he himself possessed the film and screened it to 100 people, yet nonetheless invited huge media scrutiny of the bestiality incident.
I’m sorry, that’s cloud cuckooland conspiracy theory that is so logic-defying that it shows just how stupid our daily Mainstream Media have become.
Doesn’t it seem odd to any of you that the Government’s favourite target in Dunedin is mysteriously fingered as the purveyor of bestiality 26 years ago as well?
I’m waiting for the news release from Helen’s office that Idour was on the grassy knoll in Dallas.
I suggest to you the real person behind the film is either lying very low or is trying to deflect attention from he and his fellow corrupt cops.
Every journalist in Dunedin knows Wayne Idour. Every major current affairs journalist on TV has come across Idour in various cases, as have I.
I like the guy, he’s genuine and honest and approachable, as many other journalists who know him would agree.
He had the misfortune to be hooked in by the Exclusive Brethren issue last year, but as I’ve said previously Investigate’s coverage did not rely on anything from Idour.”
A pretty clear-cut denial you would agree?
May 15th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Um Sonic, you must have X-ray vision.
You see, in that VERY carefully worded statement, Wishart says that Helen Clark and Annette King wants us to believe that Idour was the source of the beastiality video AND the ONLY source of the story itself to Wishart.
Wishart does not deny he spoke with Idour about the story per se. Instead, he is denying that Idour actually BOUGHT the movie to the party.
So does Idour.
So, again I ask, where is your evidence?
May 15th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
I’m sorry Mr Tips, if Mr Wishart says
“Investigate’s coverage did not rely on anything from Idour.”
And then Idour turns around and says he is the source, you don’t see the problem here?
May 15th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Um …..Wishart was talking about the Exclusive Brethren, as I read it. Not the current piccadilo.
May 15th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Thats a quote from Mr Wishart’s own blog from today.
He is referring to this story, not a story from the past.
May 15th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Thats your take on it Sonic, and its what your paid to come up with.
But no-one is convinced. 18 more months my dear lady…
May 15th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Mr Tips and Sonic: there’s an easy way to resolve this impasse – let’s cut to the “as I’ve said previously” part of Ian Wishart’s commentary. Where is that previous comment, Sonic?
May 15th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Not sure Anon, I’ve just pulled that from his blog.
I’ve asked Mr W to elaborate, so we will see what he says.
May 15th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Oh and Mr Tips, a great sign that someone has lost the argument is that they think their opponent can only outsmart them if they are some sort of professional.
It’s all very flattering, however untrue.
May 15th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Its not a question of being outsmarted Sonic, its getting at the truth.
I realise you struggle to tell the difference…
May 15th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
The “Truth” being that someone is paying me for posting here?
You seem to have the same elastic definition of the truth as Mr Wishart, you should ask him for a job.
May 15th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
What role Wayne Idour played in this is explained now at http://www.tbr.cc.
However, this is a mere smokescreen to divert us from the real story, or stories.
There is now much evidence to support claims that the police were behaving in untoward ways in Dunedin.
There were various paedophilia, sex rings, etc, going on as well.
Michael Cullen , the attorney general, finance minister and deputy prime minister has been named as someone who sought to suppress an inquiry into the seedy underworld of Dunedin.
He is the big fish in all this.
Then we have his accomplice- David Benson Pope- who also dampened down calls for such inquiries.
Why did they do this? What were they trying to cover up?
So two Dunedin MPs, who rise to the top of government , played a role in suppressing inquiries.
Why did they do this?
The beastility showing is but a mere sideshow, though the reporting of this has shown to be accurate.
Thus, the rest of the 17 page report is shaping up to be true.
Which begs the question, what were Cullen, Benson Pope, Tim Barnett, Pete Hodgson, etc, hiding?
What do they NOT want us to know?
May 15th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Do you have, evidence, you know, facts (I realise the word might be foreign to Wishart junkies) to support your contention of a cover up? We know that Wishart takes a strange attitude to facts, and truth, for one claiming to be a christian. Pernaps he has a dispensation to lie in pursuit of onfidels?
May 15th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
..Perhaps…….infidels….!
May 15th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
So Mr Wishart now says Idour is his source, and furthermore admits that he approached him.
The tangled web gets even further tangled.
So the question remains, is Idour the source of the claim that Broad “enjoyed” the film? which after all is the only matter in dispute in this tawdry affair.
May 15th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
I doubt Sonic is paid to post here. (I mean, who the damn hell would pay such an incompetent?) I’d guess he’s just some low level public servant with a lot of time on his hands at our expense- probably processes monthly claims by speed camera contractors or something like that.
Whatever the issue, you can count on Sonic being completely at odds with the reality, as he is here. Its his comprehensive abilities you see.
I reckon that to convert any such gullible little fool to the religion of socialism, the indoctrinators first have to anesthetize that part of the brain that deals with comprehension.
May 15th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
So Mr Wishart now says Idour is his source, and furthermore admits that he approached him.
The tangled web gets even further tangled.
So the question remains, is Idour the source of the claim that Broad “enjoyed” the film? which after all is the only matter in dispute in this tawdry affair.
May 15th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
sonic
“which after all is the only matter in dispute in this tawdry affair.”
So YOU are saying that the rest of the 17 page article is true ?
May 15th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Hisself, I only have as FACTS what is outlined in the 17 page report.
Have you read it yet?
I do not have blind faith in Dear Leader, Ian Wishart, or anyone.
However, I know the libel laws of this land are very strong and without suufficient evidence to back up your claims, you will be in deep shit legally.
If anything in Investigate is untrue, various individuals will be baying for Ian Wishart’s blood.
Yet, the more time that passes, the more of the 17-page article is shown to be proven/ true.
Now, the article in question refers to various sordid activities happening in Dunedin and both Cullen and Benson Pope both playing down public fears to thwart a possible inquiry.
The question remains, why?
Ditto with Pete Hodgson and Tim Bartnett.
Why didn’t they do anything when information was presented to them at a later date?
May 15th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
I’m discussing the particular allegation about the party Burt, as for the rest I’m sure we can get to that after this is settled.
May 15th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Burt
it would seem so! These Labour carpetbaggers find it so hard to get their story straight sometimes!
May 15th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
What “facts” in this “17 page report” have been proven true, darren? Detail them.
May 15th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
“Whatever the issue, you can count on Sonic being completely at odds with the reality, as he is here.”
As he is where? Um… look around RB, the way things are shaping up for Wishart & Idour, Sonic’s looking like he’s the only one here not at odds with reality.
I think I might come off the fence once a few more days have passed & even more information comes to hand.
May 15th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Sonic’s only skill Llew, lies in getting people to talk about something else beside the real issue. Its something all leftists are good at. Who cares if the silly little prick wants to argue over Idour as the source. Its not the real issue, and Sonic’s projected understanding of the details are as self serving as they always are. The issue is the truth of the allegations.
May 15th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
I wonder if mr Redbaiter will ever address an actual issue rather than just engage in his spittle-flecked rants?
Sadly, no.
May 15th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Breaking news:
Wishart’s named Idour as one of his sources for the police corruption story.
So yeah, allow me to make one small substitution here…
“Whatever the issue, you can count on Redbaiter being completely at odds with the reality, as he is here. Its his comprehensive abilities you see.”
We see.
May 15th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Sonik…Broad admits film screened. Ergo, Idour not lying. There is a conflict in recollections – according to Peter Gibbons Idour brought the movie and everyone else cleared the room and left him to it.
Does anyone seriously believe Gibbons? Really? At a police rugby party in the 80s, someone puts a chicken sex film on and all the upright constabulary vacated the room?
So far, Broad’s and Idour’s versions are far closer to the truth than Gibbons. If 100 people had suddenly lurched from the lounge to the kitchen don’t you think Broad and Idour would have known instantly?
Moreover, Idour had no motive to be the identifiable chicken movie purveyor AND my source. No one – insane or sane – would step up to that particular batting plate.
Which leaves us with either a lying Gibbons or a case of mistaken identity. Except his comments about people clearing the room don’t wash, so I’m still leaning towards Gibbons lying.
Next question, why?
Firstly, he’s a mate of some of the cops targetted by Investigate. Secondly he’s a direct competitor of Idour’s.
Still reckon the PM and King were safe going for the doctor on this?
I’m prepared to accept Broad’s claim that he wasn’t in the room, although my sources (including Idour) believe he was there beside them watching it. That’s a clash of evidence and in the great scheme of things, quite common.
It is irrelevant to the wider issue, which was proof that the Dunedin police culture included such activities. This set the scene for the wider article.
On this, Broad, Idour and Gibbons are agreed the film screened, and Broad and Idour are agreed on the police culture of the time.
May 15th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
“I’m prepared to accept Broad’s claim that he wasn’t in the room”
Which is the end of the story as far as everyone in concerned.
May 15th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Sonic
I am bemused why you continue to think Wayne Idour was the ONLY source. Furthermore, there is no evidence that he provided the movie in question.
That being said why is it so important that he is the “source” that Broad might have enjoyed the movie?
I’m glad that Ian cleared that little bit up for you, because it makes your other questions to try and set the agenda a little odd.
Please explain: again, I’m not being smart. So what if Idour was one source who told Wishart about the movie? Doesn’t it bother you even more that Milton Weir is now alleged to have seriously perverted justice in two separate incidents? One of which the victim of his actions has just been freed on bail? You are strangely silent on that.
Its clear that you may have a lot to cover.
Just a general rationale would do.
May 15th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
“Its not the real issue”
And ignoring every subject at hand in order to insult Sonic is the real issue?
I think one salient issue is whether Wishart & Idour have been entirely truthful. So far it’s not looking flash for them. But early days yet!
May 15th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Is that Ian as in Ian Wishart? Could you identify yourself please?
May 15th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
What about the claim that Broad enjoyed the film, Ian? Is that proven, or a lie? Was Idour the source of the story about Broad groping female staff, Ian?
May 15th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
I’ve not picked up my copy of Mr Wishart’s esteemed organ yet Mr Tips, so I am only commentating on the allegations that have been aired on Tv and radio over the last day or two.
I’ll think about the other ones when I read the article.
May 15th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Sonic
Ah, OK fair enough.
May 15th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Sonic
Ah, OK fair enough. Apologies, I thought you had already read it.
May 15th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
“I’m prepared to accept Broad’s claim that he wasn’t in the room, although my sources (including Idour) believe he was there beside them watching it. That’s a clash of evidence and in the great scheme of things, quite common.”
Hang on… didn’t Idour say he was so appalled he left the room too?
May 15th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Hell Llew, if this is what you call “sitting on the fence”, I’d like to see what you call objective.
I’m drawing your attention and the attention of other readers to the fact that Sonic, being a leftist, will do what they always do when accused of some wrong doing, and that is rather than defend against the actual allegations, they put the accuser on trial, and then they convict him in some kangaroo court somewhere, and go on to sully his name and attempt to destroy his reputation. Cowardly old Communist strategy, and just what you’d expect from Sonic and his like.
May 15th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
llew
I don’t think so, the bit I read on Stuff quoted him as saying he expressed his disgust to those around him. To do that, he must have been in the room, and he states that there were ” a lot of people in the room at the time”.
May 15th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
“Hell Llew, if this is what you call “sitting on the fence”, I’d like to see what you call objective.”
Honestly RB, I dunno what to think. I’m just calling inconsistencies as I hear them (but I can’t be arsed going back through all the sites & posts to see if Idour said that, someone else did, or I’m imagining it.
So I asked.
May 15th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Seeing you mentioned it, Llew, I actually meant to write, “If this is what you call “sitting on the fence”, I’d like to see what you call “biased”..
May 15th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Redbaiter accuses me of throwing around personal attacks?
In heaven an angel is weeping.
May 15th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
“llew
I don’t think so, the bit I read on Stuff quoted him as saying he expressed his disgust to those around him.”
Ah yeah – I saw that after posting. I imagine a lot of people expressed their disgust.
“I’d like to see what you call “biased”.
Look it up in the dictionary, honestly, am I your mother or something?
May 15th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Hey Llew – aren’t you the guy that Redbaiter called “Loser Llew” on another thread a while back? Man, Redbaiter knows how to debate the issues!
May 15th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
“Hey Llew – aren’t you the guy that Redbaiter called “Loser Llew”"
Heh. You make me feel so proud! Probably.
“Redbaiter knows how to debate the issues!”
That’s issue, singular. I think it annoys him that DPF doesn’t post on that issue more often.
But anyway, don’t trust me, I’m a biased loser.
May 15th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Am I imagining it or has this site gone totally dead? Only the spambots are posting.
May 15th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Only the spambots posting as the dewdrops fall
And not a troll came knocking
At all, at all, at all.
May 15th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Boo boo ba lum ba boo boo
Sonic
Dad4Justice
J
Redbaiter
Chicken sex
Troll la la toodle doo
May 15th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Am I the only one who finds it quite weird and amusing that on this site we a large faction of people;
A) denouncing the Police as corrupt etc, because of 1 article that has been published,
B) denounce anyone who seems to have some doubt about that article as “leftists”.
yet 4 or 5 months ago this same faction were claiming there was a conspiracy to frame Rickards and co. and that Bob Schollum, Brad Shipton must be innocent victims!
There is not a doubt in my mind that there were corrupt officers in Dunedin and Christchurch. But I’m not basing that on an article, I’m basing that on conversations I have had with former cops.
Btw, investigate did an extremely good article on the Nicholas case and I recommend to most people to read what is written, especially inregards to Bob Schollums cousin (rapist), Trevor Clayton, Kelvin Powell, and John Dewar.
If Wishart is right about Mr Broad, Labour party etc. surely the article published surrounding police rape is right too, no?
May 15th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
I’m getting off the fence on this one and seeing the true light.
The truth is everyone in New Zealand is a closet pervert except for redbaiter. Thanks red for not getting sucked into this sinful society.
We’ll build a giant statue of you one day….”Colin Redbaiter…He saved us from the Leftist perverts.”
May 15th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
So, Howard Broad (aka Billy Bunter), has thrown himself at the mercy of the public of NZ and see’s his priority as ‘cleaning up’ the NZ police force. Personally, I would like to see his priority as cleaning up crime in NZ. But I guess kow-towing to his political masters is a better career move (though his prospects are looking a little shakey right now dont you think??)
May 15th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
My question to Annette King: Why did POLICE COMMISSIONER HOWARD BROAD (not Idour!) not take his oppurtunity during the years of the Bazley inquiry to bring up the new accusations re: police involvement in bestiality/porno movie sessions at Howie’s party-pad?
A.Did Broad just hope it would never come to light?
B.Was he hiding the facts?
C.Is he just too lazy and incompetent?
D.All of the above
May 16th, 2007 at 7:09 am
The sick police culture of sexual perverts make me vomit and I don’t like back stabbing cretins who put the knife in while I am on a banning . And you people called me a troll , may I suggest I was minor compared to what has taken centre stage on kiwiblog now days .
May 16th, 2007 at 9:52 am
Welcome back to Kiwiblog, D4J – no surprise I guess that your first stop is in winge-town central?
May 31st, 2007 at 4:55 am
suial mhynbpwa jniuqa imcbt szylaf xofnh bhrmodg
May 31st, 2007 at 4:56 am
suial mhynbpwa jniuqa imcbt szylaf xofnh bhrmodg
May 31st, 2007 at 4:58 am
suial mhynbpwa jniuqa imcbt szylaf xofnh bhrmodg
May 31st, 2007 at 4:59 am
suial mhynbpwa jniuqa imcbt szylaf xofnh bhrmodg