Laugh of the week is retired District Police Commander Mark Lammas criticism of politicians and Chester Borrows reminding him that they are all civil servants.

(but not reminding him that ‘All in the Service of the Crown are subject to the Crimes Act 1961). If they Know of alleged cases of corruption do they have a mandatory duty to take action? If they remain silent with this knowledge do they by their silence, become party to the Crime.

We have on the one hand the law makers and on the other the so called law enforcement officers

God help NZ !

We are in a very sorry .state in this country allegedly riddled with corru”

Frank??? Are Ya there mate? Have the secret police bashed ya door down?

“On 16 August you made a request under the Official information Act 1982 for all the material generated by your letter of 19 July 2006. As I explained above, your letter of 19 July 2006 triggered no action whatsoever by police other than my reply of 20 September 2006”. Which was:

“I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 19 July 2006.

As will you may aware Police have already commenced an investigation into issues relating to Philip Taito Field?”

Notice how carefully he couches his reply in order to avoid referring to the allegation that Philip Taito Field was guilty of an alleged Criminal Act as an MP and Minister in the Service of the Crown,

AS my complaint, that the Herald had reported was being considered by Police, “triggered no response whatsoever”, then who directed an investigation be undertaken? Why was an alleged cover-up suddenly resurrected?

Police won’t divulge this information even under requests under the Official Information Act 1982.

We are in a very sorry .state in this country allegedly riddled with corru

“Nicholas, are you suggesting the Government should not be allowed to communicate Government policies to the electorate, such as KiwiSaver and Working For Families? Certainly these ads should not be party political, but I see nothing wrong with the Government’s ads on these issues and others.”

Tane,

What you and others seem to miss is that the government should be allowed to impart information, but it should not impose draconian limits of what can and cannot be said by different individuals in groups in response to those “infomercials”.

Certainly not the lickspittles in the MSM it would seem gd. It’s almost as though they did a hatchet job on Benson-Pope to show that they were paying lip-service to those few of us who dare to oppose the current regime, but having done that, they don’t dare double-cross Dear Leader again for a while.

I agree totally with your assessment. If this inquiry is to be in any way, shape or form credible and prinicpled (not words that one would generally associate with the current Government, I admit!), Prebble cannot be allowed to play any role in it. So what that he is Logan’s employer. It is the Public Service that Prebble is very well paid to represent which is under inquiry, and he cannot be Judge, Jury and Defendant. Your suggestion of a RHCJ has merit, espicially if it is one appointed pre-1999 – if you get my drift!

You just gotta love the priorities of some – its what makes this country great you know.

However, why hasn’t National raised the question of this proposed Commission of Inquiry, where the terms of reference are drawn up by the Commissioner, who with his previous knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the event should be barred from having any part in the affair?
Any Commission of Inquiry conducted by the publi service is contaminated. In my view it is another alleged cover-up with the approval of Helen Clark and Parliamentarians etc

In view of the complaint re Hugh Logan lodged with the police, surely the matter should be left to them to investigate as they did with Philip Taito Field, a Servant of the Crown who advantaged himself to the disadvantage of others.

Helen Clark has copy of questions to The Public Service Commissioner along with some party leaders, media etc. However all Parliamentarians should soon have copy of the complaints laid with the Commissioner and the Public Service Commissioner

Agree with you there gd! However the Herald is reporting that Prebble will not stand aside from the inquiry

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10455595

He is however reported as having “said it was likely he would get someone from outside the State Services Commission (SSC) to look at its role in the affair as part of the inquiry.” How bloody condescending of him!! This has become an inquiry, in part, into his own competence. He should be suspended forthwith for misleading the public, and not allowed anywhere near this inquiry, otherwise it will be a complete and utter farce.

It’s really appropriate that we are debating this under a headline “Chinese Government Rules on Criticism” – there’s some fundamental rights and values on the line here!

…………..”I have come across information, which in my view tends to show that Hugh Logan as a Senior Public Service employee (In the Service of the Crown) allegedly, by manipulating the truth disadvantaged a fellow employee. This in my view is in breach of the Crimes Act 1961 sections dealing with those in the Service of the Crown. It becomes a matter for the Police.

I raise a view now fully entrenched, that Public Servants serving in the Offices of Parliamentarians at times do not necessarily pass on all communications to their Member of Parliament. That could mean where there are matters related to alleged criminal offending that if this information is not passed onto the Ministers or Members of Parliament concerned, that the public servant in question is perverting and defeating the course of justice? The Minister in question if he does receive it and does nothing about it, is he/she in turn also perverting and defeating the course of justice?”

Having the courage of my convictions I laid a complaint with PC Broad thus:

“Hugh Logan, in the Service of the Crown has allegedly used his position to disadvantage Madeline Setchell also in the Service of the Crown”.

Political Party Leaders, The Governor-General along with the Media and others have all been emailed copies. The only response was from Transparency International NZ.