Meurant calls on Broad to resign

November 10th, 2007 at 11:32 am by David Farrar

You know the more than Ross Meurant calls on Howard Broad to resign, the more it makes me think he shouldn’t.

Doing the opposite of whatever Meurant calls for, is generally a sound strategy.

Tags:

64 Responses to “Meurant calls on Broad to resign”

  1. georgedarroch (317 comments) says:

    Doing the opposite of what you call for normally works better.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. better (41 comments) says:

    I’ve always thought Michelle Boag a good indicator of something not to be associated with.

    Meurant seems to be reformed, is this what the new John Banks will be like?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Graeme Edgeler (3,276 comments) says:

    Meurant seems to be reformed

    Yes he does, problem is that he’s not informed. He’s been bagging the legislation as giving extra powers to police, new search powers, detention without charge etc.

    The British and Australian anti-terror legislation may do that, ours does not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    I don;t think he should resign.

    Not because I condone his handling of the recent situation, but because I sense that he was edged into it for political reasons.

    We can’t expect to maintain order in a country by:

    sending police to uphold shonkily drafted laws

    having the investigations commented on by politicians for their own sound-byte short-term benefits

    sacrificing the police on the altar of public opinion after a trial by media because it is politically expedient.

    The recent situation is, IMHO a measure of how much the police have been reduced to becoming very visible political pawns and should be stopped.

    PS Vote Maori Party!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. kehua (225 comments) says:

    Meurant like Rana Waitai was mistakenly perceived by their respective parties as being tough on Law and Order when in fact in fact they were both a pair of “blow arses” one credited as a hard man post Springbok Tour and the other as the tough East Coast Rasta tamer, no-one promoted this more than themselves with help from lazy reporters who failed to look behind the “image“. Waitai achieved little and faded away. Meurant learn`t that it takes more than a foul mouth to succeed and as that is all he really has, so it has proven.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Castafiore (263 comments) says:

    The problem that is here is that Howard Broad took the risk that the action he was taking was warranted under the Terrorism Suppression Act and therefore he staked his reputation very firmly on the line that “I considered the evidence serious enough to authorise the action taken”.

    The public need to be assured that a public servant of that seniority and responsibility has got the lawyers, the Crown, the Ministry of Police and the DPMC to refer to in such a public action.

    If he takes responsibility for it then he has to take full responsibility for it being wrong as well that’s why he gets a gilt edged salary.

    The old adage remains true “that in high public office the stakes are high”!!

    Forget about Meurant , Boag, Maori rights Activists, Ruatoki People et al – He needs to tender his resignation at least.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Inventory2 (10,171 comments) says:

    “Waitai achieved little and faded away.”

    Depends on how you define “little” – Waitai was one of the “tight five” of NZ First Maori MP’s in 1996, and has since completed a law degree. He’s just been elected to the Whanganui District Council, where he might become a right pain-in-the-butt for His Worship the Eyelined Mayor of Wanganui, Michael Laws.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. jean (8 comments) says:

    “The problem that is here is that Howard Broad took the risk that the action he was taking was warranted under the Terrorism Suppression Act and therefore he staked his reputation very firmly on the line that “I considered the evidence serious enough to authorise the action taken”.

    The public need to be assured that a public servant of that seniority and responsibility has got the lawyers, the Crown, the Ministry of Police and the DPMC to refer to in such a public action.”

    You might want to actually read what David Collins actually stated before making comments like that.

    It’s interesting to see how all the Defense lawyers are making these claims about how Police over-reacted and their clients are innocent etc while at the same time trying desperately to keep all the Police evidence suppressed so the public can’t see for themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. kehua (225 comments) says:

    If Broad was a 707 pilot he would have perished such was the magnitude of his mistake. He staked his reputation on his decision and his decision has largely proven misguided at the least. An honourable person would resign, but then it seems that honour is a rare word in the Police hierachy.
    Regarding Rana Waitai being elected to the disfunctional council headed by a confessed forger is par to being a tadpole in a very small puddle. As for the Law Degree they are pouring out of places like Waikato and other such notable halls of learning.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    “Regarding Rana Waitai being elected…”

    Can’t believe this man could be elected to P.T.A group.

    He was sued for missappropriation of funds over ten years ago by the Mangakino Marae committee. He absconded with their funds measured in hundreds of thousands.

    It was common knowledge to all Waikato marae committees.
    Which is why I thought I had heard the last of him.

    But then again we see Donna hua Huata, the pilferer of youth finances on a youth board in Otara. Maori are so two faced.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    The fool Broad should of course resign. i.e. How do you explain away this little gem from NRT?

    On Morning Report [audio] this morning, Police Commissioner Howard Broad was asked the obvious question: why didn’t he try and prosecute the Urewera 17 under the Crimes Act, for something like conspiracy to murder? His answer is revealing:

    Those options were not available to us… The offences under other legislation had not been committed. So conspiracy to commit murder, conspiracy to do those other sorts of things, those offences had not been [committed?] at all.

    (Emphasis added)

    So, despite the lurid claims leaked to the media about plots to kill political figures, there was no conspiracy to do so. Given the low bar for conspiracy – essentially it requires proving an agreement between the parties (which need not be explicit) to carry out a crime – what this means is that the police had, at best, a few dumbarses mouthing off, with no plan, agreement, or intent to do anything.

    http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2007/11/no-conspiracy.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    “I don;t think he should resign.Not because I condone his handling of the recent situation, but because I sense that he was edged into it for political reasons.”

    Lee rejoins KB’s tinfoil hat brigade – Clark/Cullen were briefed on the raids before they took place – the police/SIS presented their case to her/him. So the go ahead was given on this basis. Labour’s leadership weren’t responsibly for the analysis of the data so the responsibility for this monumental blunder lies squarely with the police’s hierarchy.

    “We can’t expect to maintain order in a country by:sending police to uphold shonkily drafted laws”

    But according to the police commissioner himself there was also no case under criminal conspiracy law – So how the hell could there have been a case under any kind of terrorist law, “shonkily drafted” or not?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Frank. (607 comments) says:

    Broad should not resign over this matter. He can only act on the evidence that had been gathered and subjected to legal scrutiny. This evidence has not been disclosed and some of it never will.

    I do not hesitate to allege that than in other unrelated matters, he has prevented and defeated the course of justice and needs to face charges rather than resign.

    The whole of this alleged terrorist activity, coincidentally just happens be occupying the headlines at a very convenient time. The Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill. is due back in the House for a second reading.

    Thus continues the saga of the greatly corrupted 2005 General Election – corrupted by Parliamentary Political Parties and Parliamentarians and condoned by Police, who failed to investigate a complaint of: Misappropriation of Helen Clark’s Leader’s Funds.

    The High Court Case Darnton V Clark, as well as the “unlawful electoral expenditure” conclusion arrived at by both the Auditor-General and Solicitor-General in their report (6 Oct 2006) to Hon Margaret Wilson, was torpedoed by the corrupt Validation Bill, validating the theft of public funds.

    This Validation Bill is being cemented into our Statute Books now by the proposed EFB aptly described by the New Zealand Law Society as: “This bill is fundamentally obnoxious and should be scrapped. It will penalise private citizens who have the temerity to interfere in politics, while doing nothing to deal with the major electoral funding issue we face: the misuse of taxpayers’ money on a huge scale to ensure the re-election of the incumbent Government.”

    A further chapter is about to be written by The Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill.

    In all of the abov where is there any involvement by our Solicitor-General of Crown Law? Remember it was Crown Law that approved the “Comprehensive Investigation” (Incompetent and perverting and defeating the course of justice) by Police, of the Electoral Commission’s complaint re exceeding spending limits etc?

    Solicitor General David Collins QC, while commending the police investigation of some Urewera people, described the terror legislation, Terror Suppression Act, as “complex and incomprehensible”, and would not allow charges under this Act but only under the Arms Act..

    So where is his opinion on the three Bills named above? As a private citizen he does not seem to have an opinion?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    “Broad should not resign over this matter. He can only act on the evidence that had been gathered and subjected to legal scrutiny.”

    He had ultimate responsibility for overseeing the investigation, the analysis of the information and subsequently its presentation to Cullen/Clark. As he’s since admitted, there was never any kind of criminal case to prosecute – basically he’s been in charge of a huge wild goose chase that’s cost the tax payers millions of dollars. He could have gone in an made the arrests under the arms act a whole year ago, but instead he’s chosen to wait for something to happen, hoping that the initial alleged breaches of the arms act would turn into something more sinister, so he could finally bag a few people who the police see as their ideological/political enemies – i.e. the pain in the arse environmental/maori protesters/activists. What a ridiculous fiasco.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    “Broad should not resign over this matter. He can only act on the evidence that had been gathered and subjected to legal scrutiny.”

    I certainly don’t think he should have to resign.

    Demotion yes.

    He was the man , he called the shots, the projections were abysmal.

    Considering his senior position and unqualified results, his current position should at least be seen as tenuous. If he is truly answerable he should be accounted for and step down a notch to satisfy public scrutiny and be an example.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. dad4justice (7,967 comments) says:

    If Mr Broad goes then Mr Pope will step up .

    Wonder how Scott is getting on now ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    come off it..!..dpf..

    meurant and paul buchanan were the only voices of reason during those initial/early hysterical days..

    buchanan laughed the whole thing off..saying if it were really a serious tewwowwist-matter..

    that the cops wouldn’t be handling it..the s.i.s hardmen would..

    and meurant laughed it off saying the cops were being told/saying the self-same things
    in his day..

    and to his mind..that the problem with the cops is that they tend to believe their own bullshit..

    and..with the wisdom now afforded by hindsight..

    how were either of them incorrect..?

    and surely that just totally ‘bags’ your meurant-bagging-theory..eh..?

    and hey..!..go back and read your own words then..

    and maybe then you will see that anti-meurant dictate sheets tidily home to you..

    eh..?

    go figure..!

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    oh..btw dpf..

    i also called it as total bullshit from day one..

    (thought you’d like to know that..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    y’know..!

    citizens should have been cowering in their houses in fear of the happy valley anti-snail people..?

    and those from the bicycle repair drop-in-centre in wellington..?

    and tame iti..

    heh-heh..!

    you fucken mugs..!

    who looks fucken stupid now..?

    eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    pro-snail..of course..!..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Frank. (607 comments) says:

    Extract: Evidence the public will never know: “It will never be known exactly what 16 people allegedly gathered in the Ureweras with guns and other weapons were planning – or whether they were planning anything at all.

    Hundreds of pages of intercepted conversations between members of the group can never go before the court or into the public domain after the collapse of the police effort to bring charges under the Terrorism Suppression Act.

    Intercept warrants were granted under that act – passed in 2002 – so the evidence is inadmissible for any charges brought under other laws.

    But Solicitor-General David Collins said on Thursday there was no other legislation available under which the intercepted communications could have been gathered. “We’ve looked very, very carefully to see if there was another more appropriate [way of getting the evidence]. It’s unlikely there was any other way to get that evidence.”

    Despite the collapse of the terrorism allegations, Dr Collins described much of the evidence as “very disturbing”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    “It will never be known exactly what 16 people allegedly gathered in the Ureweras with guns and other weapons were planning…”

    No, there won’t.

    Thats because there were only 4 people arrested at the Urewera’s.
    the rest were NATIONWIDE.

    why has that been so confused.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    ““We’ve looked very, very carefully to see if there was another more appropriate [way of getting the evidence]. It’s unlikely there was any other way to get that evidence.”

    So before the TS Act there was no way the police could legally collect intelligence pertaining to a suspected murder plot? Pull the other one hey?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. baxter (893 comments) says:

    I don’t think Broad was the right man to be appointed Commissioner in the first place and Political bias may have been involved. I can think of several more suitable members. That said I can’t fault his handling and public statements on this matter and it is refreshing that he has fronted instead of one of his spin doctors…. As I recall it Frank is right that evidence gathered as a result of an interception or search warrant under the Terroism Act would be ruled in-admissible in respect to conspiracy to murder under the Crimes Act. Crazy I know but then the whole system is crazy and constructed to enrich lawyers, not to pursue justice and boy aren’t they going to reap a rich harvest out of this case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Reg (544 comments) says:

    What happened to Peter Doone?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Gooner (995 comments) says:

    Rogered Nome, should Phil Goff resign too considering his role was to oversee the drafting and implementation of the legislation which the Solicitor-General has criticised so heavily?

    What about the lawyers at the Crown Law Office who provided the legal opinion to Broad essentially saying the offences had been committed? Should they resign also?

    And while we’re on the topic of resignations, let’s have the resignation of all the official in the MOJ who would have drafted the legislation in conjunction with Phil Goff. They can go also.

    Nome, stick to your 3rd form economics classes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    We’re all rallying round being nice and liberal because a flawed law means you can’t charge people running around with petraol bombs and guns terrorists, cry the beloved country!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Treetop (24 comments) says:

    Three duds in a row, Donne, Robinson and now Broad.

    1. Doone got out of the car. Compare this with Peters in August 1993, Peters sat in the car while his driver was processed.

    2. Robinson consulted the solicitor general about charging Feilds, shame Robinson did not take more care when he promoted Rickards.

    3. Broad has to take full responsibility for the police raids as he ultimately signed them off. I am left asking why did Broad not consult the solicitor general on whether charges could be laid using particular legislation?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Actually it is the lawmakers that should resign and an immediate election announced followed by an overhaul of the whole judicial/legal system in the country – that is the problem, not the police or their commissioner. Anyone up for a protest down queen street on that idea?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. David Baigent (172 comments) says:

    roger nome, Much as I think your comments are a load of needlessly verbose and plagairized rubbish I have to credit you with coming the closest to the solution.

    Your quote “I don;t think he (Commissioner Broard) should resign.Not because I condone his handling of the recent situation, but because I sense that he was edged into it for political reasons.”

    Of course Commissioner Broad should NOT resign for this latest farce.
    He was after all not responsible for setting the debacle up as a Terrorist Suppression push.

    Only Helen Clark can do that.
    You know that Helen Clark has the sole responsibility for the SIS.
    Only she can direct them to run a “particular exercise” AND THEY CANNOT REFUSE.

    She needed a distraction away from the shenanigans going on in the House and a long standing drug surveilance of Tame Iti, et al., being properly continued by Commissioner Broad was a convenient prospect for a full dress rehearsal of our very own gang of Terrorists. LOL.

    I will bet that the written instruction from Helen to the Commander of the SIS will not emerge from the “most secret” vault for 50 years.

    Now the problem for all players is how to keep this shonky exercise quiet. Too many people.

    Still it served the original purpose admirably didn’t it.

    No wonder Solicitor-General David Collins is choosing his words carefully..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,136 comments) says:

    David Baigent:

    A thoughtful contribution from you, which warrants a brief response. Someone may be able to produce the exact quote – as I’d quite like to see it again – but I seem to recall that Howard Broad said (paraphrasing) “trust me and if I’m wrong then I’ll resign”. Now the question is what Broad meant by “wrong”. Inability to secure a conviction? Mistaken interpretation of events deep in the rural heartland? I would opt for the latter. So a resignation seems unwarranted.

    All we have at this point is evidence that apparently doesn’t come within flawed legislation, but for all those who would gloat, we should wait to see what the evidence itself was – if it ever enters the public domain (other than through coloured lens of Campbell Live).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,136 comments) says:

    I’ve come across these perceptive comments by John Armstrong, which bear repeating:

    Before barging through the door marked “enter”, the canny politician first checks there is a door marked “exit” on the other side.

    Howard Broad is not a politician. But the Commissioner of Police was fully cognisant of the Pandora’s box he was opening by approving the nationwide swoop on political activists alleged to have attended military-style training camps in the Ureweras.

    At his midday press conference on Monday, Broad replied to the torrent of questions on that morning’s operation by picking his words carefully and sparingly when pressed for detail on those arrested, their supposed motives and the exact nature of the threat they posed to public safety.

    But he volunteered a couple of important statements which have since got lost in the unfolding drama. First, he acknowledged that the “enforcement action” would spark intense and widespread public debate.

    That would seem to be a statement of the obvious. But it shows Broad was acutely aware that in raising the possibility of prosecutions under the five-year-old Terrorism Suppression Act, he had well and truly let the genie out of the bottle.

    He then appeared to try to stuff it back in by cautioning against jumping to conclusions about “the extent of the involvement” of that act when police come to make final decisions on prosecutions. But that statement was more of an insurance policy.

    It is conceivable that those arrested this week ultimately face lesser charges under the Firearms Act or Crimes Act and no one ends up appearing in court on terrorism offences. For starters, the latter would require the consent of the Solicitor-General, David Collins, to proceed.

    If no prosecutions are taken under the Terrorism Suppression Act, Broad can say he had emphasised from the outset that might be the case. He has given himself an out.

    Whether that would get him off the political hook is another matter. Ironically, long-standing opponents of New Zealand’s anti-terrorism laws would be happy. However, Broad would find himself on the receiving end of one almighty backlash.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=247&objectid=10470972

    I think the debate has to be split in two:

    (1) What is the appropriate formulation of a domestic anti-terror law that balances civil liberties against public risk?

    (2) Regardless of the formulation in (1), based on the existing Crimes Act, did the Police act appropriate in this case? This recognises that some of the evidence cannot be adduced in Court unless charges are laid under anti-terror legislation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. kiwi in america (2,473 comments) says:

    This situation is most fascinating. With Clark and Labour so acutely sensitive to matters Maori, I cannot imagine that Clark would’ve given the greenlight to Broad to proceed knowing how raids in a place like Ruatoki (and with Maori radicalism being part of the alleged problem) would play to this vital constituency. Clark is innately politically cautious. Remember also that her role as the Minister in charge of the SIS would’ve have given her access to any of the SIS’s intelligence on what the Police had unearthed during their surveillence. Clark’s comments immediately after the raids were quite cautious and seemed to give Broad the benefit of the doubt.

    The SG’s opinion proves the law of unintended consequences. I’m sure the Police would’ve consulted Crown Law as to the applicability of the TSA. With so much credibility riding on this action and with a hugely volatile potential political blowback at stake, one can only conclude that the advice the Police got (that I’m sure would’ve been communicated to Clark) was that there was a prima face case with at least some of the alleged offenders.

    The SG’s opinion now renders the evidence inadmissable and so the Police will be left with miscellaneous Arms Act (and possible Crimes Act) prosecutions. Now there is an unseemly rush for everyone to cover their butts but at the heart of all of this was undoubtedly some disturbing plans by a small and committed core.

    I recall a chilling incident with relevance to this issue about 4 years ago. I had been asked to pick up a gentleman to attend a Maori cultural presentation conducted by a close Maori friend. The invitee was a pure blooded Maori by his own admission (and this was clear by his features). It was also clear that he was a native speaker of Maori because of his accent. On the way home I asked him what he thought of the presentation. Clearly the presentation had aroused some passion in this man (in his 50′s). He proceeded to tell myself and two friends in the car of his involvement and training in a group to overthrow white rule and domination. I caught the shocked eyes of my companions indicating that we should let him talk. He detailed the weapons training and martial arts that he had been trained in (somewhere in the North Island) and that he had some weapons buried in his garden. He was awaiting instructions from his superiors in this movement to rise up and do their bidding. Now it was easy to think that this man was mad but he was a very senior official in a local District Health Board and sat on a number of important committees. Since I knew someone who sat on one of these committees, I checked the bona fides of this man and my contact confirmed that he was well regarded and, even though many initially saw him as a token race appointment, he appeared to do his job well. I was unsettled enough to actually call the SIS and an agent interviewed me at great length over the phone and was most grateful for the tip off. Now how serious this man was and how real his movement was I would have no way of knowing – all I know was that he passionately desired to overthrow the yoke of what he saw as his colonial masters and assert an independent Maori nation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,136 comments) says:

    KIA:

    Have you considered putting your anecdote into the same category as Kelvin Alp? Funnily enough this also occurred around 4-5 years ago:

    Kelvin Alp, head of the N.Z.A.I.F, being interviewed by Tame Iti
    N.Z.A.I.F leader and defence minister of the Maori Government Kelvin Alp announced today in an interview with Aotearoalive.com, that they have declared war on the New Zealand Government, army and police force.

    http://indymedia.org.nz/newswire/display/165/index.php

    Oh the irony…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. kehua (225 comments) says:

    KIA:
    You are trying to make mischief, maybe to much Bruce Willis & Paris.
    Back here in the real world, when oh when will Pakeha understand Maori politics. Tariana and her party will reap what both National and Labour have sown. Just like when Winston was the beneficiery of maori votes so to will the MP next year. Multiply the number of Corporation & Trust AgM`s,Tangi, Weddings,Unveilings,21st`s,Touch Tournaments,Sports Awards and MTV Debates between now and next November by scores not tens and you have some idea on the debate that has started. Watch out for an impressive party vote and itis a gimme that all the seats will go MP
    I wouldn`t be surprised to see Te Ururoa Flavell lead the MP into that election. Remember you read it here on KiwiBlog first. Quick word to Georgina Te Heuheu,” start building bridges”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    David Baigent;
    “roger nome, Much as I think your comments are a load of needlessly verbose and plagairized rubbish I have to credit you with coming the closest to the solution.

    Your quote “I don;t think he (Commissioner Broard) should resign.Not because I condone his handling of the recent situation, but because I sense that he was edged into it for political reasons.””

    I love it when the gnome quotes me, its like he’s wearing pinstripes – it adds a(n) (illusion of) height to his otherwise challenged intellectual stature.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    kehua – I agree with most ot this but with one caveat/question:

    Wasn’t Turia part of the operation that wrote the original Terrosism Suppression Act?

    I would suggest also that the Maori party build bridges with National pronto.

    The well was truly poisoned with Helen (Sorry I wasn’t even in the country when it all happened, so I have a cast-iron alibi /(That”ll be the last cab off the rank} /”Why not go lie down in the back of my limo?”) Clark

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. kehua (225 comments) says:

    I suspect you are correct Lee C, but she was in her sit back and watch mode for a couple of years. I would not scoff at the pulling power of the House of Te Heuheu if it can be gained. Historically Maori have always had powerful strong male front men backed up by formidable and influential women, they will have to be very choosy with their List candidates ie; no loose canons, as it could be a turn off for 3rd generation urban voters and sympathetic Pakeha. I`m picking a Flavell/Turia combination in that order, Sharples and Hone are big up North, Flavell and Turia take in central and western Nth Is, Horomia will implode and if Tuwharetoa lean towards the MP Ngai Tahu will support them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. John Dalley (394 comments) says:

    Reg.
    What happened to Peter Doone.
    As soon as he opened his mouth to the Police Officer who had stopped there car, he was a goner. He should hve said nothing, not identified who he was and let the officer do his job. Only then could he have been said that no interference took place.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,136 comments) says:

    John Dalley:

    Yes, what happened to Peter Doone? A goner? No, he was a shoe-in as special adviser to the DPMC.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    kehua.
    I would rather he implode than go the other way!

    A pact with Nats would run well, Maori Party should impact into Labour strongholds without damage for either Nationals or Maori Parties.

    Labour will get nasty (like they haven’t already??!!)

    Good things ahead for the Maori party.

    And the ‘Labour have always had Maori interests at heart” line versus the
    National are a party of racists.” line I invite you to make yor own choice on that one. Yo are a grown up.

    “It’s politics baby, and we’re lovin it!!” –
    Good for the country, good for democracy, just good, all round.

    PS Five years ago, who would have thought that a future in which Hone Harawera and Rodney Hide were the voices of conscience in Parliament was credible?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Gerrit (105 comments) says:

    I think the police and the state are not worried about getting a conviction on any grounds.

    The message they have sent out to the radicals is simple.

    Even if you hide out in the backblocks of the Ureweras and train for anything, our intellegence gather is such that we will know about it.

    They dont need convictions, next time anyone sets up a training camp they will be looking over their shoulders, plus looking at each attendee – are you an informer? Can I trust all of you?

    Under OSH regulations (employer must provide all the neccessary safety equipement for an employee to do their job safely) the police staff in the field had to dress (in full battle dress) as they did.

    The message there was again very simple to the training camp attendees – we are better armed and trained then you.

    Next time anyone attending a training camp they will be aware of the police plus state stength and will demand better equipment and training.

    Something the organisers will need to provide. Am aware that a suicide bomber may not care about this but I dont think the radicals are that far along the track.

    Providing more sophisticated equipment will expose the radicals to the intel gatherers.

    We havent even seen any army units deployed by the state yet. (maybe the SAS were doing the on ground surveilance?).

    Again any radical attending a camp will be wondering – is there a SAS team hiding under that bush?

    No, the big winner is the state – the message has been sent out. Big brother is watching. All the rest is fluff.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. ross (1,454 comments) says:

    I agree that Meurant’s opinion is worth a pinch of salt. But let’s look at Broad. He was involved (see below) in child sex abuse hysteria back in the early ’90s. He’s now involved with the hysteria re terrorists. You see, I’d think that after 15 years, the guy might have learnt some lessons from his earlier mistakes, but that doesn’t seem to be so. If I was the Minister of Police, I’d be sorely tempted to ask Broad: Explain to me why she shouldn’t resign.

    Wednesday, 5 April 2006, 12:30 pm
    Press Release: Lynley Hood
    Howard Broad –

    On Thurs 1 October 1992, Detective Inspector Howard Broad of Christchurch announced to a packed press conference that four women child care workers had been arrested in the Christchurch Civic Creche case [Press, 2 Oct 92]. He named the women and described the shocking charges they faced jointly with the already-demonised Peter Ellis (who had been arrested 6 months earlier):

    “They [three of the women] are accused of sexually violating a boy by having unlawful sexual connection with him; indecent assault on the same boy, who was then aged three and four; Indecent assault on another boy, then aged three and four; and indecent assault on a girl, then aged three and four.

    “The fourth woman … is charged that jointly with Ellis she wilfully did an indecent act in the toilets at the creche some time between April 1, 1989, and October 31, 1991.”

    The charges against the women were dismissed pre-trial. My research [A City Possessed, 2001] established that the allegations were the product of the ritual abuse hysteria sweeping Christchurch at the time. Police officers in the grip of this hysteria made the grossly unprofessional mistake of treating rumour and innuendo as established fact.

    Howard Broad’s press conference in October 1992 destroyed the careers and previously unblemished reputations of four well-qualified, experienced and dedicated child care workers.

    Since then, calls for a commission of inquiry into the creche case have been rejected by government. Consequently, none of the officials involved have learnt anything from the mistakes made. Indeed, because they have never had to admit to making any mistakes, many of them have repeated he same mistakes, over and over again. With Howard Broad’s appointment as the country’s top police officer, there is a real risk that ongoing damage caused to the fabric of New Zealand society by sex abuse hysteria and false allegations will continue unabated.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. ross (1,454 comments) says:

    > If I was the Minister of Police, I’d be sorely tempted to ask Broad: Explain to me why YOU shouldn’t resign.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. ross (1,454 comments) says:

    And before we hear more congratulations for the efforts of David Collins, Solicitor-General, I suggest you read this.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominionpost/4267824a23955.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. dad4justice (7,967 comments) says:

    Very interesting Ross , ol’ David Collins has joined the old boys & old hags club for bent lawyers which is what they call crown law corporation these days .
    Be a good boy David C and you too can be a judgey wudgey and sit behind the bench of bullshit and jelly beans .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    d4j….and make governer general eh?

    The chch creche case is a festering boil one NZs backside which needs popping no doubt about it. (Like the NWH inquiry – good promotion and GG material there). The false accusation industry is alive and well and coming to your naighbourhood soon.

    Wouldn’t it be a wonderful country if the answer was as simple as Gerrit says – this is the same powerful state that cannot even protect its won citizens from violent crime, cannot smash the gangs, or protect us from hard drugs and drunk drivers?

    I think the message that has been sent is not to the radicals, but to the rest of us – radicals can carry on regardless and the rest of us can carry on rewardless.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Tauhei Notts (1,644 comments) says:

    kiwi in america and Gerrit.
    I read this Blog to learn. I must try hard to differentiate between the frequent crap and the rare wisdom.
    Your comments come under the heading, “rare wisdom”.
    Thank you.
    It is people like you that make this Blog a damned sight better than any of the Sunday papers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Frank. (607 comments) says:

    So the plot thickens – The waters get murkier and murkier. Shortland Street was never as exciting and entertaining as this. Bring on the Prime Minister. Did she have any knowledge of the tapes as head of the SIS

    David Collins QC, Solicitor-General knew one month before Broad took action the contents of the now suppressed tapes, that we the public are not allowed to hear and why not?

    Was it Crown Law whose opinion Broad obtained before deploying his troops?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Frank. (607 comments) says:

    Ross: Brilliant information on Broad.

    The hugh importance of DPF’s Kiwiblog is that it enables New Zealanders, really concerned about their country’s well being and future, to pick up valuable bits of finformation that have been forgotten or missed. It is heartening also that thera are so many of us out there with the same concerns.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Frank. (607 comments) says:

    To assist this discussion we should know the function of our Law Officers:

    By long tradition the Crown has appointed two Law Officers to represent its interest in the courts. The offices of Attorney-General and Solicitor-General retain the responsibility of being the principal legal advisers to the government and representatives in court. In modern practice, distinctive roles have emerged for the two Law Officers in New Zealand.

    Attorney-General (Hon Dr Michael Cullen)
    The Attorney-General has two roles in government:

    1. The first role is that of the senior Law Officer of the Crown with principal responsibility for the Government’s administration of the law. This function is exercised in conjunction with the Solicitor-General, who is the junior Law Officer.

    2. The second is that of a Minister of the Crown with ministerial responsibility for the Crown Law Office, the Serious Fraud Office and the Parliamentary Counsel Office. Traditionally in New Zealand the Attorney-General also has policy portfolio responsibilities not connected with those of the Attorney-General.

    The Attorney thus has a unique role that combines, on the one hand, the obligation to act on some matters independently, free of political considerations, with, on the other hand, the political partisanship that is otherwise properly associated with other ministerial offices.

    For further information on the office of the Attorney-General, visit beehive.govt.nz

    Solicitor-General (Dr David Collins QC)
    The Solicitor-General holds office as an official of government and is also the Chief Executive of the Crown Law Office. Subject only to the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General is the government’s chief legal adviser and advocate in the courts. In practice, the Solicitor-General provides advice directly to Ministers, departments and agencies of government and will appear as Senior Counsel for government interests in litigation and in particular appellate court matters. A key responsibility is to advise the government on constitutional questions.

    The Solicitor-General also exercises a number of specific functions within the Crown’s prosecution process. These include responsibility for the prosecution of criminal jury trials and Crown representation in appeals against conviction and sentences.

    By statute the Solicitor-General can exercise almost all of the statutory functions conferred on the Attorney-General. As the non-political Law Officer, the Solicitor-General has traditionally assumed responsibility for the exercise of those functions that should be undertaken independently of the political process, most notably the prosecution functions.

    However, it has long been recognised that the nature and value of the office within government lies in part on the Solicitor-General’s duty to give independent advice and, in relation to certain functions, to act independently. That independence is of considerable constitutional importance. Such impartial advice can be seen to be given without political direction, even on politically contentious issues.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Re collins, surprisingly “He has not always been on the PC side – he represented professors Green and Bonham in the Cartwright cervical cancer inquiry.”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=246&objectid=10395758

    Their defence was not well handled though…..?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. kehua (225 comments) says:

    Bet the New Years honours list has been screwed up over the last month.Anyone want to nominat dpf for his services to democracy and free speech.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Yep. Oh BTW it was funny when Collins got appointed after 6 years of females holding the top 3 judicial appointments. On paper had the headline “Its a Boy!” At least we now know its not a man…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Frank. (607 comments) says:

    David Collins QC and Crown Law are now key figures in the alleged terrorist arrests. The duties of the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General are clearly defined above in this thread.

    So what do you make of the following emails to the Attorney-General on 28 March 2006 and a repeat on 04 April 2006, fdollowing no responses on such a serious allegation??

    To Attorney-General Hon Michael Cullen and Members of the Law and Order Select Committee

    “The attached letter 28 03 2006 to you is an indication of an alleged wide spread cult of alleged corruption permeating the upper echelons of the New Zealand Police and Associated Ministries. The allegations in the attached documents demand the attention of a Commission of Enquiry”.

    The following response 17 May 2006 was received from Crown Law under the signature of John Pike, Deputy Solicitor-General:

    “…….This office holds copies of your correspondence of 28 March and 4 April 2006. This documentation was forwarded by the Attorney-General’s office for information only, under cover of a ministerial action sheet”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Inventory2 (10,171 comments) says:

    Frank talked earlier about “Evidence the public will never know” – so who was responsible for leaking a summary of the evidence given to the Solicitor-General to Campbell Live? I’ve posted my thoughts on it here:

    http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2007/11/whodunnit.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Frank. (607 comments) says:

    Inventory2 :Why not post your summation here on this thread. It is brilliant and is asking all the questions the media should be asking.

    John Key and the National Party as usual are fast asleep, or don’t want to know. Chester Borrows is on the Select Committee for Law and Order as well as Simon Power i think.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Frank. (607 comments) says:

    Inventory2: Your unanswered questions raise the spectre of a widespread attempt to prevent and defeat the course of justice from the Primes Office to the whole of our justice system.

    We all are aware of bushfires. Some of them are deliberately lit. So let’s help the cause along with a bit more accelerant

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Inventory2 (10,171 comments) says:

    Frank – as one who slags off other posters when they try to imposwe their opinion via a particular blog, I can’t be hypocritical and thread-jack (takes moral high ground!), but I am quite happy for people to follow the link and see for themselves. You’re right though; the media should be asking questions, likewise the opposition on Tuesday which, if the House goes into urgency, will be the only Question Time available next week.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Frank. (607 comments) says:

    Inventory2: Thanks for explanation. i get a bit carried away. It seemed to me a really worthwhile article that needed a lot more exposure. might be likened to something that goes like: “…the blossoming flower, wasting ite sweetness on the desert air”

    You mention about the opposition asking questions in the House on Tuesday. I would have to ask you what opposition when you consider copy of this email sent? Tue 4/04/2006;

    To Attorney-General Hon Dr Michael Cullen and Members of the Law and Order Select Committee corrections, courts, criminal law, police and serious fraud:

    Chester Borrows, Martin Gallagher (Chairperson), Hon Winnie Laban, Ron Mark (Deputy Chairperson), Jill Pettis, Simon Power, and Kate Wilkinson.

    Dear Members of Parliament

    Allegations of Breaches of the Crimes Act 1961 by Senior Members of the
    New Zealand Police Force.

    These allegations arise from my complaints lodged with Officers of the New Zealand Police.

    With the exception of an automatic response from the Attorney- General’s Office, I have had no acknowledgement from the Members of Parliament who have been in receipt of the letter and attachments of 28 March 2006..

    Thus I have no idea as to what action, if any, will be instituted as the result of my very grave allegations.”

    Select Committee. No Response at all!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. John Dalley (394 comments) says:

    You get that Frank when you pester people in a letter writing campaign, they tend to ignore you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. kiwi in america (2,473 comments) says:

    Thanks for the kind comments Tauhei Notts – been away from computer most of today

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Frank. (607 comments) says:

    John Dalley: No worries. There’s always a paper trail created. Especially in Hansard. That is why there is an army of bureaucrats employed by MPs and funded by taxpayers, whose purpose is to scour through Hansard at question time, to dig up dirt on the questioner’s party. All Ministerial answers have a freebie addon to point score. Helen and Michael are past masters wit thisi use of a two edged sword.

    However Hansard can also be a double edgad sword.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. dad4justice (7,967 comments) says:

    “You get that Frank when you pester people in a letter writing campaign, they tend to ignore you.”

    Thank you John Dalley, as that explains the horrendous amount of letters from lairbour MP’s that I have accumulated over the last seven years . Fortunately I have enough now to wall paper a 3 bedroom house in located in socialist round the outside lickspittle land ?

    Papers trails are delightful to show astounded friends .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.