SST defends mock terrorists
The Press reports:
It is understood the newspaper had a reporter carrying fake explosives in a backpack and a dummy detonator on his body. It is believed the “bomber” was able to achieve access to restricted areas at the ground.
Of course he could. It was a provincial rugby match. I could probably do the same if you gave me five minutes with a colour printer and a laminating machine.
Sunday Star-Times managing editor Mitchell Murphy said critics should withhold judgment about the newspaper’s actions until the results of its investigation were revealed.
“Our investigation, which is a matter of significant public interest, was well planned and carefully considered,” he said.
There is little public interest in the fact that someone with a fake bomb could sneak into a rugby game. We don’t have armed guards and metal detectors at the grounds. The main purpose of security is to check for alcohol, not to x-ray and body frisk people.
Security should be proportional to the threat. For the Rugby World Cup one would expect higher security, as it is a potential target. Quite frankly with the aviation industry hysterically over-reacting with security, it’s nice to not have that same paranoia at our local rugby matches.
“We sought legal advice prior to commencing our investigation, and the journalists involved worked under strict protocols.”
He said the reporter carrying fake explosives had a letter outlining the investigation in case he was stopped, which would have prevented evacuation.
A letter!!! For fucks sake. So does the SST believe that if Police come across someone in a restricted area, with what appears to be explosives, they should take no action because they have a letter with them, saying there is no threat.
I’d love to see the SST try that stunt at an airport!
“At no stage was the public at risk; nor did we break the law,” Murphy said.
It seems no law was broken, but the stunt was still moronic. Of course there was a public risk if their mock bombers had been discovered.
With the Rugby World Cup in New Zealand next year, stadium security needed to be first-rate, and the investigation had exposed flaws.
Oh what self serving crap. As I said, I have no doubt I could infiltrate a restricted area of a stadium with a bit of effort. Our stadiums are not designed to be like the Pentagon.
For the World Cup, you do expect a higher level of security, but even then, some common sense. Frankly terrorism related paranoia should not overcome common sense.
Associate Professor Jim Tully, who is the head of the Canterbury University journalism course, said the alleged action was “a silly piece of journalism”.
“It’s one thing to potentially test security measures pretty close to the World Cup, but doing it now seems pretty dumb because they’re unlikely to be in place,” he said.
The story could backfire on the newspaper by damaging its credibility, he said.
A story focused on security is quite valid. But giving people fake bombs just reeks of a PR stunt.
March 13th, 2010 at 2:55 pm
Just more of the same from what is in my opinion, a dying and corrupt industry.
March 13th, 2010 at 3:17 pm
I bet the halfwit hacks who tried this stunt were aces at printing up fake IDs when they were back at writing school at their local polytech.
March 13th, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Mitchell Murphy, meet the SIS.
March 13th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
The Minister of Police is right on the money when she says it might not be a foregone conclusion that the SST will be accreditted to cover the World Cup. The SST must now be considered as potential terrorists. Their dopey Managing editor would be most miffed (probably lose his job) if such action were to occur.
The NZRFU and the various stadium managements have the ability now to ban SST journalists from their grounds in the same way that they ban streakers and other undesirable elements. A little ban would sure have the competition to SST grinning.
March 13th, 2010 at 3:55 pm
Dare them to try it at an El Al check in
March 13th, 2010 at 4:33 pm
I understand the jihadis have moved on from bombs in bags (too easily detected) to bombs up bums. Perhaps the SST could follow up along those lines.
On a serious note,anyone wandering around a public place but particularly a stadium with a hoax bomb is thick as pigshit as is the prat who sent him. The potential for panic and injury is enormous and clearly the people responsible for this stunt are morons.
Again an example of Bullshit dressed up as usual as a matter of “public interest”.
March 13th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
The police have said that it appears no laws have been broken.
I’m wondering what the reaction would have been if it had been a publicity stunt by Tuhoe, an advance warning of what could be in store for New Zealand unless we act to fulfill their demands including a higher degree of autonomy.
Would I be mistaken in thinking that by now the Ureweras would be flooded with armed and highly belligerent cops, possibly the SAS on its way back from Afghanistan, and the building of our own Guantanamo-style prison well advanced?
But because its a “stunt” by white middle class Kiwis, well, that’s OK then.
March 13th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
“I’m wondering what the reaction would have been if it had been a publicity stunt by Tuhoe, an advance warning of what could be in store for New Zealand unless we act to fulfill their demands including a higher degree of autonomy.”
It would be total outrage and immediate arrest for threatening security and that would be great. But why do you equate that proposition with what the journos did?
March 13th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Fascinating questions raised here. For example, what is this newspaper credibility you speak of…..?
March 13th, 2010 at 5:10 pm
Reporters who manufacture stories are no longer reporting news, therefore are no longer reporters, therefore should no longer be employed as such.
March 13th, 2010 at 5:45 pm
So what type of bomb did the reporter intend to make? all very well having a carboard cutout and some left over guyfawkes.
March 13th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
I am not so sure that any law was broken. Basically the stunt place the health and safety of the public at risk, supposing there was panic and people got badly injured or killed. What then??? I suspect the Managing Editor will be looking for a new job and is presently answering a please explain to his employers.
March 13th, 2010 at 6:44 pm
>He said the reporter carrying fake explosives had a letter outlining the investigation in case he was stopped, which would have prevented evacuation.
Would the people beating the fake bomber to within an inch of his life (as happened to the shoe bomber, Abdulmutallab, and the guy who set himself alight in Glasgow Airport only to be kicked in the crotch by a Scottish taxi driver) have bothered to stop and read the letter?
And will al Qaeda operatives now arm themselves with a fake letter from the SST, knowing that it will guarantee release from custody if they are caught before detonation? (Don’t laugh, the SST really believe that their letterhead can’t be forged, that it is recognised by all law enforcement and security staff, and that these staff will take the word of the SST over the physical evidence sitting in front of them. Which suggests that the SST don’t employ anyone with an IQ much over 70.)
March 13th, 2010 at 7:26 pm
The answer to your question, reid, is another question:
So why didn’t immediate arrest happen to the SST reporters and their henchmen and their spiritual leaders, their managers?
Why is the SST still operating? You could count on the fact that a Tuhoe-owned rag doing the same stunt would probably be closed down by now under our terrorism laws.
We imprisoned an innocent man for five years without trial under our terrorism laws for imagined offences, yet the SST staff get off scot free.
Here’s another point.
Imagine we were subject to terrorist attacks that killed on average, say, 8-10 people per week. The country would no doubt be in lockdown mode, our civil rights would be almost non-existent, and we would probably be essentially under military rule, much to the satisfaction of many on this site.
Yet we barely blink an eye at the same number of deaths on our roads.
It’s all about perspective.
March 13th, 2010 at 7:28 pm
“Quite frankly with the aviation industry hysterically over-reacting with security ………………”
I agree with you on rugby ground security in New Zealand, but that’s a very contentious statement in the light of 9/11 and subsequent attempts by terrorists to down international passenger aircraft. Been mildly inconvenienced on your offshore trips, have you? Well, sorry about that, but when I fly I want airlines and their regulating governments to take all possible measures to protect me and my fellow travellers against irrational suicide bombers.
Don’t blame airlines for the cowardly and bellicose actions of jihardists and their backers. If airline and airport security was not particularly stringent, the world’s underwriters would simply not provide insurance cover on aircraft, passenger liabilities and airport infrastructure. Passenger aircraft of any size would be grounded. Then we could all sit comfortably at home taking potshots at airlines.
March 13th, 2010 at 7:54 pm
Lucy Hansen at 4.37:
and
Typical leftist, old Lucy. Brings class and race into what was purely a stupid, irresponsible assignment from a newspaper desperate to slow a slide in circulation.
March 13th, 2010 at 8:01 pm
Next weeks SST headline
Fake bombs taken into 20 Auckland churches last Sunday. Not one was discovered. Shock Horror
Fake bombs at the Basin Test undetected. Shock horror
March 13th, 2010 at 8:26 pm
Well Jack5, it won’t them by the fact that my renewal slip is on my desk right now so I’m going to decline to renew.
And it’s interesting how you don’t address my point, just descend into ad hominem.
Use you imagination, if you have one, and think, what if…
Fisiani
Fake bombs detected at Pasifika, 10,000 arrested.
March 13th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
“damaging its credibility,”
What credibility..
March 13th, 2010 at 8:28 pm
And Fisiani, try this:
Fake bombs taken into US embassy…
March 13th, 2010 at 8:35 pm
Make believe bomb disguised as an orange makes it past security, public officials who are outraged demand compensation for the oppressed peoples of Timbuktu.
March 13th, 2010 at 8:43 pm
I covered the issue of why the SST was wrong on today’s GD thread:
As you can see, race and Tuhoi comparisons don’t enter into it. Apparently, sometimes, insane lefty fanatic terrorists try to skew a KiwiBlog thread off track simply to make their point. I find this unacceptable and plan immediately to alert the Department of Homeland Security.
As soon as I can find it in the Emergency Section of the Yellow Pages.
P.S. Anyone have their number?
Farken heck Luc. You don’t know the difference between crime-interdiction and offence-prosecution processes? Crikey.
March 13th, 2010 at 10:29 pm
Here’s why Mitchell Murphy is full of shit.
What would his reaction be if his rival Herald on Sunday journos strapped a fake hidden bomb to themselves and took along their letter from their editor outlining their investigation (in case they were stopped) into slack security at the SST offices (and whilst they were at it, snooped on stories on the SST news computers and for good measure downed some of the SST editor’s top shelf whiskry from his personal liquor cabinet)?
I bet ol’ Mitchee baby would be calling it “outrageous”, “stupid” and be calling the police to prosecute these “clowns” (rival journos)
March 13th, 2010 at 10:42 pm
My God – I knew Luc was an apologist for terrorists, but here he actually equates the crime of Murder to accidental death.
March 13th, 2010 at 11:31 pm
Sadly it is a misnomer to call road deaths as accidents. They are called crashes as they are seldom accidental
March 13th, 2010 at 11:31 pm
Considering it’s been nearly three years since the arrests, then yes, you would be mistaken. Though this wouldn’t be the first time for you.
March 13th, 2010 at 11:43 pm
So Tim, tell me, to the people who die, what’s the difference between your “accidental” and terrorist-caused death?
Hurf:
Tell that to the people who were terrorised by their own police force that morning three years ago.
And Tim, since the most active perpetrators of terrorist attacks are, in fact, nation states, which are you an apologist for?
March 14th, 2010 at 12:36 am
Maybe they could try getting over a morning’s mild inconvenience. It’s not like they was forced into work camps and starved.
March 14th, 2010 at 10:58 am
Try this sort of stunt in the UK and the fuzz wouldn’t enen bother saying ‘mind your fingers sonny’ as they chuck you in the Paddy Wagon.
March 14th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
A letter? Oh brilliant. Because no terrorist would think to lie about what they were doing. And what if the police had got a sniff of something nefarious and some armed cop sees a dude with explosives in his backpack? No doubt the SST will be paying the funeral bills? And the counselling + income insurance for the cop who’s life is ruined? Far fetched? No more so than terrorists wanting to blow up a construction site at Eden Park.