When did the police decide that their role extended beyond preventing crime and apprehending lawbreakers?
Clearly, a new generation of officers is under the delusion that they have a remit to provide moral guidance and matronly advice to the rest of us on how to lead wholesome lives.
Last week the head of the Canterbury police alcohol strategy and enforcement team, Sergeant Al Lawn, was publicly tut-tutting over the granting of an alcohol licence to a new Christchurch supermarket.
With respect, Mr Lawn should pull his head in. The law allows the police to have their say when submissions are heard on liquor licence applications, but once the decision is made, that should be an end to it.
Absolutely. It is not their job to undermine the decision of the independent authority, through the media.
Obviously not satisfied with this state of affairs, and probably smarting because the decision didn’t go his way, Mr Lawn seized on the opportunity to lecture supermarkets on their supposed moral responsibilities.
He doesn’t think supermarkets should discount alcohol because it supposedly encourages binge drinking. But I know lots of people who are happy to buy discounted wine and beer from supermarkets and they couldn’t, by any stretch of the imagination, be labelled as binge drinkers.
Mr Lawn went even further, suggesting that stores should reduce the price of milk, fruit and vegetables to attract customers “in a way that is also good for the community”. What pompous moralising.
Someone send him a membership form for the Mana Party.
When did the Police become responsible for the price of milk?
Out of curiosity I googled Mr Lawn and on the basis of what I saw, I concluded that he has well and truly crossed the line between objective law enforcement and political activism. He makes emotive statements about liquor industry “drug pushers” and condemns politicians for not getting tougher on alcohol.
He is entitled to those views as a private citizen, but to push them as a police officer is an abuse of his position.