In brief

June 12th, 2013 at 2:51 pm by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

A select committee hearing has descended into acrimony after Labour MP appeared to threaten the job of a senior police officer.

Mallard abruptly left a select committee after an exchange of angry words with Police Minister Anne Tolley after he questioned the decision of Deputy Police Commissioner Mike Bush to speak at the funeral of former police officer Bruce Hutton.

Is it newsworthy anymore when Trevor Mallard storms out of the House or a select committee? He’s done it so often, it is probably more newsworthy when he doesn’t.

After Mallard attempted to question Bush on the issue Government committee members objected that his questions were out of order.

But Mallard hit back and appeared to threaten Bush’s job.

“We’re deciding whether or not to continue his salary, that’s what we’re deciding now,” he said.

Really. A select committee can approve the salary of an individual police officer?

Also of interest is this tweet from Hamish Rutherford:

confirms he was in SkyCity corp.box after ABs test at Eden Park on Sat for “5 to 10 minutes” to say hello. No drinks or hospo.

So against Sky City making money from dirty pokies, but will pop into their corporate box.

And a great rejoinder from Steven Joyce:

I think he’s saying he didn’t inhale

Great sledge.

Tags: , ,

38 Responses to “In brief”

  1. Manolo (14,064 comments) says:

    Will Greenie do-gooder Campbell expose on TV Captain Mumblefuck’s visit to Sky City’s corporate box?

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Kleva Kiwi (289 comments) says:

    Trevor Mallard.
    The desperate despot who cannot get his own way (and hopefully never will).

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. kowtow (8,770 comments) says:

    Labour and their media allies threaten free speech.

    People go in fear of what they can or can’t say these days.

    Democracy,yeah right.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Lloyd (125 comments) says:

    Trevor Mallard is like a garden slug: probably serving some sort of service in the greater scheme of things, but none that is apparent to ordinary thinking folk…

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. gravedodger (1,570 comments) says:

    Hon Tony Ryall, named the Sky City Hypocrites as Fa Foi, Shearer and Cosgrove, later Goff did not deny his involvement.

    We need an inquiry and for the police to sieze a few emails

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. David Garrett (7,543 comments) says:

    Are you all sitting down? I applaud Mallard for what he did, and have told him so (although I doubt he will get referred to the Privileges Committee as I did, when I observed at Law and Order Select Committee that a prison officer who had spent 40 minutes slagging off private prison operators probably wouldnt be trying to get a job with one)

    Marshall confirming that he supported what Bush said at Hutton’s funeral is disgraceful, and proves beyond doubt that despite the clearest findings by the Royal Commission, the police establishment have never accepted that one or more of their own was dirty…and for men of my age, that damaged and continues to damage the Police irrevocably…

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    I have to say that I completely agree with what DG says above. Words are not spoken in a vacuum, even at a funeral.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. RF (1,452 comments) says:

    I could call Mallard a useless arse hole but at least they have a use. What a tosser. I see DG has had a rush of blood and I suspect that will earn him some thumbs down. I am proud to be the first one. Mike Bush was spot on !!!! For christs sake it was a bloody funeral. I hope when DG shuffles off people speak kindly about him at his funeral.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    For christs sake it was a bloody funeral.

    In my experience, speakers at funerals typically choose their words carefully. So, how did Bush manage to stuff up? Clearly, Bush didn’t have to say that Hutton was corrupt but I wouldn’t have said:

    “We all know despite the length and depth of Bruce’s term with us in the police, in the public eye he is only associated with one case. … It is a great tragedy and irony that a man of such great character should have been subject to those accusations.”

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Hutton’s “integrity”, said Bush, was “beyond reproach”. Hmmm of all the things that Bush could have said, he made this silly statement.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Hear hear, DG.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. David Garrett (7,543 comments) says:

    The “it was at a funeral” defence fails miserably…and I don’t give a rats how many thumbs down I get…Eulogies at funerals are like references; no-one says anything overtly bad, but you simply avoid saying good things that give a false impression…Bush could and should have talked about Hutton’s long service, perhaps mentioned a couple of his more high profile cases – there must have been others – and simply “not go there” on anything to do with the Thomas enquiry.

    In saying what he did, he was sending a signal loud and clear: ” We [the Police heirarchy] think AA Thomas is as guilty as sin, and our dear departed brother was wrongly accused of nefarious conduct”

    I just heard Tolley saying at the Select Committee some bullshit about Bush being 10 years old when it all happened…and bollocks to that too…”the Crown” is apologising every week for wrongs that were supposedly done 100 or 150 years ago, when anyone alive at the time these dreadful political decisions were made – such as confiscating half the Waikato – has been dead for 50 or 100 years. It makes no difference; the “Crown” as an entity is still issuing apologies…Bush was speaking for the entity known as “the Police” when he eulogised a bent cop at his funeral.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. OneTrack (3,228 comments) says:

    Mallard wasting public money again. Who cares what Bush said at the funeral. Hutton is dead in case some people (mallard) dont realise that. What a dick.

    And he wants to sack a serving police officer? Well we have so many of them we can afford to burn off a few more, cant we?

    How many police resignations will there be the week after the Greens (and labour) win in 2014? On the good side, I guess there will be less of a workload after Turei legalises any drug activity and encourages them with business development grants. And it wont pay to actually arrest anybody with brown skin. Even turning the flashing light on will become a career ending action.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. OneTrack (3,228 comments) says:

    Sorry DG but I’ll give you a thumb down for that one.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. mikenmild (11,719 comments) says:

    DPF said ‘Really. A select committee can approve the salary of an individual police officer?’
    I think it likely that in this case Mallard was referring to the purpose of the select committee meeting: to review the Police Estimates for 2013/14. In this context the committee is approving all Police expenditure for the coming financial year.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. David Garrett (7,543 comments) says:

    One Track: I have no doubt Mallard did what he did for political reasons…actually, that’s not true…having got to know the bloke a bit, he may just have had a rush of blood to the head, and not thought very much about the ramifications of what he was doing…

    doesnt make any difference …his questioning of Marshall on the subject was entirely justified…and he got his answer: “Mike Bush was speaking for all of us in the Police heirarchy when he said…..”

    And for those who think poor Brucey was wronged, and Thomas IS as guilty as sin, why don’t they release the evidence they have for that view? The Police have leakers like everyone else…any journo in the country would kill for “the real story on AA Thomas”…There are plenty of good defamation lawyers around who would tell them how to write it without impinging on the Royal Commission’s findings, or the presumption of innocence that Thomas now enjoys….

    The Police have a mindset of “just knowing” some things, and to hell with evidence….Chester “all the crims need is love” Borrows told me in an unguarded moment that he “just knows” I had some nefarious reason to get the bogey passport 30 years ago….he will go to his grave “just knowing” something I bloody don’t…

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. mikenmild (11,719 comments) says:

    Also, extra thumbs up to DG for his comments above. I don’t know what he was on about last night, but he is right on the mark with this case.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. RF (1,452 comments) says:

    Hey DG. Normally I would support you 99%. This time a big fat zero. I rest content that I know / knew of a number of the players in the Thomas saga and from their first hand experiences formed my opinions while it was still a hot topic. I have no doubt that Det Len Johnston was one of natures gentlemen and straight as. Time tends to distort facts and memories and you will appreciate this if you have defended anyone in court. It will be no surprise to you that I have serious doubts about Thomas who is the underdog the public loves to champion.

    But thats another story and thomas was granted a pardon so he is a free man.

    I love this country as everyone is free to express an opinion and believes that their’s is the right one.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    I have no doubt that Det Len Johnston was one of natures gentlemen and straight as.

    This isn’t about Johnston. It’s about how Bush made a dick of himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Andronicus (219 comments) says:

    Mallard’s a prick, but he did have a point. Bush’s comments at the Hutton funeral were unprofessional and atrocious.

    David, I know Mallard from way back and I don’t think he has rushes of blood to the head. Perhaps blood rushes to other parts of his anatomy, but that’s another story.

    I think his acts are thought out and calculated. He is a nasty, dangerous man.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    I have no doubt that Det Len Johnston was one of natures gentlemen and straight as.

    Well, there is a Royal Commission Report that disagrees with you quite strongly on that, at least with regards to the Crewe Murder case.  You appear to be claiming that Thomas is in fact guilty, which is an interesting viewpoint to hold given that most people in NZ accept he was framed by Police.

    The fact is that the comment by Bush should not have been made, regardless of where it might have been offered. For the Commissioner to back him up is even worse. It does appear to confirm that Bush’s comment is in fact the official Police view, which is to contradict the findings of the Royal Commission.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. David Garrett (7,543 comments) says:

    RF: you are exhibiting what I might term the “Chester Borrows phenomenon” … ergo “I just know he’s guilty….”

    As I said above, where is the fucking evidence? If there was any EVIDENCE which contradicted the Royal Commission’s report, why has it not come out by now? If it exists, what is stopping it coming out now? As far as I am aware, the only player still alive in the sorry saga of the Crewe murders is Thomas himself, everyone else is dead; therefore, anyone can say anything they like about Demler, his wife, his second wife (who some say fed the baby), or anyone else except Thomas, because you can’t defame the dead.

    If the Police establishment – which is what Bush and now Marshall represents – think Thomas is guilty, where is the evidence for that belief? As I said earlier, the cops have as good or better leakers than anyone…If in fact there IS no evidence – which is what I believe – then they should stop fucking about and suck up the Royal Commission and its unpalatable findings….As I have said before, they can do that without referring to Thomas at all! I could write the release for them, as could 100 half competent press secs…That that hasnt happened means they still dispute the Royal Commission’s findings, and still think their boy(s) are as pure as the driven….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. lilman (967 comments) says:

    Mallard will not want his ex talking at his funeral then I would think?
    Maybe better to leave that to the new one.
    A man of commitment and principal.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. RF (1,452 comments) says:

    F E Smith & DG.

    My beliefs are firm so we agree to disagree. I used to belong to the biggest gang in NZ and still keep the faith.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Pete George (23,683 comments) says:

    Mallard may have made a reasonable point, but he made it in an inappropriate way in an inappropriate time and place.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. David Garrett (7,543 comments) says:

    RF: well then my son, perhaps YOU can tell us, safely behind your shield of anonymity, just what it is that makes your former colleagues so fucking certain…I hope it’s better than Borrows’ “cops’ snout” which he cited as a reason for “knowing” what I was up to 30 years ago…funnily enough, even in a one on one he wasn’t willing to say just what that was…

    Were your formers any more forthcoming RF? Even with their trousers rolled up?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. RF (1,452 comments) says:

    DG. As they say in the movies.. If i told you I would have to kill you. No snouts, fizzes etc. just good word of mouth where a wink is good as a nod, finger brushed across the tip of the nose etc.. My informants were very reliable and trusted and not bitter and twisted. Soon no one will remember the facts and indeed will not be interested. In a few years it will be an old story about a double murder that will be brought to life for a few weeks by someone writing a book so they can retire on the proceeds.

    I wish Mr. Thomas a happy life as guilty or not he served his sentence and is a free man with i hope a healthy bank balance.

    Life is a bitch.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. RF (1,452 comments) says:

    DG.. PS. I also believe that David Bain is guilty.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. mix (1 comment) says:

    In 1981 I struck the same “the cops just know its AA Thomas” when debating the Crewe murders with a flatmate. This flatmate’s father was then a senior member of the police prosecution service (not sure of the terminology) but not directly involved with the Crewe case. I tried raising the key points from the Royal Commission, Booth’s book etc, but the flatmate’s certainty was unshakeable. I’m sure he was honestly reflecting his father’s equally unshakable faith based on the police version of papal infallibility.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. David Garrett (7,543 comments) says:

    RF: No disrespect to you sir, but the Thomas case will live on long after both of us…but at least Marshall has shown his hand… in summary, based on “evidence” only they know, which is not fit to be shared with the rest of us mere mortals, even anonymously, the myth continues that NZ Police are always straight, and there has never been a bent one…if only…

    Where’s the killer tonight? He’s normally very forthcoming on the failures of the Police….

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. lilman (967 comments) says:

    RF you were a defenceforce person I presume

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. lilman (967 comments) says:

    D Garrett our police are acceptable, if not desirable,to think they can improve sure?
    But the truth is, by and large, we are very lucky to have a policing system the wecan generally rely on.
    Now the justice system is something else!!!!!!!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    lilman, the police are part of the justice system. If it were not for the judges and lawyers, you would be far less satisfied with the police. They provide checks and balances on the police.

    If you disagree with my position then you can only be advocating the police going outside of the law, which they do from time to time anyway. The police are created by statute the same as the rest of the justice system. If police can not act in a way that is compatible with the “justice system” then they picked the wrong career and it is the police that need to change.

    They are not a bunch of heroes out to fight crime and keep people safe. They are public servants with specific duties and powers and nothing more than that. They also have a habit of exceeding those powers and should be monitored. That is why we have the judges and other legally qualified people. Judge Dredd belongs in comics, not on our streets.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    RF (770) Says:
    June 12th, 2013 at 10:45 pm
    DG.. PS. I also believe that David Bain is guilty.

    So do I. Butcher Bain is a social misfit who killed his entire family.

    BUT… the sicko has been found not guilty and served considerable time in prison. I think he should be compensated accordingly. Yes it sucks, but we can not lock people up who are found not guilt and refuse to put things right.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. RF (1,452 comments) says:

    lilman…DG… Kea. Freely admit the perhaps one eyed bias from my side but having worn the “blue suit” for too many years it goes with the territory. I have heard too many “hand on heart it was not me” pleas from individuals who were guilty as the proverbial sin.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. lilman (967 comments) says:

    RF my brothers a criminal 8 years never seen or spoken to him,he lives about 10 mins away, a piece of shit that Im embarassed to have the same name with.
    Arrested and convicted and shammed our family,hope he rots in hell.
    At the time and since the police treated my parents with respect and were more than professional ,we owe them alot.
    Wont catch me ever bagging the police.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    RF, that is a common problem with cops. They have seen so much of the other side of life they get a bit twisted. If some body fits the picture on a few things, they assume the worst. That is not an anti-cop statement, simply an observation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. RF (1,452 comments) says:

    lilman.. Kea. Fair comment. It is interesting when a group of cops get together for a few drinks.. even X cops. A fly on the wall would not believe the stories that sadly are mainly true. Its very hard not to be ‘tainted”.

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