Today is a once in a lifetime event for me and many Otago-ites – a Ranfurly Shield defence against Hawkes Bay. As of yesterday nearly 16,000 tickets had been sold nearly filling the main stands and the west stand is now being opened. Hopefully the scarfies will flock in.
Is “Snake Vance” paid by Labour or Fairfax? After reading part of a Labour propaganda script today one wonders! There is no place for someone so politically bent in media . . . this being highlighted by the company’s dismal fiscal performance. Where will sleeze such as this go when they tip up . . . like the rest of the scum I suppose, become a Labour PA.
I was watching Brian Bruce’s documentary ‘Mind The Gap’ on TV3 the other day about increasing equality blah blah blah, he was interviewing a young couple down south with no money, struggling etc. (Both teachers – enough said).
Anyhow the dad bless him had kept a record of outgoing expenses and was showing Brian how petrol had gone up, everything, food, just general cost of living. So terrible.
I paused the programme when they showed a close up of the dad’s budget spreadsheet and blow me down there was an $850 – $1,000 annual donation to Greenpeace in one of the columns.
Brian didn’t point that out. I would have.
Popular. Like or Dislike: 200 You need to be logged in to vote
Let’s get a petition going ridding NZ of three foreign troublemakers: Dotcom, Bruce, and gutless Norman. They are not wanted in their countries of origin, yet the left and Fairfax treat them as heroes here. Time we got real, there is no place for trash such as these leeches here.
Local Body Elections coming up. On little old Waiheke the levels of dishonesty & nastiness exhibited by the mainly Green aligned candidates is unbelievable. Even this grizzled campaigner for some truth in Politics becomes despondent…and it will only get worse with the General Election next year. The ability of The Left to spread lies via Social & (mainstream) Media is a worrying trend and will need to be addressed & countered by the forces of good. Combined with the toxic influence of many of our “educators” a worryingly ill informed and self centred electorate will emerge. I despair for the future of my children in all this.
Still no comment dedicated to the latest debacle on the Thomas investigation (Police prefer to call it a review of the Crewe murders)
Too embarrassing for a certain Minister of Justice perhaps?
Leading legal experts are disgusted that Arthur Allan Thomas and his family are again under scrutiny in an inquiry into the Crewe murders.
Mr Thomas was twice convicted of the 1970 murders of Harvey and Jeannette Crewe at Pukekawa, south of Auckland, then pardoned after nine years in jail when a Royal Commission ruled police planted evidence against him.
In the past month police have questioned Mr Thomas and family members, which supporters say reflects an intransigent police culture which refuses to accept it got the case wrong.
“The fabrication of evidence against Arthur Allan Thomas was the blackest day in the history of the New Zealand police force, and they should be full of remorse, and they should be trying to make amends,” said Peter Williams QC, Thomas’ former lawyer.
“It disgusts me if they are trying to drag his name through the mud again,” he said.
New Zealand’s most famous cold case was reopened in 2010 after Rochelle Crewe – the only daughter of Harvey and Jeannette – asked police to find her parents’ killer.
“To turn Rochelle’s application for an inquiry into a rehearing of the evidence against Thomas, if they are trying to do that, is repugnant to any citizen’s sense of justice. It is absolutely despicable,” Mr Williams said.
Former policeman Ross Meurant, a junior officer in the original police investigation, says the latest police moves are an “unbelievable attempt to cover up” mistakes.
He said this was an insult to the judicial system.
“It is bloody nonsense & this is time for politicians to say ‘pull your head in, the courts have decided’.”
He said there was “no way” the crime could be properly investigated so long afterwards.
“When so much evidence has been destroyed and it is documented as having been destroyed by the police, then it is a charade.”
Leading civil liberties lawyer Gary Gotlieb said there was a perception police were closing ranks and attempting to protect the reputation of officers in the original inquiry.
“That is the thing that really worries me, the reputations of past police they don’t want to sully.
“The public want confidence in the police, but when things do go wrong it should be acknowledged, and you should have an investigation that is independent.”
However, the president of the Criminal Bar Association, Tony Bouchier, said police must be able to interview Arthur Thomas again to conduct the inquiry properly.
“What we have is an unsolved murder the police have undertaken to have a look at again.
“In that regard, when there are questions to be put to people, whether they are the Allan Thomas family or not, those questions need to be put.”
Mr Thomas, along with two of his brothers, his sister and her husband, Buster Stuckey, had been re-interviewed in the past month and had to provide details of their whereabouts on the night of the killings.
Police seized rifles from Des and Richard Thomas.
A member of the family reported officers told them they still believed Arthur Thomas’ rifle was the murder weapon.
Des Thomas was frustrated at the police questioning. “It’s insinuation against family members and that is a disgrace.
“We don’t mind being asked a few reasonable questions, but some of the questions asked are over the top.”
He also said police were asking if Arthur Thomas shared any of the $1 million compensation he received after being pardoned. “The police are trying to make it look as though the family’s split.”
Acting Assistant Commissioner Glenn Dunbier said police would have been remiss if they did not reinterview people connected with the case as part of the new investigation.
“The review team have been keeping an open mind and have not yet reached a conclusion,” Mr Dunbier said.
But no matter what police find, Arthur Thomas can never be retried.
Law reforms in 2009 allowing defendants to be retried even if they are acquitted of murder do not apply to the Thomas case.
The 1980 Royal Commission of Inquiry found Detective Inspector Bruce Hutton and one of his detectives, Len Johnston, planted a cartridge case from Mr Thomas’ rifle at the murder scene.
The commission also found neither Mr Thomas nor his rifle were linked to the murders.
Rochelle was just 18 months old when her parents were killed, and was found crying in her cot five days after they were last seen alive. It is thought someone had been looking after her during that time.
The investigation was nearing its final stages, but no date had been set for the release of its findings, Mr Dunbier said.
In 1350, at the end of the Great Famine and the Black Death, the world’s population was about 370 million. By 1750, this had almost doubled to 760 million. By 1950, the world had 2.5 billion people and already in my lifetime the world’s population has doubled once more.[ii]
No one, no one, no one believes that the human population on planet Earth can safely hit nine or ten billion without grave consequences.
In a sense, there’s no guilty party and no bad guys; just seven billion bewildered humans whose dreams came true: against all odds, we survived and flourished. We reproduced, organised and colonised the entire planet.
Our ancestors bred like rabbits because it was the only way of guaranteeing survival. Also, because there was no old-age pension, large families were the only way of ensuring that there would be sufficient family members to look after the parents when they grew too old to work.
Westerners may have smaller families, but we consume many times their fair share of resources and they tend to live in democracies with a high life expectancy and good access to education and employment.
birth control in poor countries and consumption in rich countries are two different issues. This is the ruse the left use to dump third world problems on us (hello immigration, hello multiculturalism).
It is those blond, vulture-like spectacles that stop the MoJ from becoming involved in what she and Tolley are pleased to describe as “operational” maters.
Why no separate thread? Well that might open up similar problems in respect of other similar cases, might it not?
DPF, you are letting your Collins bias show, no?
The 14 ring circus being performed by The Three Mouseketeers is newsworthy, but irrelevant to justice and fair play. Better to have clowns and Jokers to distract while the Gang in Blue tilts at windmills …..
Judith, surely this is purely in police’s court and nothing to do with moj. So if I was tolley i would be a bit pissed off. And next budget review, when the police came asking for more money and resources, i would be asking them why, when they obviously have resources to do this crap. Rapes, murder and theft – nah, lets focus on the forty year old cold case. Ffs.
I notice that any comments regarding the recent harassment of the Thomas family receive many thumbs down.
I do wonder why that is? Are these all supporters of the police who still think Thomas did it? Is it political bias that they can’t perceive of anyone in the current position of MOJ or MOP doing anything other than an excellent job?
OR is it just that they think it doesn’t matter, it was so long ago now, so who cares. I’ve seen it written elsewhere that it doesn’t matter because the police involved are now dead. How naive some people are.
The police who have harassed the Thomas family over the last month are not dead. The same attitude that saw Thomas convicted more than forty years ago is still rampant in the force – and being practiced by the current regime.
I spoke to members of the Thomas family yesterday – the questions they have been asked have NOTHING to do with a review of the case – they are to do with a government agency that wants revenge and who refuses to accept the fault.
As long as this sort of attitude exists, every single one of us is in danger of being lead down that same path. This does effect all of us, and we should be concerned – unless of course we prefer a corrupt police force, and biased justice.
…what does this have to do with the Minister of Justice?
Nothing. Nothing at all.
But that won’t stop the campaign of whingeing and bleating about Justice Minister Collins from the small group who think that their constant hijacking of every KB thread possible (even a Caption Contest!) will somehow cast the Minister in a bad light. And of course, all it does is reveal their campaign for what it is: An increasingly desperate attempt by a handful of people on KB to try and win sympathy for their ’cause celebre’.
But any sympathy there may have been with their cause, is rapidly being eroded. The stream of boorish remarks made by this handful of idiots about the Minister / about Robert Fisher QC and about Kristy McDonald QC, is pathetic.
Because it won’t matter one jot. The Minister will evaluate the facts / she will take quality advice / she will make her decision / she will make her recommendation to Cabinet. And thankfully, in matters of discretionary payments, there will be no appeal process.
I understand what you are trying to say, but the ministers concerned were responsible when it was decided that rather than do an investigation into the entire Crewe murders, they would instead do a review of the existing case. That is, a review of the convictions of Arthur Allan Thomas.
Arthur Allan Thomas did not commit those murders, he couldn’t have done. None of his family was involved. His gun wasn’t involved. There is NOTHING, not one drop of evidence that could lead a responsible police force to think otherwise.
This is sheer harassment – it is the police force refusing to accept the results of a Royal Commission of Inquiry – it is a force out of control. Now, maybe you don’t think Ms Tolley is responsible for the Police, but I do. They could have stopped this before it began, but they didn’t, they’ve let it run, they’ve let the police dictate what will and won’t happen.
They have the ultimate responsibility – I expect an apology from Key tomorrow morning – and heads to roll. It will be an absolute travesty if that is not done.
Can someone please explain why the Police are being given a hard time over a review they are undertaking on the Crew murders? As far as I know, a review of the entire case was requested by many, including Rochelle Crew, in an effort to find answers to some of the many mysteries still surrounding the events and including the subsequent investigation. So now, all the pious do-gooders (who are the worst when it comes to preconceived ideas about who is guilty or not-guilty), are having a moan in the MSM about police “harassment”.
So what is the problem, did they want an inquiry or did they want the police to just agree with them?
It seems to me the police are damed if they do, and damed if they don’t. And I bet they were the last who wanted to get involved again, not withstanding the Deputy Commissioner’s dumb and inappropriate funeral remarks earlier in the year.
@ Judith..is this another attempt/method to smear anyone in the current Govt, by dragging up actions of dead policemen and somehow trying to tie them in to a Minister? I think you have just outed yourself, it doesn’t take much to see patterns in language and behaviour. I thought you would be pressing for separation between the Executive & Police actions, but it seems you are either a) wanting to get Collins to influence Police behaviour or b) inferring that she is. Which is it to be?
New Zealand’s most famous cold case was reopened in 2010 after Rochelle Crewe – the only daughter of Harvey and Jeannette – asked police to find her parents’ killer.
The president of the Criminal Bar Association, Tony Bouchier, said police must be able to interview Arthur Thomas again to conduct the inquiry properly.
“What we have is an unsolved murder the police have undertaken to have a look at again.”
“In that regard, when there are questions to be put to people, whether they are the Allan Thomas family or not, those questions need to be put.”
Rochelle Crewe asked police to find her parents killer.
Personally I believe the police should have just said no to her request.
But if they had there would have been plenty of people saying the police are just trying to dodge the issue.
So Rochelle Crewe is getting what she asked for.
I don’t believe that the police are ever going to come up with a definitive answer after so many years have elapsed.
From all I have read on the Crewe murders I believe the most likely perpetrator is Len Demler.
as you have already been told, Judith Collins was the police minister when the decision to NOT do an investigation, as per Rochelle Crewe’s request was made.
Instead they decided, despite there being a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the convictions of Arthur Allan Thomas, that cleared him of any responsibility for the murders, that they would do a review of the case against him.
He was expecting to be asked questions in that review – he was not expecting to be asked questions and treated like a suspect again. His family were not expecting to have to account for their whereabouts at the time, and they were not expecting to have to provide a gun, that was in Matakana at the time of the murders, to be checked for evidence etc.
Now why would the police do that? Why would they be going after the Thomas family when a royal commission made it very clear that there was no connection?
You lot are letting your political bias get in the way of justice.
For those deluded fools that still believe windpower is the way to save NZ and meet our (expired) Kyoto obligations, the latest news from UK reported in the trade journals makes sobering reading.
” The London Array, the latest of about 20 offshore farms completed in the UK, brings the nation’s total offshore wind capacity to 3.6 GW. The UK government has, however, tempered ambitions for a more massive offshore wind expansion, lowering ambitions from 18 GW by 2020, as set in 2011, to 11.5 GW by 2020, the latest projections from the Department of Energy and Climate Change show.
Government reforms of the electricity market drafted in late June could see subsidies for wind farms increase by about 10% starting next year to allay worries of wind turbine operators and manufacturers who have frozen investment in the UK’s offshore sector on fears that subsidies would be cut to unsustainable levels. For offshore installations, the draft subsidy level, or “strike price” is£155 ($237.96)/MWh from 2014, dropping to£135 ($207.25)/MWh in 2018; for onshore wind farms, the level is£100 ($153.52)/MWh, falling to£95 ($145.84)/MWh in 2018. And in August, the government unveiled a strategy to improve the UK’s offshore wind supply chain, including an investment of£66 million ($101 million) over five years to help bring new products to market. The government also said it will require developers of offshore wind farms above a certain size to produce a supply chain plan before they can apply for long-term contracts.
The UK has committed to European targets, which means it must source 15% of its power from renewables by 2020. But recent data from the Office for National Statistics shows that only 4.1% of the UK’s total energy consumption came from renewables and waste sources in 2011. In that year, meanwhile, fossil fuel imports rose to their highest level ever recorded.”
So not only do they have to pay way over the odds for the power (they can’t run without massive subsides – here in NZ generators get about $70 / MWh), they haven’t reduced their consumption. Way to go. Didn’t the three amigos want to go this way with NZ Power, or was it only comrade Russel?
Arthur was expecting to be interviewed. He was not expecting to be interrogated, to be made to hand over items, to have his family bulled, interrogated, and harassed.
The police aren’t ‘reviewing’ the existing information – they are trying to intimidate the family into believing they are building another case against them. This is harassment – it doesn’t matter how the police like to paint it.
You can excuse it anyway you like, but when they started in on Buster Stuckey, it was obvious what they were trying to do and it is appalling.
I once thought you were a sensible being. But of late you have been demonstrating your ignorance and Government machine bias. You have the gall to attempt to defend the porno judge (That is how he is known in the profession. And other matters could also be raised, as you might know but ignore), and the well known Police patsy McDonald. Her reputation is defined by her cases. And you seek, unsuccessfully I add, to defend a Minister who deliberately set out on a crusade to welsh on a deal signed off by The Cabinet. The deal was “appoint an independent judicial reviewer and Bain will accept the outcome, whichever way it goes”.
Elaycee, all your smarmy, sugar coated words about good advice are disgraceful, and deep down you know.
At the risk of asking something that is clearly beyond you, go read Binnie on Fisher. That should not be too hard for you.
AND LEST YOU FORGET, please re-read the following segments of the Royal Commission report on Thomas. (And bear in mind this: Fisher was the Police legal counsel who (if you read the full report you will see, clearly) was the subject of perhaps the strongest possible Royal Commission criticism of legal counsel appearing.)
1. flipper (2,299) Says:
August 31st, 2013 at 10:51 am
The Thomas Royal Commission called Police actions against Mr A A Thomas, “an unspeakable outrage”.
A reading of the lead NZ Herald report this morning suggests that another unspeakable outrage is in the making.
Anyone who has not read the Herald today should do so. And then they should then go to the report of The Royal Commission. By chance I re-read it yesterday afternoon and was drawn, yet again, to the appalling similarities between Thomas and the other cases ….
The following speaks for itself.
But I draw attention, in particular, to Paras 482, 483, 486, 491, and 492.
Extracts – Thomas Royal Commission report:
(Para numbers as per RC Report)
482. The pardon alone makes it clear that Mr Thomas should never
have been convicted of the crimes, since there was a real doubt as to his
guilt. He should accordingly have been found not guilty by the juries. Our
own findings go further. They make it clear that he should never even
have been charged by the Police. He was charged and convicted because
the Police manufactured evidence against him, and withheld evidence of
value to his defence.
483. At our hearings there have been often repeated statements about
whether Mr Thomas can be proved innocent. Such a proposition concerns
us. It seems to imply that there falls on to him some onus positively to
prove himself innocent. Such a proposition is wrong and contrary to the
golden thread which runs right through the system of British criminal justice, namely that the Prosecution has the duty to prove the accused guilty and until so proved he had to be regarded as innocent. Once we are
satisfied the Prosecution case against Mr Thomas has not been proved
(and we are so satisfied on the totality of evidence before us) then, just as a
Court would acquit him and the community thereafter accept his
innocence, so we believe we are entitled to proclaim him innocent and
proceed accordingly. Mr Thomas has always asserted his innocence.
485. The British system of criminal justice is an adversary system. It receives only such facts as are put before it by the parties, discovering only so much of the truth as this permits. Any such system to function properly is dependent upon fair and truthful information being put before it. Like a computer, given the wrong facts it will without doubt produce the wrong answers, and this it did in the Thomas case.
486. This Commission is not in an adversary situation. We have
searched for the truth, probed, inquired, and interrogated where we
thought necessary; made our displeasure apparent at prevarication and
reluctance to speak the truth. We have not been content with so much of
the truth as some saw fit to put before us. With the aid of scientists we
were able to demolish the cornerstone of the Crown case, exhibit 350, and
demonstrate that it was not put in the Crewe garden by the hand of the
murderer. It was put there by the hand of one whose duty was to
investigate fairly and honestly, but who in dereliction of that duty, in
breach of his obligation to uphold the law, and departing from all
standards of fairness fabricated this evidence to procure a conviction of
murder. He swore falsely, and beyond a peradventure, was responsible for
Thomas being twice convicted, his appeals thrice dismissed, and for his
spending 9 years of his life in prison; to be released as a result of sustained
public refusal to accept these decisions. The investigation ordered by the
Government led finally to his being granted a free pardon and released by
the ultimate Court of a democratic system—what Lord Denning calls
‘The High Court of Parliament.’ Common decency and the conscience of
society at large demand that Mr Thomas be generously compensated.
491. Mr Thomas spent 9 years in prison. That a man is locked up for a
day without cause has always been seen by our law as a most serious
assault on his rights. That a man is wrongly imprisoned for 9 years, is a
wrong that can never be put right. The fact that he is imprisoned on the
basis of evidence which is false to the knowledge of Police Officers, whose
duty it is to uphold the law, is an unspeakable outrage.
492. Such action is no more and no less than a shameful and cynical
attack on the trust that all New Zealanders have and are entitled to have
in their Police Force and system of administration of justice. Mr Thomas suffered that outrage; he was the victim of that attack. His courage and that of a few very dedicated men and women who believed in the cause of
justice has exposed the wrongs which were done. They can never be put
right. In a civil claim exemplary damages may be awarded where there
has been oppressive, arbitrary, or unconstitutional action by the servants
of the Government. If ever there was a situation where such an award was
warranted, it is this case.
514. Money cannot right the wrongs done to Mr Thomas or remove the
stain he will carry for the rest of his life. The high-handed and oppressive
actions of those responsible for his convictions cannot be obliterated.
Nevertheless all these elements are to be reflected in our assessment, as
also are his suffering, loss of enjoyment and amenities of life, and his
Blame the present minister over the mishandling of a crime that happened 42 years ago.
Collins was 12 in 1971……
It is highly likely that the perpetrator is already dead as are most of the actors in this tragedy.
We can spend years and millions revising history doing so doesn’t change the past it just misfits modern paradigms onto ancient times.
Why is it that some who are apparently so keen on Rule of Law, & Justice, happily turn a blind eye to actions/behaviour that are totally contrary if performed in the name of “equality” & “social justice” ? They bang on about what our lame MSM or corrupt & dishonest Red/Greens tell them to, yet blithely ignore the killing of children in our own country, the growth of the parasitic & feral underclass, and the deviant behaviour of “registered” teachers etc. #scratcheshead
September 1st, 2013 at 10:44 am
Muggins, assuming that you are able to read and comprehend (understand, place into proper context etc) plainly written English, read the above extracts from the Royal Commission report.
No need to be flippant.
I was simply pointing out to Judith that she was mistaken when she said that the Royal Commission found that the Thomas rifle was not involved in the murders. Hopefully you will be able to comprehend that when you read para 237 of that report.
Rochelle Crewe never wanted the police involved in a leading capacity in any investigation regarding who killed her parent’s. I suspect she, like many New Zealanders have no faith in the police ability to produce an objective and unbiased result.
The events of the past month have supported Rochelle’s suspicions which is why she was adamant that any investigation had to be independent. That was not done.
And before you start saying, “but Thomas had nothing to do with the murders” the same can be said of any person of interest in that case. The police may have, say, 10 suspects to interview, but only one of them may have been the culprit. Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t interview all 10 because 9 or even 10 of them had nothing to do with the crime.
The investigation by the police is NOT being done at the ‘behest’ of Rochelle Crewe. She DID NOT want an investigation by the police. She wanted an independent investigation and the case reopened.
In this case, yes the case should have been subject to an independent inquiry. The Royal Commission of Inquiry looked into the conviction of AAT, it did not address who was responsible for the deaths.
The fact that the police were involved in the illegal cover-up, not to mention blatant fraud and perjury, and yet allowed that or those people responsible for that to continue to work within the force, and even worse, claim them to be people of ‘high integrity’ is appalling – and evidence that the same conditions that allowed that to happen during the 1970′s still exists today.
An independent inquiry is warranted – we need to know that those sorts of things are not still happening. Sadly there are indications in other cases that they may still be.
Until the Police are open and honest about those events, until they accept fault and apologise – this case will never be closed.
Regardless of how long ago, the matter needs to be dealt with – sure there is no one left to ‘hang’ but by god, we can at least ensure that in future the same mistake do not happen.
An innocent man was imprisoned, and a guilty man got to live a long life, free.
Akaroa (367) Says:
September 1st, 2013 at 10:56 am
Judith at 0913 posted:
“…..But no matter what police find, Arthur Thomas can never be retried…”
Of course not.
But the real culprit can!!
Yep, quite right. But that is the rub., There is no new investigation. There is a review, a sort of half-arsed attempt, to rewrite the Royal Commission report. That is plain to see, for anyone willing to look and see.
@ Judith..I disagree with plenty of aspects of many Govts’ performance. I also try to be a little consistent, and not let my irrational & bigoted views try and turn every issue into a somewhat misguided crusade. I also try to focus on the bigger picture and hold a balanced view. You, it seems, try to use every tool/issue/biased report as a weapon to often dishonestly & hypocritically personally attack Politicians who on balance seem to be doing a bloody good job with NZ, for the vast majority of NZers. When you and your ilk stop trying to dishonestly convince people that they are owed something/everything by someone/everyone else things can only get better, for everyone. Now why don’t you out yourself, before I have to.
No one is complaining about them reinterviewing AAT – he was expecting it, and would have been peeved if he didn’t have a chance to provide his input – but he was not expecting to be interrogated, his family to be interrogated (people that have absolutely nothing to do with the Crewe murders), he was not expecting questions to be raised over how the compensation money was spent, or for the family to have to hand over objects that had nothing to do with the murders, and weren’t even in the same county at the time. Nor did he expect his brother – in – law and other family members to have to provide alibis for their whereabouts on the night the Crewe’s died.
I wonder how many other New Zealanders have been asked to provide an alibi for the night in question during this investigation?
Other than matters of miscarriage of justice and similar law and order issues, I do not and have not tried to turn every issue this government is involved in, into some sort of crusade. I challenge you to provide evidence where I have ‘crusaded’ about anything other than what I have just mentioned.
I am not a member of any political party and have voted for many different ones in my life time. I am a floating voter, have always acknowledged that, so I think you should take you accusations, and either prove them, or shove them up your jacksey.
Oh did enjoy your popcorn, I am eager to see ‘freemark’ out me for – what was it ?
When you and your ilk stop trying to dishonestly convince people that they are owed something/everything by someone/everyone else things can only get better, for everyone. Now why don’t you out yourself, before I have to.
Go back to bed. You clearly drank too much last night.
If you were at all familiar with the subject, you would know that my writings are from a total different perspective than Judith. I also write on Thomas with personal knowledge conveyed to me by a Commissioner – a fact that I have previously, and several times, detailed on KB.
My view on these issue is also similar, but not in case detail, to those presented by Nostalgia-NZ, Rowan, Kanz and others with exceptional legal training and with a knowledge of these matters. I suspect they know rather more about these matters, and where they are most likely headed, than you, and the CS/KP mob… and the establishment apologists.
Oh…. have you read Binnie in Fisher yet? I would have thought that a personal with a logical and inquiring mind would have done that before commenting further. But if you are unable to find it, or understand it when you finally access it, I and others will be delighted to help you.
He is not ‘my suspect’ or anyone ‘suspect’. He was not only pardoned, but a Royal Commission of Inquiry found that he had NOTHING to do with the murder of the Crewes.
How hard is that to comprehend? Have you read that inquiry? I can give you a link?
It is not about being sensitive, it is about the truth – there is no way that Arthur Allan Thomas could have been involved in those murders. Hutton, and others lied. They planted evidence. They made statements to lead others on ‘goose chases’. Whilst the common things like the planting of the shell is well known, there are many other things that were done by Hutton et al.
‘Effective interviewing technique’ for what? To find the truth – the truth surrounding AAT is already known. The truth about who killed the Crewes cannot be found by harassing the Thomas family – it is out there, but clearly the police do not want to know it, or they would be looking elsewhere. How much does it take?
Quote re Rochelle Crewe: But Rochelle Crewe said it was unacceptable that the case was never reopened.
“Is it right that all the injustice throughout this case just gets swept under the carpet and no one is ever held accountable?” she wrote to the Prime Minister.
Well they can’t reopen it unless they review it first now can they.
They have a Royal Commission of Inquiry – they do not need to reinvent the wheel – they can reopen they case – they have refused to.
There needs to be an inquiry into the entire case – not to find who did it – its probably too late for that – but to find out what went so terribly wrong, that senior police officers committed crimes, and have continued to be protect and ‘acclaimed’ by senior police officers. We need to know why that has happened, and we need to know that it is not still happening, – because quite frankly from what we’ve seen in the past month or so – it appears the same issues are still there.
Isn’t it a shame that some people cannot debate an issue without arrogant and condescending put-downs of anyone who happens to disagree with them? There is a review underway. We have heard comments attributed to a select number of those interviewed. All of a sudden there is another embittered onslaught on Collins, Fisher, McDonald et al. No-one is allowed to have any sort of contrary or even a wait and see view because, among other things, Flipper had tucker with a Commissioner.
Comment of the century must however go to flipper when he accuses DPF of letting his (DPF’s) Collins bias show.
“The main reason why I am standing as an Auckland Mayoral candidate is to STOP corrupt corporate control,” says
‘anti-corruption/anti-privatisation’ campaigner, Penny Bright.
“The sad reality is that New Zealand is actually a corrupt, polluted ‘tax haven’.”
“In order to achieve a genuinely ‘clean, green, open,transparent and democratically-accountable’ New Zealand, we must ‘seek truth from facts’, and base our understanding on ‘reality’, not ‘perception’.”
“I will outline my policy, in more detail today, about how, as Mayor of Auckland, I will use that office to work for the public majority, not a corporate minority.”
“For those who are interested in finding our who really controls the Auckland region, and how they do it – try googling http://www.committeeforauckland.co.nz/membership the $10,000 per year, invitation-only, hugely powerful private business lobby group, which is the equivalent of the former NZ Business Roundtable, on STEROIDS – in my considered opinion.”
“Check for yourselves the interconnections between Committee for Auckland members, and Auckland Council and Auckland Council ‘Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs).”
“How many Auckland Council and Auckland Council ‘Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs) contracts are being awarded to member companies of the Committee for Auckland?”
“We don’t know, because ‘the books’ are NOT open, and the public are not given the ‘devilish’ details – ie: the NAMES of the consultants/contractors, the SCOPE, TERM or VALUE of these contracts.”
“On my watch, as Auckland Mayor – the ‘books’ WILL be open, so the public will be know where every dollar of public monies are being spent, invested and borrowed.”
“Unless an independent ‘cost-benefit analysis PROVES that the use of private sector consultants or contractors is a more cost-effective use of public monies, Council services will be returned ‘in-house’.
IT’S TIME TO CUT OUT THE CONSULTANTS AND PRIVATE CONTRACTORS!”
@ Judith..why don’t you tell us then how many noms you comment under here, or at TS, or elsewhere..you being big o transparency etc. Then we can tell what you really advocate for. Careful with your answer now..Google is our friend.
No drink last night for me. But I must admit I was late out of bed this morning – after all, it is Fathers Day.
Now for the record – I’ve never been part of CS / never communicated with them / never commented on their site. And yes, I’ve read the flawed Binnie effort and the peer review written by Robert Fisher QC. But unlike yourself, I used both eyes to read them. And I can make up my own mind on issues without having to have someone holding my hand for support.
You would be wise to understand that a boorish ‘whisper’ campaign to try and denigrate Ministers / Queens Counsel / Police etc, only proves that you lack a coherent argument. The minute your small group departed from debating facts and reverted to innuendo / bluster and bullshit aimed at people who held different views to your own, your cause was irreparably stuffed.
Now, promise me you’ll buck up – you’re looking increasingly silly.
Dear Penny, can you answer the questions that have been very politely put to you before, which include AFAIK..
1) have you paid your rates yet, or are you still happy to let the impoverished suffer further to pay yours?
2) Do you still deny stealing funds from the Auckland Occupy Movement?
3)Who was it that provided the anonymous $10K donation to your last failure of a Mayoral Campaign?
4) How much money have you collected from the Taxpayer in recent years..you know, those who may wish to legitimately arrange their affairs so as not to be forced to fund your “crusades”?
You are big on Transparency like your friend Judith, so how about it?
You can ask me any questions in return, and I will answer them honestly (provided of course I don’t incriminate myself)
Mark – and you know who I am.
BTW, for those that are so convinced by the “rightness” of Royal Commissions (not that I’m not).. you’d be pretty happy with and prepared to accept the findings of other Commissions/enquiries I guess..like all the ones on Fracking?
Great, thanks, please tell your mates.
Oh, and I certainly hope you won’t be blaming this Govt for the lack of work coming in to the Film/TV Industry because they don’t want to be subsidising “Big Hollywood”
Glad we’ve cleared that up.
I have used the name jinny here before this one. Something I have always been honest about. When I got a new computer, I could not remember the password, and because I had changed internet providers, I was unable to use the same email address, to retrieve a new password, so I started this identity.
I have no idea who or what TS is, if you are meaning Trademe – I don’t post on there. I have a facebook page in my proper name, one used for family only, but sorry, I will not be giving you that.
So please – go ahead and ‘out me’ and all the ‘campaigns’ I and ‘my ilk’ apparently run against the government.
@Joana, @Judith..I think it is important when people demand transparency. Too much bullshit goes on in bogs & FB these days, everyone should be prepared to own their comments, and at least acknowledge if they have multiple noms. I now suspect joana is judith, or has been called in for a few likes. I may be wrong in my assumptions..but I don’t think so.. and who the hell would thumbs down for Team New Zealand?
‘Because it won’t matter one jot. The Minister will evaluate the facts / she will take quality advice / she will make her decision / she will make her recommendation to Cabinet. And thankfully, in matters of discretionary payments, there will be no appeal process..’
At least you refrained from using your ‘panty waists’ phrase you enjoy so much elaycee. A fairly good summary but I see you omitted that an ‘appeal process’ is underway.
Thank you for your support.
I have found in life that those who are most suspicious of others for dishonesty, are usually the most dishonest of all, no doubt freemark understands the game he is playing – I certainly don’t.
Whilst I agree with you regarding life experience in general, I think suspicions of dishonesty are different. People who think everyone else is lying often feel that way because they are not very honest – people with life experience tend to be able to tell the difference due to their experience and aren’t suspicious of everyone they meet that doesn’t agree with them. Life has taught them that difference can happen without being threatening.
i cringe with embarrassment with the way the “Leader of the Free World” conducts
his foreign policy.
Even the cheese eating surrender monkey France shows more balls.
In my opinion the USA should keep right out of Syria its a no win
but when you paint a red line the most pathetic thing you can say is
‘Oh, you crossed it. Well don’t cross this one. Oh you crossed that, well, if
you cross it again I will get Really angry.
1st Sept, beginning of spring? North Head Devonport today – grand daughters birthday. No wind, heap of boats out.
When the Americas Cup is being defended on Waitemata Harbour again it’s gonna be fucking awesome.
wiseowl – yeah, deserved win to Hawkes Bay, they played better most of the game. Otago looked like they still had hangovers in the first half. They finished strongly and just missed getting a lead with a missed conversion, but should have done more sooner, and might still have lost if they had gone to 21.
It’s far from the most disappointing Shield loss I’ve watched, a fair enough result with missed chances making the difference And good to see it go to another province who has had a long drought.