Kiwiblog

Stuff reports:

Mr Faafoi said the latest Ten One police magazine showed more than 50 sworn officers had resigned around the country in the past month.

“It’s the sheer number and the experience of these officers that’s of concern,” he said.

A meaningless number. The Police have around 11,500 staff. How many staff normally resign in a month? What has been the rate for the last year. A month’s figures by themselves may be a blip.

Mr Faafoi said the problem stemmed from cost-cutting and he was not surprised that there was nothing extra in the recent Budget for police.

Actually the Police were given an extra $4 million in the Budget for operational spending, and since 2008 their funding has increased by $173 million which is considerable, even more so when you consider the structural deficit inherited from Labour.

“It was more about the National Party’s mates than hard-working Kiwis and that extends to the police as well,” he said.

I think Labour came up with this slogan before they saw the Budget and are too lazy to change it. Is Kris really saying $100 million for home insulations for low income families is helping National’s mates, not hard working Kiwis? I thought Labour used to claim they cared for low income families. Does he think the extra $1.6 billion for health is restricted to National’s mates? And the $900 million for education? And please Kris tell us how the $2.1 billion extra for Christchurch is for National’s mates. sounds like National has lots of mates, and Labour has none.

As a result communities were not feeling as connected to police as they did in the past and Mr Faafoi believed this could have resulted in the drop in reported crime.

Trying desperately to spin his way out of the fact that not only is reported crime down, but serious violent crime is significantly down – and the notion that serious violent crimes are not being reported is laughable.

Mr Faafoi said Labour had a track record of looking after police officers and would look to rebuild the public’s confidence in the organisation.

Really. Please tell us about this track record. Labour’s opposed almost every law change that the Police have supported such as three strikes.

The IPCA report on the Urerewa Operation 8 can be found here. Key conclusions:

• The  Authority  has  found  that  Police  were  entitled,  on  the  information  they  had,  to  view   the  threat  posed  by  this  group  as  real  and  potentially  serious.    The  investigation  into  such   activities  by  Police  was  reasonable  and  necessary.  
• From  a  policing  perspective  the  termination  phase  of  Operation  Eight  was  concluded   safely.    No  shots  were  fired  by  Police  or  others,  despite  Police  locating  a  number  of   firearms  and  weapons.    All  target  individuals  were  located  without  incident  and  no   members  of  the  public  were  put  at  risk.  
• The  planning  and  preparation  for  the  execution  of  search  warrants  on  termination  of   Operation  Eight  was  largely  in  accordance  with  applicable  policy.    It  involved  huge   logistical  challenges  given  that  search  warrants  had  to  be  executed  simultaneously  across  the  country.    Those  individuals  who  were  considered  by  Police  to  pose  the  greatest  risk   were  quickly  and  safely  apprehended.      
• In  contrast,  the  planning  and  preparation  for  the  establishment  of  the  road  blocks  in   Ruatoki  and  Taneatua  was  deficient.    The  Authority  has  found  there  was  no  lawful  basis   for  those  road  blocks  being  established  or  maintained.  There  was  no  lawful  power  or   justification  for  Police  to  detain,  stop  and  search  the  vehicles,  take  details  from  or   photograph  the  drivers  or  passengers.      
• There  was  no  assessment  of  the  substantial  and  adverse  impact  of  such  road  blocks  on   the  local  community.    The  road  block  at  Ruatoki  was  intimidating  to  innocent  members  of   that  community,  particularly  in  view  of  the  use  of  armed  Police  officers  in  full  operational   uniform.      
• The  majority  of  complaints  received  by  the  Authority  in  relation  to  property  searches   were  not  from  target  individuals  but  rather  from  other  occupants  at  these  properties   complaining  about  the  way  they  were  treated  by  Police.  Some  felt  they  were  being   treated  as  suspects.    A  number  of  occupants  were  informed  by  Police  that  they  were   being  detained  while  a  search  of  the  property  occurred,  despite  there  being  no  lawful   basis  for  such  detention.  Police  had  no  legal  basis  for  conducting  personal  searches  of   these  occupants.  
• The  Authority  has  concluded  that  a  number  of  aspects  of  the  Police  termination  of   Operation  Eight  were  contrary  to  law  and  unreasonable.    In  a  complex  operation  of  the   type  that  was  undertaken  here,  there  are  always  a  number  of  important  lessons  to  be   learned  about  future  Police  policy  and  practices.    The  Police  internal  debrief  following  the   termination  of  Operation  Eight  has  already  identified  a  number  of  those  lessons  and   necessary  changes  to  Police  training,  policy  and  operational  instructions  have  been  made.     The  Authority  has  made  a  number  of  other  recommendations  in  light  of  its  own  findings.     This  includes  the  need  to  re-­‐engage,  and  build  bridges,  with  the  Ruatoki  community.  

This looks a sensible and well balanced report. In short the conclusions are:

1. The operation against those arrested was justified as they posed a real and serious threat
2. The actual arrest and treatment of those arrested was done properly and lawfully
3. The treatment of the wider community was over the top, insensitive and in some cases unlawful

The Ruatoki community do deserve an apology for their treatment by the Police. I think they have had one already, but will no doubt receive another. It is worth noting that of course we now have a different Police Commissioner and Minister of Police as from 2007.

But let’s not make martyrs out of those arrested. They were acting somewhere between very foolishly and with malignant intent, and the Police were right to bring their activities to an end. Their personal treatment was not generally criticized by the IPCA. They also bear some of the blame for provoking the Police action in Ruatoki. 17 firearms were found in three properties at Ruatoki, and 12 smashed Molotov cocktails at their training camp.

But as I have commented before, the Police response did seem over the top – and the IPCA has agreed. We expect better  from our Police than we do of Tame Iti and Valerie Morse. They have a job ahead rebuilding confidence with Ruatoki.

Truth reports:

ONE OF Auckland’s top cops has been boasting about having Deputy Police Commissioner Mike Bush sacked when his brother, Labour leader David Shearer, becomes Prime Minister.

Alan Shearer is the former Manurewa Area Police Commander and used to work under Bush during the years he spent as Counties Manukau district commander.

It is understood some bad blood exists between the pair after Bush removed him as Manurewa Area Commander into a new job at Counties Manukau where he is responsible for “planning and ending family violence” in South Auckland. …

A well-placed police source confirmed that Shearer had been “running his mouth off around town” about having Bush sacked once his brother David became Prime Minister.

“He’s been badmouthing Mike Bush. He is bitter and telling police officers in Counties Manukau that when his brother is Prime Minister he’s going to get Mike Bush,” the source told Truth.

“Alan Shearer is pissed off about being removed from his personal fiefdom in Manurewa and holds Bush responsible.”

Truth attempted to speak to Alan Shearer but he did not return calls.

I couldn’t work out why Labour would declare Mike Bush unsuitable to be Commissioner just on the basis of some ill-judged comments at a funeral. Is there a personal feud involved?

MPs are not responsible for their family members – but if the family member is boasting of using their relatives influence for their own purposes, they need to clearly state their family member is not speaking for them.

Trevor Mallard asked in Parliament:

Hon Trevor Mallard: Will she rule out supporting Mike Bush as a candidate for the soon to be vacant police commissioner’s position, in light of his appalling judgment in reading those comments out in that eulogy?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: We currently have a commissioner, and it would be inappropriate for any politician, at any stage, to make any comments about the future employment of any of our outstanding police commissioners. I am amazed that that member would sully the name of the one of the top serving police officers in this country.

I am one of those who think Mike Bush made a mistake in reading out the comments from Bruce Hutton’s service record. But hell it was the man’s funeral. Of course you are going to say nice things at a funeral.

Labour seem to be saying that one error of judgement, not even directly related to policing duties, means Bush should not be eligible to be Commissioner.

Apart from the unfortunate politicising of the appointment, I think that is a woeful attitude. Bush is highly respected by rank and file officers, and had a great record as Counties-Manukau District Commander. On his watch (helped by extra police officers) crime fell significantly in Counties-Manukau.

An article on his record in the Police is here. It includes a fall in crime, busting major drug rings and 100% resolution rate for homicides. Labour would have all of that count for nothing because of a comment at a funeral!

Look at what has happened to crime in Counties-Manukau. It was once almost a no go area.

• Total offences down from 56,041 in 2009 to 44,699 in 2012 – a 20% drop in three years
• Violent offences down from 6,579 to 5,803 – a 12% drop
• Robberies down 30%
• Thefts down 22%
• An increase in the resolution rate from 43.05 to 47.5%

As I said, I thought the funeral comments well ill-judged. But I believe you judge someone on their overall record of 30 years service, and Labour is not serving the public interest by trying to pressure him out of a job.

The HoS reports:

The Herald on Sunday has obtained emails from the investigating officer in the case, Constable Paul Sharples, sent to witnesses working for NZTC. We showed the emails to Auckland district commander Mike Clement and he confirmed a review of the case was under way.

In an email from Sharples dated October 11, 2011, to an NZTC staff witness, he explains how his brief would be presented: “I will get this laminated on A3. Judges are like children, they like bright colours.”

Personally if I was a Judge I’d be amused, not offended. I’m sure after wading through thousands of pages of documents, a Judge does appreciate a nice colourful A3 statement!

The reference to being like children is in the context of the case being forged qualifications for a childcare worker, so it probably seemed a witty analogy.

Sam Boyer at Dom Post reports:

After 400 metres of running, climbing, and “hanging on like a limpet”, the country’s top cop came out smiling – and put 294 of his staff to shame.

Commissioner Peter Marshall completed the police physical competency test yesterday and, in doing so, the 59-year-old also showed up the hundreds of officers who were deemed unfit last week to hold frontline posts. …

The commissioner ran the course in 2 minutes and 56 seconds, earning himself a “gold card”. Because he holds a rank higher than inspector, he is not required to pass the test, but wanted to set an example.

“If I can do it, there’s no reason why others can’t do it. It was a matter of walking the talk. I wanted to be able to look operational staff in the eye and say that I’ve got it.

The current Commissioner seems to be near universally respected by the rank and file – which certainly has not always been the case for that role.

Completion times for the course are determined by an officer’s age and gender. The commissioner needed to get round the course in 3 minutes and 26 seconds, so he was 30 seconds under par.

To earn the star-performer gold card, he also needed to successfully scale the 1.8-metre-high wall.

“Anyone over 50 just has to tap it [the wall] … To get the gold card, you have to go over the top,” Mr Marshall said.

The wall was the most gruelling of the 10 challenges in the test, he said – especially with staff watching his performance.

The other tests were:

- Pushing a car trailer 10 metres

- Carrying a car wheel assembly 10 metres

- Running 200 metres

- Walking a five-metre right-angle beam, a metre off the ground

- Jumping a 1.8-metre long jump

- Running around cones and under and over hurdles for 30 metres

- Climbing through a one-metre-high window

- Climbing over a solid 1.8-metre-high wall

- Dragging a body 7.5 metres

- Climbing a 2.2-metre-high wire fence

Not sure I’d want to try that!

Leighton Keith at Stuff reports:

Wheel clamper Daniel Clout claims police are making it impossible for him to do his job and he has complained to their watchdog.

His complaint to the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) includes transcripts from extraordinary video footage of clashes with motorists, police and a discussion with area commander Inspector Blair Telford.

Can the IPCA issue letters of commendation to the police officers complained about?

The police stance that his work was unauthorised was publicised late last year and he says he has been subjected to an increasing number of attacks from members of the public since then.

He claims police had been undermining his authority by telling people he was acting unlawfully, didn’t hold the required licence to do the job and that they could cut his clamps off.

Excellent public information campaign.

Other footage, shown by Mr Clout to the Taranaki Daily News, appears to show police were present when a man smashed his clamps with a wheelbrace.

That’s appalling. The man may have injured himself. The Police officers should have helped with the smashing.

The Press editorial:

The year is coming to a bad conclusion with no fewer than five serious attacks on police officers. In the most serious incident, in Northland, an officer was beaten unconscious and kicked and pummelled as he lay on the ground. One of his assailants attempted to use his Taser stun gun on him but could not get it to work. A witness later told the police that she feared the officer would be killed. In another incident, in Huntly, an officer was king-hit by a man from a drunken mob as the officer attempted to make an arrest after a boy-racer complaint. In a third incident, a young woman officer attending a family violence complaint had her ankle broken so badly it required surgery.

After such a spate of incidents it is understandable that the frontline officers’ union should call for all officers to carry guns. It is understandable but it is also faulty.

It goes without saying that assaults on police officers are deplorable and everything possible should be done that might deter them. But to allow officers routinely to carry weapons would be to cross the Rubicon in law enforcement in New Zealand. It would subtly but fundamentally alter the relationship between the police and the public with insufficient gain in safety to both to justify it.

I agree that we should resist the general arming of the Police. I think having firearms available in all vehicles is sadly necessary and should be done. But I don’t think the case has been made for the general arming of all Police.

However it is fair to say, that such a day may come in the future. If the level of violence against Police officers increases, there will be a point at which a change in policy may have to be considered.

Just come across the Police FAQs on their website. There’s over 100 of them, and are quite useful. Definitely worth looking at if you have an issue which might involve them.

Some of the more interesting or amusing questions are:

• Can I import a sword/bayonet/knuckle duster/knife/ammunition into New Zealand?
• I will be travelling to New Zealand with bows and arrows. Do these need to be declared as firearms?
• My ex has taken things from our place that didn’t belong to them. What can I do?
• Can I work in forensics during the holidays to get work experience?

Later in this post, I’ll come to how the NZ law enforcement agencies have behaved, but initially I want to cover Dotcom himself. While I admire his intelligence, technical, gaming and PR skills, I’m not quite in the category that he is a poor little innocent victim.

First of all, it is worth recalling he does have a less than clean record to date, before Megaupload. Specifically:

• hacking, including selling access codes
• arrested trafficking in stolen phone calling card numbers
• convicted of 11 counts of computer fraud and 10 counts of data espionage
• accepting gang-related stolen goods
• guilty of insider trading in Germany’s then largest ever case of its type
• guilty of embezzlement

The pattern is someone who is very focused on making money, and pushes the rules, sometimes breaking them.

There is also a reasonable amount of evidence he is a bit of a fantasist, as detailed here. No that’s fine – we all want to be James Bond to some degree, but it is perhaps a reason not to regard everything he says as the holy gospel.

We then have Megaupload. This case is essentially about copyright infringement. I think most people know I was a prominent campaigner against the original S92A and the blackout campaign as it would have seen people lose Internet access upon accusation.

I’ve generally been against most of the demands of the music and film industries with NZ copyright law, and am involved in the fair deal campaign to support NZ standing firm in the TPP negotiations against any provisions which would require a change to our domestic intellectual property laws.

I’m also very firmly in the camp that Internet sites should not be held responsible for the actions of their users, so long as they comply with the law.

However on the basis of evidence seen to date, I don’t quite buy the argument that Megaupload was merely a file-sharing service the same as YouTube or Rapidshare. Their business model is one that arguably encouraged peoplee to not just share popular infringing material, but to make money from it – as did Megauplaod. Quite different to non-commercial torrent sharing.

It is claimed for example that one user, VW, uploaded 17,000 files over six years resulting in 334 million views, and none of the files had ever been deleted, despite takedown notices. My understanding is that links to files were deleted, but not files.

In my personal opinion, Dotcom built a business absolutely based on making money from people sharing popular files, that they did not have copyright of. There is a reason it become 4% of all Internet traffic.

However there is a big *If*. He may have done it legally. While one can debate the ethics of certain actions, it is the law which states enforce. He may have managed to set up his business model in such a way that he made tens of millions from the site, and didn’t break US laws. Ultimately this issue will be decided by Judges – initially in NZ on whether there is enough evidence of offences that would be illegal in both NZ and the US – and then if extradited in the US in a trial.

As with his previous actions, I think Dotcom set out to push the law to its boundary. He may have stepped over. He may not have. That is for the legal system to decide. But I don’t accept the analogy that Megaupload operated just like YouTube or Rapidshare, and that a guilty verdict for Dotcom would affect those other sites greatly.

We then come to the NZ side of things. The exact details of the GCSB role should be made public soon, and will be fascinating. Graeme Edgeler has an excellent post on this issue. He raises the issue of should the GCSB have been involved at all, even of Dotcom did not have residency.

The overall impression I have of NZ law enforcement agencies is they were desperately keen to impress the boys from the US. To have the FBI and likes over here saying this guy is wanted for hundreds of millions of dollars of charges, and this case will be globally massive seemed to have got people into a mindset that we have to make sure we don’t disappoint Uncle Sam by just sending in Constable Smith to interview Dotcom.

Caution seems to have been thrown to the wind, in an attempt to impress that we are up to the job. Ironically the opposite has happened, and NZ authorities have ended up with egg on their face several times. Nowhere it seems were senior officials saying “Hey, let’s slow down and make sure everything is watertight and double checked”. The list of mistakes include:

• An arguably over the top use of Police resources in the original raid. Armed Police were warranted as Dotcom did have weapons and did not initially surrender, but not sure quite that much force was needed.
• A paperwork error saw his property seized without giving proper notice
• Invalid search warrants for the raid
• The probable unlawful interception of communications by the GCSB

NZ authorities absolutely have an obligation to assist the US with legal extradition efforts. I am not one of those saying we should not have co-operated. If someone broke the law in NZ, and lived in the US, we value the fact that extradition treaties allow them to be sent to NZ.

Whether or not Dotcom broke US law is a matter for Judges. It is unknown at this stage if any significant evidence will be inadmissible due to mistakes made by NZ authorities.  Time will tell. And as I have said, I think Dotcom’s strategy was to push the boundary of the law as far as he could, and he may or may not have stepped outside it. Ultimately that is not a matter for us.

What is a matter for us, is the response from NZ law enforcement agencies. I doubt I am alone is concluding the culture was shall we say too overly enthusiastic, and not cautious enough. The end result has been considerable embarrassment for them, for the Government, and potentially a significant weakening of the case against Dotcom. Hopefully there will be lessons learnt.

Below is the file on the Banks investigation, released by the Police under the OIA. What is interesting is that the donations appear to be a thank you for Banks previous offer to advocate residency on behalf of Dotcom.

The highlight is the statement by Kim Dotcom that when Banks met his wife Mona, Banks said “Your wife is the most beautiful women I have ever seen”. Dotcom comments that he was surprised by this comment. Not because his wife isn’t beautiful, but because Mrs Banks was present!

Docs for Disclosure

Stuff reports:

A Christchurch couple used a GPS iPhone app to track burglars who had just fled from their home.

The software led the couple to two Gloucester St flats where the burglars were held up. They called police, but were told officers could not enter as they did not have a search warrant.

The thieves later made off and the stolen items have not yet been recovered.

Couldn’t the Police have had someone stay by the House, while a warrant was obtained?

Using Yeng’s iPhone the GPS showed Liu’s iPhone was moving from Matipo St towards Riccarton Rd.

Liu called the police and explained they were tracking the offenders.

Yeng got in his car and followed the vehicle to a Gloucester St property and waited.

When the police arrived at the couple’s Matipo St home Liu said she was told they could not inspect the Gloucester St property without a search warrant, which could take days to obtain.

It could, but it also could take an hour or so.

She felt search warrant legislation was “too strict” and offered protection to the “bad guys”.

Inspector Alan Weston said police currently needed a search warrant to enter a property.

However, a new Search and Surveillance Act, which was to come into effect shortly, would make searching a property “a lot more simple”, he said.

The act will enable an officer to enter a place or vehicle without warrant to search for and arrest a person if the constable has “reasonable grounds”.

Good to hear of the law change, but I still feel they could have acted pretty promptly under current law.

Tracy Watkins reports:

Police pay negotiations could be the next political fight, as figures emerge showing the number of police constables who are paid over $80,000 a year.

The figures were on a National-aligned blog yesterday. Police bosses are in pay negotiations with the rank and file. …

The National-aligned Kiwiblog yesterday posted figures showing about 640 police constables earn over $80,000 a year, while about 40 per cent of sergeants are on more than $90,000 a year, along with 80 per cent of senior sergeants.

Police Association president Greg O’Connor said yesterday it preferred to conduct pay negotiations behind closed doors.

Good God, I never thought my post yesterday would be seen as anything to do with the Government and the Police pay negotiations. It is all rather innocent. I blogged a couple of weeks ago on how the Police have a binding arbitration mechanism in their salary negotiations – a panel of three choose between the Commissioner’s offer and the union’s offer, if they can’t agree by themselves. This means that any stand off can be resolved.

I got an unsolicited e-mail (as I often) do from a reader who said:

I saw your post on Kiwiblog today questioning the amount that police are paid. I got curious about this myself so I did an OIA request over it: the results of which are attached. The top police officers appear to be paid in the $110,000-$120,000 bracket.

The OIA which I published shows it was a Josh Grainger, who I think it is fair to say not aligned with the Government

Josh actually did the OIA in 2011. I just found the data interesting, as you don’t normally see such detail in media stories, so I blogged it. I actually said:

The numbers are interesting, but for one I think they are appropriate. Police officers have to put up with a lot of crap.

So no, it wasn’t a post to help the Government fight the Police pay demand. As I have tried to explain several times, there is an arbitration mechanism in place. If the Police union think the Commissioner’s offer is crap, and their offer is fair – then they can seek a binding arbitration on it.

The nice thing with the binding arbitration is that it is all or nothing. They have to go 100% with the Commissioner’s offer or the union’s request. What this tends to do is moderate both parties to be reasonable. Quite unlike most other pay disputes where massively unrealistic claims are made.

The Herald reports:

Frontline police staff will not have their pay cut in talks due to resume this week, but are facing a pay freeze because of a tight policing budget.

Police Commissioner Peter Marshall could not confirm yesterday whether sworn police officers would get a raise in pay negotiations which are being held with unions.

I do wish the full facts would be presented. The Police Commissioner can not just refuse a pay raise. He can make an offer, which the union can accept or reject. The union can make a claim, which the Commissioner can accept or reject. If they can not agree, their the final offer and claim go to a three person independent arbitration panel, which will decide to either accept the Commissioner’s offer in its totality or the union’s claim in its totality.

Police have predicted that a 3 per cent wage increase would cost $75 million a year and CSI increases would cost $42.5 million a year.

That’s a strange figure. If a 3% wage increase would cost $75 million a year, then that means the current wage bill is $2.5b a year.  As their total operating costs are $1.48b a year, that figure must be wrong.

Also with 9,000 Police officers a claim that a 3% wage increase would cost $75m a year means each officer would get a pay rise of $8,300 or so. For that to be 3%, it means the average pay rate would be $275,000 a year approx.

Stuff reports:

Two people have turned themselves in and one other has been arrested after they were named and shamed on a new wanted persons website.

The website was launched by police yesterday morning and featured 31 people who had warrants for their arrest who or needed to be identified.

Within hours of the launch two people, one wanted in Wellington and one in the Eastern districts, turned themselves in.

Another person in Wellington was arrested after the police received leads about their location.

Their mugshots and details have since been removed from the site,www.police.govt.nz/wanteds.

Excellent. Three more crims off the street.

A couple of commentators have been predicting the proposed changes to Police pay could end the Government up in a similar situation to the class size issue. I do not believe this is the case, because of the unique law around how Police pay, terms and conditions are decided.

Schedule 2 of the Policing Act 2008 sets out an arbitration procedure between the Police Commission and the appropriate Police unions if they can not agree amongst themselves to any changes. A three or five person committee arbitrates any disputes. Each side appoints one or two members, and the Labour Dept CEO appoints the Chair.

The decision of the committee is binding (this is in return for no right to strike), but more significantly it can not agree to any compromise or partial solution. It’s sole job is to decide between the offer from the Commissioner and the claim from the union.

This has a very significant impact on how reasonable each side is. The more hardline you are about your offer, the less likely it is that it will be chosen. This is different to normal negotiations where you try and budge as little as possible.

So it is unlikely there will be significant changes to Police pay and conditions unless they can convince the Police unions of their merits, or the independent committee is convinced they are fair, will help recruit and retain constables etc compared to the status quo.

The SST reports:

Lawyers have condemned a move that saw a court fooled into prosecuting an undercover cop to boost his criminal standing.

Police are defending the move because of the dangerous nature of undercover work, but a leading barrister says it is an “an abuse of process hitherto unknown” in the legal system.

Documents show the fake prosecution was signed off in 2010 by Chief District Court Judge Russell Johnson, who has since died.

If the Police had done it without the co-operation of the judiciary then I would be outraged. But I have no problems with this being done, as part of Police undercover work if there so long as the Chief DCJ signed it off.

I enjoy Morgan Godfery’s blog as he gives a good perspective on the world of Maori politics. Most of his posts are thoughtful and interesting.

Then some are not. Yesterday he blogged:

Prominent protesters are accusing the Police of brutality. The protesters, which include John Minto and Joe Carolan, were protesting the eviction of state house tenants in Glen Innes. Apparently Minto was beaten and female protesters were handled violently with one woman entering a seizure as a result of the Police’s heavy hands.  Of course, this is exactly what the Police do with protest, especially the blue nappied babies they recruit for South Auckland. 

That part is okay, as a point of view. Personally I would not rush into judgement off one party’s version of events. The IPCA can investigate any complaint of Police “brutality”.

They’re desperate for recruits so they, more often than not, recruit brain-dead males fresh from failing to gain university entrance or any meaningful academic qualification. I’ve always said, you become a cop if you’re too dumb to do law and too soft to join the military. 

This is just plain insulting and stupid, especially of a professions where six officers get assaulted every day, one of them seriously. The average officer will probably get assaulted a dozen times in their career. Some get killed or stabbed doing their duty of protecting New Zealanders.

It is very easy for a university student to sneer at Police as being thick. I’ve known a few cops (and dated one), and that has not been my experience.

If people comment on this thread, don’t just abuse Morgan. Say why you think he is wrong (or right).

Brogan Powlesland blogs:

“Our most valuable asset is the right to protest.” – Matt McCarten

Yesterday, I found out what this actually means in the eyes of some unionist protesters. I have always believed in the right to protest, despite not always agree with what is being protested. Heck, most of the time I strongly disagree with the protest message, but so long as the protesters don’t directly harm anyone, I tend to be fine with it. At the March 10 Save Our Ports protest, organised by the Council of Trade Unions, I found that this feeling is not always mutual. 

I am reminded that there is no virtue in wanting to protect popular speech. The virtue is in defending the rights of free speech for people whose message you totally disagree with. Hence I have supported the right of holocaust denier David Irving to come to NZ, and speak.

So David (former AoC Auckland President) and I decided to take to the streets with placards, joining the march from the opposite side of the road that they were on. My placard read “Union Strikes, Efficiency up 25%” and David’s read “Who still has their jobs? Helen Kelly and Garry Parsloe”. I had made a decision from the start that this would be a silent protest, as I knew we would be shouted at and thought that we would have been just as bad as them if we shouted profanities back. 

As predicted, during the march we were screamed at, being called things such as “Fascist pigs”, “f**ken scumbags”, and “NAZIs”. Although I was expecting people to shout at us, I was not expecting that extreme verbal abuse. Those are names I would never use to describe anyone, simply because they are extremist and are offensive to both the person you’re shouting at, and the people who were victims to the NAZIs. I would think that the people who like to think they fight most for so called freedom would understand that.*Sigh* I guess not.

While distasteful, free speech even extends to the marchers screaming Nazi names at Brogan and David.

Into about fifteen minutes of marching, we were rushed by a bunch of protesters. One of the protesters knocked my arm and stole my placard, one punched David in the back of his head and stole his placard. They both ripped the placards and chucked the pieces onto the road, receiving cheers from many of the marchers. One of the protesters had been filming it, and came up to us, narrating his ‘film’ by continuously calling us ”f**king fascists” and “fascist pigs”, telling us that we were going to be famous on Facebook. Within about 30 seconds, one of the police officers that had been on duty came running and that seemed to be the cue for the protesters to run back into the mob.

The irony is that it was the protesters who were being fascists, with their violent suppression of messages they disagreed with.

The police officer, instead of pursuing the people who had offended, came to ask us to leave. He had seen everything, but told us that there were too many protesters for them to protect our right to protest. At the time, I was quite shaken. I was in no mood or state of mind to argue with the officer, and so we left peacefully. Although David and I have protested and counter-protested before, this was the first time things had become physical, which is something we thought New Zealand was above. It seems we were wrong there too.

The Police Commissioner should instruct the Auckland Police that the next time this happens, the appropriate response is to call for more police officers to protect the rights of peaceful protest.

After the march on that part of the street was finished, David and I returned to pick up the remains of the placards. Although we knew we were not the cause of the litter, we still thought that we shouldn’t leave it lying around the road and footpath. During this time, thankfully, drivers were actually relatively friendly and respectful of what we were doing. A few protesters coming back from the Vector Arena were not though. We again were verbally abused with the same extremist labels. One protester in particular encouraged cars to run us over, and said if they didn’t, he would do it himself.

What a pity Brogan and David didn’t have a friend along with a video recorder. It would be very interesting to identify those who resort to violence to suppress speech they disagree with.

I recall an anti-EFA march in Wellington. A handful of (mainly) Young Labour activists did a counter-protest. When we got to Parliament we actually offered them a chance to speak to have their view heard. A stark contrast.

Hat Tip: Whale Oil

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

Switching to an alternative three-digit non-emergency number could cut down on time-wasting hoax or abandoned calls, a review suggests.

About half of all 111 calls are “false” because of “pocket dialling” on mobile phones, children playing or pranks.

A review commissioned by the Government after two high-profile failures in the 111 system, in 2009 and 2010, floats the idea of changing the number to 112, which is less vulnerable to misdialling. However, this would be costly.

It also suggests allocating additional numbers for non-emergency calls; in some countries different numbers are used for police, fire and medical emergencies.

This has been talked about for years, is common sense and should be implemented. We’ve had over a decade of reviews.

Almost no one knows the number of their local police station, so 111 gets a fair number of non urgent calls. If there is a nationwide non urgent number for the Police such as 777, then that would lessen the load on the 111 system.

Claire Trevett reports at NZ Herald:

Labour’s deputy leader Grant Robertson said Parliament should consider changing the process of dealing with electoral law breaches to speed it up – including giving the Electoral Commission powers to fine or penalise for some breaches.

Mr Robertson said the Electoral Commission was the expert body on electoral law, yet it had to send any breaches to Police to decide whether to act on them.

I’ve been advocating this for years, including in submission to select committees. Sadly, Labour never voted in favour of changing the law.

While their sudden enthusiasm to do so, seems rather opportunistic, it is the right thing to do.

“The bigger issue is the number of complaints they’ve sent to the Police that nothing has happened with. So maybe there is another way. For instance, could you set a threshold under which the Electoral Commission was able to impose some sort of penalty rather than have to have Police prosecute it.”

Time and time again the Police have shown, with all due respect, a total disinterest in enforcing electoral law (the most notorious case being the non charging of Labour over their $400,000 deliberate over-spend in 2005). They would obviously rather be catching muggers  etc.

Even worse, the Police seem to have a deliberate policy to not decide on any complaints until after the election. They see this as not interfering with the election, but it is in fact a worse form of interference. It means parties and candidates and others can breach electoral laws, and not have to worry about the stigma of being charged prior to the election. This encourages rule breaking.

I will once again be submitting to change the law to the 2011 election review later this year. I look forward to Labour voting for removing the Police from any role in electoral law enforcement, and other parties doing the same.

What should happen is that the Electoral Commission itself can levy small fines for relatively minor issues such as late returns and the like, or missing promoter statements on ads that still have a clear author. For more major issues they should be able to lay charges directly with the courts.

At various times in the past, the Police leadership hasn’t been all inspiring. It it important our Police our well led and effective. So great to see this article in the Herald.

The country’s top cop, Peter Marshall, was out with the rank and file on the late shift on New Year’s Eve helping staff deal with a young woman cutting her wrists with a knife at the end of Princes Wharf.

A few days later one of Marshall’s deputies, Mike Bush, and a few other senior officers went to the mortuary while Disaster Victim Identification staff were assisting with the post-mortems of the Carterton balloon tragedy victims.

Marshall says that in the past executive staff would go out “sporadically, shall we say” with the frontline officers, but now they are out there regularly.

Excellent.

This is the new top echelon of the New Zealand police, and staff all the way down the hierarchy seem to be highly impressed.

It’s unheard of, an officer told us, the Commissioner of Police going out on the beat.

“The guys really respond to that. He’s a very inspiring man.”

And not once as a PR stunt. But regularly.

The new leadership and direction seems to be paying dividends with the troops. Marshall has two deputy commissioners – Bush and Viv Rickard. Of the more than 20 police officers we spoke to around the country, from constables to superintendents, every single one was glowing about the leaders. Some said it was the best administration they had served under in 30-year careers – one even called the three the “Holy Trinity.” Another said they were “good blokes, down to earth, no bullshit, no pretensions”.

Credit should also go to Judith Collins who effectively appointed the Commissioner, and approved the Deputies. She leaves the Police in much better state than what she inherited three years ago.

They also appreciate someone defending them in the media. Several commented on how quickly and firmly Marshall had moved to rebut a critical article by former MP and police inspector Ross Meurant in North & South magazine. Marshall regularly blogs on the police website and sings the praises of the force or points out positive public trust and confidence ratings or tells anecdotes.

Openness also.

It’s not perfect. They still seem to have no idea when it comes to electoral offences. But they are making a real difference.

Karl du Fresne makes some excellent points here:

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.

Absolutely.

Listen to Goff being savaged on NewstalkZB over his false claims over the Police, where he claimed “all recruitment” for 2012 was canceled due to budget cuts, and in fact the truth is that the January intake has been delayed two months because the attrition rate of Police leaving the force has halved under National (which is great as experienced cops are better than rookies) so they do not need to recruit as quickly.

It is absolutely brutal. You see Goff at his absolute worse – unable to admit he is wrong on anything at all. He would argue black is white. It is just like when he argued the SIS never briefed him despite documented proof they did.

John Key does make mistakes. But when he does, he generally will concede he stuffed up. A great example is over the Israeli backpackers where his initial refuse to comment gave the story massive legs. He conceded to media that in hindsight he should have started with the position he ended up with.

But this is Goff’s awful weakness. He never ever admits he is wrong on anything (except the entire 1980s). To this day he maintains his handling of the Darren Hughes saga was first class, when everyone knows it was an absolute disaster.

A few weeks ago in relation to the S&P comments, Phil Goff said:

Goff said the Prime Minister has “lied to Kiwis” and if the source is credible then he should name them.

“John Key should stop trying to squirm out of it, front up, admit he got it wrong, and say sorry,” Goff said today.

So will Phil Goff take his own advice? Will he name his highly reliable source (my pick is its Trevor Mallard)? Will he “front up, admit he got it wrong, and say he is sorry?”

I suspect this is not the ending that Labour wanted to their campaign.

Phil Goff claimed in the debate that a “reliable source” told him

Radio NZ reveals the true story:

Labour Party leader Phil Goff says senior police have been told recruitment for next year has been deferred and the January intake of recruits has been cancelled.

Mr Goff made the claim in TVNZ’s leaders’ debate on Wednesday night and told Morning Report on Thursday that the reason given for the deferral was the need to make savings in the police budget.

He says his source is reliable and well informed.

However, National’s law and order spokesperson Judith Collins says there are so few people leaving the police at the moment that the January intake of recruits is not needed.

She says the first intake next year will be in March instead.

Ms Collins says there will be no reduction in frontline police numbers under a National Government.

If Goff thought there really was a freeze, he would have done a press release stating so, rather than alleging something in a debate where he knows the PM would not know if it was correct or not (as an operational matter).

Here’s what Goff actually said:

Just been advised that you’re deferring all recruiting next year, but that this announcement must not be made until after the election”

Goff lied. There will be recruiting in March 2012. Labour’s campaign has been based on a series of lies and half-truths – on asset sales, on state houses, on welfare and now on the Police.

The attrition rate for the Police under National has been just 3.2% and under Labour was over 6%. So this is in fact a very good thing, as it is far better to retain experienced police officers than recruit as many new ones.

I wonder what other lies Labour will try in the final two days?