Only Villains Need Fear This Law

Constable Plank has a message for critics of the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill

It has been brought to my attention that there is chatter in various circles about the bill before Parliament to formalise longstanding police procedures pertaining to the apprehension of certain villainous types.

In respect of this matter, allow me to take the opportunity to reassure the public that you have nothing to fear.

Your constabulary are tireless guardians of public order and decency, and there are no tougher critics of police impropriety than our very own selves.

A number of legal types have questioned why the police need special powers to covertly monitor the activities of private citizens. I must say that the lads had a jolly good laugh at the suggestion that the rule of law itself was being threatened by the proposal to apply the surveillance legislation retrospectively.

The very suggestion that giving us the tools to do the job could somehow threaten the democratic fabric of our realm is a grave insult to the dedication and courage of our boys.

But more importantly, it puts these critics in the camp of the criminals.

The persons we covertly monitor are not your garden-type offender. We are not concerned about run-of-the-mill ratbags. These persons are ruthless villains who will stop at nothing to destroy the orderly and peaceful society so many of you take for granted. That society only exists because the police remain a bulwark against a rising tide of scum and villainy.

Perhaps you do not realise how bad things are. You sit there in your fine house, while your servants bring you your tea, and you think all is well in the world. You relax in your club reading the newspaper and smoking your cigars, and discussing the troubles in Bechuanaland with your fellows, and you say to yourself "by God, we are lucky not to be one of those black devils", little suspecting that horrors are lurking much closer to home.

If we do not have the full support of the public to do whatever it takes in order to apprehend these villains, there is no doubt that people will die. They may even be people you know. They could be your servants, or even your children. Do you want your children to die?

To those of you who would question our claim that people will die if the law is not passed, let me assure you that your concerns are without foundation. You may trust the judgement of your friendly copper in this matter. If lives can be saved by giving your trusty policeman additional powers to watch you and your wife in bed attending to marital relations, then what further assurances do you require?

This law will save lives. And why can I be so confident? Because in the entire history of human civilisation I am sure you would not find one instance where giving the police powers to covertly monitor the citizens has led to more deaths.

Now let us send the gentlemen in Parliament a solid message of support for this sensible measure in the war against those damned villains.

Law Society Slams Police Spying Bill

The Law Society has attacked the government's plan to pass extraordinary and objectionable surveillance legislation.

Resistance to the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill is growing, and will only pass if it is substantially amended or if a party currently opposed to the bill sells out.

My money would have been on ACT doing the dirty, but I'm now beginning to think that this is just one rat the five retiring ACT MPs don't actually need to swallow.

That leaves Labour. My hope is that if the Labour leadership are wavering on whether to support the bill, they should first read the Law Society's submission.

2. The Law Society finds the proposed law objectionable because:

(a) It misrepresents the legal position, both as it existed before the decision of the Supreme Court in the recent Hamed case and as it was determined to be in that case.

(b) It would effectively amend the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (both retrospectively and prospectively) by over-riding and attenuating a fundamental human right, and would do so in a way that appears disproportionate to any demonstrable need.

(c) If enacted under urgency, as is intended, it would lack both the degree of consultation within the community and the level of careful deliberation by Parliament that is appropriate for a significant constitutional amendment.

(d) A pressing and demonstrable need for such a serious departure from constitutional principle has not been demonstrated.

(e) It would comprise legislative interference in the judicial process in respect of cases that are currently before the courts or which are about to come before the courts.

(f) It is inconsistent with the rule of law and the principles upon which the rule of law is based.

3. For these reasons, as amplified below, the Law Society is opposed to the enactment of the proposed law. The Law Society recommends the following as a preferred alternative to the proposed law:

(a) Section 30 provides a more principled means of addressing the concerns that have been raised in the current debate than does the proposed law as set out in the draft Bill.

(b) If urgent legislative intervention is considered necessary, and if section 30 in its current form is thought to provide an insufficient answer to the problem, it would be more appropriate to amend section 30 than to over-ride section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

(c) If the government were to accept this position, the Law Society would be willing to address the question of an amendment to section 30 on an urgent basis.

The claim that "the Supreme Court ruling changed everything" is clearly nonsense, and the Law Society takes issue with the clause in the bill headed “Temporary continuation of lawfulness of certain uses of video camera surveillance” and headings and sub-headings that read: “Temporary continuation and savings” and “Declaration of continued lawfulness”.

6. These provisions imply that, until the Supreme Court reached its decision in Hamed, covert video camera surveillance was lawful and that the Hamed decision changed the law by making covert video camera surveillance unlawful.

7. It is incorrect to suggest that covert video camera surveillance was lawful prior to Hamed. It is equally incorrect and misleading to suggest that Hamed reversed the previous position by making covert video camera surveillance unlawful.

Moreover, the Law Society notes that the Law Commission in 2007 took the view that covert camera surveillance involving a trespass to land (as in the Hamed case) would likely be regarded as unlawful conduct and would possibly lead to a finding of unreasonableness under section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and the possible exclusion of evidence.

It should also be noted that the Court of Appeal has never, until the Hamed case, been asked to rule on the legality of covert video camera surveillance involving a trespass to land.

So this issue has been present for some time, and police and lawmakers should have acted years ago to address the problem.

The Law Society has also objected to the way in which the proposed law will violate basic freedoms, such as the basic right to be free from intrusion into our private lives, and the monitoring of our private conduct, by agents of the state, unless:

(a) There are proper grounds for the intrusion, objectively established;

(b) A process for obtaining prior authorisation is prescribed by law;

(c) The process is subject to the safeguard of prior consideration by a neutral officer (usually a judge);

(d) The officer has discretionary authority to authorise or refuse to authorise the intrusion on a case-by-case basis, after considering all the relevant circumstances.

None of these factors are present in the proposed law. It simply deems all police surveillance legal.

The Law Society slams police claims that up to 40 cases before the courts could be affected by Hamed.

34. If the quoted number of cases is correct, it must mean that the police have been using covert video surveillance unlawfully in a wide range of cases over an extensive period. But if this is so, why have these unlawful activities not been disclosed to defence counsel in any of these other cases? To fail to make proper disclosure of such matters would almost certainly breach the obligations of the police under the Criminal Disclosure Act 2008 and, if there has been a widespread breach of those obligations, Parliament must be entitled to be properly informed about that subject before validating or condoning possibly widespread police misconduct ex post facto. 

35. If, on the other hand, there has been no seriously unlawful activity on the part of the police, and therefore no real misconduct (whether deliberate or otherwise), why do the police need retrospective validating legislation when they already have the power to ask for improperly obtained evidence to be admitted by the courts under section 30 of the Evidence Act 2006?

The submission takes aim at police claims that serious criminals might go free unless the bill passes into law.

41. It is no answer to say that these people are “serious criminals”, because the purpose of our criminal justice system is to determine, by due process, whether or not criminal offences have been committed and, until a valid conviction is entered against those concerned, they are
entitled to the presumption of innocence.

Finally, the Law Society notes that section 30 of the Evidence Act 2006 already provides an avenue for illegally obtained evidence to be admitted in the case of serious offences.

It takes courage to stand up to the law and order mob, but what this bill proposes is an outrageous abuse of basic civil liberties. If the bill passes police will be able to spy on anyone they want any time they want to.

This bill must not pass into law.

We're Back, Baby!

Labour is riding high in the polls. The latest Fairfax poll shows support for Labour has increased by a whopping 2.4%.

With the gap between the two parties now at only 26.2% National will be starting to worry. There's a real risk that National could lose this election, particularly if before November 26 John Key is caught dealing P to primary school children and Bill English catches religion and decides to tithe 10% of our taxes to the Destiny Church.

But even if those events do not transpire, there are good reasons for optimism, not least because National's support parties are only slightly less toxic than a curry-fart. ACT may still be wiped out, if Banks and Brash don't actually start to communicate with each other, while the Maori Party has become largely irrelevant and will probably take a pounding in November.

The signs for optimism are everywhere. For example, we are in the midst of a Rugby World Cup, and it's clear to everyone, even God Himself, that New Zealand will win. Do you know when we last won the thing? That's right, 1987, an election year, an election that Labour won. Even if He Who Must Not Be Spoken Of was finance minister at the time. And even though Peter Dunne was re-elected as a Labour MP.

So it's all tracking along nicely, and Labour will be back in control very soon. But if by some miracle or, more likely, massive electoral fraud perpetrated by its opponents (aided by shadowy forces and the PSA) Labour does not manage to regain office, then there's always next time. 2014 is looking even more positive. It will be the 100th anniversary of the commencement of World War One, and if that event won't deserve a change of government then I don't know what will.

National's Election Strategy: The Power Of Prayer

Finance minister Bill English today released the National Party's plan to grow the economy and stimulate economic growth.

Opponents of National have criticised the party for failing the address the problems of sluggish economic growth, rising unemployment and a volatile dollar.

But Mr English today answered his critics with a bold series of initiatives to get the country moving again.

The cornerstone of the new growth policy is an initiative called Pray For Our Salvation.

The initiative involves downsizing a number of government departments, including Treasury and the Ministry of Economic Development.

They will be replaced by a range of community organisations, whose activities will involve economic forecasting and planning.

Mr English addressed concerns that devolving these activities to community groups would lead to inconsistencies in how forecasting and planning were undertaken.

"We recognise the need to balance the desire for local autonomy with the maintenance of minimum standards," said Mr English.

"We will allow organisation to have considerable independence in how they run their own affairs. But they will also be expected to follow certain minimum guidelines that we will prescribe for them."

Mr English said that the difference between National and Labour was that only one party wanted to spend millions of taxpayer dollars on risky economic plans.

"Our policy is much simpler. If you want to get ahead under National, then the power is in your hands. Get on your knees and pray for a miracle.

"But if you're not religious don't worry, because we've a plan worked out for you too: buy yourself a lotto ticket."

A Timely Post About Imperial Stormtroopers, Donald Duck, Star Trek, And Patents

Some of you may have read a few weeks ago that Apple is suing Samsung Electronics for infringing its patents and designs and for copying the “look and feel" of Apple’s iPad and iPhone devices.

Enormous IP stoushes between electronics companies have become more and more commonplace in recent years, particularly in the areas of mobile phone or tablet device technology.

What makes this particular case interesting is that Samsung has used science fiction to claimed that Samsung’s Galaxy S II smartphone does not infringe Apple’s design patent.

From the Wall Street Journal:

Samsung, along with a motion that is still under seal, on [22 August] filed a declaration in federal court in San Jose, Calif., by a lawyer for the company suggesting that the basic design of the iPad was already envisioned by such popular works as Stanley Kubrick’s seminal movie, which came out in 1968.

“In a clip from that film lasting about one minute, two astronauts are eating and at the same time using personal tablet computers,” the lawyer wrote, adding a Web link for watching the film on YouTube. As with the design claimed by Apple’s patent, “the tablet disclosed in the clip has an overall rectangular shape with a dominant display screen, narrow borders, a predominately flat front surface, a flat back surface (which is evident because the tablets are lying flat on the table’s surface), and a thin form factor.”

Whether this strategy will work for Samsung remains to be seen.

This is not the first time that science fiction and the courts have collided. Most people know that George Lucas jealously guards his Star Wars empire, and intellectual property disputes between Lucas and others have not been uncommon. Lucasfilm recently sued Andrew Ainsworth, the creator of the famous Imperial Stormtrooper costume. Mr Ainsworth kept the moulds used to produce the costumes for Lucas, and in 2004 began to sell replicas of the costumes, made using the original moulds. Lucasfilm argued that Ainsworth’s continued reproduction of the helmet was an infringement of their copyright in the original design drawings, and they argued that the helmet was a sculpture and so an artistic work. However, the English Supreme Court ruled that Ainsworth had merely copied an article made according to a design document for a non-artistic work, and so did not infringe copyright. In most countries (apart from New Zealand!) the mass production of a product made to a design will normally not infringe the copyright in the original design drawings. So Ainsworth won.

Other science fiction franchises are careful to guard their IP. For example, Paramount filed a series of design patents for various Star Trek designs, including gadgets, costumes and spaceships back in the '70s and '80s. This was presumably so they could control the exploitation of miniatures and other Star Trek themed merchandise.

One of the most famous stories about the entertainment industry and patents has nothing to do with science fiction. It may be a myth, but the story goes that a Donald Duck cartoon was cited as prior art by the Dutch patent office, in rejecting a patent application for a flotation device.

The invention the subject of the application was a device to raise a sunken ship, which was developed after the inventor came up with the idea of raising a capsized ship by filling it with millions of plastic balls made of expandable polystyrene foam.

The trouble was that a certain duck had beaten him to the invention. A 1949 Donald Duck comic story entitled “The Sunken Yacht” depicts Donald and his nephews raising a ship by filling it with ping pong balls shoved through a tube.

Brash On Law And Order: The Good And The Bad

Don Brash has been criticised for his musings on marijuana and the right to self defence, but they are consistent with libertarianism, which values personal liberty and the protection of property.

Brash's observations on drug use might have been better received if he did not lead such a dysfunctional party that has for years pursued the vote of the authoritarian right and allowed the likes of the Sensible Sentencing Trust to hijack its law and order policies.

And some people will never accept that any idea Brash has could be a good one  because, well, he's Don Brash. The Evil One.

The proposal to decriminalise marijuana use is a sensible one, but already politicians from most of the major parties are lining up to shoot it down. They continue to argue that pot should be banned because it causes harm, even though far more toxic substances continue to be sold over the counter and contribute substantially to Crown revenues.

The call to give people a greater right to self-defence is less sensible, and looks more like another bone being thrown to law and order types: people who will be appalled at the thought of long-haired potheads not having the shit kicked out of them by police. It is entirely unclear how exactly Brash wants the law to be changed. He has quoted in the media the case of a shopkeeper charged with injuring with intent, after the man used a hockey stick to defend himself against an armed mob of youths. But those charges were thrown out. How is that evidence that the law is not working?

A right to self defence or defence of another already exists, provided reasonable force is used. But the Crimes Act does not give anyone the right to use reasonable force in defence of property, if it will involve striking or doing bodily harm to the attacker or intruder. Perhaps this is the area of law Brash is interested in.  The trouble with allowing people to attack those who are either harming or pinching your stuff is that things can get out of hand. Would Bruce Emery, the man who stabbed to death a teenage boy for tagging his fence, have gone to jail if such a "defence of property" statutory defence had existed? How would we feel about that as a society?

Human life is more valuable than mere stuff, and possessions can always be replaced. But if we want to live in a more brutal and violent society, allowing people to wound or kill others who offer no threat of violence would be a good place to start.

Otago Lecturer Admits Role In Diabolical Conspiracy

The Dunedin academic community is in shock today, after respected political scientist Dr Bryce Edwards admitted he was on the payroll of a despicable cabal involving National Party ministers and corrupt public service unionists.

The revelation came after Dr Edwards broke down in tears during a Q&A interview with Paul Holmes.

On the show, Dr Edwards admitted that he owed his extravagant lifestyle to the enormous amounts of cash being funneled into his bank accounts from the National Party, via David Farrar and Matthew Hooton and their PSA allies.

Dr Edwards had been under relentless pressure after Labour MP Trevor Mallard broke the story on Friday.

Mr Mallard disclosed the source of Dr Edwards' funding on the Labour blogsite Red Alert. Further pressure was piled onto Dr Edwards over the weekend on social media sites like Twitter, by Mallard and his colleague and social media guru Clare Curran.

Although the disclosure statement on Dr Edwards's popular NZ Politics Daily email newsletter acknowledges the funding of Curia (David Farrar's company), Exceltium (Matthew Hooton's company) and the Public Service Association, it seems that nobody suspected the scale of the deception.

Mr Edwards told Paul Holmes that the disclosure statement was just part of the ruse.

"We all thought that if we hid the evil in plain sight, nobody would think anything of it. We didn't count on Mallard seeing through it."

Dr Edwards admitted to Paul Holmes that the money for the arrangement arrived every morning from a PSA courier

"The money would come in these brown paper bags, together with a handwritten note with my instructions for the day. It was more money than I'd ever seen in my life," a tearful Dr Edwards admitted.

"I would always a cut to James Meager. The deal was that he would do my dirty work, when I didn't want my name associated with something. In return he got 30% of everything. The rest was my own.

"I spent up bigtime. Fast cars, boats, a chalet in the Swiss Alps, but still I had more money than I knew what to do with.

"I knew I was in over my head, but I couldn't say no. Here was I, just some nerdy politics lecturer, and suddenly I had cash to spend and all the hottest women in Dunedin wanted to be with me."

Dr Edwards told Paul Holmes that he had tried to escape from the arrangement.

"I tried. I told my PSA minders that I'd had enough, and that I was sick of having to write whatever they told me. That was my biggest mistake. The next day David Farrar turned up on my doorstep. I still have nightmares about what he did to me.

"After than I never questioned my orders."

Trevor Mallard said he was delighted to have uncovered such a ruthless and cynical assault on democracy in New Zealand.

"I knew I was onto something as soon as Edwards started to say unkind things about the Labour Party. That was his first mistake. I've always said that as bad as the National Party may be, the real enemy are the traitors on the left.

"I've learned to uncover these conspiracies, having read The Hollow Men back to back at least fifty times. If Bryce Edwards isn't a secret Don Brash supporter, then I know nothing."

It is not clear what the future now holds for Dr Edwards. He told Paul Holmes he was weighing up a lucrative magazine deal with New Idea, but was also considering retiring from academic life.

"I probably can't continue in my current role after this. After what has happened I may even have to look offshore for future employment.

"But I have managed to save some of my earnings, and so I may be finally able to follow my dream of becoming a square dancing caller."

Melbourne Storm Players Decide To Spend More Time With Their Families

The coach of the Melbourne Storm has denied that his team was forced out of an NRL Grand Final place by a powerful NZ Warriors performance.

The Warriors beat the highly-rated Melbourne Storm by 20 points to 12, thanks largely to a gutsy defensive effort. The victory put the Warriors into an NRL Grand Final for only the second time in the club's history.

But Melbourne coach Craig Bellamy claimed that the result was not a defeat.

"Look, mate, the Warriors played some good footy. But at the end of the day the Melbourne boys made a call that they wanted to spend more time with their families.

"It's been a long season and we're proud of what we've achieved during our time in the 2011 competition.

"A lot of the guys have young families, and we felt it was only fair to the other teams in the competition that we made this announcement before the Grand Final.

"It's a tough environment to be in, and the pressure on the boys is relentless. But they leave on their own terms, and with no regrets.

"This was absolutely their decision, and nobody else's. The boys are now looking forward to some exciting new drinking challenges during the off-season, starting with Mad Monday."

Revisiting Old Favourites

I wrote this post about a month ago. It seems more relevant today than ever.

While most of the general populace don't read Red Alert or even know it exists, the opinion-makers certainly do. The site is read by journalists, political commentators and bloggers.

Recent efforts by some on the site have been (to put it diplomatically) unhelpful.

Am I (still) right? Should the plug be pulled?

Please

When that man gets in front of the keyboard it's like a loaded gun. Unfortunately the gun is aimed at his foot.

I wish he would stop.

Full Disclosure

In the political blogosphere most people know which party each blogger supports. That is usually either because the blogger tells you, or because the content of the blogger's posts makes it obvious.

So, for example, everyone who has followed this blog for any length of time will know that I am a recent Labour Party convert. Now you may questions the wisdom of jumping in to support a party when polls show it to be at an all-time low. But I also like to use the analogy of buying stock when the sharemarket is at the bottom.

Even if that is a foolish analogy to use, because I'm not after influence or looking to rise through the ranks, and I am just content to help my local Labour electorate candidate win his seat (the fact that his main opponent is such a muppet helps to keep me motivated). A couple of people have wondered if this is a prelude to some kind of political career, but I have been very keen to shoot down any such suggestions. Anyone who follows politics can see that to be an MP you need to be a sucker for punishment. No thanks. I enjoy a quiet domestic life.

So much for the blogosphere. But when your work strays into the mainstream media (i.e.. newspapers, TV, radio), you need to assume that most people who will see, hear or read your work won't know which side you're on.

This is a particular problem if your work involves attacking other political parties. Take David Farrar's piece in Stuff yesterday, where he accused the Greens of "astroturfing". Anyone who follows Farrar's work will know he is a National Party insider, and that most of his output is devoted to slagging other parties (almost never his own). But if you came across Farrar's Stuff post and didn't know who he was, you wouldn't immediately know. You might even conclude that he is merely an insightful columnist who follows politics and doesn't necessarily have an axe to grind.

And if you were to make that mistake you would miss the irony of a political party using the opinion section in a national newspaper to push its policies, while attacking another political party for using the opinion section in a national newspaper to push its policies.

All this could have been fixed with a disclosure statement at the bottom of the post. It's not enough that there's a disclosure on the banner in the main "David Farrar" page. It should be on the bottom of each post too.

But lest my post be seen as another partisan attack by someone blinded by the failings of his own side, I should point out that John Pagani's Stuff blog also lacks a full disclosure statement. Pagani cannot credibly attack government policy in the mainstream press unless he is prepared to disclose his senior role within Labour.

The other thing I am pondering is at what point disclosure becomes appropriate or necessary. We all have opinions, and the fact that we might have voted National or Labour shouldn't require disclosure. But if someone is actively involved in party policy or strategy, or is taking money from a political party (e.g. David Farrar's polling company does National's work), then a disclosure is warranted.

So does that mean I should disclose my affiliations every time I appear in the media? Having joined Labour only three or four months ago and being currently a low-level nobody within the party, I suspect not. On the other hand, if someone were to ask me what I thought of Phil Twyford or Tau Henare in the media then I might feel an obligation to disclose my involvement as a volunteer in Twyford's election campaign, but only if I wanted what I said to be treated seriously. Although I don't think you have to even be a Labour supporter to think Henare's an embarrassment to West Auckland. Previous election results in Te Atatu show that plenty of National Party voters preferred Chris Carter to Tau Henare.

And here I am using a blogpost about political affiliations and proper disclosure to attack the enemy party. Well at least you know where I stand. Am I biased? Of course!

Matthew Ridge Comes To Labour's Rescue?

Audrey Young reports in the Herald:

Former rugby and rugby league star Matthew Ridge could face prosecution and a fine of up to $10,000 for advertising his Greenlane car wash company with a mock election advertisement.

The billboard features a picture of Ridge, an All Black who later captained the Kiwis, and uses a play on words to promote the hand-washing car service: "Say no to Labour - We'll hand wash your car for $15".

Ridge says it's just a play on words and he isn't standing for Parliament.

I really don’t mind if Ridge wants to express his political views by way of billboard or loudhailer, or in any other manner he chooses–provided he follows the law. Not necessarily because our electoral advertising laws are sensible, but because everyone else has to follow them, so why shouldn't he?

And an active campaign by Ridge against Labour, whether in jest or otherwise, might actually draw more voters to the party. They may figure that if Ridge is against it then it must be good.

Whatever Ridge’s intentions, the billboard “SAY NO TO LABOUR” looks to me like a political advertisement.

While Ridge may be well known, I’ll wager a large chunk of the populace don’t know about his car-wash business. When they see “Vote Car-fe” they may be fooled into thinking it’s a political party or candidate.

If I am right then the sign needs an authorisation statement. And Ridge may need to register as a third party if he exceeds the $12,000 spending cap for third parties.

Luckily, help is at hand. I have no doubt that the tirelessly diligent Cameron Slater, protector of our democracy, and who never fails to spot the absence of an authorisation statement in any form of political advertising, will take up the case. I look forward to hearing how his official complaint to the Chief Electoral Officer is handled.

A Plea To The PM

I'm getting fed up with having to blog constantly in defence of civil liberties.

It seems like every week another threat to the rule of law arises. Whether it's rushed legislation, intrusions into the right to silence, giving police the power to spy on the citizenry without any oversight, or passing extraordinary legislation that allows ministers to ignore inconvenient legislation, this government is either doing it or trying it.

I'd much rather be posting about rugby and celebrities, but someone has to speak up. It's doing my head in.

So this is a special plea to the Prime Minister.

Please, please, just give me a break from all of this. Give Greg O'Connor everything he wants. I urge you to ignore centuries of jurisprudence because you think you know best, even though the legal system you are so happy to erode was developed over generations by people much wiser than you will ever be.

What's with all this shilly-shallying, Mr Key? Your government is setting records for the volume of urgent and badly drafted legislation it is pushing through, and its contempt for our democratic institutions is plain for all to see. And yet you could be doing so much more. Why are you taking so long to dismantle our democracy?

If you could just get on with it I could get back to writing about Justin Bieber's latest haircut, because it won't be safe to write about anything else.

John Armstrong's "Constitutional Niceties"

The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their property. That right is preserved sacred and incommunicable in all instances, where it has not been taken away or abridged by some public law for the good of the whole. The cases where this right of property is set aside by private law, are various. Distresses, executions, forfeitures, taxes etc are all of this description; wherein every man by common consent gives up that right, for the sake of justice and the general good. By the laws of England, every invasion of private property, be it ever so minute, is a trespass. No man can set his foot upon my ground without my license, but he is liable to an action, though the damage be nothing; which is proved by every declaration in trespass, where the defendant is called upon to answer for bruising the grass and even treading upon the soil. If he admits the fact, he is bound to show by way of justification, that some positive law has empowered or excused him. The justification is submitted to the judges, who are to look into the books; and if such a justification can be maintained by the text of the statute law, or by the principles of common law. If no excuse can be found or produced, the silence of the books is an authority against the defendant, and the plaintiff must have judgment. [emphases added]

Entick v Carrington [1765] EWHC KB J98

(hat tip John Edwards)

Update: Dean Knight has more on this.

Science On Trial In Italy

Seven seismologists have gone on trial in Italy for manslaughter, for failing to predict a devastating earthquake that killed more than 300 people in 2009.

They are accused of giving "inexact, incomplete and contradictory information" about a series of smaller quakes that took place beforehand, and of telling people that a larger quake would not occur.

The outcome of the case will be keenly observed by scientists around the world.

The case is of course absurd. Even if it could be established that scientists knew or should have known that a strong quake was likely, how would the prosecution then be able to establish that many of the victims would still not have perished? The quake was still going to happen.

But if scientists are to be put on trial for failing to predict harmful future events, what precedent might this set?

Could figures of authority who continue to publicly deny the existence of global warming be put on trial in the future after the oceans have risen and engulfed entire communities?

And will leaders of the Catholic Church who continue to claim that condom use is a sin face genocide charges in future years?

My guess is no. This is science on trial. Our sluggish reaction towards the reality of global warming demonstrates that few people listen when scientists predict doom and disaster. But should those scientists fail to give us the warnings we so readily ignore then they risk being prosecuted, at least in some parts of the world.

Who would be a scientist?

When To Rein In The Lawyers

John Pagani appears to have been astounded by this piece of advice by lawyers from a prominent IP firm. He has now claimed he has been "pwned" and that the article that so astonished him was a gag.

Or maybe Pagani's being ironic. Heck, I don't know. I'm pretty sure the legal article was serious, though.

Some people are aware that I am an IP lawyer. I should make it clear at this point that I do not work for the IP firm concerned.

Moreover, lawyers are usually reluctant to attack each other in public out of a sense of professional courtesy, and as a member of the unholy cabal that is the legal profession I am no different.

All I will really say about the legal advice given in the article is that, while it is technically correct, the use of blunt legal processes by businesses to deal with protesters is extremely dangerous. You might win the court case, but you may also lose the PR battle.

If you want a complaint or protest about your brand or business to go viral overnight, sometimes the best thing to do is try to shut it down using the courts or a cease and desist letter.

Often in these situations the best thing a business can do is rein in the lawyers.

But I don't agree with Pagani that lawyers should stop giving PR advice. A good lawyer can be a valuable asset to a business and can provide insightful advice on a range of commercial issues. Lawyers are often involved in contentious matters and can often predict how a particular action will be received by the public and media. Admittedly some lawyers know all the legal angles without being able to provide commercially sensible advice, but I would hope that they are a minority.

Police Welcome Opportunity To Watch You Doing A Poo

Police Association President Greg O’Connor has welcomed news that the Government will seek a law change to allow police to spy on you when you are in the toilet.

Police say that have been concerned for some time that when you go to the toilet you shut the door.

“What are you hiding in there?” Mr O’Connor asked you.

"You really have nothing to fear, unless you are hiding something. Are you committing crimes in that cubicle?”

Mr O’Connor has rejected claims by civil liberties groups that having cameras and listening devices watching you defecate will be a gross breach of your privacy.

“The fact that you wipe your bottom with your left hand rather than your right is of no interest to us, unless of course your right hand is holding a phone and you are talking to your dealer or your terror cell leader,” said Mr O'Connor.

Police have also welcomed news that they will now be able to watch your bedroom sexual activities.

Mr O’Connor said there were a number of reasons why police might want to monitor your pitiful efforts to give pleasure to your partner.

“The Crimes Act sets out a whole range of sexual offences,” said Mr O’Connor. “Monitoring and surveillance will ensure that if you cross the line into illegal behaviour, your victim will have redress.

"We will have the footage we need to convict you, and you won’t be able to use legal technicalities to argue the whole thing was an egregious breach of your privacy."

Attorney General Chris Finlayson told reporters that the law change was essential to ensure police could covertly watch you pleasuring yourself in the shower.

“As disgusting as your behaviour might be to right-thinking people, there's an important principle at stake. If police cannot see who or what you are stimulating then they cannot protect the public against you."

United Future leader Peter Dunne confirmed he would support the legislation.

"I don't see the problem with police being able to go into your house when you are asleep, make themselves at home, turn the telly on and set up recording equipment in every corner of your house.

"And if a commonsense reasonable person like me can't see the problem, what is yours? What are you hiding?"

You were contacted for comment, but were unavailable at the time this was posted.

Plans For A Shinier Christchurch Slammed

A prominent lobby group has slammed the Labour Party’s new Christchurch package.

Labour announced its plan for the city yesterday. Under the plan Labour will buy up and sell at cost up to 1500 sections, and compensate homeowners in red zones for the value of their improvements.

Labour is also promising to intervene in the insurance market, if private insurers do not get their act together.

But the Federation Against Shiny Things (FAST) has slammed the policy, claiming it is inappropriate and discriminatory and will lead to a shinier Christchurch.

The Federation’s President Sir Nigel Squeers said his organisation was opposed to the rebuild of Christchurch.

“Our membership is firmly against any move by any government to rebuild demolished or damaged buildings,” said Sir Nigel.

“The current, broken city is a mess of bricks and dirt, and is a real pleasure to visit. But if Labour is elected and reconstruction is sped up, there will be an influx of shiny things into the city.

“There is nothing worse that the bright sheen of a newly constructed house. Or the way in which the morning sun glistens off brand new glass.”

Sir Nigel is a prominent rich-lister who made his fortune during the fantasy role-playing boom of the early 2000s. In recent years he has become well-known for his philanthropy, and last year he donated over a million dollars towards the building of a rehabilitation unit for disgraced accountants with spinal injuries.

FAST, which Sir Nigel heads, was established to advocate for those affected by excessive shininess. Studies conducted by the tobacco industry estimate that one in three people are adversely affected by shiny things. The studies show that excessive exposure to shininess can lead to nausea and vomiting, and that one in a hundred people exposed will suffer massive organ failure and will eventually explode.

Prime Minister John Key also denounced Labour’s policy during his post-cabinet press conference.

“Our insurance company friends won’t like this one bit,” said Mr Key. “They’re against all forms of shininess, other than in their corporate offices.”

But Labour leader Phil Goff hit back at criticism of the policy.

Unfortunately there was a rugby game on, so nobody knows what he said.

Law And Order Trumps Civil Rights Again

Claire Trevett of the Herald reports:

Government will pass temporary legislation suspending the effect of a Supreme Court decision which ruled covert camera surveillance by police unlawful.

The bill will pass next week under urgency, Prime Minister John Key said.

A permanent fix would be included as part of the search and surveillance bill due to pass after the election.

Mr Key said speed was essential because the ruling in the Ureweras case would have jeopardised police investigations.

He said the Crown Law Office advised Cabinet it meant almost all use of covert video surveillance was unlawful.

"This has significant implications for law and order in New Zealand."

The problem has arisen because, as Chief Justice Elias said in the Supreme Court judgment:

Parliament has not however provided legislative authority for covert filmed surveillance, despite recommendations that it should do so. The courts cannot remedy the deficiency through approval of police action taken in the absence of lawful authority without destruction of important values in the legal system, to the detriment of the freedoms guaranteed to all.

In most functioning democratic societies citizens are protected against breaches of privacy by agencies of the state. Such is still the case in New Zealand, although that is about to change. I haven't seen the proposed legislative "fix", but it sounds as if from next week onwards police will be able to spy on anyone they please. Greg O'Connor must be thrilled. 

It is typical of the law and order obsession of recent governments that the need to catch criminals trumps basic civil liberties every time. But why should this be so? Most of us probably don't want to live in a society where agencies of the state are free to spy on citizens. I wonder what other civil liberties we might be prepared to give away if it means nailing the bad guys.

I remain unconvinced that this action is necessary or warranted. For one thing, illegally obtained evidence is not automatically inadmissible. Instead it must be assessed in accordance with section 30 of the Evidence Act 2006. In the case of the Urewera 18, the Supreme Court ruled that the charges faced by some of the accused were serious enough to allow the use of illegally-obtained evidence. So unless all of these trials Crown Law are worried about are for minor matters, it seems likely that for a good many of them the illegally-obtained evidence will still be admissible. Perhaps they are just trying to prevent defendants arguing that civil liberties have been trampled on. Which they have.

While they are at it, why don't they just repeal the Bill of Rights Act? Imagine the cost saving to the taxpayer.

New search and surveillance laws are in the pipeline, and when they eventually pass these will give the police powers to undertake video surveillance. I remain hopeful that such legislation will be properly debated and will contain sensible provisions, and that surveillance will be properly regulated and subject to appropriate judicial supervision. But then I'm just an insufferable liberal.

A Plan For Christchurch

Our do-nothing government has been caught out again. In response to Labour's plan to actually do something about the plight of Christchurch, National is criticising the plan as being too expensive.

In the context of the multi-billion dollar bill the taxpayer is already facing to rebuild the city, a few hundred million doesn't seem like so much, especially if it will get people on their feet faster.

It is clear that the insurance market has failed, and that in the absence of willing insurers many projects just won't proceed. Labour is talking about intervening in the insurance market, and even potentially being an insurer of last resort. Sure, that would be potentially expensive, but what is the alternative? Do nothing? An intervention now seems inevitable, because the alternative is to just wait years for insurers to regain confidence in the Christchurch market.

National's reaction to Labour's plan for Christchurch mirrors its panicked response to Labour's capital gains tax policy. Only one party seems to have any policies to address the problems the city is facing.

And every time National complains about how expensive it will be, remember that they were the ones who reduced revenues by cutting taxes for high income earners.

Luckily No Actually Funny Comedians Were Arrested

I thought it was well understood that aviation security and humour don't mix.

Apparently I was wrong.

Prominent Blogger Husband Has Wife

A blogger whose site is highly placed in political blog rankings has told the Herald on Sunday that he predicts he will begin to use their newspaper as lining for his pet's litter tray, as soon as his gets around to getting a cat.

Blogger Scott, whose site Imperator Fish is placed within the top 100 of most New Zealand political blog rankings, made the prediction online on Sunday night, after reading a story by the HOS about the wife of a Labour Party candidate daring to express independent thought.

The news has shocked some, with two young children asking their father if this means they will finally get the cutesy wutesy kitty cat they so desperately want.

But sources close to the blogger have assured the children that no matter how wretched the Herald on Sunday becomes, the cat will not be moving in any time soon.

It is understood that a compromise solution was reached shortly after dinnertime, when the family discovered they had run out of toiletpaper.

Phil Goff was unavailable for comment.

This Embarrassment Still Belongs To The Police

The police decision to drop charges against 13 members of the "Urewera 18" has incited predictable outrage from police and law and order hawks.

The firearms charges against the 13 were dropped because the police case collapsed, after the Supreme Court ruled that police footage taken illegally on Tuhoe land was inadmissible.

The Crown case relied heavily on this footage.

Stephen Franks is depressed by the way our courts have dealt with the "terror charges", even though terrorism charges were never laid (Police were refused permission to lay terrorism charges by the Solicitor-General).

And John Pagani appears to be happy to compare the Urewera 18 case with the case of the Norwegian mass murder Anders Breivik. Despite his not having a clue what is on the video footage. Even if the evidence were admissible, that wouldn't in itself make it compelling.

Section 30 of the Evidence Act allows illegally obtained evidence to be used in some cases where the alleged offences are serious. This is why the evidence cannot be used in relation to the firearms charges, but can be used against the remaining four defendants, who are facing more serious charges.

It is no surprise that the moment the judgment was released the police sought to attack the decision, claiming that it will impact on their ability to do their job. But it is hard to see how that could be so. The Evidence Act requires judges to make a call as to what extent an exclusion of the evidence would be proportionate to its impropriety. It does not automatically rule out improperly obtained evidence.

It doesn't seem all that controversial to think that illegally obtained evidence should not be used if the charges the evidence is to be used for are not serious ones. If police could use illegally-obtained evidence in all situations, then that would simply encourage them to break the law.

Police Association spokesperson Greg O'Connor is welcoming the release of the ruling because "Those who were quick to leap to the conclusion that police had no evidence justifying arrests should now be embarrassed."

But I beg to differ. Illegally obtained evidence that is entirely inadmissible is no evidence at all. How do we even know what was on the video footage?

If police had actual evidence of serious wrongdoing against the 13, why weren't they charged with more serious offences?

It is the police who ought to be embarrassed.

A Reminder That There Aren't Many Good Holocaust Jokes

From the Herald:

Kiwi comedian Raybon Kan was under fire last night for linking the Holocaust to All Black sponsor adidas and Auckland's Rugby World Cup travel woes.

Kan said online: "Maybe adidas should run Auckland public transport. Nice German company. They should know how to load thousands on to trains."

When asked to explain what he meant, Kan said: "Oh, it's just a joke about World War II. Well, you know, it's just a Nazi joke. It's a joke in the context of all the transport issues that were happening.

"I'm not a politician, I'm a comedian," he added.

About six million Jewish people were killed under Germany's Nazi regime. Many died on crowded trains on the way to concentration camps.

Kan said he had not had any complaints. "You're looking for offence that hasn't happened. I invite those people to email me," he said.

There is nothing funny about the Holocaust, and Kan's joke wasn't even a particularly good one. I'm not sure why he continues to try to defend what he said.

This just reinforces my belief that if you say something stupid and unjustifiable, you should just own up and admit your error.

Had Kan just said "Oh my God, did I really say that? What an idiot I am", this would not be a story.

But people will be angered by the attempts of a public figure to justify what cannot be defended.

Update: Both David Farrar and the Dim-Post's Danyl say that Holocaust jokes are okay. They are much more widely read than I, so they must be right.

A Plea To ABs Management

Having watched the All Blacks demolish mighty Japan last night, I am now convinced that we will go all the way and win the 2011 Rugby World Cup.

In previous World Cups what has done for us is a chop-and-change selection policy, coupled with injuries to key players. Invariably we have ended up tinkering with midfield combinations, and the result has been disastrous.

But not this time. It doesn't matter that the selectors can't seem to play the same team or build combinations, or that suddenly our two best players are injured.

And if they want to bring someone new into the midfield (I always said Owen Franks was a natural 12), then that's okay with me.

Because we are so good we could win the tournament even with 12 players on the field.

In fact, we are so good that if God put a team of superheroes and saints against us we'd still kick their arses.

Even if they all caught food poisoning the day before, a vomiting and incontinent ABs team would still make mincemeat of the best the world could put against them.

2011 is the year of the All Blacks. Not even the dodgiest and most corrupt referee can deny this year what is rightfully ours.

There's nothing that can stop us this time, nothing at all. This is our moment, our destiny.

All we need to do is show up and the Cup is ours.

So I have only one message to the All Blacks management. Please, please, don't let the boys travel to the final by train.

A Post About Your Safety - The "I'm A Dick" Updated Edition

From CNN:

Social media users who denounce drug cartel activities along the Mexican border received a brutal warning this week: Two mangled bodies hanging like cuts of meat from a pedestrian bridge.

A woman was hogtied and disemboweled, her intestines protruding from three deep cuts on her abdomen. Attackers left her topless, dangling by her feet and hands from a bridge in the border city of Nuevo Laredo. A bloodied man next to her was hanging by his hands, his right shoulder severed so deeply the bone was visible.

Signs left near the bodies declared the pair, both apparently in their early 20s, were killed for posting denouncements of drug cartel activities on a social network.

"This is going to happen to all of those posting funny things on the Internet," one sign said. "You better (expletive) pay attention. I'm about to get you."

[and at that point my post descended into unnecessary bad taste and, as one reader so aptly put it, "dickishness". But that's deleted now. Ooops... Sometimes my "edgy" humour just isn't so funny. Actually, that's usual]

Are These Guys Sound Economic Managers?

The 2011 Budget contained growth projections that were typically heroic. For the last few years Treasury growth projections have been nowhere near actual growth figures. We all know that these projections are based on little more than hope, and yet the government bases its reputation of sound economic management on the assertion that under National a full recovery is just around the corner. This fantasy is reinforced by growth projections that are at best optimistic, and at worst fantastical.

Now, only a few months after Budget 2011, the Reserve Bank is forecasting lower growth than expected. Should we be surprised at this downward trend? Hardly. We should instead expect to see more of it in the months following the election.

And then when the growth targets are not met (if National is still in power after the election) Bill English will blame unforeseen circumstances, market forces etc, even though it was obvious in May that the 4% growth projection for 2012 would never be met.

But the business world and media will continue to praise National's sound economic stewardship, even though everyone can see how ludicrous their projections are.

What Next For The McCullinator?

Murray McCully has used special powers to take control of the Auckland waterfront.

Thanks to this intervention we can now be certain that nothing will go wrong for the rest of the Cup and that the trains will always run on time.

Now that Murray's cracked that problem, what's next for the McCullinator? Here are some other candidates for special McCully powers:

Death Star security

It's clear that gate control is lacking and that there just isn't enough security at the doors. This has been a major issue on at least two occasions. What we don't want is an embarrassing repeat, because it makes the entire Empire look bad. Could this be a job for the McCullinator?

All Blacks captaincy

I'm not saying Richie McCaw is a bad player or that he's not an inspiring leader. But this is bigger than just personalities. We've failed to win the Rugby World Cup in 1991, 1995, 1999, 2003 and 2007, so it would be unwise to leave this matter entirely in the hands of the Rugby Union and its players. That's why McCully should take control of the team.

Christchurch rebuild

I'm sure Mr Brownlee's doing a good job and all, but when it comers to using emergency powers in a totally high-handed way he's a rank amateur. Step aside, Gerry.

Arts ministry

It has long been known that McCully is in league with the forces of darkness. So once he works out how to combine his mastery of the diabolic arts with his other special powers, we will have on our hands one nasty supervillain, and life will become very unpleasant for all of us.

But that's bad, right? No, not at all. In times of misery, adversity is the food of starving artists. Some of the world's greatest works of art and literature have been born out of squalor, tragedy and poverty.

Imagine if the next Shakespeare was a New Zealander.

So let's give Murray a ministry he could really get his teeth into.

SAS Command

The method in which the McCullinator ruthlessly attacked Len Brown, leaving him gasping with a knife in his back and wondering what happened, indicates that our Rugby World Cup Minister could, with just a little more training, become a ruthless and brutal killing machine. Add to that his leadership capabilities and he's a natural to be heading our SAS mission in Kabul.

I expect he would sort the Taleban out in the space of a fortnight.

Myths About Asset Sales Exposed

If you are undecided about whether asset sales are a good idea, then I urge you to read this thorough and well-researched article by Gordon Campbell.

Campbell concludes that all the arguments for asset sales commonly cited by proponents of the plan are flawed, and he exposes eleven myths about asset sales:

1. Asset sales will reduce debt and help the government to balance the books.
2. Asset sales will create an opportunity for ordinary New Zealanders – the so- called “Mum and Dad investors” – to own a stake in some top notch companies.
3. Asset sales will help boost the appeal of the New Zealand sharemarket as a place to invest.
4. Asset sales will bring private sector disciplines and efficiencies to bear on the performance of these assets.
5. The shareholding will stay in New Zealand hands.
6. Asset sales will increase the pool of national savings and investment.
7. This is a good time to sell state assets.
8. We have to sell state assets now, to pay off debt.
9. Privatisation, either full or partial, is a driver of innovation.
10. The asset sales are consistent with the government’s energy planning.
11. Asset sales are consistent with Treaty principles. 

So it appears that the asset sales plan is more about ideology than good economic sense.

It's just a pity that National is likely to take not the slightest notice of any of these objections, if it wins another three years in office.

The Real Enemy, But Why?

Although rugby tournaments come and go, some things remain the same.

Whenever England play rugby, the allegations of cheating, boring cynical play follow. And we never lose an opportunity to bag them. It doesn’t really matter what for.

There was quite a bit of cynical play on display during England’s game against Argentina in the weekend, but the referee dealt with most of it, and sinbinned one of the England players. Another has been suspended.

In general England probably are no worse than many other teams in this area. They play to their strengths, which are to keep the ball close in, slow the game down, and grind the opposition down. It’s not pretty to watch, and yet when two teams with a similar style go at it the game can still be quite compelling. Such was the England-Argentina game. I don’t agree with John Roughan’s verdict on the game, and frankly I wonder if he actually knows what he’s on about.

I can understand why during the Clive Woodward era we grew to hate the England rugby team. For starters, they were actually a good team. Their 2003 World Cup win wasn’t a fluke, and came after years of preparation and the benefit of a settled team. We like to think that our Southern Hemisphere rugby competitions are the best, so watching a team from the other side of the world beat us (as they did in early 2003), and then later that year win the Cup, was painful. We are poor losers at the best of times, but when the opponent is not Australia or South Africa we are at our worst.

It also helped to stoke our hatred that Woodward seemed to personify a very English born-to-rule arrogance, and that an Englishman with a Welsh name writing for the Sunday Times continued to say unkind things about our team. How dare you, sir! How dare you!

The Woodward era of greatness came to a screaming halt during the 2005 Lions tour, when the All Blacks annihilated Woodward’s men (a team dominated by England players) in three tests. We had destroyed England in two tests the year before. In the games with England since then we have dominated, and that domination doesn’t look like changing any time soon.

And yet we still go on and on about the bloody English, as if we still have a point to prove. Myself included.

Let’s let this piece of historical baggage go. If England’s clearly-inferior team manages to do better than us for the third World Cup in a row then maybe we’ll be allowed to get steamed up again, so long as we continue to claim that we’re better than they are and it’s just because they cheat and play a dull game that they win. Because that will make our behaviour okay and not petty, right?

But until then let’s be gracious hosts and stop bagging them.

Most Of You Aren't Dumb. Just Some Of You

From the Herald:

The more religious you are, the less likely you are to be intelligent, a new scientific study has found.

According to researchers, Christians - particularly fundamentalists who believe the Bible is God's word - have a lower IQ than those who are less religious.

A possible reason behind the finding was a tendency for more intelligent people to challenge religious claims, said one of the researchers, New Zealand psychologist Professor Tim Bates.

"If you believe in religion, you haven't really questioned things," he said. "Brighter people were less likely to feel that religion plays a dominant role in their life."

As a devoted atheist my first instinct upon reading news of this survey was to think “too right!”

But I also know plenty of perfectly intelligent people who are firm in their religious beliefs, so I’m reluctant to assume all highly religious people are stupid.

And I often have to remind myself that, even I don’t choose to have an imaginary friend, that shouldn’t stop others.

I suppose there might be a link between religious fundamentalism and extreme stupidity, given that many of the positions taken by fundamentalists require them to close their eyes to the laws of science and the world around them.

Alternatively, scientists and doctors really do spend most of their time creating fake fossils and dinosaur bones in their secret facilities, and creating bogus scientific evidence that homosexuality isn’t just a personal choice made by the wicked. If so they really have me fooled. In which case, maybe I’m the stupid one. It could be that by championing science over superstition I am in fact doing the Devil’s work.

Luckily for the godly elect, my sins will eventually be purged by fire.

For those of you who choose to follow a deity but don’t happen to buy the whole “Adam and Eve were real” thing, I don’t think you’re dumb. Just mistaken.

But who am I to talk about what is real and what is fanciful? I continue to believe that Labour can win the November election...

Report Identifies Auckland Transport Chaos Culprit

A report released this morning into the Auckland transport chaos of Friday night has laid the blame on one man.

The report was commissioned urgently, in an effort to find out who was responsible for the delays and stoppages that led to more than 2000 people failing to getting to Eden Park on time.

The report is the result of work jointly undertaken by the Government, train operator Veolia, and the Auckland Council to uncover the reason for the chaos.

The person blamed in the report is an unemployed bricklayer from Papakura named Maurice Lawson.

Mr Lawson’s failure to predict the heavy demand on Auckland’s train services is cited as the main reason for the trouble.

“Had Mr Lawson got himself an education, and then worked his way into a position of authority within one of the major groups responsible for organising transportation, and had he then written a report outlining in detail that demand for Auckland’s trains would be overwhelming on the day of the opening ceremony, then much of the ensuing chaos might have been averted,” the report states.

“Instead Mr Lawson has spent most of the last year sitting at home on his couch, drinking himself towards an early grave.”

Officials from Auckland Council said they were pleased with the report, because the report made it clear that nobody in a position of any actual responsibility on the day was or ever would be to blame for anything that ever went wrong.

They said that Mr Lawson had been identified after exhaustive internal enquiries involving opening a phonebook at a random page and pointing to a name.

Prime Minister John Key confirmed that the Government regarded the matter as being at an end.

“We are confident this won’t happen again,” said Mr Key.

“I have asked for and been given assurances by Auckland Transport that they won’t be employing Mr Lawson in any capacity.”

Judging The Judges

I have a good deal of sympathy for people unhappy that a so-called comedian got off a serious sex charge because he made people laugh.

Like most people, I know who this guy is. I have never thought his brand of humour was particularly funny. In fact, had I been the presiding judge I may have regarded this fellow's overwhelming unfunniness as an aggravating feature in sentencing.

Anyway, the Coalition for the Safety of Women and Children is now planning to complain about the judge. Good luck to them, I say. Absent corruption or dishonesty, not much can be done to a judge when they make a ruling the public dislikes. Our system of democracy gives the judiciary independence and (supposedly) ensures that judicial decisions are made based on fact instead of uninformed public opinion.

But judges are human, and sometimes they f**k up. This may be one such occasion, though I don't know enough about the case to be certain. The judge's decision certainly leaves me uneasy.

I don't think protesting outside the courts is necessarily futile, because people are entitled to send a message to the judiciary when they think judges are out of step with public sentiment on an issue.

While complaining about the judge to the Chief Justice may "send a message", I can't see it leading to any sort of disciplinary action against the judge. I suppose someone senior in the judiciary might take the judge aside and enquire politely whether she really thinks she got it right, but that might be about the extent of the "punishment".

Sensible Whaling Trust Calls For Violence Against Penguins To End

The Sensible Whaling Trust has denounced the Government's lack of action over the apparent murder of the Emperor Penguin Happy Feet.

The celebrated penguin was released back into the wild over a week ago with a transmitter glued to him.

However, nothing has been heard from the transmitter for several days, and fears are growing that the penguin has been eaten by an Orca or other sea mammal.

Sensible Whaling Trust spokesperson Ahab McReverend said there was little doubt that a whale had devoured the bird.

"The seas are no longer safe for our adorable sea birds," Mr McReverend said.

"Thanks to many years of soft liberalism and a rampant culture of do-goodism and political correctness towards sea mammals, we now have a situation where killer whales are free to swim in our oceans with impunity.

"They no longer fear us, and it would be a very brave penguin who dared to even set foot in the waters surrounding our nation."

Mr McReverend said that entire sections of the Southern Ocean were becoming no-go zones for penguins.

"They can't even go for a little paddle without the risk of some murderous whale eating them. They live in constant terror of these thugs of the sea.

"But it's the politicians who are to blame. We have been calling for a crackdown on antisocial cetacean behaviour for years now, but the do-gooders who run the country come up with excuse after excuse for their inaction.

"We are now reaping the harvest of years of liberal anything-goes political correctness. We have allowed our sea mammal law and order policies to be captured by ivory-tower academics and animal-welfare workers, and decency and good sense have flown out the window.

"How many more lovable penguins must die before we finally say enough is enough?"

Happy Drumsticks

I don't usually ask my readers for culinary advice, but I'm hoping you can help me.

My wife's quite an accomplished poultry cook, but we're struggling to find a recipe that will do justice to the cut of meat we have acquired.

So does anyone know where I can find a good penguin recipe?

Working Hard

You've just been demoted 14 places to number 40 on the party list. Meanwhile, your electorate opponent is making a big splash, working seven days a week to win the seat, and launching a highly visible public transport initiative.

So what are you going to do of a Sunday afternoon?

Keep up the good work, Tau.

The Need To Be Liked

The SST profile of John Key is mildly interesting, providing a picture of a man remarkable for being unremarkable. I guess that is part of the appeal of Key.

But it also seems to confirm a theory I have developed. John Key wants, above all other things, to be liked. He appears to crave public approval more than concrete policy achievements.

Whereas Helen Clark can look back at her leadership and feel proud of the achievements of her government, (e.g. Kiwisaver, Working for Families, the Cullen Fund), I wonder what an aged John Key will look fondly back on when he evaluates his achievements as PM. The fact that he was liked?

There's nothing wrong with being liked, and no politician should aspire to be despised by the masses. But I can't for the life of me think of one major policy achievement of Key's that will stand the test of time. Maybe he's got something special planned for his second term, should he get the opportunity.

Or perhaps Key's overriding need to be liked will ensure his government remains unmemorable.

Not Knowing When To Shut Up

Maori academic Margaret Mutu provides an excellent real-life example of Mark Twain's famous quote about how it is better for one to keep their closed and let people think they are a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.

Mutu's initial comments on race were inexcusable, even if there may have been a kernel of truth somewhere within what she was trying to say. But she made the point clumsily and ended up offending just about everyone.

Her subsequent attempt to justify herself, on the grounds that it wasn't racism because Maori weren't in a position of power (ignoring the fact that she, a respected academic, was in a position of considerable influence and authority) was a genuine laugh-out-loud moment.

And now she's still opening her mouth. Someone stop her, for her own good.

General Debate: 11 September

"Quintili Vare, legiones redde!"

Today is the anniversary of a dreadful event in which thousands perished, a day that changed the course of history forever.

The three-day Battle of Teutoburg Forest ended today in 9 AD with the utter annihilation of the Roman army under its commander Varus, at the hands of German tribes. The battle helped to establish the Rhine as one of the boundaries of the Roman empire and discouraged further Roman expansion into Northern Europe. The defeat affected the emperor of the time, Augustus, profoundly. The biographer Suetonius describes Augustus' reaction to the news of defeat:

In fact, they say that he was so greatly affected that for several months in succession he cut neither his beard nor his hair, and sometimes he would dash his head against a door, crying: "Quintilius Varus, give me back my legions!" And he observed the day of the disaster each year as one of sorrow and mourning.

A sad day indeed.

Unfairly Branded

Pity the French fashion label Lacoste. Norwegian mass-murderer Anders Breivik has been pictured wearing their clothes. It's just the sort of celebrity endorsement a brand doesn't want.

Adidas were also recently in the news, after their gear became the fashionwear of choice for many of the London rioters.

Labels like these spend millions on marketing and branding, but much good work can be quickly undone when the wrong people start wearing their products.

Lacoste could try Abercrombie & Fitch's approach. When reality TV star Michael Sorrentino from MTV's TV trashy show Jersey Shore started wearing their clothes, they offered to pay him not to.

So all any ridiculously unpopular person in need of cash has to do is parade around town in a top label's gear, and wait for the phone to ring. It could be a good way for Don Brash to raise money for ACT.

Rugby Politics

If the Rugby World Cup becomes a politics-free zone, I will just hibernate for six weeks.

Thankfully, we can expect plenty of politicking around RWC-related issues. The bitching on social media about John Key's speech last night, and complaints about local government transport matters, are mere starters.

And if we lose, Matthew Hooton will argue it was all Helen Clark's doing.

Patenting God

We all want to play God sometimes, but one US man was determined to reserve this right to himself.

A Christopher Roller filed US patent application 11/161,345, entitled "Godly Powers".

The application claimed the following:

1. Godly powers are being used on planet Earth. For example, technology (i.e. Electronic and Medical) is being assisted by godly powers throughout the planet.

Godly powers could be used prior, during, and after godly product/procedure. For example;

Before—in the making of a device, like a micro-processor chip.

During—in the operation of a device, like an inkjet printer cartridge.

Afterwards—like gradual scar removal from breast implant surgery.

A magician might perform magic before, during, and after, for any given trick (“illusion”).

2. There is a plan governing our existence and actions—God's plan.

3. Christopher Anthony Roller is the godly entity powering Earth with godly powers as stated in claim 1.

4. From claim 2, God's plan (or Game of Life) puts restrictions on what can currently be done with godly powers, or even if/when.

5. From claims 2 and 4, there are restrictions on what magic (godly powers) can be in Chris Roller's presence—what Chris Roller can actually witness, which can differ from what everyone else can witness (in claim 4). Also, the magic needs to have a plausible explanation for its end product, like magicians calling their magic “illusions” or “tricks”.

6. From claim 1, godly powers can be transferred once a grantor—a grantee. A grantee can be a grantor only if granted the right, and only a subset of the rights a grantor possesses.

7. From claim 1 and 6, some grantees may be using their powers without morals.

8. Claim 1 is proved via David Copperfield, who has been using godly powers for his financial gain (MN Federal case 05-446JRT/FLN) and hiding knowledge of godly powers as stated in claim 7.

9. From claim 1, there are many phenomenons associated with godly powers—most of them discussed on www.mytrumanshow.com.

10. From claims 5 and 9, anything Chris Roller finds out is fact (information from all senses except psychic/imagination—i.e. global information via television from eyes and ears) becomes a state of reality on planet Earth.

11. In association with claims 7 and 9, will-power can be cast on another to control people's fate.

12. From claims 2, 5, and 9, reality can be restructured. Chris sometimes calls this re-ravel. Magic completely countered/reversed is called unravel.

13. From claim 12, information via psychic/imagination (not real yet) (non-eyes/ears) can be reversed/re-raveled/unraveled.

14. From claim 12, 5, and 10, unravel/re-ravel can only be done before Chris Roller gets the “real” news, and almost entirely governed by God's plan as stated in claim 2.

15. Immoral activity from claim 7 can be covered up with reality restructuring mentioned in claim 12.

All good sensible stuff, I'm sure you'll agree. Especially the bit about David Copperfield, whom Mr Roller sued for stealing his godly powers. Roller also sued illusionist David Blaine for much the same thing.

Sadly, the application has been abandoned after the US patent office unreasonably objected to the scope of the claims and stated that naturally occurring phenomena were not patentable.

There is no word yet on whether Roller has used his godly powers to smite the troublesome patent examiner.

But perhaps this just shows that not even God can fight the USPTO and win.

Working Too Hard

On Tuesday David Farrar expressed outrage over Trevor Mallard comparing John Key to the Nazis and Stalin*.

But Farrar felt perfectly comfortable on Wednesday describing someone with environmental views he opposed as an “eco-nazi”, despite the fact that the person so labelled had not advocated genocide, war, racial “cleansing” or any of the other things one would expect to hear from a genuine Nazi.

David Farrar is a National Party activist, and Kiwiblog is effectively National's unofficial blogsite. So does this now mean it is National Party policy to label the people they don’t like as Nazis?

And is David Farrar working too hard? All that National Party polling and all those media columns, blogposts and radio appearances must be taking it out on the guy, because he can’t seem to keep track of what he has written from one day to the next.

Maybe it’s time the media gave Farrar a break, and instead found someone else to give all that money to. Of course if one were asked...

* It could be argued that Mallard was not making a direct comparison, and was just adding to the list of people who don’t like unions. It doesn’t really matter.

You Choose

There's been a fair bit of talk in recent months about what effect our winning the Rugby World Cup would have on November's general election.

The conventional wisdom is that our winning the Cup would be good for National. We would all be deliriously happy and upbeat and would give that nice smiling Mr Key another turn.

I don't wish to make a prediction about what effect a win might have. But I have no doubt that a World Cup victory would be an enormous boost for the country.

Many of you will say that rugby just doesn't matter. But I disagree. For tens of thousands of New Zealanders the fact that our most worshipped sports team hasn't won the World Cup since 1987 is an abiding shame and a tremendous burden for us to keep carrying. A World Cup win would be an enormous thing for this country.

This creates a potential dilemma. If our winning the Cup means the chances of National winning another term in office increase, would I then be justified as a Labour-supporter in cheering for another rugby team?

So ask yourself this: If, hypothetically you could either have the All Blacks as World Cup champions, or the government of your choice, but not both, which would you choose?

Problems With Police

When they finally complete criminal proceedings against the last four defendants of the "Urewera 18", I hope there's a public enquiry into police behaviour.

This saga has dragged on for four years and, quite predictably, most of the charges have now been dropped. It seems as if the police got so excited by the prospect of uncovering real-life terrorists in Aotearoa that they forgot about the basics: like actual evidence of a crime.

I cannot comment on the charges pending against the last four, though with the history of the case to date one could probably predict the outcome with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

This is not the only instance where police heavy-handedness has recently come to the fore. I know that the cops do a tough job, but sometimes they make mistakes. We all do. But we can learn a lot by looking at how an organisation reacts to its mistakes. The fact that in a number of recent high-profile cases the police just simply cannot accept blame for poor decision-making suggests there is a real lack of accountability within police leadership.

Take the example of Arie Smith-Voorkamp, an autistic man arrested for flogging some light fittings and then put through the legal wringer by police. There were also allegations of police brutality in that case, though they have never been substantiated. But it was obvious to just about everyone who knew anything about the case, apart from police and Michael Laws, that the prosecution of the man was obscene, pointless and vindictive. It indicated above all a complete unwillingness by police to accept that a mistake had been made.

In the case of Smith-Voorkamp, if police had dropped the charges early there would have been few recriminations. The unsubstantiated account of a police beating aside (and there's no point in going there when police deny the claim and when the alleged victim of the beating won't press the matter), the public would have been quite understanding of cops taking a hard-line against people they perceived as looters in the aftermath of the Christchurch quake. But charges should have been dropped once it was clear Smith-Voorkamp wasn't your typical looter  Except that would have been an admission by the police hierarchy that they make mistakes and are human. Heaven forfend that such a thing could happen!

Tiki Taane's arrest because he had the temerity to sing "F**k the Police" in a bar where police were present, is just as troubling. Again, it was reasonably clear from the first moment charges were announced that police were being vindictive. Eventually sanity prevailed and the charges were dropped, but only after months of anxiety for the entertainer.

In the latter cases errors made by frontline police (in some cases understandable errors) have been made worse by the intransigence of those higher up in the force.

And in all of the cases mentioned the one word we won't hear from police is "sorry."

So there's something going wrong, and this total unwillingness to accept blame suggests police management may be suffering from major internal strife. In an organisation that functions well mistakes are dealt with properly and the people who make them are properly managed and given the tools they need to reduce the risk of future errors. Those who can't or won't improve are moved on.

In a dysfunctional organisation nobody wants to admit they stuffed up, because the knives will be out in a flash. Errors, or perceived errors, are punished with demotions or by career stagnation, and this leads to a culture of denial and factionalism, where different groups work against each other, making accountability difficult.

I don't have any personal knowledge of the internal goings-on of police, but I've worked with a lot of organisations, and the police culture of refusing to accept responsibility for obvious mistakes speaks to me of a system where those who stuff up are protected and where mistakes are concealed and denied.

The Urewera 18 trials, though, are a very public example of this inability to admit they were wrong. Police went in too hard, on flimsy evidence, but when it became clear that the criminal activity, if any, they were pursuing was small-scale and when they should have just abandoned the entire exercise as a waste of time, money and resources, they just couldn't admit they were wrong.

This behaviour needs to change. A public enquiry into police culture would be a start.

Proposed New Rubbish Dump Delights Epsom Residents

Auckland’s newest waste facility will open early next year in Epsom, after local residents confirmed they had no objections to the project going ahead.

The Auckland Council decided to build the new rubbish dump in Epsom, after it became clear that most local residents were unlikely to object to the project.

The Council’s head of Waste Facilities Management, Brian Ragnar, said the planned refuse facility on St Andrews Road would open in June 2012 and was expected in time to become Auckland’s largest waste facility.

A number of historic homes are to be demolished to make way for the facility, and the mountain of rubbish that will quickly form following the facility’s opening is expected to be visible from up to two kilometres away.

The proposed rubbish heap has not yet formed, but has already been dubbed “Mt Epsom” by local residents.

Mr Ragnar explained why the Council had chosen a prosperous inner-city suburb for the site, rather than somewhere out of the way.

“In the past we have had tremendous difficulties getting the necessary planning consents for a project like this,” said Mr Ragnar.

"Most people don't want a rubbish dump next-door, so we usually get tied up in litigation and endless rounds of consultation when we have a project of this nature.

“But we know that people in Epsom are very accommodating. We’ve had very few objections to the project, and a number of residents whose homes are next to the site have assured us it’s our land and we should be able to do with it as we please.

“We were pleased not to have to go through the Environment Court.”

St Andrews Road resident Bernie Rearden said he was not worried about the visual pollution, the constant stench, or the plague of rats that would come with the new facility.

“It’s their land, isn’t it?” said Mr Rearden. “I’ve got no business telling them how to use it.”

Mr Rearden also confirmed he was not perturbed by the recent decision of the Department of Corrections to build a new maximum-security prison next to the waste facility, right behind his own section.

“It makes sense in a way,” said Mr Rearden.

“With the oxidation ponds they’re building on one side of the prison, the rubbish mountain on the other side, and the planned fifty-metre deep open cast quarry out the back, it’s going to be hard for the buggers to escape, isn’t it?

Outgoing Epsom MP Rodney Hide said he was delighted with the new projects.

“I’m sure most of my constituents are just happy to see property owners exercising their God-given freedoms in this way,” said Mr Hide.

We'll Take The Money

The Herald reports that Owen Glenn has no longer made his $100 million donation conditional on National winning the election.

Well that's a relief. It seemed odd that Glenn would make such a conditional promise, but clearly he has realised how untoward it may look for him to be promising cash, but only if his favoured team wins.

Glenn may not support the red team, but $100 million is a great wad of money, and if it's to go towards education and youth then I can't see any downside.

I do wish, though, that Glenn and other zillionaires would not continue to tell us mere proles that a particular political party is the medicine we need. The fact that Glenn has made a bucketload of money and lives offshore doesn't make him any more of an authority on what's good for us than anyone else.

Still, we'll take the money, Mr Glenn, since you're offering. Just so long as you don't add any policy-change conditions to your offer.