Because I'm Lazy Part VIII

I'm still on a blogging break, so here's something else I wrote last year.

Police To Investigate Taping During Press Conference

Police have launched an investigation into alleged covert journalist recordings, following an incident at a press conference yesterday.

The Dotcom Shambles: A New Chapter

I'm not the biggest fan of Kim Dotcom, but his treatment at the hands of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies has been nothing short of disgraceful.

It began with police raiding the Dotcom mansion and treating Dotcom and his people like they were international terrorists.

Dotcom Wins Battles, But War Is Not Won

I don't know if Kim Dotcom has a PR adviser, or if's he's just making it up himself as he goes along. Because whatever he's doing is brilliant.

Forget the the tightly-scripted media interview complete with tears, or the full Woman's Weekly spread. Kim Dotcom's approach is more hands-on. He may be a squillionaire (even if most of his assets have been seized), but the image he presents is one of a guy who just wants to have some fun.

Inviting a tech-savvy and connected internet geek to have a swim with him over the weekend was a stroke of genius. This move guaranteed that the event would go viral over social media and would then hit the mainstream media.

Now he's on a charm offensive, turning up last night to the filming of the last ever episode of Media 7, and tonight he's the guest speaker at a public meeting in Coatesville.

To top things off for Dotcom, he's had another win in the courts, with a High Court judge today ruling that the warrants obtained for the raid on Dotcom's house were invalid.

I don't know much about Dotcom, other than what I see or read in the media. It's safe to say, though, that's he's not your average multi-millionaire. The enormous mansion, the fast cars, the crazy antics, are all part of a larger-than-life persona. It's a picture that clashes with the one the US government wants us to believe. In the eyes of the United States government, Dotcom is little better than a Bond super-villain, being the brain behind a vast criminal conspiracy that involves racketeering, copyright infringement and money laundering.

However, the battle over Dotcom's future (a New Zealand mansion or a US jail) won't be determined by the number of Twitter followers he can amass. He will be pleased, then, that he seems to be winning most of the legal battles to date.

Today's ruling by Justice Winkelmann found that the warrants obtained by police in their farcical raid on the Dotcom mansion were illegal, because they did not adequately describe the nature of the offences to which they were related.

Justice Winkelmann also ruled that because the warrants were expressed to capture a broad range of materials, some of which would inevitably be irrelevant to the investigation, the warrants were invalid.

The judge went on to suggest that the police ought to have sought conditions in relation to the warrants, setting out how the evidence could be dealt with. Presumably such conditions would have assisted police and FBI agents, ensuring they knew exactly what the scope of their authority was.

Justice Winkelmann also ruled that the release of cloned hard drives by police to the FBI was in breach of the Solicitor-General's direction under section 49(2) of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1982. That direction stated that items seized were to remain with the Commissioner of Police until further direction. The lawyers for the Crown tried to argue that Dotcom and his fellow plaintiffs consented to the release to the FBI of the material, but the judge did not accept this argument.

The judge ruled that the Crown must seek the return of the cloned material from the FBI, and must appoint an independent lawyer to determine which evidence is relevant and which is irrelevant. Relevant material will then be provided to the US authorities.

The judge declined to rule on the admissibility of any evidence in proceedings. Those matters will be heard next week.

But by obtaining an order that evidence was obtained by unlawful means, the plaintiffs have given themselves a fighting chance of having some or all of the evidence secured via the warrants ruled inadmissible. On the other hand, the Crown will argue that any technical irregularities in the warrants were not fatal, and that while the process was flawed the evidence itself is able to be used by police. It might turn out that this victory by Dotcom, while embarrassing to police, means very little.

The onus is on the police to get their warrants right, but in reading through the judge's reasoning, particularly in relation to the judgements officers are expected to make at the scene in determining whether something is relevant or not, it is difficult not to have some sympathy for the role of the humble police officer who has to make an on-the-spot call.

On the other hand, the words of Lord Camden in Entinck v Carrington [1765] EWHC KB J98 still ring loud in the ears of our judiciary:

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.

Judges will always construe the rights of police and law enforcement agencies very narrowly. The judgment in this case appears on the face of it to be consistent with that line of reasoning, even if to some it will appear as if the errors in the warrants were "mere technicalities".

Whatever happens at the hearing next week, we should expect the losing party to appeal.

Police To Investigate Taping During Press Conference

Police have launched an investigation into alleged covert journalist recordings, following an incident at a press conference yesterday.

They confirmed late last night that a complaint had been received alleging covert taping by members of the press.

The complainant, Police Assistant Commissioner Malcolm Burgess, has alleged he was taped while speaking at a press conference yesterday.

Mr Burgess told reporters yesterday that he had been speaking to journalists, explaining why police had decided not to charge a man for taping a conversation between the Prime Minister and Act candidate John Banks, when he noticed a number of recording devices on the table in front of him.

“At first I thought nothing of it, thinking only that some of the journalists had left their gear on the table.

“It was only when I heard myself on the radio on the way back to my office that I realised what had transpired. To say I was disturbed would be an understatement. I feel violated.”

Police confirm they will investigate the complaint, and say they have already deployed resources from a number of homicide investigations to deal with the complaint.

This morning Assistant Commissioner Malcolm Burgess told a press conference that police were taking the complaint very seriously, and he warned the media not to release any further details of what Mr Burgess said.

However, a number of websites are continuing to display details of Mr Burgess’ discussions yesterday with journalists. These include the New Zealand Herald and Stuff websites.

Media lawyers say the actions of police will have a chilling effect on the media. However, they say they will no longer be commenting on this matter, after being arrested by police this morning.

Update: Police have launched an investigation into alleged covert journalist recordings, following an incident at a press conference this morning.

They confirmed this morning that a complaint had been received alleging covert taping by members of the press.

The complainant, Police Assistant Commissioner Malcolm Burgess, has alleged he was taped while speaking at a press conference this morning.

Mr Burgess told reporters today that he had been speaking to journalists, informing them that police had opened an investigation into alleged covert recording at a press conference, when he noticed a number of recording devices on the table in front of him.

“At first I thought nothing of it, thinking only that some of the journalists had left their gear on the table.

“It was only when I heard myself on the radio on the way back to my office that I realised what had transpired. To say I was disturbed would be an understatement. I feel totally violated.”

Police confirm they will investigate the complaint, and say they have already deployed resources from a number of investigations of peace activists, in order to deal with the complaint.

No media lawyers were available for comment.

There's No Business Like Police Business

Listen in to this podcast (at about the 4 minute mark) to hear the Police Commissioner tell Mary Wilson he runs a business.

Arguments about speed cameras aside, it is of course nonsense. Whatever the Commissioner may think about his role and the job he has to do, he is not a businessman and the police force is not a business. If it were, the Government would probably have made moves to sell shares in it to overseas investors*.

Don't believe me? Next time you get pulled over by a cop just try giving the guy some cash. He won't take it!**

* I acknowledge that the Dotcom case might lead some to erroneously believe this has already happened.
** Just to be clear, I haven't actually tried bribing a policeman in this country. It is merely a hypothesis.

Police Defend Bloody Kindergarten Raid

A police raid at a kindergarten this morning has led to several deaths and multiple arrests.

Police and Armed Offender units raided the Meriwether Community Kindergarten just after morning tea, but the raid turned violent when some of the children put up a fight.

Authorities raided the heavily fortified compound following a report that a toddler was refusing to go to the naughty-corner and was behaving aggressively towards kindergarten staff.

Police spokesperson Detective Inspector Steve Fink said police had been forced to present their weapons when some of the children began to cry and refused to put down their toys.

Officers opened fire when a toddler charged at police holding what appeared to be a tub of paste.

“Police had only a few seconds to assess the risk,” said Mr Fink. “They were concerned that the paste substance might be some sort of chemical weapon, so they were left with no choice but to shoot.

“When this action failed to calm the situation in the compound, police were left with no choice but to neutralise the other persons present.”

Initial reports that up to 22 people were killed have since been corrected, with the death toll believed to stand at only eleven children and three teachers.

The raid was part of a wider operation by law enforcement officials around the world against the Kindergarten Conspiracy. Police were accompanied on the raid by liaison personnel from the FBI, after an earlier tip-off that massive and systematic copyright violations were taking place at the centre.

Police say the raid had been planned for next Monday to coincide with Little Johnny’s birthday. However, Little Johnny’s tantrum this morning forced authorities to launch the assault earlier.

Mr Fink confirmed that police found an assortment of weapons, drugs and other items of interest during the assault on the compound.

“We found large quantities of Pamol in a locked cupboard in a back room, and we also located asthma drug paraphernalia in the kindergarten bag of one of the suspects.

“We also unearthed a cache of knives and guns. This weapons stash included numerous plastic playdough knives and a staple gun.

“A playdough knife can be extremely dangerous, particularly if it is being used as a flotation device on the high seas instead of a lifejacket. If these knives had found themselves on the black market we could have seen a major spike in playdough-related drownings.”

Mr Fink also confirmed that pirated material had been found at the site, including a number of crudely drawn crayon pictures of well-known cartoon characters, and a painting of a cat that looked suspiciously like Garfield.

Mr Fink said there had been a number of problems at the Community Kindergarten since its opening in 2006. These included tantrums, the pulling of hair, and numerous toileting issues.

“It was a volatile situation, where officers were being asked to enter a very challenging environment, where literally anything could have happened,” said Detective Inspector Fink.

Some witnesses have claimed that the actions of police were brutal and unnecessary, but Association of Police Officers President Craig O’Donnell has congratulated the police for their professionalism in difficult circumstances.

“The reports I’ve heard suggest that there was a real threat to the officers involved,” said Mr O’Donnell.

“Of course any loss of life is regrettable, but there will be a full and proper internal review conducted by police on themselves, during which any issues can be sorted out.

Mr O’Donnell dismissed eyewitness claims that police had brutally massacred a room full of children.

“Now, sure, with the benefit of hindsight and following a full review it might turn out that some other form of intervention would have been more appropriate than gunning down all those children. But officers have to make decisions in an instant. They are human and they get it wrong sometimes.

“But I’m absolutely confident the review will establish that, based on the facts known to officers at the time, the decision to shoot first was a reasonable one.”

“The public can be confident there is no tougher critic of police conduct that the police. Apart from the courts. And a bunch of other people and organisations for whom I have such contempt that I will not speak their names.”

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.

Why Not Charge Him?

NZPA reports, via Stuff, that an internal police investigation has concluded one of the witnesses in the David Bain trial was "untruthful".

According to the report, it was believed there was sufficient evidence for a perjury charge, but police decided not to proceed.

I find it difficult to understand why police would label someone as untruthful, but decline to press charges. It seems to go against the idea that a person should be regarded as innocent unless found guilty.

Given the enormous controversy generated by the Bain trial, it would surely have been in the interests of justice to pursue the alleged perjurer if there was strong evidence. So why didn't they?

Was their case perhaps not as strong as they made out? Is this merely an example of the police attempting to save face over their botched investigation?

I See A Small Problem

Frogblog has a story about the police recruitment poster.

Words fail me. Did the police's marketing people spend the last five years in another country? Have they even heard of Louise Nicholas?

The new Commissioner sure will have a lot of work to do.

Changes Needed In Police

A report this week identified problems within the culture of police. The reactions of the police hierarchy and Police Association have revealed another undesireable cutural trait: an inability to accept the validity of any criticism.

Stuff reports:

Deputy police commissioner Rob Pope was told not to reapply for his job – prompting his decision to "retire". 

The contract of the 36-year veteran is due to expire on April 3 and he had wanted to stay on until August 2012 to make the most of his superannuation scheme.

But Police Minister Judith Collins declined – and told him that to agree would make her "a corrupt minister".

Mr Pope said this week he would not seek another term, in the wake of a damning report into persistent problems in police culture.

And yet the Police Association and police hierarchy continue to claim that Pope's retirement announcement had nothing to do with the damning report. How can we trust a word they say any more? Admittedly, O'Connor's reputation for reliability is already at rock-bottom, since he almost never accepts that police are to blame for anything. So we can hardly be surprised by his ostrich-like behaviour.

According to the Stuff report:

It is believed [Pope] was told before Christmas not to seek reappointment. He was ordered to make an announcement this week as the job is being advertised tomorrow. The timing saw his departure linked to the release of the independent report criticising senior management for not making bold moves to "change the DNA" of the force. The report said people were being wrongly promoted and senior management were out of touch with frontline policing.

Who ordered Pope to make the announcement this week? The Minister? Not directly, since she is not supposed to be directly involved in employment matters. But she could have made her wishes known. If so, was this because the Minister knew the report was due out and wanted to have a ceremonial victim to display to the media? The issuing of a job advertisement might have been a convenient pretext.

It could be mere coincidence that Pope was ordered to announce his retirement in the same week that the damning report on police culture was released. But my guess is that the timing was deliberate.

There are clearly problems within the leadership of the police force, and it makes sense to start the cleanout from the top. Pope is going, and a new Police Commissioner is being sworn in later this year.

I hope that these personnel changes begin the much-needed culture change within the force. But if the New Zealand Police are to regain the respect of the wider public, changes need to be made within the Police Association.

Most people recognise that the police on the whole do a demanding and important job, and that the vast majority of police are hardworking and honest. But no organisation is perfect, and any large group will contain problem people. Greg O'Connor doesn't get this. Sometimes criticism of the police is valid and necessary, and an accountable and transparent police force is an essential component of a genuinely free and democratic society.

The members of the police force deserve better than to be represented by people who don't understand the need for transparency, and who won't accept criticism.

You Can Always Trust The Police

Today in History - Russia, 1938

A spokesperson for the Russian Police Association, Gregor Okkonnorvski, has assured the public that his organisation's members play by the rules and maintain the highest standards of integrity.

The assurances came after a number of radicals and Trotskyites made malicious claims that the secret police, or NKVD, led by the hero of the Soviet Union Lavrentiy Beria, have been hauling away people for interrogation, often in the middle of the night while their crying children cling to them. These class enemies have claimed that police routinely abuse the powers given to them, and engage in mass murder, and that there is a culture within the organisation of corruption, graft, cruelty and terror.

"Comrades, let me assure you that my members would never do such things," said Comrade Okkonnorvski.

"We are committed to following the strictest protocols in all of our interactions with the public. We would never betray the Revolution in the manner that these class enemies have suggested.

"How can we be bad people when we are so fond of children and cute animals? We especially like kittens. I had planned to bring a kitten to this press conference to show you how caring we are, but it had a most unfortunate accident on the way here. Apparently it was depressed and shot itself several times using one of my men's revolvers."

Comrade Beria also spoke in support of the embattled NKVD forces.

"These men do a crucial job, weeding out the kulaks, enemies and traitors that lurk everywhere, ensuring that the heroic sacrifices that our martyrs of the Revolution made do not go in vain, and that we may preserve our socialist utopia.

"Our police forces are the most non-corrupt in the world. Nowhere in the world will you find a police force more committed to the maintenance of order than here, in the Soviet Union.

"And if anyone is brave enough to suggest otherwise, well let them speak up now, so that I may address their  criticism in my usual robust way."

Rethink On Police Pursuits Needed - Probably Won't Happen

In 2010 16 people died in police chases. This is not acceptable.

It is not acceptable that people flee instead of stopping, thus putting lives at danger.

But what also isn't acceptable are the reactions of police and politicians when anyone suggests that the police policy on pursuits may need a rethink.

I wouldn't be holding my breath on any rethink, though, if the attitude of Police Minister Judith Collins is anything to go by. Here is what the Herald reported her saying:

"I get tired of commentators who sit in their ivory towers telling the police what they should do and who live in areas where they've never had to confront real crime.

"Anybody who is so moronic to think that someone fleeing police is not criminal activity needs their heads read. Do they think dangerous driving is not criminal activity?

"Police have had years of getting really abused for doing their job and, frankly, I think the public is behind the police and they're getting sick of the police taking a beating every time the police go and do their job.

"The public realise that police just can't stand by and let dangerous drivers take over the roads."

Collins' attitude is childish and insulting. There's clearly a problem, and it won't go away by her calling people morons.

Other police forces around the world have recognised the danger of pursuits and have severely limited the powers of police to initiate a chase. In Milwaukee in the US, for example, the new policy is to pursue only where the suspect is believed to have been involved in a violent offence, or where the car being chased presents a clear and immediate threat to the safety of others and the necessity of immediate apprehension outweighs the level of danger created by a pursuit.

This is quite different to our policy, where the police can pursue anyone in theory, though of course they are required to weigh up a range of factors before proceeding.

The Herald article cited above also reports that the majority of pursuits in this country begin over minor offences. So the bad guys we would be letting escape if we changed our policy really wouldn't be monsters or child-killers.

That being the case, isn't it time we considered a different approach?

And isn't it time the people who express concern about the number of deaths in pursuits weren't vilified by the Police Minister and the Police Association?

Always Shoot First

Police Association President Greg O'Connor has said that the Government's decision to decline the Chinese bid to buy the Crafar Farms is further evidence that the police should be armed.

The Overseas Investment Office recommended that the application by Natural Dairy be declined. The Office cited concerns about the character of May Wang, the front person for the bid by Natural Dairy for the Crafar farms.

But the outcome of the OIO application has left the Police Association calling for police to be armed.

The Association's President, Greg O'Connor, said that the decision showed why it was so important for police to have access to firearms.

"If frontline police were armed then they would feel safer," said Mr O'Connor. "That fact virtually screams out if you read the OIO's findings."

Mr O'Connor also said that the spate of Christmas shopping was further proof that it was time to re-look at the issue of giving weapons to police.

"Why does every kid want a Nerf gun this Christmas? Because they don't feel safe and want to protect their family from the scumbags who roam our streets. If police were armed those streets would be safer, and our children could get back to doing the things they really love, like playing dress-ups, squashing ants and eating their own poo."

The Police Association has also produced evidence from Australia and England in favour of giving weapons to police.  

"The sudden change in the fortunes of the English cricket team shows why it is so important that police have access to firearms," said Mr O'Connor.

"You have to be armed and ready to cope with the unexpected, otherwise you'll be taken down.

"If police were armed they would be able to do their job with more confidence.

"The release of the Defence Force's UFO files should also be forcing politicians to think again. What are these unidentified lights in the sky? Can we really expect our police to feel safe and secure in their job when they don't even know what's overhead?

"If police were armed they could shoot any unidentified object that came towards them."

Police State? I Wish!

My grandson rang me the other day. He said he would be in Auckland the following week, so why don’t we catch up for coffee?

The trouble was he wanted to meet in the middle of bloody town. He’s up for some flash conference or something, and they’ve put him in a fancy hotel. I’ve never stayed in one of those places, because I’ve got better things to do with my money. When I want to go somewhere for the night I get the old caravan out the back hooked up to the Chrysler and away I go. Mind you, I haven’t left town for twenty years.

Anyway, I had to take the bus into town, and the only reason I knew I’d reached my destination was because the driver told me to get out. I didn’t recognise my location, because it didn’t much look like the central Auckland I remembered.

Nowadays the place looks more like bloody Shanghai, and it’s all ugly concrete and glass. I’m not inclined towards these modern architects and their shiny buildings. Give me a good old-fashioned bit of brick and mortar any day.

I found Queen Street after a few minutes, but couldn’t walk ten feet without some chap or lady accosting me. One fellow said he was collecting and would I contribute? I’m a big supporter of charity, so I asked what his cause was. Animal rights, he tells me.

You must be joking, I exclaimed. Animal what?

Apparently this deluded fellow reckons animals have rights and have to be protected.

Well, young feller, I said to him, pointing my walking cane in his direction. Let me give you a lesson. With rights come responsibilities. Nobody gets something for nothing. Do these animals pay taxes?

I admitted that livestock served a useful purpose. But what about sparrows and budgies, I asked him. What use are they? None, I told him. They bludge. Breed and bludge!

Well that sent the fellow packing. But worse was to come. Some young girl comes up waving a collection bucket my way. Do you know what she told me when I asked what she was supporting? Child cancer, she said. Child bloody cancer!

So if I am not mistaken we have people roaming the streets taking money from well-meaning citizens like myself, but instead of going towards fighting a terrible disease it’s being used to support it!

You can well imagine my reaction. I’m a gentle old soul, but beware anyone who crosses me. I gave her a good whack with my walking cane and told her she was a disgrace to humanity. That’s for all the sick children, I told her, giving her a parting boot as she ran off screaming.

It’s funny how when the local hooligans spray-paint my fence the police don’t seem to give a damn. But let me chastise someone out on the street trying to encourage the spread of a terrible disease among the most vulnerable in society, and it’s like the charge of the bloody Cossacks. So suddenly I’m being escorted by a surly young fellow in uniform into a police car and taken to the nearest station.

They let me off with a warning. A warning! Can you believe the days we live in? My grandson turned up at the station and told me to keep my mouth shut until he had sorted everything out. I complied, but it went against my every instinct. I left with a polite “you’ll be hearing more from me,” but they just snorted. Little do they know the power of the typewriter.

This incident with the police shook me at first. I’ve always been a big supporter of them, and a great believer that you give the police the powers they need to get the job done. That Greg O’Connor fellow seems like a sensible reasonable man, but when I said that to my grandson he damn near exploded and told me O’Connor thinks the police should be above the law.

Well so they should, I argued back. How can we have an obedient populace too afraid to step out of line if the police have to follow the rules too? I told my son he’d been reading too much liberal claptrap in the media. If the police want guns, tasers, tanks or even ballistic missiles I say let them have the lot. Give them the tools they need to crack down on troublemakers.

I suppose every organisation has a bad egg or two, so that’s what I’ll put my own police experience down to. That and the fact that the politically correct times we live in require police to investigate so-called crimes, even against people who advocate the spread of killer diseases.

I’m sure that if our police had complete and unrestrained freedom to do as they pleased my experience with them might have been quite different.

Is Garth McVicar Losing It?

Garth McVicar, the head of the Sensible Sentencing Trust, is looking increasingly desperate and marginalised.

Having already been humiliated for vouching for disgraced former MP David Garrett, McVicar has now taken a pop at the Police Commissioner. This has drawn the return fire of Labour.

John Hartevelt of Stuff reports:

A bitter spat has broken out after Sensible Sentencing Trust spokesman Garth McVicar called for the head of Police Commissioner Howard Broad.

Labour MP Clayton Cosgrove this morning condemned McVicar for what he said amounted to a ''crass and insensitive attack'' on Broad.

Cosgrove said McVicar's attack, which was over comments about rethinking who is sent to prison, were unbelievable given what police were going through following the tragedy at the Pike River coal mine.

McVicar yesterday said Broad should resign immediately over his comments to MPs at parliament on Wednesday. At a select committee hearing, Broad indicated police were trying to prevent crime rather than focus solely on prosecuting.

It's nice to see Labour finally standing up to McVicar. His influence on the criminal justice system has done nothing to reduce crime. The violent crime stats continue to be negative. His supporters demand retribution and punishment over rehabilitation and prevention, but we've been punishing for years and it doesn't seem to be working. We know that a stint in jail doesn't make most people better citizens. In fact, many come out much more hardened criminals than when they went inside.

The police are at the very front end of dealing with crime. If they are now saying it is time to focus on prevention, why shouldn't we listen? And why exactly is crime prevention such an evil? Does McVicar actually want crimes to be committed? Perhaps McVicar fears irrelevance. Imagine if the police practised prevention and it actually worked. Who would we talk about hanging then?

The sooner McVicar's pernicious influence over law and order matters disappears the better.

Greg O'Connor: Just Shut Up Please

Police Association President Greg O'Connor is one of the reasons why respect for the police is on the decline

The reaction by the usual suspects to the report by the Independent Police Conduct Authority on the Falwasser incident is depressing but all too familiar.

If you are in two minds about what you've read or heard about the incident, you should read the report. Despite what the likes of Greg O'Connor might suggest, it is reasoned, sober and fair. It does not castigate the officers involved, though it notes that their actions were unjustified. It also indicates that, in general, the police actions and investigation after the incident were appropriate.

I heard part of an infuriating interview on the radio between Larry Williams and O'Connor*, and before I changed channels in disgust I got the clear impression that they were largely of the same view as my esteemed colleague Dr Frank.

I wonder if O'Connor has even read the report. He probably had his response prepared before it was even released.

Perhaps, Mr O'Connor, if your mouth wasn't quite so big and you didn't say so many offensively stupid things, the public might have more respect for the institution that is the police. There's nothing radical or anti-police about the IPCA. If police officers don't want to get into trouble all they need to do is follow the rules.

* What the hell was I doing listening to Newstalk? Let me explain. It's been a long and tiring week, and I needed a pick-me-up for the drive home. Williams always makes my blood boil, and any lethargy I feel is soon dissipated after a few minutes of his uninformed ranting. I recommend it.

Respect Must Be Earned

Police Minister Judith Collins has said:

"I think it's very important to acknowledge that over the last decade or so there have been numerous attacks (in the media) on the police. There have been the reports into police conduct, all those sorts of things, none of which have actually encouraged people to increase their respect for the police."

Louise Nicholas

The thing about respect is that it has to be earned. There have been attacks on police in the media in recent years, but not all of this attention has been undeserved. Perhaps Minister Collins has forgotten about Louise Nicholas, or about the series of assault charges various police officer have faced in recent years.

Distrust of the police as an institution is a healthy thing in a civil society. That doesn't mean that most police don't do a good job, or that we should not support the ordinary efforts of hardworking coppers. But the police should be scrutinised, and if they stuff up I'm quite happy for the media to be all over them like a great big dirty all-over-thing.

If we ever find we are giving deference to people simply because they wear the blue uniform we will probably be well on the road to dictatorship.