Hard News: Evil
130 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
Thank you.
Now for sensitive and intelligent comments eh.
-
Now for sensitive and intelligent comments eh
He was shaping up as a potential nemesis - I was thinking about challenging him to an traditional Wellingtonista duel.
-
does that involve a dip in the harbour in your undies at 3am? Or is that something else...
-
That's the traditional celebration. Duelling's far more serious. And actually, we make Che do it.
-
they tried to make me duel that guy who isn't actually lord lucan.
but... well... his possum is more impressive than mine, and i got a little scared...
-
To return to an old topic:
I've read Stuff twice this week, and both times I've seen Dog Attack stories. WTF is up with that? By comparison, the British dailies, based as they are in a city with something called "the ilse of dogs", and where everyone seems to have at least one dog, that they bring to the pub, tube, and other random places, NEVER seem to mention dog attacks. It can't be because it doesn't happen (too many young angry men types own bulldogs for me to believe that).
-
Dog attack stories play well in the 'burbs. And anything that mauls a toddler is probably guaranteed to make headlines.
That said, right now, unless it's an attack by a pit or staffordshire terrier, mastif or rottweiler, I doubt any attention would be paid.
On the flipside, the assault on a police dog & today the death of one in pursuit of an offender also makes the news prominently.
-
OK, I'm sure everyone wants to change the subject, but you might want to catch PA Radio this Saturday and catch a right-wing male who thinks Dewar's conviction was a damn good thing.
Shouldn't have to state the bleeding obvious but Dewar received a fair trial - including a vigorous defence conducted by a more than competent team of lawyers.
Nine days of evidence was considered by a jury of his peers - and I just don't buy that the man-hating Feminazi Dykeocracy can stack a jury pool that effectively.
They deliberated for over nine and a half hours - which doesn't imply to me that they went into the jury room determined to hang Dewar out to dry.
AFAIK, he has the same access to the aooeals process as anyone else.
In short, he had his day in court - and that's no less valid because the outcome isn't to the liking of some (very noisy) sections of the right-wing commentariat. As far as I'm concerned, you believe in the rule of law or you don't. You believe that rule of law applies to everyone - including current and former Police officers - without fear or favour, or you don't. You believe that a civil society depends on the absolute integrity of the institutions and individuals we trust to uphold the law, or you don't. You believe everyone should accept personal responsibility for their actions, and the consequences that flow from them - or you don't.
And if you don't believe in all of the above, please don't pretend you're any kind of "conservative' or spokesman for the right. At least, don't do it around me.
-
Ben:
Yup... Andrew's right. If it bleeds, it leads. If it bleeds and looks photogenically ghastly, it leads and the PM get the 'creeps' in the same story.
-
That's my kind of right winger. Not to mention sensitive (muscular prose doesn't have to be insensitive eh) and intelligent.
-
I think it transcends politics, over at kiwiblog there were only two commenters who didn't think the conviction was a damned good thing.
-
merc,
I think they are the same person and I think he is an ex-cop.
-
Ben, I've seen a couple of mauled toddler stories on the beeb feeds lately.
-
I think they are the same person and I think he is an ex-cop.
Probably true, but to echo something Craig said earlier, I've got a few mates who are serving policemen, and they are absolutely stoked to see this ugly old rats nest finally getting a public light shone in at it in terms of some form of justice.
They've had enough of their - difficult enough at the best of times - job having its credibility and mana undermined by rotten apples like this mob.
While the police may be seen as one big dysfunctional family, there are some members of that family, at least at the street cop level, who want to root out those who bring shame on their own house.
I'm curious to know though, given the apparent abundance of filthy smoke surrounding this particular group over such a long period of time, how the senior levels of police could not have known about it and if they did, not have dealt with it earlier.
What actually happens now in response to Dame Margaret Bazley's recent inquiry into historical police conduct? anything?
-
Why is Rickards still on the force?
I know there's a 'process' but surely his own evidence has made his possition untenable. Even if there is a point of employment law crossed any payout would be cheaper than keeping him on the books for the cost of his $ & evil reputation.12 more cases uncovered in Op Austin
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10456921 -
Even if there is a point of employment law crossed any payout would be cheaper than keeping him on the books for the cost of his $ & evil reputation.
To be fair to police management, Michael, they're in an invidious position. Rickards himself seems to be the only person on earth who thinks full reinstatement is a tenable option. But Police management can't just throw him a blank cheque and say 'write down a number that would make you fuck off' - that neither an appropriate or prudent use of public money. (When was the last time you heard the Police complain they were grossly over-resourced, over-staffed and really getting far too much money from the Government?) If they do sack him, they've also got to be very, very careful they've minimised any risk, because scumbags have access to the Employment Court too.
-
I know there's a 'process' but surely his own evidence has made his possition untenable. Even if there is a point of employment law crossed any payout would be cheaper than keeping him on the books for the cost of his $ & evil reputation.
There's a time limit on misconduct of this sort. Internal discipline can only be applied if the misconduct is brought within two years of when it (I can't remember if it's "took place" or "was first raised"). Either way, they can't use this historical misconduct to get rid of him, as it both occurred, and was known about some time ago.
So in order to get him out, they either have to have him PERF out, voluntary redundancy (the blank cheque), or get him for misconduct for something he did much more recently (given that he's been inactive for over two years now, the only place he could do anything constituting misconduct would be at court, and the worst thing he did there was wear his uniform).
I suspect at the moment they're in a long term holding pattern hoping to keep him out of work as long as possible. The last thing they want at the moment is TV footage of him walking back into a police station.
-
given that he's been inactive for over two years now...
If it could be shown he knew (and of course he did know) of Dewar's actions then getting rid of him might get a lot easier. But I think the police deserve brownie points for observing the letter of employment law even when it clearly makes life uncomfortable for them.
-
What about those courthouse step remarks of Rickards about how hard-done-by his mates were? It's not a good look for a senior policeman to effectively say that a successful police prosecution was wrong. Isn't that misconduct?
-
Stephen - he made those comments following an unsuccessful police prosecution.
-
OK, I'm sure everyone wants to change the subject, but you might want to catch PA Radio this Saturday and catch a right-wing male who thinks Dewar's conviction was a damn good thing.
Not having heard this week's 180 Seconds when you recorded it, that post has me salivating for the full version.
-
Stephen - he made those comments following an unsuccessful police prosecution.
But he clearly didn't regard his chums as having been tarnished at all by the prior successful police prosecution.
-
Not having heard this week's 180 Seconds when you recorded it, that post has me salivating for the full version.
Well, you might be disappointed - unlike most political pundits, having a microphone in my face tends to be a calming influence. :)
-
I don't get it. Cop D doesn't dob in the other cops when a complaint is made, so the other cops look carefully at what he's done and decide not to dob him in, but sort of leave him on the case for 20 years anyway. Until the press get hold of it at least.
Surely they're all as guilty as cop D, them and all the bastards around the Scott Watson trial (three blond hairs, my ass; pay no attention to the $300 million of heroin that might be worth killing someone over), and the local bastards who harassed and mislead the defense witness who never got to be in the trial of David Bain, or the cop who slept with all the mothers against gay men being at kindy, aka Peter Ellis trial, or probably every senior cop in the country if that's anything to go by. Ahem ....
Anyhoo, I hope no one y'all sleep with ever decides the stupid games they got into as an impressionable kid was rape after the fact, especially if you're into the kinky stuff ('cause, you know, all those dildos in the sex shops are just for decoration, and no one's that submissive).
Far more importantly I hope y'all are never raped, especially by a god-damned cop. To convict and pervert, eh.
And while I'm at making everyone slightly more crazy, if that dog had hold me in a river, I'd drown the bastard too. Right quick. And likely have a fine old time with the cops in the cells later for my trouble. -
Talking about "evil" -- wot can be more evil than politicians inflicting laws on us that they escape from using trusts?
How dare politicians vote to inflict tax measures on us which they avoid by hiding their assets in a trust? Has the time arrived, with elections looming, for us to seek candidates who will not resort to trusts?
It is not enough that politicians merely declare their assets, as they have to, while trusts allow them to sidestep their tax law.
Labour, to its credit, has somewhat ameliorated the impact on the elderly who refrained from exploiting a trust to get a rest home subsidy. But the law in this area is now muddier than ever and did not meet expectations.
If we electors determine to elect candidates who are devoid of trusts, so that they cannot escape the law they create for the rest of us, sensible and fair tax laws may begin to flow. Maybe only then the hypocritical industry of trust creation will wither away.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.