Posts by Kyle Matthews
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Sam: It was high treason, and it mattered a great deal!
Sam always had, or wrote, the best lines. The President's speech near the end of 20 Hours in America Part II, even with the god stuff, gets to me.
So maybe a few of them get together in the weekends get on the piss and get their boy toys out. Would you reall expect them to get shunted from the force ?
Yeah, police are (supposed to be) held to a higher standard in a number of areas, including employment law. A lot of minor convictions will see a police officer fired.
Talking about killing the Prime Minister would be brought up on conduct charges at the least. If it was judged to just be a stupid joke while on the piss, it'd probably be a written warning and a mark on your record. If it was judged to be anything serious (as the material in the Dom clearly is) it'd be dismissal, followed by criminal charges if appropriate.
-
There was a line in an Elvis Costello song & later on a movie of the last guy hanged in England. For the phrase "Let him have it Chris" & Chris shot the cop.
Did he intend the cop to be shot or pass the pistol over?Our language can be quite brutal and war can mean struggle as in a war on poverty.
Christ. This ain't "Eats, Shoots and Leaves". Some of the stuff that Dom has published you could maybe say was just 'talk' and people shooting off their mouths about a bunch of crap.
However I'd struggle to find either of the following something that you could say unless you were pretty serious:
"You know like the IRA in England ... it's gonna happen here ... I'm ready to die, mate. I'm gonna hurt this country, I've had a gutsful ... I wanna leave this planet making sure that I've done a f...... huge amount of harm to this country."
Suspect recorded on bugged phone, May 26, 2006."It'd have to be a, some sort of f......, sudden f......, because what it'll do, it'll come down on the thinking of the people, they'll think it's al Qaeda ... It's gotta be sudden and it's gotta be brutal."
Other suspect says: "Don't piss around with cities or doing the bush thing ... just go to Parliament."
Two suspects in bugged vehicle, August 17, 2007.Personally I found the story 'The trail that led to armed raids' more disturbing. Moving from camp to camp and never training in the same place. Code names out of Reservoir Dogs. Avoiding words that give away what they're doing, but are instead metaphors. Feels to me like the things you do when you're serious about something.
I'm sure if you bugged the National Front, or indeed a group of policemen off on a hunting or rugby trip, you'd hear all this and worse.
I have no idea what the National Front talk about on their get togethers, but police officers don't talk about assassinating Prime Ministers on or off duty. And if one did, he or she wouldn't be a cop for long, and other repercussions might follow.
For my part I 'm intrigued by the comments and the response. Certainly the comments are worrying and suggest illegal activity, but are they really any different from what would be heard if the Police bugged any one of the numerous gangs in NZ?
I think the comparison with a gang is pretty weak Hayden. I have no idea what this group thought they were doing, but obviously part of the police concern was that the people who were doing this talk were 1. of a nature by their previous history of taking action to support their beliefs (ie, they're activists, they're not just about talk, they have a history of doing things); and 2. actively pursuing training and the stockpiling of weapons which indicated preparation.
I don't know what goes on inside gang headquarters, but if a gang started building up weapons and undergoing paramilitary training and talking about killing prominent people in a reasonably serious way, the police would ramp things up a lot.
I was thinking about what our reaction would have been if this had happened 10 years ago when we were both in the thick of these very movements. You know we both would have been pretty sick for someone to take 'our' issues in this direction.
-
Gareth has pre-made two of my points about this being the sort of stuff that you want the police to step in and interrupt, and how the Dom's claim that this won't affect the trials is a pile of rubbish.
I think it's a shame that we're not seeing this in a proper court setting rather than in a paper. In a court we would see the whole document, rather than the Dom's cherry picking. I think it'd be difficult for context to make this look much better, but if we had the context then that would be conclusive rather than just guesswork. It would also put it into a contested process between defense and prosecution, so it could be challenged if appropriate.
Stuff doesn't seem to say how the Dom got these documents. Does the paper copy say any more? Were they at the hearing on October 10 but it was suppressed? Or were these leaked to them? There's ongoing questions about the police leaks - is this another part of that tale, or are they not involved in this one?
-
Kyle, the term "spaz" originated in the early 1960s in the UK and was a derogatory corruption of the word Spastic, I know I was there. I am not overly PC in fact I have been known to be overtly rude and obnoxious, ask either of my friends, but in this forum I cringe when I here such terms used even if in ignorance, sorry.
And around the same time 'gay' simply mean happy and carefree, and before that 'faggot' used to just be a bundle of wood. Just because words come from somewhere, doesn't mean that they mean it now. I call my dog a spaz, and it's not a replacement for 'spastic', it's because he does stupid things.
All the same I've explained what I was meaning to make the distinction clear, and given some alternative terms to the one I used. What do you want from me? Ten Hail Marys?
-
This bill restricts the amount of money anyone (other than the government) can spend expressing an idea. This bill demands that any free speech is addressed to as few as people as possible. This is a restriction on the right to free speech.
I would be happier with that as an argument, if everyone involved in an election had the same amount of money to spend. I don't mind restrictions on how much money people can spend, because some people start out with not very much "free speech" when they open up their wallet.
-
Speaking of which, Kyle, I think you are being disingenuous that in the context
I know that they have powers to do with mental health, what about a spaz who knowingly puts themselves in danger?
to mean
"an idiot who decides to ignore the helpful police officer who is telling him/her 'hey, do not walk down the street there is a person with a gun down there'"
That's not me being disingenous, just unclear, which happens sometimes. I'll clarify. Set A: mental health powers, and Set B: spaz who knowingly puts themselves in danger are exclusive sets and shouldn't be considered to be linked or related.
My question is, I know they have powers to restrain people in relation to mental health, what powers do they have to restrain people outside of mental health? Y'know, just an ordinary Joe who's walking down the street and says "screw you cops, you can't tell me where I can't go" and tries to walk into a danger zone.
I'ld dispute masked police as a safety measure. It is clearly a matter of hiding their identification when engaged in terror activities
You say this because of your experience with policing? You were police officer? You've read up on it? You know some members of AOS and they told you that's the reason?
AOS members have a uniform. When there's a callout, they come in, get briefed, get their uniform on, and go out. The uniform includes the balaclava, and an officer would get in trouble with his commissioned officer if he didn't have it on. They wear the same uniform anytime they're on AOS duty. The rest of the time they're ordinary cops.
The AOS don't come in another colour, it's black, armed, and really scary. The question isn't how they should dress, because these are the people who got sent in to do house to house searches at night trying to find David Gray who owned a military style automatic rifle with a sniper sight, and who'd already killed one cop. They're not there for community service and teaching kids how to cross the road safely. They're there to be as good as they can at hunting down and neutralising armed offenders, and keeping themselves and the public safe.
In case it's not clear, they wear black clothing and black balaclavas because when it gets dark and someone is trying to shoot them, it makes them harder to see. It's not some big plot to scare people in Ruatoki, really.
The question is, should the AOS have been there not what they wear when they're on a callout.
Didn't the AOS shoot each other at Aromoana?
Umm. Are you making this up?
-
It's a bit like claiming somebody "hacked" your raffle because you let them have any number of tickets they liked for $2 and they took the lot...
That wasn't hacking. Craig just wanted the blue rinse lady to leave him alone!
-
And talking of shame. Kyle
what about a spaz who knowingly puts themselves in danger?
hardly a socially aware statement, I cringed.
Spaz: One who is considered clumsy or inept.
Though I used it to mean "an idiot who decides to ignore the helpful police officer who is telling him/her 'hey, do not walk down the street there is a person with a gun down there'". Unfortunately I have seen this in action.
If people would prefer an alternative word, idiot, twerp, prat etc could all sit in.
-
I had a boyfriend once (a lot of my worst stories start like this) who constantly carried a 'thermite grenade launcher' around in his pocket. It was totally useless for hunting. Also completely useless for over-throwing the state. Not that that was something Christ's boys tended to be into anyway.
If he kept it in his pocket then it would be good for making a real mess of some parts of his body that he was probably quite attached to.
-
Oh well, that's quite all right, then, if they routinely illegally detain people and wantonly destroy property while using psychological intimidation.
Well illegally detain people and wantonly destroy property is your interpretation. If there was a civil case then it's entirely possible that the police weren't breaking the law by their actions.
What are the police powers to detain people when they weren't committing a crime? Isn't there something about 'refusing to assist a police officer in the execution of his/her duties'? What about restraining someone for their own safety? I know that they have powers to do with mental health, what about a spaz who knowingly puts themselves in danger? Refusing to identify yourself to a police officer? I'm not sure if these are real or if I'm making them up. Graeme?
Your examples are often referred to as 'racism' by those who oppose them and as 'positive discrimination' by those who support them. Both sides acknowledge there's discrimination solely on the basis of race. It's just that some argue that these cases are okay because they address negative discrimination.
I don't disagree with that, but he was working with the definition that you provided, so you could be big about it and admit that it's "positive racism" rather than ignoring the fact that he's turned your words against you quite successfully.