Minister Judith Collins defends police investigation of Associate Minister Pita Sharples

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0809/S00315.htm

Well, you’ve got to keep an eye on these dangerous radicals.

Actually that is pretty much all that she can do. However the question had to be asked. That puts the obligation on Howard Broad to find out what exactly is going on.

HB was a bit disingenuous about talking about complaints to the IPCA. What exactly do you complain about? Effectively it is a policy not any particular officer. I’ll have to have a read of the IPCA rules and point out some of the deficencies

I’m at home today with a dose of delhi belly (I wish I hadn’t eaten whatever it was). The gurgling is a bit alarming

All that grandstanding from John in the media about how he’ll get to the bottom of it, then Collins just says “I met the police, they tell me it’s all good, what am I supposed to do?”

Poor.

If you read my post, then this is the action that I said she should have done in the first place. The problem was that her initial response was effectively a blanket defense of the police.

Bearing in mind the level of trust that we place in the police in operational matters, the minister of police  is one of the few people who is capable of asking questions of the police. My post was about her response in the SST which ignored the obligations of the police minister to the public.

It is good to see that she is now following the path that her post obligates.

Why is Judith Collins a thoughtless idiot for ” asking Commissioner Howard Broad to explain claims that an anti-terrorist unit spied on protest groups, saying she would be concerned if law-abiding activists were under surveillance.”

Is it just because she’s not from your political party ?

I recall that “kidnapping” case. I had a vague idea they were done for conspiracy, but even so that still proves your point.

In that case I’d like to confess to conspiracy to murder… most of my clients, especially when I’ve been working flat out all weekend rather than enjoying the 36 degree scorcher and I know they’ll still call tomorrow saying “aren’t you finished yet”. I’ve gone so far as to imagine drowning them in the pool I haven’t had time to get into, so clearly I need the tender ministrations of the TRG and a good tasering.

Your shoplifting analogy is also appropriate. In fact if you loaded your poacher’s pocket and they saw you doing it, there’s plenty of common law precedent that says if they grab you while you’re still in the store they’ll lose their case because they can’t prove beyond reasonable doubt that you were going to go through with your plan… that you wouldn’t have chickened out and paid for the stuff.

But apparently if you go home go into a chat room and criticise the government of the day, implying you may take some protest action against them, you’re a suitable target for a bit of entrapment.

Thankfully Mr Plod is usually so clumsy anyone with half a brain knows when they’re being monitored. Over here in WA a man suspected of being the Claremont serial killer found police were bugging his office (in a government department, no less) when the equipment came crashing out of the roof and struck another worker on the head. Then he found his home was under surveillance when a resident publicly complained that police using the hall opposite weren’t paying the water rates yet seemed to be making good use of the toilet!

If they weren’t so dangerous they’d be funny.

Didn’t ‘thought crime’ arrive a couple of years ago? I can’t remember all details, but from memory, it was alleged a couple of guys had planned a kidnapping. They had dug a cellar.

Anyway. Although no kidnap actually took place they were convicted of kidnapping.

By the same logic. If I put on a coat that has a pocket that could be construed as being a poachers pocket and walked into a store + lets say I had voiced a desire to own some item stocked by the store that I couldn’t afford = theft?!

Seems so, if my memory serves me right.

Why don’t you ask Clark’s old bitch Howard about why this continually happened? Nothin like the left beating up on the left.

Nout to do with Collins I am afraid.

[lprent: Simple abuse is really useless in making your point. Incoherence even less so.
Who is Howard? You're referring to the e-leader across the ditch?
As I said in the post, none of this has to do with Collins historically - except that she made a statement that was in conflict with her current role as Police Minister. At the very least she should have said she would be asking questions of the commissioner. ]

Here Gilchrist arguably crosses the line from observer/informant to agent provocateur.

This happens every day, and is more often then not done by serving police officers not just some misguided thrillseeker like this Quisling was.

From the undercover officer who offers a minor drug user heavier drugs hoping they’ll start using and introduce the officer to suppliers to the uniformed officer who spends all day in chat rooms pretending to be a child.

Were it up to me I would make it impossible for the Police to lay any charge in which there was an element of entrapment required to get the accused to commit the offence.

Yes, the pot smoker might have tried P on his own. Yes, the guy in the chat room might have made inappropriate suggestions to a child on his own. But they also might have thought the better of it.

We’re moving dangerously close to a world in which we can be convicted of crimes based on what we think or believe, or even our merely repeating what someone else has said or done.

In Australia a man has recently been prosecuted for reposting a video – one posted hundreds of times by other people on other sites – of a man swinging a baby. His home was raided after he posted the clip on Liveleak and he was charged with using the internet to access and publish child-abuse material.

When the Police can take such outrageous action under cover of the hysteria about child abuse, or in this case “terrorism” – hysteria they’ve played a major role in creating – countries need politicians who’ll defend their rights, not facilitate their erosion.

Ironically, it’s the previously totalitarian countries of the world will soon be those where the population is granted a degree of freedom – because, paradoxically, of their increasing lawlessness.

I’d be interested in looking at that raw data on satisfaction with the police as well. Especially by age group.

Generally I’d have to say that being around this apartment block and being the point of contact for years for the police that I like the job that most police do.

But there is a considerable difference between the satisfaction I have with front-line cops doing the cleanup after burglaries, car thefts, domestics and some of the ones from the TPU (team policing unit). The latter always feel like they’re wired on something.

My contact with the TAU (threat assessment unit) with Rochelles “intimidation by loitering” case was that they weren’t interested in anything except the search warrants, trying out new forms of charges, and causing as much of a problem as possible with material seized. It was pure harrassment techniques as far as I could see.

The TAU were also technically incompetent. After 3 months and a lot of pressure, we managed to get the computers back. The computers came complete with malware all over the system. The dickheads had turned off the security systems while they were on the net. Half of the loose boards had been fried because they hadn’t bagged them correctly when they collected them. It was over a year before she got her video camera back. Of course this was in the middle of her computer and media courses, so I consider that to be simple harrassment as well.

The police aren’t a monolithic force. There are police that are good and police that should be put under a lot stronger controls by their hierachy – they act like cowboys above the law.

This last episode looks like it comes from the cowboy wing

In Gilchrist’s case, within the protest groups he has been an outspoken advocate of radical action such as illegal break-ins. During protests he has used a radio scanner to monitor police communications and often took the role of “police liaison” for the protest organisers.
At protests, Gilchrist was often the one taunting police, says Mark Eden of Wellington Animal Rights Network, who regarded Gilchrist as a friend. “If it didn’t involve adrenalin and confrontation, he wasn’t interested,” Eden told the Star-Times.
“He was always interested in who was keen on illegal actions and would often make it known that he was keen to be involved in anything illegal or undercover. On a few occasions he would take people out for a drive and sit outside a factory farm or an animal laboratory and encourage them to talk about planning a break-in or other illegal activity.
“He would be really pushy and persistent about planning illegal activities and then would suddenly lose interest, claiming it was too difficult or that he was busy. He was always keen on planning dodgy stuff, but on the occasions when we did break the law [for instance, an open rescue of battery hens] he would always have an excuse and pull out at the last minute.”

Here Gilchrist arguably crosses the line from observer/informant to agent provocateur. And this is where ieuan george and the others fall down.

Even if we accept that these groups were dangerous enough (hah) to need surveillance, any action taken as a result of Gilchrist’s provocations and encouragement is tainted. How can natural justice be served by charging people who committed action as a result of; or with the active provocation of; an unofficial, but paid, state agent?

Gilchrist received a weekly payment if I understand the story. That would have placed him in a position of needing to come up with intel regularly. I’ve got very little sympathy for him, (The nonpolitical Mrs. bookie read the story and said “what a little shit”), but his position put at the very least psychological pressure on him to come up with the goods regularly. The chances of such an agent moving from observance to provocation is too fncking obvious. If we really must have paid informants, they should be on a pay for intel basis surely, not a wage.

If his role in provocation came out during any trial, would his cover be blown, or would he ‘take a deal’ and get a slapped hand for a sentence? How safe would those convictions be? How healthy is that for our justice system?

Anyone who thinks this is ok, doesn’t get it.