NRT: Laws are for little people – again

22 comments on “NRT: Laws are for little people – again ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Sable 1

   29 August 2013 at 5:00 pm

   By not applying the law equally and fairly the whole system can quite rightly viewed as contemptible, yet another vehicle for inequality.
2. McFlock 2

   29 August 2013 at 5:17 pm

   I wondered why their comment about “It is also apparent that GCSB had an incorrect understanding of the Immigration Act 2009 and how it related to the GCSB Act..” (h/t Mary) sounded familiar.

   Then I remembered where I’d heard it before.
3. travellerev 3

   29 August 2013 at 5:20 pm

   GCSB staff cannot be criminally liable.

   I think this is close to the truth. Cannot have a criminal international spying unit held accountable for that behavior now do we?
4. Sanctuary 4

   29 August 2013 at 5:25 pm

   Could a private prosecution be taken by Mr. Dotcom? That would set the cat amongst the pigeons.
   • McFlock 4.1

     29 August 2013 at 5:57 pm

     McCready is probably up for it – although he’s probably a bit busy with the other ones he’s got on 🙂
5. Pascal's bookie 5

   29 August 2013 at 6:53 pm

   Edgeler shares his thoughts:

   http://publicaddress.net/legalbeagle/the-police-investigation-into-the-gcsb/

   I think this was an appropriate case for the police to exercise their discretion not to lay charges, and have said so in the past.

   Yes, there were people in the GCSB who illegally spied on Kim Dotcom, but absent knowledge or recklessness about their lack of authority, I think civil penalties – Dotcom being able to sue (whether for breach of privacy, or unlawful search or breach of confidence or something else) and get a remedy that way – should be sufficient. We don’t need to use the criminal law in respect of individual employees of the GCSB to mark our disappointment, or anger, at what has gone on here.

   But this isn’t a case where police have found an offence committed, and then decided not to charge those responsible. Instead this is a case where the police have decided no offence has been committed at all.

   And their decision is woeful….
   • Tigger 5.1

     29 August 2013 at 11:23 pm

     That’s a good assessment of the situation. Yes, end result is the same but their method is not merely woeful, it is alarmingly dishonest.
   • Pasupial 5.2

     30 August 2013 at 12:14 am

     Here’s Bomber’s take on it:

     http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/08/29/cops-investigate-themselves-and-find-themselves-not-guilty-of-their-request-for-the-gcsb-to-illegally-spy-on-dotcom/

     I imagine Dotcom has his lawyers gearing up for the civil case as we type.
     • Steve Withers 5.2.1

       30 August 2013 at 10:13 am

       I’d donate serious money to support that.
6. frankdb 6

   29 August 2013 at 8:03 pm

   What do you do? I despair as I work hard all week and pay the tax equal of 2 unemployed benefits or a weeks expenses of an list MPs ! Who do you shoot first?
   • Pasupial 6.1

     30 August 2013 at 12:16 am

     @ frankdb

     Yourself.
   • One Anonymous Knucklehead 6.2

     30 August 2013 at 6:16 am

     You look out of the window at all the roads, with their streetlamps and essential service routes, and the electricity that comes into your house, and the schools and hospitals and rule of law we made, and you feel a little tiny bit of pride in us.
7. Steve Withers 7

   30 August 2013 at 10:12 am

   If the GCSB are held to account…so must their Minister (Um…that’s John Key!) be accountable.

   NO FREAKIN’ WAY!!!

   Doesn’t matter what the law says….That ain’t gonna happen.

   ..and it didn’t.

   Not under this government, anyway.

   (Don’t you long for the innocent. trivial days when Helen Clarke being driven to the airport at speed by the police as a HUGE issue? Now we have brazen, illegal state spying…and when caught, they make it legal. Disgraceful on any scale of right and wrong. )
8. Steve Withers 8

   30 August 2013 at 10:15 am

   Maybe a Kickstarter Fund to kick off a private prosecution of the GCSB…..

   Those guys in Toronto were able to raise over C$200,000 to *attempt* buy a video of Mayor Rob Ford smoking crack cocaine.

   (But Mayor Ford allegedly paid the crack video guy more than that, so they donated the money to charity instead).
9. alwyn 9

   30 August 2013 at 11:06 am

   I see that Russel Norman has issued a press statement demanding to know why the police chose not to prosecute the employees of the GSCB and asked whether other New Zealanders would get the same latitude.

   I am pleased to see that Russel, exhibiting his normal consistency has issued another press release.
   The bones of it are that he is demanding that the police re-open, and prosecute other “crimes” including the following –
   1. The former co-leader of the Green Party, and Catherine Delahunty, a current MP, should be prosecuted for fraud for making false accomodation expense claims.
   2. The Green Party should be prosecuted for the theft of about $90,000 from Parliamentary Services during the 2005 election campaign.
   3. Green Party supporters, and Dr Norman’s executive assistant should be prosecuted for the vandalism of National Party billboards in the 2011 campaign.
   5. Jeanette Fitzsimmons, former co-leader should be prosecuted for lighting fires on the Coromandel during a period of a total fire ban.
   Many other examples could be given, Dr Norman said, but these will do for a start.

   He is to be congratulated for insisting that all New Zealander’s are to be treated equally, don’t you think?.
   • Murray Olsen 9.1

     30 August 2013 at 3:04 pm

     Have you sent this list to the police, or are you just all hot air?
     • ghostwhowalksnz 9.1.1

       30 August 2013 at 3:36 pm

       He cant send it , its tattooed next to his heart, just in case he forgets one dot of it
     • alwyn 9.1.2

       30 August 2013 at 6:14 pm

       Why on earth should I bother to complain to the police?
       It’s Comrade Russel who’s getting his knickers in a twist and demanding the police carry out selective prosecutions.
       It isn’t me who wants them to do so.
10. Sable 10

    30 August 2013 at 6:39 pm

    Little Johnny backs the police decision not to prosecute, what a surprise. According to the little emperor a couple of poor misguided spies got it wrong, of course they only managed to “accidentally” spy illegally on their fellow countrymen 88 times, an understandable oversight:

    http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/18720126/key-backs-police-decision-on-dotcom-spying/
11. Sable 11

    30 August 2013 at 6:59 pm

    Latest yahoo poll shows people don’t buy little Johnny’s excuses. So far 52% think the dodgy spies should have been sent down the river.

    Maybe some of the right wingers on this site would like to vote and see if they can overrule public disgust since there is clearly so much untapped support for their warped viewpoint:

    http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/18720126/key-backs-police-decision-on-dotcom-spying/
    • Pascal's bookie 11.1

      30 August 2013 at 7:31 pm

      “Under the Crimes Act it’s whether they deliberately intended to take an action against somebody that they knew to be a New Zealand resident, and they didn’t.”

      Not sure the Crimes Act talks about residency status, ackshully. Otherwise spying on tourists wouldn’t be a crime.
12. Harri 12

    3 September 2013 at 4:24 pm

    If someone asked to ‘tap wires, or make lawful interception as it is called in telecom biz, that person (/organization) is responsible for. If there was a crime as in this case, then that person has committed to crime or has persued another person on crime. When there has happenned a crime, then there is a criminal. From far a way, in Finland, this case is very clear. Causality is simple: 1. Crime (eg. Kiwi PM has told that crime has happenned), 2. Someone installed or set up SW and/or HW to do lawfull interception without proper lawull order and this came unlawful interception, 3. If there was an proper order then someone on the chain of command did a criminal act or pursued another person to this crime. You should check your police force.

    Years ago I had a case in Finland where several police officers helped me to write a letter to local commun that has did a decision based on educated, but undocumened decision making of Finnish police. In my case police had written statement that was untruth, patrol of two police officers observed week before scools start our road to school. Their boss wrote a report, but he was educated to remove any statement that makes another public organization to spend money. So he removed thruth from his report. The patrol had written and educated order to observe, but not to write anything on paper. Luckily I have a lot of friends and some of them are in police. I wrote that I shall sue police unless they remove report, and they did. This happened 10y ago inFinland! This region where I live, police has not given reports on safety of roads since then. The educated, but non-written beavior of Finnish police is there still. If we have this, what do you have in Kiwiland?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS