Daily review 07/05/2021

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, May 7th, 2021 - 10 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

10 comments on “Daily review 07/05/2021 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. gsays 1
    7 May 2021 at 6:50 pm

    Regardless of context, this is a brutal assault.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/125047678/accusations-of-police-brutality-after-officer-kicking-man-in-face-during-arrest-is-captured-on-film

    A barefoot, handuffed man is unco-operative. He is kicked in the head, with considerable force by a sturdily shod foot and appears to lose conciousness.

    I trust after investigation the police acknowledge and own this assault.

    Less of the weasel words from Police heirarchy like that which are in the article.

    “Following this, one officer attempted to place the sole of his foot on the man’s shoulder, however the man has moved, causing the officer’s foot to connect with his head once.”

    • Forget now 1.1
      7 May 2021 at 7:07 pm

      That is a seriously nasty kick gsays! I saw the piece earlier, glad I wasn't eating. Usually I'd be inclined to believe that the cop meant to give the bloke (no angel blah blah blah…) a kicking where the bruises wouldn't show, but no; not this time.

      “Following this, one officer attempted to place the sole of his foot on the man’s shoulder, however the man has moved, causing the officer’s foot to connect with his head once.”

      Todd said such videos often exclude relevant context, and the one in question was a small excerpt from a “fast-moving and dynamic situation”.

      Both officers were later assessed by a doctor for minor head injuries and were being supported by police, he said.

      The man, a 44-year-old, is due to be sentenced later this month for two charges of assaulting police and another of resisting police and disorderly behaviour.

      Yes; the officers involved are indeed "being supported by police". No word on what "support" the man recieved whilst in the cells.

    • Rosemary McDonald 1.2
      7 May 2021 at 8:41 pm

      And this…https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/441976/officer-avoids-conviction-after-unjustified-chase-injuring-civilian-and-false-claim

      Cops chase 'not- speeding -dangerously motorcyclist' for shitsngiggles and crash into an innocent person's, car injuring them.

      The buggers then LIE…claiming that the car they crashed into backed into their path. CCTV footage disproves this.

      Cops escape conviction.

      Such a low, low standard of morals and ethics are acceptable in our police personnel.

  2. Sacha 2
    7 May 2021 at 8:02 pm

    More Mayoral bumblings around his patron's foes. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/124993535/report-recommends-andy-foster-be-censured-for-trying-to-share-confidential-information-before-shelly-bay-vote

    An independent report has recommended Wellington Mayor Andy Foster be censured for attempting to disclose confidential information to councillors before a crucial vote on the planned Shelly Bay redevelopment.

    ….

    Stopping the $500 million development on Wellington’s Miramar Peninsula was one of his key election pledges when he ran for mayor in 2019, and the report found he had frequently told councillors he had information that could scupper the project.

    It turned out that information, which Foster tried to share with at least two councillors shortly before the November vote, was confidential and potentially defamatory notes taken from a phone conversation with a former staff member in April 2019.

    …

    Report author Susan Hornsby-Geluk, a Wellington-based employment lawyer, found Foster’s actions breached the obligations of elected members.

    “In particular, relying on a file note that contained irrelevant, inaccurate, and discredited information to lobby other councillors on an important council decision is likely to undermine public confidence in good quality decision-making.”

    …

    He [Foster] also said he had not considered whether the 2018 High Court decision clearing the former staff member was relevant.

    • mickysavage 2.1
      7 May 2021 at 8:07 pm

      Gee when you are doing something in the interests of your major funder and it does not pass the sniff test …

    • RedBaronCV 2.2
      8 May 2021 at 12:14 am

      Foster is bit wearing isn't he? After the report into the council functions was issued recommending a change to committee structures and more open discussion and interaction didn't he go ahead and appoint pretty much unilaterally the new committee chairs?

      Does anyone know how difficult it would be to get rid of the mayoral office and election and let the councillors appoint a chair from among the elected members?

  3. Forget now 3
    7 May 2021 at 9:37 pm

    How has Chris Trotter managed to get himself mixed up with this crew?

    13.14. At the time of incorporation, the Council is: 13.14.1. Patrick Corish (2 years); 13.14.2. Dr David Cumin(3 years); 13.14.3. Melissa Durby (2 years); 13.14.4. Dane Giraud (3 years); 13.14.5. Stephen Franks (2 years); 13.14.6. Ani O’Brien (3 years); 13.14.7. Rachel Poulain (2 years); and 13.14.8. Jordan Williams (3 years) (the “Founding Council”) elected for a term of either two or three years as indicated in this clause 13.14 (i.e. until the 2022 or 2023 AGM).

    https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/freespeech/pages/160/attachments/original/1619672809/20210305_free_speech_union_rules_final.pdf?1619672809

    Jordan Williams & Stephen Franks get my alarm bells ringing. Undoubtedly some of the other names will pop out at others here.

    Also – this is a scam. Or at least; if an unscrupulous "bare majority of those present at any General or Special General Meeting" vote gets taken with a single week's notice, the council can give themselves (through organizations they control) all the money donated or from ($50!) membership dues. They can even borrow against the union, funnel the cash away, then leave the husk to collapse as they walk away. So if not designed from the ground up to be so, this can certainly become a pyramid scheme of fraud:

    The Council may borrow money for the purpose of furthering the objects of the Union.

    28. Liquidation 28.1. The Union may be wound up or dissolved by Resolution passed by a bare majority of those present at any General or Special General Meeting of the Union of which seven days’ notice has been given to all members of such proposed winding up or dissolution.

    28.2. In the event of liquidation, any residual funds and assets, subject to the payment of the Union’s debts and liabilities and the costs and expenses of winding up, shall be transferred to any associations or bodies with similar objects to the Union or held in trust for the objectives of the Union as determined by the Council by a special vote.

    29. Matters Not Provided For Any matters not provided for in these rules shall be decided by the Council.

    • ghostwhowalksnz 3.1
      8 May 2021 at 9:28 am

      Its another of those ACT/National astro turf organisations…which work in parallel to their parent partys

      Chris Trotter has been 'red wine neo liberal' for a long time. Back in the 2000's was a frequent 'guest speaker' at ACT soirees. He would provide the ‘agit-prop’ themes

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.