Levin Arrest and Police Escort

156 comments on “Levin Arrest and Police Escort ”

• Comments are now closed

1. vto 1

   12 December 2009 at 8:36 pm

   ha ha that’s excellent rocky jasmine. I committed something naughty and against the law today and if the police find out then I could do with some assistance too. What you say? Back me too?
   • wtl 1.1

     12 December 2009 at 9:22 pm

     I guess you can post your story on your blog, and people can make up their own minds. I’m guessing if it was under similar circumstances, rocky/jasmine whoever would back you. Though I’m thinking your going to do something totally different, but your assuming that if someone thinks it is ok to break to law for this purpose, it must be okay to break the law for EVERYTHING. What a weak argument.
   • rocky 1.2

     13 December 2009 at 2:01 am

     Depends. 1. Did you actually break the law? We think we didn’t, but even if we did it was very minor and for something we couldn’t achieve any other way. 2. Was yours for a protest action, saving lives, or anything else that you could argue was your moral duty? Or was it for personal gain? As Ghandi said “When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty”.
2. vto 2

   12 December 2009 at 8:56 pm

   Is this one of those Just Wars that Obama talks about?

   If so then why was Bush not just?
3. todd 3

   12 December 2009 at 9:13 pm

   I wonder what you would do if you caught someone on your property filming.
   Say hi,just carry on.I think not.Police nearly always over react they spend all day every day dealing with lowlife (not accusing you of being lowlife just making a point).
   • Rex Widerstrom 3.1

     12 December 2009 at 9:31 pm

     So… police break the law with impunity whenever they damn well feel like it and it’s our fault because we shouldn’t piss them off.

     I’m having to work on a 37 degree Saturday because idiot clients couldn’t get their s**t together on time. Does that give me the right to pop downstairs and rough up the bloke who (if the smell is anything to go by) is giving his underpants their annual boil?

     The girls’ car shouldn’t have been searched. To do so was illegal. It begins and ends there.

     Jasmine and rocky, I sincerely hope you sue.
     • lukas 3.1.1

       12 December 2009 at 9:45 pm

       Do you think the property owner whose property rights were violated should sue too Rex?
       • Pascal's bookie 3.1.1.1

         12 December 2009 at 10:52 pm

         If they want to.

         What’s your point?
       • rocky 3.1.1.2

         13 December 2009 at 1:28 am

         If they like – more attention to our cause 😉

         Answer something for me if you can: How can we get evidence of what happens behind closed doors without entering without permission? Permission is never given when we request it, and if we don’t have video and photographic evidence, we get accused of lying or exaggerating. I can’t think of an example of footage being played on TV of factory farms that wasn’t obtained that way by animal rights activists.
         • Hugh 3.1.1.2.1

           13 December 2009 at 11:56 am

           Well, here’s a thought – maybe the right to know what’s going on behind closed doors is not, in fact, a right? For instance, if I really desired to know what my neighbours were doing in their bedroom would I be justified in breaking into their house to film them because there’s ‘no other way of finding out’?

           Granted my example isn’t parallel to yours and your cause is obviously more admirable, even for people who don’t believe in it, than prurient fascination in somebody else’s sex life. But I think the language you’re using here is unlikely to persuade anybody who isn’t already your ally, is all I’m saying.

           Obviously none of this changes the fact that the police did indeed break the law in the way they dealt with you.
       • Rex Widerstrom 3.1.1.3

         13 December 2009 at 6:07 pm

         I’m not sure they’d have a cause of action, lukas. I’m assuming the girls did no damage and stole nothing, in which case I can’t see the basis of a tort for damages.

         If they did, then if the owners wished to that is their rigjht.

         However, the point is that I hold a sworn police officer, given immense power over ordinary citizens, to a higher standard. Is that not reasonable?
   • rocky 3.2

     13 December 2009 at 2:08 am

     I wonder what you would do if you caught someone on your property filming.
     Say hi,just carry on.I think not.

     You’re right there todd – if I saw someone filming on my property I would assume it was the police or a private investigation firm and get very concerned. The issue isn’t the action, but the reasons for it and whether the purpose was unlawful. If the purpose is to burgle, or to spy it is unlawful. Private Investigators would be acting unlawfully as they are governed by the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act 1974. Police would be acting unlawfully without a warrant. Wanting to film for the sake of filming is not illegal in itself. If you’ve been asked to leave or trespassed then it is unlawful.

     Police nearly always over react they spend all day every day dealing with lowlife (not accusing you of being lowlife just making a point).

     True, but it is the measure of a good cop in my opinion who can take every case as it comes without ingrained prejudice.
4. Nick C 4

   12 December 2009 at 9:13 pm

   “I was processed at the Levin Police Station fairly quickly, yay for small towns, they even drove me back to my car and escorted me out of town cos I am no longer allowed anywhere near Levin. Rochelle and I thought this Police escort was hilarious as we blasted ‘fuck the law’ from our car.”

   So despite the police being polite and reasonable you still abused them? Classy.
   • rocky 4.1

     13 December 2009 at 12:16 am

     It was all done in good humour. Both Jasmine and I were laughing all the way out of town. We waved at the police behind us and they waved back.

     The more senior policeman seemed quite nice and reasonable, but the other two had a real attitude problem and wouldn’t even discuss with me the fact that they were doing an unlawful search. They have also confiscated $7,000 worth of camera gear from Jasmine, so we weren’t particularly happy about that.
5. Eric 5

   12 December 2009 at 11:18 pm

   Good on you Jasmine and Rochelle. It’s only through actions like yours that blatant animal cruelty is exposed. Normal legal channels don’t work, because these industries write the very codes that exempt this cruelty from the Animal Welfare Act in the first place. It’s a catch 22 situation.
6. Marty G 6

   12 December 2009 at 11:18 pm

   kitten in the backseat in the pic. very cute
   • Lanthanide 6.1

     12 December 2009 at 11:39 pm

     Um, you let your kitten just walk around inside your car unrestrained?

     That could be very dangerous if it were to get in the way of the drivers’ feet.
     • rocky 6.1.1

       13 December 2009 at 12:27 am

       Yes he walks around unrestrained. Jasmine was driving, I was looking after the baby. He’s an orphan, and I’ve had him since he was 2 weeks old. He’s now 6 weeks old and only started eating solids a week ago. He’s still too slow to get anywhere fast, so I’m in full control. He wanders around the car, but isn’t allowed anywhere near the driver. He has a litter tray on the floor in the back seat and finds it when he needs to go. He even jumps in and out of the boot as it’s a station wagon. I can’t see anything dangerous about it!
       • Lew 6.1.1.1

         13 December 2009 at 5:07 pm

         So … dare I ask what the wee critter eats?

         L
         • rocky 6.1.1.1.1

           14 December 2009 at 12:35 am

           Sure… he was on kitten formula, which I think is just cows milk with the lactose taken out and the vitamins kittens need added. Not 100% sure what it was and don’t have the box anymore, but it is meant for kittens and puppies who are orphaned or whose mothers won’t feed them.

           He went onto solids just over a week ago, and now eats kitten biscuits and meat.

           He’s also quite good at attempting to eat me by chewing on my ears, fingers and toes 🙂 What a shame his teeth are getting bigger!
           • Lew 6.1.1.1.1.1

             14 December 2009 at 8:42 am

             Meat, HAH!

             Cue arcane discussion on whether it’s more inhumane to require a carnivorous animal to eschew meat, or to kill other animals to feed it.

             : )

             L
             • rocky …

               14 December 2009 at 8:47 am

               Somehow I had a feeling you were going to say that! Perhaps that’s best left for a quiet sunday afternoon post some time when I can be bothered 😉 I could actually argue either side of that debate.
             • felix …

               14 December 2009 at 9:17 am

               My kitties always preferred fish and chicken which seemed to make sense to me.

               I could never get my head around the idea of feeding a cow to a cat though. Just can’t imagine it happening in the wild.
             • gitmo …

               14 December 2009 at 9:31 am

               Except for those large moggies with stripes or spots.

               I’ve found the domestic chaps they go nuts for ham.
             • felix …

               14 December 2009 at 2:45 pm

               Never had one of them big one’s at home. And yeah what’s with the ham? You can get a cat to do just about anything by strategically waving bits of ham around.

               Couldn’t imagine a cat taking down a pig IRL though.
7. illuminatedtiger 7

   13 December 2009 at 12:15 am

   No better time to say FUCK THE POLICE!
8. Noko 8

   13 December 2009 at 12:22 am

   Rochelle and I thought this Police escort was hilarious as we blasted ‘fuck the law’ from our car.

   Seriously?
   I’m all for exposing the farms for what they are, but christ…
9. infused 9

   13 December 2009 at 1:38 am

   You guys sound like you’re 15. This is what my mates were doing at that age. I thought it was stupid then, it’s stupid now. The way you acted derails you so called ’cause’.

   Have fun going through the court system if you wish to fight this. Something stupid like this will cost a lot of money.
   • outofbed 9.1

     13 December 2009 at 12:10 pm

     I bet you were a barrel of laughs at 15
     • infused 9.1.1

       13 December 2009 at 2:29 pm

       I was, just not a retard.
       • bill brown 9.1.1.1

         13 December 2009 at 4:16 pm

         Laughing at is not the same a laughing with
10. Santi 10

    13 December 2009 at 6:24 am

    I expect the sentence to be 10 years in prison, with no parole.
    That will teach you not to trespass.
    • lprent 10.1

      13 December 2009 at 6:54 am

      Interesting, and you’d presumably retroactively rewrite the law as well. As I remember, trespass requires a notice not to. Which I’d guess that Jasmine now has.

      What were the actual charges? I didn’t see them in the post.

      BTW: It probably wouldn’t teach much. It is hard to trespass in prison.
      • Santi 10.1.1

        13 December 2009 at 9:03 am

        I hope you apply the same twisted and perverse logic if someone breaks into your flat/house camera in hand to take a few pics.

        These two young hoons deserve to be punished, not just for their foolishness, but their criminal intent.
        • Draco T Bastard 10.1.1.1

          13 December 2009 at 9:47 am

          What criminal intent?
          • lukas 10.1.1.1.1

            13 December 2009 at 9:58 am

            One would assume that intentionally entering someones property illegally constitutes criminal intent?
            • rocky 10.1.1.1.1.1

              14 December 2009 at 12:36 am

              How did we enter “illegally”?
        • lprent 10.1.1.2

          13 December 2009 at 10:36 am

          You probably need to learn some law. It is always incredible what daft ideas some people have.

          You have to show criminal intent (to do what? film – what law prohibits that?) or criminal action or be covered by other specific laws (ie like the police, spca, or private investigators).

          If they’d done something to the locks, then they would have been in the gun for a criminal action. Since they didn’t and had no criminal intent, then it is likely that the charges will be dismissed.

          All that can usually be done without manufacturing ‘evidence’ (as often happens to activists) is to issue a trespass notice.

          What you fail to understand is that activists seldom break the law. They usually know it better than the police.
          • Santi 10.1.1.2.1

            13 December 2009 at 1:38 pm

            Activists? My ass. Eco-terrorists is more appropriate.

            By the way, lprent post your home address here. I promise I’ll break into the place without damaging any locks, just to take a few pics that I will post in the net.

            I assume that for you is OK when the shoe is in the other foot, isn’t it?
            • QoT 10.1.1.2.1.1

              13 December 2009 at 1:50 pm

              Jesus Christ, if there were ever a clearer, apparently unconscious example of “one person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter” I haven’t seen it.

              Santi, exactly what purpose would be served by photos of the inside of lprent’s residence? Is meat destined for human consumption butchered there? Does it get a picture of a happy chicken and the words “barn-raised” slapped on it with the express purpose of selling a lie to people? Is the state of lprent’s living room actually pertinent to anything going on in other people’s lives? Talk about a false bloody analogy.
              • Santi …

                13 December 2009 at 4:33 pm

                Unadulterated tosh and pure bollocks.

                Are the slaughterhouse activities illegal? No, they are not.

                According to your hare-brained theory then it’s OK for teetotallers to trespass on breweries, for vegetarians to trespass on abattoirs, for non-smokers to trespass on cigarette factories, for homeless people to tresspass on anyone’s home.

                The two eco-terrorists deserve every bit of punishment that comes their way. I hope the justice system is NOT lenient with them.
              • QoT …

                13 December 2009 at 4:55 pm

                Did I mention the word “illegal”, Santi? Oh, wait, no, that’s just your strawman.

                My point, if you genuinely missed it, is that the poultry and pork and frankly all meat-for-human-consumption industries owe a great deal of success to people’s lack of knowledge – sometimes deliberate lack of knowledge – about how the meat got from the farmyard to their plate. Rocky and Jasmine worked to change that. Your somewhat creepy desire to rifle through lprent’s personal belongings serves no equivalent purpose. Your analogy is thus full of crap.

                I think it’s hilarious you mention cigarette companies- who DID lie about research showing the addictiveness of nicotine and the link between smoking and lung cancer, and who WERE in some part uncovered by “illegal” acts. The rest of the things you “extrapolate” from my comment just stand as marvellous proof that you have no actual argument to offer.
            • lprent 10.1.1.2.1.2

              14 December 2009 at 6:56 am

              Look it up. The one at InternetNZ is out of date at present because I haven’t got around to updating the new address on my domains. I’d suggest that you wait until Xmas when I have time to do so.

              Of course you’ll have to deal with the monitored alarm and security callout.

              It’d be interesting to know what you expect to find here?
          • lukas 10.1.1.2.2

            14 December 2009 at 7:53 am

            sweet Iprent, can you email me your address so I can come around at my leisure and start filming?

            Then, I will place a story about it on a website, including your phone number and address so everyone can call you about it.
            • lprent 10.1.1.2.2.1

              14 December 2009 at 7:57 am

              I already answered that to Santi.

              Incidentally did you never notice our standing policy here (that rOb roasted rocky over). We don’t publish real names, phone numbers, IP numbers, e-mails, and addresses. Have a look in policy. We also don’t publish personal financial details, welfare status, etc.

              For that kind of violation of privacy you really have to go and ask NACT ministers like Paula Bennett who seem to be happy to do it.

              For that matter, the police seem to find it easy as well. When rocky was arrested at age 17 and her diaries seized, and after her mother complained about the search because she was 17 and the search had been done without a parent present. One of the police attempted to fill her mother in with personal thoughts from rockys diaries. I wonder if the arseholes in the TAU kept a copy?
              • lukas …

                14 December 2009 at 8:02 am

                no problem Iprent, you have my email address, a fair few people here know my full name and finding out where I live is not that hard either for anyone with half a brain.

                So I can come around and film your place, then post the details on a website?
                • lprent …

                  14 December 2009 at 8:08 am

                  Lukas: Already answered. Are you too lazy to look stuff up in a week or so after I update the domains?

                  I fail to see your interest in my washing, books, or computers. rocky has a strong interest in animal welfare, that is why she entered a place that could have violations of the animal welfare codes. She has a clear interest and from memory members of the public do have a duty to report crimes when they find them.

                  BTW: I’m uninterested in you – why would I want your name of address? You don’t exactly rise high in my list of people who I’d gain information or insights from.
      • rocky 10.1.2

        14 December 2009 at 9:08 am

        The charges are in the post – according to the police bail form, the charge is called unlawfully being in an enclosed yard.

        What that actually means (and I can never understand why the police don’t just put the section and Act you’re charged under on the bail form), is Jasmine is charged under Section 29(1)(b) of the Summary Offences Act 1981.

        That means she is charged with being in the enclosed yard without reasonable excuse – hence why I don’t think the police arrested her unlawfully, but I think she will get off in court. The Act says that the police don’t have to prove an unlawful purpose, but that proving a there was no unlawful purpose (ie proving a purpose that isn’t unlawful) is a defense. There is plenty of case law on point that interprets the Act in our favour.
11. TightyRighty 11

    13 December 2009 at 10:15 am

    You were just hanging out in levin? and you just flippantly decided to go check out a slaughterhouse? that sounds like such a crock, it could almost be construed as intent to break and enter.

    but anyway, “fuck the law” blasting from your car? what a rebel. your parents must really have their hands full with you.
    • rocky 11.1

      14 December 2009 at 12:39 am

      You were just hanging out in levin? and you just flippantly decided to go check out a slaughterhouse? that sounds like such a crock, it could almost be construed as intent to break and enter.

      Perhaps you need to get a sense of humour, I thought it obvious that we didn’t mean it literally!

      but anyway, “fuck the law’ blasting from your car? what a rebel. your parents must really have their hands full with you.

      You start to enjoy that sort of music when you’ve been screwed by the system a few times. As for my parents – my entire family have respect for what I do – even my grandparents who used to be farmers.
      • TightyRighty 11.1.1

        14 December 2009 at 5:23 pm

        Wow, you really are setting yourself up for an intent charge aren’t you?

        “but anyway, “fuck the law’ blasting from your car? what a rebel. your parents must really have their hands full with you.”

        “You start to enjoy that sort of music when you’ve been screwed by the system a few times. As for my parents my entire family have respect for what I do even my grandparents who used to be farmers.”

        and to follow up my comment saying I need to get a sense of humour? maybe you need to take yourself a bit less seriously? your immaturity is amazing given that i need to get a sense of humour for pointing out something that looks like chicken, talks like a chicke, probably is a chicken, and then you turn around and get all bent out of shape because i make a sarcastic remark.

        but anyway, i can see your point of view regarding your choice of music, i wonder if you’d feel the same way if neo-nazi scum listened to their music of choice because they felt they had been screwed over by the jewish people? it’s not a godwins, it’s just the only group that are probably diametrically opposed to what you believe in who listen to a type of music, others, including myself, detest.
12. Brett 12

    13 December 2009 at 10:24 am

    You remind me of a female version of the character Rick from the that old TV series
    “The young ones”.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Young_Ones_(TV_series)#Rick
    • QoT 12.1

      13 December 2009 at 12:32 pm

      Yeah, because Rick was all about the action, the doing things, and the concrete displays of antiauthoritarianism … or you may have completely missed the point.
    • rocky 12.2

      14 December 2009 at 12:40 am

      I’m not an anarchist, though many of my friends are.
13. Brett Dale 13

    13 December 2009 at 11:54 am

    I hate animal cruelty and wish this type of farming would stop.

    You cant blame the police on this one, if you trespassing on someones property that’s a crime.

    If you came home and someone was on your property taking pictures you would call the police also.

    This anti police thing thing that some people on the left have doesnt help your cause.
    • felix 13.1

      13 December 2009 at 6:37 pm

      Brett,

      Why can’t you blame the police for their illegal search?
    • rocky 13.2

      14 December 2009 at 12:45 am

      We weren’t trespassing – read the Trespass Act 1980. Trespassing only occurs when you refuse to leave a property after being asked to. We left as soon as we were asked to. The police then told me I was trespassed for 2 years, so I won’t be returning until then (aside from to protest outside the premises).

      This anti police thing thing that some people on the left have doesnt help your cause.

      I’m not anti-police, and I start every encounter with the police with a fresh slate and assume they will do their job professionally. I’m still like that despite the number of bad apples I’ve had to deal with over the years. That’s why I was very clear that the senior policeman in this case was quite reasonable, though the two constables with him weren’t very pleasant.

      I don’t believe the arrest was unlawful, however I do believe they got the law wrong. That’s fine, it’s for the courts to decide. The search however was clearly unlawful, and having the police refuse to even talk about it with my lawyer annoys the hell out of me.
14. Brett Dale 14

    13 December 2009 at 11:59 am

    I reread your post, I think you need to grow up, you said you blasted out “F*ck the law”

    How old are you 14??????

    You remind me of all the young idiots we have hanging out at the mall who scream out “F you Pig” and then giggle like little school girls thinking they are funny.

    Do you really think we have it bad with the police here?????

    Thanks for wasting the Police’s time, they have more important things to do.

    I only hope you get a big fine.
    • rocky 14.1

      14 December 2009 at 12:56 am

      Do you really think we have it bad with the police here?????

      Hmmmm… having my house raided when I was 17 and having 3 big men in my house searching through all my personal stuff? How about at 21-22 being in a relationship with someone who was paid for 10 years to spy on my friends and I? How about having my computer, cellphone, video camera etc stolen by the police and kept for months, and then the courts finding my actions were not unlawful?

      How about my best friend having his house raided for handing a letter to the receptionist of Tegel to protest about how they treat their chickens, and having his house raided and his car stolen and kept for weeks? We found out later that the search warrant was dated the day after the raids. Not only that, my friend was a school teacher and they even took the keys to his classroom.

      How about my friend being arrested and released without charge, but the police still confiscated his cellphone and the remote to turn off the alarm to his car, under the guise the remote could be some sort of bomb trigger?

      How about continuously being arrested for things that the courts later determine to be lawful? I set a precedent in the High Court that chanting on a megaphone at a protest is not disorderly behaviour, yet the police have arrested me again since for exactly the same thing.

      You remind me of all the young idiots we have hanging out at the mall who scream out “F you Pig’ and then giggle like little school girls thinking they are funny.

      Not my style. As above, I start ever encounter with police politely and professionally. I have been praised by many police for being reasonable and polite. When the police arrived to raid my house I said something along the lines of “I hate what you’re doing but I know you’re just doing your job. Would you like a coffee?”. I then made them coffee and was very polite. Unfortunately one of the three in my house was very rude and offensive towards me, the other two at least were a bit more respectful.

      Thanks for wasting the Police’s time, they have more important things to do.

      Yes they do, and they could do those things instead of wasting time on us. We hear all these stories about police not turning up to emergencies, yet huge amounts of police resources are channelled into anti-terror units whose sole focus is activists. Do you realise there are at least 30 police officers working full time solely on activist surveillance?
15. Tim Ellis 15

    13 December 2009 at 12:12 pm

    I’d like to think that the Police would have more important things to do than deal with a couple of trouble makers who want to do a few publicity stunts.

    Rocky as a Labour Party activisit I don’t think the sort of voters that Mr Goff wants to win back would be impressed with these sorts of stunts.
    • IrishBill 15.1

      13 December 2009 at 12:25 pm

      Another lame attempt at a wedge Mr. Ellis? You really are a one trick pony.
      • Tim Ellis 15.1.1

        13 December 2009 at 12:38 pm

        No IB I just think it isn’t a good look, just as it wasn’t a good look for the wild greens to go about pulling up crops in a GE trial a few years back. It also concerns me that there aren’t more mature people in the party warning these kids about the effects of criminal convictions on their future, both in employment prospects and ability to travel.
        • QoT 15.1.1.1

          13 December 2009 at 1:17 pm

          Concern troll! In the dungeon! Thought you should know.
        • outofbed 15.1.1.2

          13 December 2009 at 1:18 pm

          I can’t work out if that was an attempt at humour or you are being serious
        • grumpy 15.1.1.3

          13 December 2009 at 3:19 pm

          Sorry Tim, can’t agree with you on this. Wild Greens pulling up GE crops is a legitimate protest, this is just a couple of young loopies with nothing beter to do while “hanging out” in Levin. Might as well have pulled a few wheelies or tagged a couple of fences.

          Interesting that the same property laws they broke are the ones they rely on when complaining of the police search.

          Correctly summarised by a few contributors as the actions of 15 yr olds.
    • rocky 15.2

      14 December 2009 at 1:03 am

      Tim Ellis I don’t answer to anyone, and certainly not Goff. I’m me, and I’m more an animal rights activist than a labour party activist. Why try and tar the labour party with my actions? I act of my own accord and without permission from anyone.
    • lprent 15.3

      14 December 2009 at 7:08 am

      She is a animal rights activist first and foremost. Always has been, probably always will be.

      For that matter I’m a programmer first and foremost. I have a variety of other interests including this site. Somewhere in there is being a labour party activist.

      One of the reasons that I’ve never held a position in the labour party above branch chairperson (and they had to fight to get me to do that) is because I’d have to consider the balance between what I do for them, and other things.

      For instance this site runs completely outside any of my labour activities. It is a good thing too given the glacial nature of some of the decision making processes in the party. The site would have probably never gotten off the ground if it’d had to go through meetings.

      I suspect that you have a quite a different idea about what a party activist is than I do. You make it sound like an employee position with the responsibilities that entails?

      For me an activist inside a party is someone who is trying to push for certain things inside the party, and who contributes their time and effort freely. The party hierarchy can ask me to do things. They can’t tell me what to do outside of what I agreed to in my membership.
16. mike 16

    13 December 2009 at 1:23 pm

    “Rochelle and I thought this Police escort was hilarious as we blasted ‘fuck the law’ from our car.”

    You guys are all class – grow up for ffs
17. Pascal's bookie 17

    13 December 2009 at 1:30 pm

    hahaha

    all the righties in the house say, obeeee-ey.

    Authoritarian little shits.

    The only complaints about the police in the post are that they exceeded their legal authority in a few aspects. And y’all are sticking up for them.
    • Tim Ellis 17.1

      13 December 2009 at 2:23 pm

      So the police searched their car after these girls were behaving illegally and obnoxiously? They were lucky they were only charged with being in a yard unlawfully. They should have been charged with breaking and entering as well.

      It’s funny how law breakers resort to “oh, the police offended me” defences when they get caught pulling off stunts like this.

      PB, I think the police should act within the law, but I don’t encourage young people breaking the law, causing a general nuisance and being disrespectful towawrds the police.
      • Sam 17.1.1

        13 December 2009 at 4:01 pm

        Right so what you’re saying is that if you’re a naughty person (as defined by the law) then the police have the right to do whatever they want to you or your property?

        Hypocritical much?
        • Pascal's bookie 17.1.1.1

          13 December 2009 at 4:08 pm

          Yep Sam, that’s exactly what he’s saying. Tim just believes in ‘Order’. The rule of law bit, not so much.
        • gitmo 17.1.1.2

          13 December 2009 at 4:31 pm

          Did you pass the comprehension section of English in School C ?
          • Sam 17.1.1.2.1

            13 December 2009 at 7:09 pm

            I evidently did whole lot better than you did…
            • gitmo 17.1.1.2.1.1

              13 December 2009 at 7:17 pm

              Really ?

              So how do you extrapolate

              “so what you’re saying is that if you’re a naughty person (as defined by the law) then the police have the right to do whatever they want to you or your property?”

              from

              “So the police searched their car after these girls were behaving illegally and obnoxiously?” and

              “PB, I think the police should act within the law, but I don’t encourage young people breaking the law, causing a general nuisance and being disrespectful towawrds the police.”

              I mean I might take from your comment

              “I evidently did whole lot better than you did..”

              that you interfere with No 7 tegel chickens.
              • Pascal's bookie …

                14 December 2009 at 6:53 am

                Why did you selectively quote TE there git?

                Here’s what he said:

                So the police searched their car after these girls were behaving illegally and obnoxiously? They were lucky they were only charged with being in a yard unlawfully. They should have been charged with breaking and entering as well.

                That quote clearly, to anyone that can read, implies that the police behaved with restraint and that “They were lucky” because the police could have, and perhaps should have, done even more.

                That implies whatever Tim’s protestations about thinking the police should act within the law, that he thinks they were justified in this case, and were in fact lenient.

                That if you are a ‘naughty person’ ( as subjectively defined by the police) , you should “think yourself lucky” if the police just illegally search you instead of also slapping some bs charges on you as well, (which is what they should do, in Tim’s view)
      • Akldnut 17.1.2

        13 December 2009 at 5:07 pm

        FFS Timmy – where in this post did you read this that they were arrested after being obnoxious,

        ob·nox·ious
        adj: Very annoying or objectionable; offensive or odious

        the obnoxious behavior occurred;

        1. Rochelle requested that they stop searching the car and told them that the search was unlawful; when they would not listen she tried to pass them the cell phone to talk to our lawyer, however they were not interested and confiscated stuff from the car anyway.

        2. “Rochelle went to talk to the Senior Police Officer about the search and was assaulted by the female slaughterhouse owner, who grabbed the cell phone out of her hand and hung up on the lawyer. The Police had to step in to stop her and get the cell phone back.”

        3. Rochelle and I thought this Police escort was hilarious as we blasted ‘fuck the law’ from our car.

        Which of these is most important to you? Breaking the law, assault or harmless (albeit disrespectful) music.

        Jasmine hasn’t denied she broke a law, she will & should be processed accordingly. As should anyone else who has broken the law throughout this incident.
      • rocky 17.1.3

        14 December 2009 at 1:05 am

        Tim Ellis it was broad daylight, and we didn’t break and enter. We climbed over a fence and took some photos. Clearly in your eyes that makes us dangerous criminals. You have supported my posts on factory farming, but how would the public now know about factory farming if not for actions like this?

        When the owners turned up they called the police. Rather than trying to run or anything we just waited around for the police to arrive. We’re quite prepared to stand up and tell the world what we do and accept any consequences. What you need to realise is that we most likely weren’t doing anything illegal, and if we were at most we’ll get a small fine. A small price to pay to get the truth out there!
18. gitmo 18

    13 December 2009 at 2:11 pm

    What exactly were you attempting to make a point about with your pictures ?
    • rocky 18.1

      14 December 2009 at 1:15 am

      You mean why were we taking photos of a layer hen slaughterhouse?

      Because around 90% of layer hens in this country live in cages where they can’t even flap their wings. Documenting their death as the last part of their horrible lives is important, as even that final process shows the total disregard we (humans) have for the fear and suffering endured by hens.

      Await the release of our investigations on this topic in the near future and hopefully you’ll then understand. Hopefully we will have the opportunity to show New Zealanders how these processes work here in much the same way that most people now know how pigs and layer hens are raised.
19. Brett Dale 19

    13 December 2009 at 2:13 pm

    I just find it immature that they thought it was funny that they played fuck the law.

    I expected that behavior from some of the 15 year old boy racers out there.
    • rocky 19.1

      14 December 2009 at 1:10 am

      You have to find things like that funny when you’ve been through it a few times. The whole process becomes far less intimidating and more of a joke when you’re confident you really haven’t done anything wrong. A joke in a laugh so you don’t cry kind of way.
20. BLiP 20

    13 December 2009 at 4:38 pm

    Heh! The hypocrisy of the right sticks its troll like head up in these comments. A minor breach of the law is labelled “terrorism” and the breaking of the law by police labelled perfectly understandable. Can you imagine the howling there would be if it was the tax department breaking a minor law to investigate the illegal actions of corporates?

    So much for the right’s concern for individuals.
21. Steve 21

    13 December 2009 at 4:45 pm

    One day Rochelle and Jasmin may need help from the Police.
    Let’s see the humour then you silly children
    • QoT 21.1

      13 December 2009 at 4:57 pm

      Damn straight, Steve! Because the Police should never act professionally and within the bounds of law regardless of who they are called upon to help. The protection of the law only applies to people you agree with, amirite?

      Captcha: “disappears” OH COME ON, PEOPLE.
      • Steve 21.1.1

        13 December 2009 at 5:13 pm

        What is the matter with you QoT?
        If someone was to invade Rochelle’s or Jasmine’s private property, they would be the first to complain the Police about trespass charges.
        All very funny huh? until it happens to you. Typical of todays’ youth.
        • QoT 21.1.1.1

          13 December 2009 at 5:24 pm

          What “matters to me” is your implication that won’t it be funny if one day Rocky or Jasmine need the Police’s help, and presumably the Police don’t because of their present acts.

          Jasmine is not complaining because she may now be issued with trespass. She and Rocky are complaining because the Police searched their car illegally – and then apparently had nothing better to do on a Saturday afternoon that give them an escort to the city limits.

          If they are ever the victims of crime themselves I am sure they will want to know that the Police conduct any investigation in a professional and ethical manner.
          • Steve 21.1.1.1.1

            13 December 2009 at 6:06 pm

            Would never have happened if Rochelle and Jasmine did not break the LAW in the first place. The POLICE where just upholding Community standards. Tell me who it was that had nothing better to do on a Saturday afternoon?
            Fair comment? That forest is a bit woody huh?
        • rocky 21.1.1.2

          14 December 2009 at 1:17 am

          What trespass charges are you referring to?
22. Transparent 22

    13 December 2009 at 6:39 pm

    It matters not, Steve, if Jasmine and Rochelle broke the law, they are ready to answer to for that. What matters is that the police excercised an illegal search and seizure, leaving the woman out of a $7000 camera and will probably delete the film taken beforem the women get it back, if they ever do. If the police broke the law they should be prosecuted for it in the same way that Rochelle and Jasmine will be. But we all know that the “independant police complaints authority” will no doubt give these law breakers a clean bill of health so they will be able to continue to break the law in order to fll their arrest quotas. What will you have to say when they stop you and decide that you need to have your car searched for NO LEGAL REASON WHATSOEVER? Until it’s happened toyou you have no idea just how powerless you asre in the face of the so called defenders of the law.
23. felix 23

    13 December 2009 at 6:46 pm

    Hands up everyone who thinks the police should be allowed to search and seize anything and anyone they want to, regardless of what the law says?

    Todd? lukas? Steve? Tim Ellis? gitmo? Santi? Brett Dale?

    Nail your colours to the mast and state now your honest thoughts.
    • gitmo 23.1

      13 December 2009 at 6:52 pm

      hands up everyone who fucks pigs c’mon c’mon
      • felix 23.1.1

        13 December 2009 at 7:59 pm

        I don’t follow, git. People above have expressed views that the police were justified in making an illegal search and seizure.

        How is asking them to clarify their position on that in any way a pigfucker question?
        • gitmo 23.1.1.1

          13 December 2009 at 9:13 pm

          Felix

          The police were responding to illegal act by two persons as part of that response they had a look inside the car and took items that might be relevant to the illegal act.

          That is somewhat different from

          “Hands up everyone who thinks the police should be allowed to search and seize anything and anyone they want to, regardless of what the law says?”

          hence the porcine shaggin……… I’m still puzzled as to what they were protesting about/trying to achieve.
          • felix 23.1.1.1.1

            13 December 2009 at 10:49 pm

            I understand the sequence of events as you do – no argument.

            It appears that you don’t realise that the police aren’t allowed to search your car.
            • gitmo 23.1.1.1.1.1

              13 December 2009 at 10:58 pm

              There’s a pretty slim chance of the police searching someone’s car if they ain’t misbehaving in the first place.

              In fact in NZ there’s a pretty slim chance of “the police searching and seizing anything and anyone they want to, regardless of what the law says” if they ain’t misbehaving in the first place.
              • gitmo …

                13 December 2009 at 11:00 pm

                And before you ask ….. I have no problem with the police acting as they did in this instance.
              • felix …

                13 December 2009 at 11:11 pm

                So for you, an acceptable standard for the police to adhere to is to work within the law unless dealing with potential lawbreakers, in which case fuck it.

                Is that close?
              • gitmo …

                14 December 2009 at 7:08 am

                No not close – you enjoy putting things in peoples mouths don’t you ?
              • felix …

                14 December 2009 at 7:40 am

                gitmo,

                What are you saying then?

                I don’t want to put things in your mouth (oo err) but if this:

                There’s a pretty slim chance of the police searching someone’s car if they ain’t misbehaving in the first place.

                doesn’t mean that you think it’s ok for the police to do so then what does it mean?

                I think you’re having trouble with this because you don’t know what the police actually are allowed to do by law. If you know that the police aren’t legally allowed to search a car in these circumstances but you support them doing so then you are supporting them breaking the law.
              • felix …

                14 December 2009 at 9:19 am

                Where are you, gitmo? You were so close to taking a position and then… nothing.
              • gitmo …

                14 December 2009 at 9:35 am

                I thought I had taken a position.

                I think it’s ok for the police to search a car in circumstances such as these, I don’t think it’s ok for the police to search and seize anything and anyone they want to, regardless of what the law says.

                But then again I’d like to see the police allowed to taser drunken louts, boy racers and gingas so am probably a bit more towards the authoritarian side of life.
              • felix …

                14 December 2009 at 9:46 am

                So you believe the law should be changed to allow the police to search in what circumstances?
              • felix …

                14 December 2009 at 6:33 pm

                Come on gitmo, you’re so close – do you want the law changed or do you want it ignored?
            • lukas 23.1.1.1.1.2

              14 December 2009 at 7:59 am

              Felix, even you must admit that there was a very simple way of stopping Rocky from having her car searched…. she should not have trespassed.

              How do we even know the events happened as they were laid out in the post? I certainly wouldn’t trust someone who breaks into other people’s property.
              • lprent …

                14 December 2009 at 8:06 am

                Go to court on the 17th in Levin. They are public and the facts that the police have will be laid out then.
              • felix …

                14 December 2009 at 8:11 am

                1. She didn’t. That’s not what trespassing means.

                2. Assuming that the post is accurate (and that’s all we have to go on so let’s stick with that version for now) the police had no legal authority to search the car.

                This is very simple stuff, lukas. You either think the police should operate within the law or you don’t. There isn’t a “sometimes” option.

                There also isn’t an “except-when-dealing-with-someone-accused-of-breaking-the-law” option for reasons which should be very obvious.

                I get the feeling reading this thread that a lot of you don’t even realise that the police are bound to follow the law.
              • felix …

                14 December 2009 at 8:18 am

                Oh lukas, there is one more option available to you:

                It may be that you disagree with the law and would like it changed to allow the police to be able to search cars at will or search the car of anyone arrested, perhaps.

                That’s a valid position and if someone would take it we could have a discussion about it. But no-one has yet.
              • felix …

                14 December 2009 at 5:31 pm

                Come on lukas, put that communications degree to some use and take a tenable position.
              • lukas …

                15 December 2009 at 7:39 am

                Sorry felix, forgot about this

                The fact that the trespass law carries a maximum sentence of 3 months is pretty stupid, if I found someone unlawfully on my property I would want their car searched, how do the police know that Rocky and her friends (who obviously can not be trusted) did not take anything from the farm?
              • felix …

                15 December 2009 at 8:30 am

                So the question is do you want the law changed or just ignored?
              • lukas …

                15 December 2009 at 8:46 am

                actually Felix, I just did a quick read of the Search and Surveillance Bill, there is no mention of the six month minimum sentence, seems that the Police may have acted lawfully, happy to be corrected on that though.

                You can have a quick look at the Act here- http://legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2009/0045/latest/viewpdf.aspx?search=qs_all%40act%40bill%40regulation_search_resel&p=1
                • lprent …

                  15 December 2009 at 8:52 am

                  The Search and Surveillance Bill is a Bill … That means it isn’t law yet. I think that will qualify you as the dufus of the day for lack of attention to the political and legislative processes

                  Rocky can point you to the relevant legislation, but it is probably in the current Crimes act.

                  Incidentally rocky has been making a study of the SS bill. If you want to know more, ask her. She will give you chapter and verse on the bits she thinks are good or bad in it.
              • rocky …

                15 December 2009 at 8:52 am

                lukas it’s not the trespass law Jasmine was charged with, it’s the Summary Offences Act 1981.

                As for the Search and Surviellance Bill, there’s a reason it’s called a bill, not an act. It’s not law yet!
              • lukas …

                15 December 2009 at 9:03 am

                sorry, you are right, like I said, quick read through.

                What Act prohibits police search for sentences under six months?
                • lprent …

                  15 December 2009 at 2:01 pm

                  Offhand I don’t know. rocky will (she needs to know, and she is studying law).

                  However I’d suspect the current version of the Crimes Act.
              • felix …

                15 December 2009 at 9:39 am

                I’m not as interested in the specifics of this particular case as I am in people’s views on the principles surrounding it.

                That’s why I keep asking you (and others) to take a position on:

                a. what you think are appropriate circumstances for the police to be allowed to search a car, and

                b. whether you’re calling for the law to be changed to allow this or for the police to simply carry on ignoring the law.

                So far you, gitmo and a few others have stated that you approve of the police searching a car in a (hypothetical) case such as the one discussed in the post.

                No-one though has made a clear statement of whether they support the law being changed to allow the police to do so,

                AND (perhaps more importantly)

                no-one has made any effort to outline the parameters of such a law change.

                I suspect that none of you want to put your hands up and call for an expansion of police powers but you’ve all expressed that expanded police powers are acceptable to you in this specific (hypothetical) case.

                As you’ve taken that position the onus is on you to define what sort of law change you’re calling for – for example:

                searching the house or car of anyone arrested for anything? searching the house or car of anyone suspected of anything?
                searching the house and car of anyone questioned?

                It’s not enough to say you want the law changed so Rocky’s car can be searched, but this is as far as any of you have been prepared to go so far.

                (Unless of course you don’t want the law changed at all but would like the police to ignore it at will).
          • rocky 23.1.1.1.2

            14 December 2009 at 1:21 am

            The arrest was a response to what the police believed to be an unlawful act. The law prohibits them from searching a car without warrant unless they charge you with a crime carrying a penalty of at least 6 months in prison. This didn’t meet the criteria. Further than that, I’m not sure why you insist on calling this an “illegal act”. We are pretty confident that it wasn’t – we agree with the police on the facts, but not the law. It is up to a judge to decide the legality – why are you calling it an “illegal act” before that has been determined? I could point you towards a number of precedents from higher courts that suggest what we did wasn’t unlawful. Those will be the basis of Jasmine’s defence, and I’m pretty confident she’ll win!
    • Steve 23.2

      13 December 2009 at 7:01 pm

      You two above are shit stirrers (Transparent and felix)
      This fiasco was instigated by people breaking the LAW and now you say the POLICE have broken the LAW by maybe bringing Rochelle and Jasmine to account?
      God you lefties think strange.
      We should allow every protester free access to any private property huh?
      Bottom line is ‘no respect’
      • Lew 23.2.1

        13 December 2009 at 7:48 pm

        Steve,

        This fiasco was instigated by people breaking the LAW and now you say the POLICE have broken the LAW by maybe bringing Rochelle and Jasmine to account?

        No, the POLICE broke the LAW when they conducted an unLAWful search and seizure of private property. If the search had been LAWful, they wouldn’t have broken the LAW.

        God you lefties think strange.

        But we THINK.

        We should allow every protester free access to any private property huh?

        We should allow every POLICE officer free access to any private property owned by someone (suspected of) breaking the LAW, huh? I think there’s a term for that …

        Let’s be crystal fucking clear: Police arresting them for climbing the fence — all fine. Police searching their car and confiscating things unlawfully: not ok. Also a bit stupid on the police’s behalf because it gives Rocky and Jasmine’s lawyer something to work with. But that’s by the by. The bottom line is that rule of law needs to apply to everyone; police included.

        Those of you defending the police’s actions in this case aren’t far in principle from defending the fools who want to lock climate change deniers up in camps. If it can happen to them (Rocky and Jasmine or the deniers) then it can happen to YOU.

        L
      • felix 23.2.2

        13 December 2009 at 8:02 pm

        I’m not stirring, Steve.

        Do you think the police should be allowed to break the law?

        It’s a straight question. My straight answer is “No”.

        What’s yours?
        • Steve 23.2.2.1

          13 December 2009 at 8:34 pm

          Should Citizens be allowed to break the LAW?
          My answer is NO.
          Try and stay on the first provocation here without behaving like a jack in a box
          • felix 23.2.2.1.1

            13 December 2009 at 11:04 pm

            It’s not a bar brawl, Steve. It’s not “who started it”.

            The police aren’t allowed to search your car except in quite specific circumstances. If this instance isn’t one of those specific circumstances (and on the face of it it seems unlikely to be) then they broke the law.

            You seem to be saying that the police can break the law as long as someone else “started it”.

            Do you not realise what that means? Think it through. All the police do most of the time is deal with people who are being accused of breaking laws. That’s the job. If the police are released from any obligation to obey the law when dealing with accused people then we would have an entirely lawless police force.

            That’s what you’re arguing for.

            Either that or you’re arguing that the police should usually obey the law except in this specific case. However you’ve offered no reason for normal adherence to the law to be waived in this case so the first scenario seems more likely.

            Tell me where I’m wrong here. I’ll listen.
          • felix 23.2.2.1.2

            13 December 2009 at 11:09 pm

            Oh and sorry, I missed the other bit:

            Should Citizens be allowed to break the LAW?
            My answer is NO.

            Of course. That’s why they got arrested. The cops on the other hand also broke the law but it’s likely that nothing will come of it.

            That’s not good enough, Steve. We need the police to work within the law or what do we have?
          • felix 23.2.2.1.3

            13 December 2009 at 11:24 pm

            Also also, why do you think the police aren’t citizens?

            Are you Brett Dale using another name?
            • lprent 23.2.2.1.3.1

              14 December 2009 at 7:44 am

              No. It is not Brett.

              From the context of his other remarks, I suspect that he is the Steve that runs a site that seems to be dedicated to defending the police. (don’t have the link around offhand).

              The police are citizens, it is defined that they are in the Police Act. They have certain powers and a pile of responsibilities. Some members of the police tend to forget the responsibilities and just concentrate on the powers. The hierarchy in the police that is meant to control those things is frequently somewhat lax about doing so. I suspect that Steve is one of them.

              As others have commented, the police have a pain of a job. However they are sworn to uphold the responsibilities as well as discharge their duties. There is no real excuse for one that doesn’t. If they can’t do it, then they should be discharged from the police.

              Incidentally one of the responsibilities of the police is to look for animal cruelty along with MAF and the SPCA. They don’t do it and they are by far the best resourced of the three. They just push it off to the SPCA which is a voluntary charitable organization with no government funding and severely limited resources.

              Perhaps they should. It would reduce the need for activists to have to document cases, and therefore reduce their workload in dealing with activists.
              • felix …

                14 December 2009 at 7:51 am

                Ah, I just thought it might be Brett based on the incredible mass of stupid he managed to pack into such short remarks.

                At least Brett has an excuse. Years of listening to the most insipid country music has rotted most of his brain.
24. Steve 24

    13 December 2009 at 8:38 pm

    All this time Rochelle and Jasmine are laughing their tits of because people argue about something silly that they did.
    They will grow up, then again they may not.
    They will be contributers to The Standard
25. TB 25

    13 December 2009 at 8:43 pm

    I may well be wrong….If the police believed you had stolen property in you car, then they can search it. likewise equipment they suspect to be used in an attempted burglary or what ever you were doing can be confiscated as evidence. Your camera equipment may have evidence that you were in fact on the property and that you may have caused damage, stolen stuff etc.
    • rocky 25.1

      14 December 2009 at 1:34 am

      You are wrong. The police must either charge you with a serious crime (they didn’t), or get a search warrant from the courts. They didn’t seriously believe we had stolen property from the slaughterhouse in our car, because we were caught by the owners on the property and waited with the owners till the police arrived. There’s no way we would have had time to stash anything in the car.

      Your camera equipment may have evidence that you were in fact on the property and that you may have caused damage, stolen stuff etc.

      True, and they got the camera lawfully as it didn’t come out of the car. They stole a camera lense from the car, and how that proves anything I have no idea. They didn’t find any evidence of anything in the car, but my point is they had no right to search it in the first place.

      When my house was raided they didn’t even just take stuff relating to the offense I was charged with. They stole posters off my wall, old archives of newspaper articles, leaflets unrelated to the protest in question, banners, megaphones, computers, personal diaries (with nothing about activism in them at all), cellphones, the list goes on and on.

      When my house was raided they stole my video camera and kept it using the excuse that they needed it as evidence in court to prove I took the video footage of the protest. I offered to write a signed statement admitting to having taken video footage, and that the tape they had was in fact my footage from the event in question. They still refused to give my camera back.

      Jasmine and I have just admitted on a public forum that we did enter the property and take photographs. We’d never lie or try to deny it as that’s not how we work. When the police arrived Jasmine admitted to having been on the property. They never actually asked me if I had climbed the fence too, which is why only Jasmine was arrested. Of course I’ve now publicly admitted I did go over the fence, so the police can come and charge me if they like. I’m quite happy to test the case in the courts.
26. yawn 26

    14 December 2009 at 2:11 am

    Gee whiz. Breaking and entering and now moaning the Police are doing their job. Be a different story if it was your house wouldn’;t it ‘rocky’, get a life.

    You entitled socialist moaners take the cake.

    [lprent: Has problems with punctuation as well. ]
    • felix 26.1

      14 December 2009 at 7:45 am

      It’s not breaking and entering and it’s not a house.

      You could only draw that analogy if you were looking at it from the chickens’ point of view and I don’t think the chickens are complaining.
      • gitmo 26.1.1

        14 December 2009 at 7:54 am

        I don’t know these chaps are outraged !

        http://www.youtube.com/user/MuppetsStudio#p/u/2/tgbNymZ7vqY
27. yawn 27

    14 December 2009 at 2:12 am

    BTW: Chickens are food.
    • felix 27.1

      14 December 2009 at 7:45 am

      So?
28. Brett Dale 28

    14 December 2009 at 10:55 am

    Felix:

    The police are welcomed to search me if they want, they may find a tad to many Randy Travis and Garth Brooks cds though.

    Anyway you are aware that most country artists are Liberal, Garth, Trisha, Ryan Adams, Chris Cagle, Natalie Maines, Darius Rucker?

    The music is very left wing, but Felix you being someone who stereotypes I guess its easy to have a false impression.
    • felix 28.1

      14 December 2009 at 2:42 pm

      Oh, in that case I’ve changed my mind. It’s all awesomely good music.

      Not.
29. Brett Dale 29

    14 December 2009 at 4:29 pm

    felix:

    Just like someone of the left to prejudge something.

    Im sure I would feel the same about the music you listen to.

    Iprent:

    You cannot enter someone else property, it doesn’t matter if she has strong convictions,
    if she thought a crime was being committed she should of contacted the proper authorities.
    • lprent 29.1

      14 December 2009 at 5:00 pm

      Brett you’re being naive. I’d suggest that you mail Carter and explain how he needs to fix the issue.

      If you feel that there is a problem to do with animal welfare on a farm then you can complain to the SPCA, the police, and probably MAF.

      Remember these are usually properties that you cannot see inside the sheds from outside the fence.

      MAF has a handful of inspectors for the whole country. So they won’t do it. Besides they’d ask you to provide evidence – that you cannot get because according to you, you are not allowed onto the property.

      The police will send you to the SPCA because they don’t want to deal with it.

      The SPCA will want to have evidence more than a idea that there might be an issue – that you cannot get because according to you, you are not allowed onto the property.

      So what you are actually saying is that nothing should be done. This is clearly iniquitous. When I see you starting to fix that problem, ie by having enough inspectors (preferably the police as there are more of them) with rights to enter to inspect ANY intensive farming without warning. Then I’ll take your issue seriously. In the meantime I’d say that public interest in the absence of ANY effective inspection system takes precedence.

      I’d point out that I’d love to not have rocky wanting to enter these damn properties. To do that there needs to be an effective inspection service looking at intensively farmed animals. Currently it doesn’t exist.

      Please push a rocket up Carters arse….
      • lukas 29.1.1

        14 December 2009 at 5:27 pm

        “by having enough inspectors (preferably the police as there are more of them) with rights to enter to inspect ANY intensive farming without warning. Then I’ll take your issue seriously.”

        Yet you see a problem with the Police searching a car of someone who was trespassing?

        Captcha- funny … indeed
        • felix 29.1.1.1

          14 December 2009 at 5:38 pm

          Not trespassing, lukas. That’s not what trespassing means.

          As for “seeing a problem” with the police searching a car, it’s illegal, lukas. It’s the law that “sees a problem” with it.

          Why you think some people should be subject to the law (Rocky and friend) while others should be exempt (the officers who performed the illegal search and seizure) is something you have yet to explain.

          Communication, lukas. Use it.
          • lukas 29.1.1.1.1

            14 December 2009 at 5:48 pm

            Felix, there may be a case to be made under section 6 of the Trespass Act, as there probably was for the SAFE people and their pig farm filming.
          • lukas 29.1.1.1.2

            14 December 2009 at 5:52 pm

            As for “seeing a problem’ with the police searching a car, it’s illegal, lukas. It’s the law that “sees a problem’ with it.

            that is if you take the word of someone who was on another persons property without permission, not exactly the must trustworthy person I would suggest.
            • felix 29.1.1.1.2.1

              14 December 2009 at 6:09 pm

              Oh lukas if you doubt the whole story that’s fine but you should say that’s what you’re doing, otherwise we’re talking across one another.

              If it makes it easier for you we could talk about a hypothetical scenario exactly like the one in the post.
            • felix 29.1.1.1.2.2

              14 December 2009 at 6:19 pm

              lukas I also notice you still haven’t responded to the other discussion we were having above.

              Are you going to take a position? So far no one has articulated a coherent one but with your communications background you should have no trouble doing so.
          • BLiP 29.1.1.1.3

            14 December 2009 at 5:54 pm

            You gotta remember, this is the chap who thinks its okay to go around kicking in public hospital emergency department windows – one rule for him and another for the rest of us. Just like John Key subverting a Court order and then boasting about it on the front page like he’s some sort of hero.

            So far as this argument is concerned, Lukey-Pukey and the rest of the trolls need to get an urgent referral from the GP to a proctologist before they asphyxiate.
            • lukas 29.1.1.1.3.1

              14 December 2009 at 5:56 pm

              you are a sick individual BLiP.
        • lprent 29.1.1.2

          15 December 2009 at 6:43 am

          Those organizations already have the rights to enter properties doing anything with animals and inspect them.

          MAF doesn’t have enough inspectors.
          SPCA is a charity and doesn’t have the resources.
          The NZ Police choose not to exercise their powers.

          It is left up to the animal rights activists to go in, document, and kick some activity into action where they find abuses.

          Why don’t you push to get a better animal handling regime in place?
30. Brett Dale 30

    14 December 2009 at 5:14 pm

    No, I’m not saying nothing should be done. But it doesn’t help your cause by playing “F*ck the law” on yuor car stereo.

    I’m sure the spca must have friends in the police force or there must be some politicians that are animal friendly.
    • felix 30.1

      14 December 2009 at 5:30 pm

      You either haven’t read or haven’t understood anything in this thread, Brett.

      And you need to learn the difference between judging and prejudging.
31. Brett Dale 31

    14 December 2009 at 5:37 pm

    felix:

    Just because some doesn’t have your particular point of view, doesn’t mean they don’t understand.
    • felix 31.1

      14 December 2009 at 5:40 pm

      Yes that’s true but that’s not why I said it.

      I said it because everything you’ve asked has already been answered several times in this very thread. You either haven’t read it or you haven’t understood it.
    • felix 31.2

      14 December 2009 at 5:42 pm

      Also Brett:

      Just like someone of the left to prejudge something.

      I’m noting that as the best unintentional irony I’ve seen here. Do you understand why?
      • Brett Dale 31.2.1

        14 December 2009 at 6:33 pm

        Im sure you will explained it to me.
        • felix 31.2.1.1

          14 December 2009 at 7:07 pm

          I don’t there think non point then.
32. Brett Dale 32

    15 December 2009 at 10:50 am

    Felix:

    No, go right ahead.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS