“Not a good look”

Written By: - Date published: 8:51 pm, March 3rd, 2009 - 12 comments
Categories: crime - Tags:

I have to agree with Idiot/Savant on the Graham Thomas issue.

The idea that there is no written information on the matter is right up there with “he must have walked into a door”.

Collins’ response however, is disgraceful. “It’s not a good look” she says but other than that it’s an employment matter.

Here’s a newsflash Judith. You’re the minister. When you say “not a good look” it’s like the captain of the titanic saying “that’s a nasty hole, someone should really do something about that.”

Even despite its glaring hypocrisy in light of her interference in the employment of Barry Matthews, Collins’ claim this is an employment matter doesn’t hold water. The failure of the police to complete an OIA has nothing to do with employment.

It looks like “Crusher” Collins is hiding behind her spin doctors.

12 comments on ““Not a good look” ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. burt 1
    3 March 2009 at 11:39 pm

    IrishBill

    Meanwhile Idiot/Savant’s justifies Labour hiding the ACC blowout details without questioning why the Police are ignoring the prima facie case of breaching the public finance act.

    It’s not about Justice is it….

    Edit: That big blubbery mammal blog was always going on about Police ignoring OIA requests as well. I wonder if he is all over this one. Partisans eh….

  2. Michael 2
    4 March 2009 at 12:18 am

    Is this Good News?

    Does it mean Collins isn’t going to privatise the Police?

  3. Idiot/Savant 3
    4 March 2009 at 3:11 am

    Burt: read the report [PDF]. It does not attribute any blame to former Ministers at all, only to Treasury. As for “prima facie” violations of the PFA, which clause? The only remotely relevant one is s76 (2) (c) – making a false statement – and that must be done knowing it to be false or misleading. While the report criticised Treasury’s interpretation of the PFA, there’s no suggestion that they had any intent to mislead, and a prosecution would therefore undoubtedly fail. Which is why Bill English dodged that question in Parliament today, rather than answering it…

    • higherstandard 3.1
      4 March 2009 at 9:13 am

      Defending the indefensible ?

      Ministers knew about this budgetary burp as early as April the only logical reason that it was not included in the PREFU was because of the deleterious effect it was likely to have on their election chances.

      As a side note on the Graham Thomas issue – he should have been sacked on the spot – in cases like this the police should be held to a far higher standard than members of the general public – if they keep allowing turds like this to bring them into disrepute God knows how they can expect to be seen in a favourable light by the public.

      • Idiot/Savant 3.1.1
        4 March 2009 at 11:44 am

        Defending the indefensible ?

        Ministers knew about this budgetary burp as early as April the only logical reason that it was not included in the PREFU was because of the deleterious effect it was likely to have on their election chances.

        The report makes no such conclusion. It makes no conclusion about the Ministers involved at all. As you’d know if you had bothered to actually read the thing.

    • burt 3.2
      4 March 2009 at 9:21 am

      If we could have this debate on your blog I would engage with you about this and discuss the detail. As you choose to take an MSM style where you make statements that cannot be rebutted – I agree with HS – You are defending the indefensible. Poor pea-brain Cullen can’t validate his way out of this one can he.

      • Chess Player 3.2.1
        4 March 2009 at 9:59 am

        “Poor pea-brain Cullen can’t validate his way out of this one can he.”

        Well, no, he can’t.

        Suspect that is why he is leaving so quickly – before more information emerges that further tarnishes his reputation. Wait until the real story behind the buy-back of the railway is made public, which I see is starting to occur finally…

        Either he did know, and chose not to make it public, or he didn’t know, when he should have made it his business to know….

        He can’t have it both ways, can he?

  4. Anita 4
    4 March 2009 at 9:00 am

    The failure of the police to complete an OIA has nothing to do with employment.

    I am coming to believe that the Police don’t believe the OIA applies to them. They don’t answer, the give incomplete responses, they give unjustifiable denials and the Ombudsmen have twice as many complaints about them as about any other agency.

  5. insider 5
    4 March 2009 at 10:18 am

    I wonder if the end of his six months medical leave mysteriously coincides with an important anniversary date around his pension after passing which, he will quietly retire.

    captcha organic jobs

  6. curious 6
    4 March 2009 at 11:17 am

    Anita

    I’m starting to get the impression that you might actually hate the NZ ‘Police’ (or rather what you perceive NZ ‘Police’ to be), and this subsequently influences every (negative) thing you have to say about them. Just curious to know whether you have worked for or with Police or understand how they work as an organisation, from the inside?

  7. Tigger 7
    4 March 2009 at 5:39 pm

    Yet again Collins gives a government employee ammo for a personal grievance claim. Of course, we taxpayers will end up footing the bill should they decide to use her words against their employers. Wait till these guys leave with deals and National has to answer questions about it.

    Collins has really got to learn to shut up. You’re not in the opposition anymore, Ms Collins.

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