Open mike 20/09/2011

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, September 20th, 2011 - 75 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post. For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the link to Policy in the banner).

Step right up to the mike…

75 comments on “Open mike 20/09/2011 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. mickysavage 1
    20 September 2011 at 7:06 am

    Did you know …

    That the Search and Surveillance Bill was introduced into Parliament in July 2009 and that it’s intent was to amongst other things allow for applications for declaratory orders that would allow surveillance to be conducted.  The bill has languished on the order paper and it’s return date is unknown.

    It was considered necessary because some of the things that the Police wanted to do were illegal at the time.

    No greater an authority than the Chief Justice said in the Urewera case:

    I regard it as a significantly exacerbating factor that the film surveillance was undertaken deliberately without legal authority, in the knowledge that there was no lawful investigatory technique available to be used… In circumstances where the police officer in charge of the inquiry knew that there was no authority to be obtained for such filmed surveillance, the deliberate unlawfulness of the police conduct in the covert filming, maintained over many entries and over a period of some 10 months, is destructive of an effective and credible system of justice. 

    So what do we find out?  That up to 90 actual or potential cases also involve activity that the Chief Justice described as involving “deliberate unlawfulness”.  The police must have known, after all that was what the bill was designed to change.

    And how does the Government plan to deal with this unlawful behavior?  By not only changing the law but changing it retrospectively and ramming the changes through.  I thought that a party dedicated to the observance of the rule of law would realize that the rule of law applies to the police as well.

    This is appalling.  The Greens and the Maori Party and no doubt Mana will oppose.  Please Labour do the right thing and do the same.

    • travellerev 1.1
      20 September 2011 at 7:38 am

      Labour an National are two heads of the same dragon. If you want beat these laws you have to breakaway from these parties.

    • Tiger Mountain 1.2
      20 September 2011 at 7:55 am

      Labour absolutely has to be counted with the Greens, Māori party and Mana on the proposed retrospective law. For one thing it is a point of difference with tory snooping society, but most of all it is the right thing to do.

      The Search and Surveillance Bill is bad enough with extension of spying and seizure powers to every tin pot bureaucrat imaginable. It should also be assumed that the SIS has regular good old searches on the ip addresses of posters on this site

    • vto 1.3
      20 September 2011 at 8:03 am

      So Mickey, if the police knowingly broke the law, as the Chief Justice has determined, are they going to be charged? After all it seems like the actus and mens rea’s are present… Perhaps a private prosecution by some of those who have just had the charges dropped would be some due karma…

      • Tangled up in blue 1.3.1
        20 September 2011 at 9:11 am

        Secondly, the police impropriety was significant. While the Supreme Court did not rule they acted with bad faith, the majority indicated that the police’s attitude to the unlawfulness of the covert surveillance was at best reckless and perhaps deliberate.

        http://www.laws179.co.nz/2011/09/covert-video-surveillance-and-covert.html

      • mickysavage 1.3.2
        20 September 2011 at 9:19 am

        I am not sure VTO if an offence has occurred.  You can have illegality without an offence occurring.
         
        One further matter that should be mentioned is the Law Commission report in 2007 which highlighted the issues.  The Police must have known that they were in a difficult area from then yet obviously chose to proceed without lawful authority.
         
        Police Association spokesperson Greg O’Connor was just on Radio New Zealand applying a good amount of spin.  His contention that the Police thought that they had authority to do what they were doing is, with respect, spin.
         
         
         

    • Bill 1.4
      20 September 2011 at 8:15 am

      I’m guessing Labour won’t oppose retrospective legislation in this case. The Urewera fiasco took place under their ‘stewardship’. They will be more than happy to have events that happened during their time in office validated.

      (Side note) Much in the same vein as Goff backed Key in burying Hagar’s expose of NZ military involvemnt in Afghanistan.

      And in the same way that child poverty stats from longitudinal studies that ended in 2008 (University of Auckland. Report released earlier this year) and that showed NZ children in dire straits received scant attention.

      And the media will play ball of course. As they always do now that they are an integral part of governance rather than a presence that seeks to hold aspects of governance to account.

    • Lanthanide 1.5
      20 September 2011 at 9:32 am

      An expert in public policy and civil law was just on Nine to Noon. I only caught the very end of the interview, but he said that the courts under existing law can already admit this sort of covert surveillance evidence on a case by case basis if they so choose.

      Therefore the retrospective legislation under urgency to stop “cases currently in progress” solves a problem that doesn’t exist. He said the current law will work just fine, until the government can do things properly and come up with a proper amendment.

      Edit: Morrissey has a post down below with the guy’s name in it, ranting about his perceived shortcomings of Kathryn Ryan.

      • Morrissey 1.5.1
        20 September 2011 at 9:49 am

        Morrissey has a post down below with the guy’s name in it, ranting about his perceived shortcomings of Kathryn Ryan.

        While she has many admirable qualities, and runs a good programme, it is quite clear to anyone who listens to her programme that Kathryn Ryan does indeed have many “shortcomings”—in particular, a degree of political naïveté that leaves her vulnerable to cynical propagandists like Irris Makler, and a reluctance to question people in power, vide her recent interview with Hekia “ummm, errrr, ahhhh” Parata.

        To point that out is not “ranting”, it’s just a matter of fact.

        • Lanthanide 1.5.1.1
          20 September 2011 at 10:48 am

          I think this is the first time I’ve seen you say anything remotely positive about a presenter on National Radio.

          • Morrissey 1.5.1.1.1
            20 September 2011 at 1:53 pm

            I think this is the first time I’ve seen you say anything remotely positive about a presenter on National Radio.

            It’s not the first time by any stretch of the imagination. I rate Kim Hill highly—but acknowledge that she too has her moments of weakness. Same with Chris Laidlaw and Brian Crump.

            And I have nothing but praise for Nick Bollinger, Chris Bourke, and everyone at the Concert Programme.

            • Lanthanide 1.5.1.1.1.1
              20 September 2011 at 4:38 pm

              I think this is the first time I’ve seen you say anything remotely positive about a presenter on National Radio.

    • Draco T Bastard 1.6
      20 September 2011 at 12:37 pm

      I thought that a party dedicated to the observance of the rule of law would realize that the rule of law applies to the police as well.

      A party so dedicated would but that’s not the National party which is dedicated to authoritarian rule.

    • Draco T Bastard 1.7
      20 September 2011 at 1:24 pm

      Good write-up over on Pundit about this.

  2. travellerev 2
    20 September 2011 at 7:36 am

    This should be interesting! Bill English is going to meet with Ben Bernanke, The IMF, and the World Bank. All no doubt under the expert guidance of our own globalist Bilderberger and Ambassador for New Zealand Mike Moore.

    That is the equivalent of Bill sticking New Zealand’s head in the mouth of the biggest Crocodile in the pond and expecting it to come out unscathed.
    Expect messages of doom if we don’t sell and mayhem on the Austerity front when he comes home all instructed on how to rob his own country of its resources.

    Here is a nice post from Zero Hedge blog about the criminal scam that is the Reserve banking system.

    And here is what Europe thought of Timothy Geitner on his latest visit to Europe. Not a big success but I’m sure English will be more obedient. He might want a job in the banking world and make as much or more than our own Golden boy John Key did!

  3. burt 3
    20 September 2011 at 7:44 am

    How about that Obama eh;

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/world/5653077/Obama-tax-rich-to-cut-deficit

    What sort of lefty is he when he thinks rich people are people earning over $1m USD – he should know the way to be a real lefty is to make the rich threshold so low it hits about 20% of tax payers and makes core lefty supporters like high school teachers classified as rich.

  4. Zorr 4
    20 September 2011 at 9:30 am

    The current state of America…

    http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/its-long-way-bunker-hill

    It is when I read stories like this that personal dismay hits high levels… x_x

    • Vicky32 4.1
      20 September 2011 at 4:35 pm

      It is when I read stories like this that personal dismay hits high levels… x_x

      Seconded!

      • Ianupnorth 4.1.1
        20 September 2011 at 5:13 pm

        Agree; there are similar situations in this country like that. One example is a school I know where they have a food amnesty table, where kids who have a lunch that they don’t like or will not finish place it on a table for others to help themselves to.

        • Vicky32 4.1.1.1
          20 September 2011 at 5:23 pm

          One example is a school I know where they have a food amnesty table, where kids who have a lunch that they don’t like or will not finish place it on a table for others to help themselves to.

          That’s a brilliant idea! 🙂

  5. Morrissey 5
    20 September 2011 at 9:30 am

    National Radio, Tuesday 20 September 2011, 9:15 a.m.
    Kathryn Ryan out of her depth again

    Ryan interviewed Grant Illingworth, an Auckland barrister specialising in public law, about the government’s decision to rush through a law that will retrospectively legalise the use of covert video surveillance by the police.

    The sketchily prepared Ryan repeated the Police Association statement that there is a “common law understanding” that illegal covert surveillance is legal. (And no, that was not a joke.)

    Unlike most guests, Illingworth saw that it was important to firmly correct her. “That is a false premiss,” he said. “There is no such common law understanding.”

    “I’m understanding that,” she huffed. Clearly, however, she did not understand.

    Is there any system of performance review at Radio New Zealand National?

    • lprent 5.1
      20 September 2011 at 10:48 am

      Grant Illingworth is pretty good (defended rocky against one of the ridiculous charges that the police like to use on activists). I caught a bit of it on the way to work. I should listen to the whole thing.

      • freedom 5.1.1
        20 September 2011 at 11:58 am

        Illingworth simply and competently presented evidence that showed the Police Association lied to the Public. It logically follows the Police also lied to the Minister in any briefing of the facts. If not, then the Government knows and understands what it is doing and is lying to the Public.

        What the courts are doing is a lot more worrisome. When their own judgements flout the law they are meant to uphold we are all in trouble. The silence from other Judges screams of self-protection.

        Ryan meanwhile ignored the answers to her leading questions and eventually gave a pass to the Police , the Government and the ongoing corrosion of our laws with spineless ‘they know best’ platitudes.

        • freedom 5.1.1.1
          20 September 2011 at 12:09 pm

          Also, there are reports of 50 to 90 other cases that employed illegal surveillance? These cases have been referenced by the Police, the Minister and the courts as being very serious yet all comments are absent of any detail. The only case referenced is the ongoing attempt to convict those still facing charges from the Urewera Raids, albeit a series of freshly groomed charges that bear little to no resemblance to any of the charges they were originally arrested for.

        • Morrissey 5.1.1.2
          20 September 2011 at 1:57 pm

          Ryan meanwhile ignored the answers to her leading questions and eventually gave a pass to the Police , the Government and the ongoing corrosion of our laws with spineless ‘they know best’ platitudes.

          Indeed. Which is why I posed the question: is there or is there not any performance review process at National Radio?

    • mickysavage 5.2
      20 September 2011 at 11:24 am

      the Police Association statement that there is a “common law understanding” that illegal covert surveillance is legal

      I presume this is referring to Section 30 of the Evidence Act which allows the admission of improperly obtained evidence through the exercise od Judicial Discretion.  “Improperly” means illegally or unfairly obtained. If a breach is established then the Court have to weigh up a number of factors to consider whether or not to exclude the evidence.

      For the police to acknowledge that they were illegally or unfairly collecting evidence on a systematic basis but still hoping to have it admitted is both bizarre and terrifying. 

      This is why Judge Elias mentioned “deliberate unlawfulness of the police conduct in the covert filming, maintained over many entries and over a period of some 10 months, is destructive of an effective and credible system of justice”.  As far as she was concerned the suggestion that the evidence should nevertheless be admitted was not possible in the circumstances. 

    • Vicky32 5.3
      20 September 2011 at 4:39 pm

      “I’m understanding that,” she huffed. Clearly, however, she did not understand.

      From what I’ve heard of her, that’s characteristic. She is a mass of peculiar prejudices and bad temper… and sometimes incredibly woeful iggerance!

  6. joe90 6
    20 September 2011 at 11:16 am

    A video by Peter Hadfield (potholer54) where he pulls the wings off climate change deniers who say that the recent paper from the Cern Cloud project, Nature abstract here, about the effects of cosmic rays on cloud formation destroys the myth of global warming.

  7. freedom 7
    20 September 2011 at 11:24 am

    It is always such a difficult decision in deciding what is the real story when Free Western Democracies impose censorship. Who to believe? A Reuters press release that is copy and pasted from a central dispatch, and directed into Newspapers around the world? Or the thousands and thousands of independant reports from the people who are actually occupying Wall St despite having Internet services cut and cell transmission disrupted. Stories where the photographic evidence alone completely contradicts the pathetic Reuters propoganda

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/world/5653450/Rage-against-Wall-Street-clogs-New-York-streets
    needless to say the comments section is not active
    now caompare the details in this report
    http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/09/17/tensions-escalate-riot-police-surround-occupy-wall-street-protestors-refusing-disperse-68741/
    or this video

    oh yeah and Stuff may want to explain how if 150 people are the extent of the problem, why there are Police alerts through out NYC restricting people from accessing the Financial/Wall St precint,
    and more importantly who ate the 2800 pizzas that were donated to the protestors
    http://www.thetruthdenied.com/news/2011/09/19/occupy-wall-street-protest/

  8. grumpy 8
    20 September 2011 at 11:46 am

    All (well not a lot actually) talk yesterday about Kate Sheppard when this is all the issue of women’s pay boils down to.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2038962/Workplace-gender-inequality-Wear-skirt-trouser-suit-success.html

  9. thejackal 9
    20 September 2011 at 2:56 pm

    A Conspiracy to Protect John Key

    I was interested to see a video of a press conference today on Gordon Campbell’s excellent blog, where John Key is questioned about Warren Tucker releasing declassified documents to right wing blogger Cameron Slater.

    It reminded me that I’d tried to get to the bottom of the debacle concerning whether Phil Goff had been properly briefed about possible Mossad agents in New Zealand. At first I wrote to the Ombudsman and made a formal complaint under the OIA…

    • higherstandard 9.1
      20 September 2011 at 4:12 pm

      Send your material to Trav she can add it to her files.

      • thejackal 9.1.1
        20 September 2011 at 5:36 pm

        I just had John Pohl, the general council to the Ombudsman trying to tell me the Ombudsman has no authority in this matter. He’s blatantly lying:

        The Ombudsman has the authority to investigate any breach of the OIA by a Minister of the Crown under the Application of the Ombudsmen Act 1975

        (1) It shall be a function of the Ombudsmen to investigate, pursuant to the Ombudsmen Act 1975, any decision made under Part 3 or Part 4,—

        (a) including any such decision made by—
        (i) a Minister of the Crown; or
        (ii) an organisation named in Schedule 1

        New Zealand Security Intelligence Service is included.

        The obvious conclusion is that they’re in the Natz back pockets, god damn it!

        • higherstandard 9.1.1.1
          20 September 2011 at 6:38 pm

          Really ? I thought the obvious conclusion was that you were a self important twerp.

          • McFlock 9.1.1.1.1
            20 September 2011 at 6:48 pm

            Well, if self-important twerps were banned from political involvement, the national party would not have enough members to register.
             
            Personally, I took the obvious conclusion as being the ombudsmen don’t want to touch this with a bargepole before the election, just in case the nacts decide it’s easiest just to destroy the ombudsman office under urgency.
               
            Let’s face it, the only reason the pricks haven’t declared martial law and deferred all elections is that the polls appear to be so skewed at the moment.

          • thejackal 9.1.1.1.2
            20 September 2011 at 7:04 pm

            Whatever the reason for not upholding the law of New Zealand, it’s bad news for our democracy. Here we have a Crown entity actively lying to protect the underhanded dealings of the Prime Minister and SIS. Couple this with a general erosion of our civil liberties by the Natz, and we’re going to end up with a country that isn’t worth living in anymore. If you think you’re immune to the dysfunction that corruption causes and the inevitable backlash HS, you’ve got another thing coming chump! Wake the fuck up.

  10. big bruv 10
    20 September 2011 at 4:07 pm

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5652242/Clark-remembers-securing-RWC

    Who gives a fuck what that buck toothed crusty old cow has to say about anything.

  11. Lanthanide 11
    20 September 2011 at 4:28 pm

    Another fairly big quake, I’d guess 4.5Mish.

  12. happynz 12
    20 September 2011 at 4:29 pm

    16:30…another bump from below…ya reckon this could go on for centuries…

    • vto 12.1
      20 September 2011 at 7:51 pm

      well lanth and happy i missed ’em both.

      been some hefties recently though. nearly always in pairs..

  13. Vicky32 13
    20 September 2011 at 6:21 pm

    Hil’ry Berry has a new take on the so-called “Buffett Rule” (or Buffet Tex, as she calls it.) It amazes me that 3 News has taken so long to inform we radio listeners of something we’ve known for many days! 😀

  14. Vicky32 14
    20 September 2011 at 6:45 pm

    Then there’s this! http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5652215/Single-mum-on-DPB-for-decades
    I find this paragraph particularly bizarre…
    “If she was to receive the present DPB rate for the Domestic Purposes Benefit of $288.47 for the next 30 years it would cost taxpayers $449,280.”
    If she was to receive … for the next 30 years”… but she obviously won’t! I think, also, that this paragraph shows what a piddling amount the benefit actually is!

    • logie97 14.1
      20 September 2011 at 7:44 pm

      Yeah, and which taxpayers would they be anyway? Not the rich and famous. They don’t pay any…

    • ak 14.2
      20 September 2011 at 8:58 pm

      Typical of the disgusting beneficiary-bashing NACT scum and their filthy media hyenas: the facts buried deep in the article, the lying headline injecting poison directly into the schlerotic veins of susceptible moronic hate addicts like our own sad wee bruv.

      By their own figures this woman has raised six children and nursed a 24/7 dependent invalid over 30 years on less than $300/wk before tax. And that repulsive spectre Botox Collins has the temerity to sneer that she doesn’t know what work is. By holy Christ you day’s coming, Nactorrhoids.

      • mik e 14.2.1
        21 September 2011 at 12:18 am

        Collins should clean up her own back yard first as a failed solo mother her future son in law is in jail 4 years at the tax payers expense $100,000 a year her daughter probably on the DPB.

    • Lanthanide 14.3
      20 September 2011 at 10:58 pm

      I too was rather bemused by that sentence.

      My first thought: dog whistle.
      My second thought: wow, that’s really not much money at all.

  15. Colonial Viper 15
    20 September 2011 at 10:14 pm

    Radiation evacuation of Tokyo may have to be considered in a worst case scenario