Police actions unlawful

Written By: - Date published: 1:07 pm, May 22nd, 2013 - 215 comments
Categories: law and "order", police - Tags: ,

The report on the Urewera raids from the Independent Police Complaints Authority is (unlike some other reports we could mention) certainly no whitewash:

Report into Operation Eight finds Police acted unlawfully

Press Release: Independent Police Conduct Authority

An Independent Police Conduct Authority report has found that Police acted unlawfully in establishing road blocks and detaining and searching people during ‘Operation Eight’. …

Independent Police Conduct Authority Chair Judge Sir David Carruthers said today that the decision by the then Commissioner of Police to undertake the operation in Ruatoki Valley and elsewhere on 15 October 2007 was reasonable and justified.

“However, the road blocks established by Police at Ruatoki and Taneatua were unlawful, unjustified and unreasonable. While Police were warranted in taking steps to address possible risk to public safety there was no justification for believing there was a general threat to the people of Ruatoki.

“Police had no legal basis for stopping and searching vehicles or photographing drivers or passengers,” he said. …

The report also showed that the detention of the occupants at five properties examined by the Authority was unlawful and unreasonable. …

A full copy of the Independent Police Conduct Authority’s report into Operation Eight is attached and will also be available on our website at midday – www.ipca.govt.nz

Full report: IPCA_Operation_Eight_Report.pdf

See media coverage:
Police acted unlawfully in ‘terror’ raids
Police acted unlawfully during Urewera Raids, report finds
Urewera police raids report due
Police acted ‘unlawfully’ during Urewera raids

See also the response from the police.

215 comments on “Police actions unlawful”

  1. karol 1

    Ah, but of course. This raid happened under the Clark government, so Johnny & his band of merry oligarchs have no interest in a pushing for a “white wash”.

    • Bill 1.1

      That was my first thought too…

      • Colonial Viper 1.1.1

        The precedent is important, and will have impacts on other incidents. Any time inappropriate or unnecessary use of state powers and state force occurs, individuals and organisations both have to be held responsible.

        • Mary 1.1.1.1

          Guess that means Key et al will just legislate to make the wrongs right, yet again? Simple. And the poor will keep voting National. Thank you Mr Shearer.

    • tracey 1.2

      strange, doesn’t seem ambiguous at all, unlike the section stating you cant spy on kiwi residents or citizens.

      what a joke. Oh and the Clark govt members should also hang their heads in shame.

      • Rob 1.2.1

        and in breaking news, Helen Clark is ranked 21st most powerful woman by Forbes magazine.

        Helen Clark is in charge of a budget of almost $6 billion and a staff of 8000 in 177 countries. hmmmm

        • muzza 1.2.1.1

          Imagine the instructions Clark actually had to enact, to attract promotion into such a powerful role, effectively 3rd highest at the UN!

          Such positions are *earnt*, but not in the ways the average human being might like to expect!

          • One Anonymous Knucklehead 1.2.1.1.1

            🙄

            Go on, cretin, tell us all what she had to do.

          • Populuxe1 1.2.1.1.2

            I can’t say I’ve noticed any major atrocities overseen by HC. Perhaps you might suggest some – unless you think the UN demanded she sign a painting not hers and speed on the way to a rugby match. Indeed, the ways of the UN are mysterious and inscrutable…

    • Populuxe1 1.3

      Excuse me!? The Nats did everything in their power to get around it, including changing our evidence laws in 2011 just so the illegally obtained police footage could be admitted. What a load of bullshit.

    • Given that the Nats support the principle that they should be able to have surveillance on people pretty much as the police wish, I think that’s a rather uncharitable reaction.

      The real reason to be mad is, well, that they support that principle and would have lobbied hard to uphold it.

  2. ianmac 2

    Wonder if any of the complainants will take a case for damages?

  3. TheContrarian 3

    What a total clusterfuck

  4. McFlock 4

    And the nats want/have just given our “security services” even more power.

    I like frontline cops, as a general rule. But some of these special operation guys get distracted by their hard-ons for US cop shows way too easily.

  5. infused 5

    Still glad it happened. We all know what they were doing.

    • McFlock 5.1

      yep.
      Holding up a bus full of scared schoolkids wile wearing balaclavas. Oh, wait, that was the cops.

      • Arfamo 5.1.1

        The report established the bus full of schoolkids story is a myth:

        http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/8703308/Urewera-police-raid-actions-unlawful

        While the decision by then-Commissioner Howard Broad to undertake ”Operation Eight” in 2007 was justified and reasonable, some of the subsequent actions were not, the Independent Police Conduct Authority has revealed.

        But the IPCA found one of the most criticised parts of the Urewera raids – the stopping and searching of a kohanga reo bus full of young children – did not happen.

        It had been claimed that masked and armed police boarded a bus, traumatising the children.

        The authority says it spoke to three kohanga reo bus drivers and could not substantiate the claims.

        Police did stop and search an unmarked kohanga reo bus but it contained only two adults and their 14-year-old grandchild, the authority’s report issued today says.

        • tracey 5.1.1.1

          If I were John banks (and thankfully I am not) I would say

          “could not substantiate the claims.” is not the same as did or did not happen. It’s ambiguous.

          • Arfamo 5.1.1.1.1

            Well, no doubt if it did happen there will now come forth multitudes of parents, children and the relevant driver, and they will appear on Campbell Live to dispute this.

        • lprent 5.1.1.2

          Silly – read the report. What it said was that the event was unsubstantiated. It did not say that there was no evidence. Just that the police didn’t confirm it and no-one else could either. Read paragraphs 227-231 of the report

          Of course that was what the Police Complaints said in 1981 about the idiot policeman when batoned me without a reason during the springbok tour. Apparently the policeman whose badge number I reported was in christchurch at the time rather than Auckland. Of course the ‘honest’ cop who was meant to be wearing the badge hadn’t given it to a cop in Auckland.

          However the bone headed fuckwit who batoned me left a scar and a complete inability to believe that the police can investigate themselves. The IPCA isn’t much different. It consists of a judge, a few lawyers, a few ex-cops as investigators and most of the investigation of itself is done by police. Frequently by people out of the station that the officers being complained about are based.

          The NZ police routinely lie when it is about their own. Consequently if the IPCA says if it was inconclusive – then what that means is that there were no witnesses or documentary evidence apart from the people making the complaint and the police.

          As I said. Read the report. Where it says inconclusive, then the presumption of guilt should be on the police because it means that the IPCA was unable to clear them. That is always a stunning indictment of the police concerned.

          • Rhinocrates 5.1.1.2.1

            Yep, heard too many stories from friends at legal protests who’ve been beaten up by pigs to the point of suffering permanent brain damage, who’ve had their files illegally accessed (what you hear is the tip of the iceberg). Even women cops who’ve been forced out of the service for having lady bits.

          • Populuxe1 5.1.1.2.2

            “Just that the police didn’t confirm it and no-one else could either.”

            “No-one else” including the hypothetical children, their parents, their principal and teachers, or the bus driver, or anyone from the bus company, or anyone who supposedly would know these people in that tight-knit community, have come forward, despite the fact this is proud and independent Tuhoi, and the media would be all over it like flies on the proverbial. If it had been me, I would have been all over Campbell Live like a rash! The political traction alone would have been awsome. Hell, Tama Iti isn’t exactly media shy.

            Are you suggesting Tuhoi are too thick to realise when they have an opportunity to make the government bend over backwards?

            • lprent 5.1.1.2.2.1

              What I am saying is that there wasn’t any evidence one way or another. But this is hardly surprising. The complainants weren’t going around taking photos to support their claims and if they had (based on past experience) the police snapped would have tried to illegally take their cameras/phones to ‘accidentally’ wipe the chips.

              Reading the report it doesn’t look like the IPCA managed to find more than one police who actually boarded any bus. This is despite at least a few having done so – at the police’s own admission. But this is normal for the police. They either are the biggest bumblers in existence (sometimes I suspect that), or they run pretty good systems to ensure that they cannot be pulled up for their transgressions.

              When you read the report it is scathing on the things it did find evidence for. For instance police not filling out the forms that they had at the checkpoint about if they had photos of people – something that they would have required consent for. Question would be is where are those (digital) photos now copied to?

              What I am suggesting is that the police routinely use their position to ensure that there is little evidence targeting individual police of illegalities. The reason for this is pretty clear. The IPCA investigators don’t look too hard at individual police. This leaves complainants unable to get any redress. That is because individual police are individually liable in civil courts (or with a private prosecution), whereas it is hell to sue the police as a force because they push the responsibility to unnamed individual officers.

              • Populuxe1

                There is a big difference between saying “there is no evidence that it happened” and “we can’t prove it didn’t happen” – unless maybe you’re a theologian. It’s a myth that you can’t prove a negative.
                And yes, a mass action against the police is difficult, but not impossible, it is also true one of the reasons a free and independant media exists is precisely for this sort of situation as we have seen in the past and continue to see now in the case of police fitness, and their cosy relationship with McDonalds – to hold the state to account.

            • ghostrider888 5.1.1.2.2.2

              It’s Tuhoe

            • ghostrider888 5.1.1.2.2.3

              Furthermore, if you followed the MSM commentary, redress will be sought; just the beginning. (not an apologist for any bodies ‘breaking the law’, but for goodness sake!).

            • ghostrider888 5.1.1.2.2.4

              even furthermore, it appears that the ‘authorities’ are not fond of ‘anarchists’.

      • tracey 5.1.2

        +1

        infused – have you seen reports we haven’t? Did you sit through every day of the hearings or just read snippetts from papers or the news? Are you as malleable as you appear?

        • Arfamo 5.1.2.1

          Did anybody here get to see the full 88 page police affidavit before it got pulled from the overseas website?

          • Pascal's bookie 5.1.2.1.1

            Yep.

            Favorite part was where ‘suspects’ were seen leaving an address* with a package wrapped in paper.

            *fish’n’chip shop.

            • Arfamo 5.1.2.1.1.1

              Has it ever actually been subsequently released or was it permanently suppressed?

            • Arfamo 5.1.2.1.1.2

              So, as far as I know, nobody has come forward to refute the conclusion the boarding of a bus full of schoolkids probably never happened.

              And, apart from perhaps a few people who saw the court-suppressed 88 page affidavit before it was pulled, the general public hasn’t seen the full document which details the basis for the raid, but contained enough evidence to convince a judge to issue warrants

              And, the terrorism charges had to be dropped because the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 was found to be “complex and incoherent” and “almost impossible to apply to domestic circumstances”, and some of the evidence was gathered unlawfully so could not presented – but at sentencing it appears the judge had access to sufficient information to impose a fairly stiff sentence for a firearms offence.

              And, the IPCA says the police exceeded & abused their powers, and the police clearly have every interest in trying to minimise, confuse, excuse, or not disclose everything they did wrong.

              And, those involved in the training camps have, with the knowledge the 88 pages that detail why the raid happened will never come to light, have every reason to do the same.

              So, whatever position anyone takes on this issue will only ever be on the basis of who they believe.

              • lprent

                I’ve read a number of the documents including the search warrant affidavits.

                It was pretty typical of virtually all of the similar affidavits that I have seen for various search warrants on activists. Basically short of detail, inflated full of bullshit that usually seems to be largely cribbed off conspiracy sites on the internet, and a lot of poorly thought-out speculation on what the police may want to charge people with.

                After all a paranoid copper suspects everyone (except usually other police) of wrongdoing and they largely rely on confidential informants – who are (to put it mildly) quite unreliable. In many cases (including this one), the search warrant is fishing pole trying to hook a charge rather than a spear attempting to pin a conviction. Requests for search warrants on activists are seldom based on more than a suspicious feeling, some bullshit from CI’s, and that the police following activists are usually the most frustrated and paranoid idiots the police have.

                I’ve seen quite a few of the damn things over time and what I have to say is that there is only ever one reason to suppress them – people would tear them apart laughing hysterically in 20/20 hindsight at the paranoid morons who put them together if they were put in public view. The reason given for the suppression is invariably to protect the “sources” of information – which is usually the fantasies of paid informants.

                So no – your “balanced view” looks like crap to me. I think that most of the activists would love to have those requests for a search warrant in public view. I think that it is quite irresponsible for the courts to have suppressed them.

                • Arfamo

                  I think that most of the activists would love to have those requests for a search warrant in public view. I think that it is quite irresponsible for the courts to have suppressed them.

                  I agree. I would very much like to see all the evidence released. Did you see the 88 page document? I’m not trying to present a “balanced” view. Just how I see things – which is allegation and counter-allegation and assumptions and a lot of missing details.

                  • lprent

                    Yes. Apart from anything else the police were rapped (lightly) over the knuckles for putting everything for all places and vehicles in that single incoherent morass.

                    As the IPCA pointed out, they should have been done as individual requests per warrant, which would have meant that most of the requests could have been placed into the public record. I didn’t read it closely enough to see what the IPCA did, that there were people and places mentioned in the request who were not part of the search warrant request. Evidently the police are crap proofreaders.

                    Whoever passed application through (seem to remember it was one of the more compliant registrars) should be pulled up as well.

                  • Arfamo

                    Well to my surprise it’s on the net, so I’m away for a read from the perspective you’ve outlined.

                    • lprent

                      Hard to get rid of stuff off the net.

                      Have fun. Put on a big pot of coffee first.

                    • Arfamo

                      Jesus. A caffeine drip would’ve been better. Ok, I can see where you’re coming from. Now I’m off to boggle through the IPCA report.

                    • Arfamo

                      Well, enjoyed the affidavit. It’s 155 pages long, not 88 as I thought. I also read the article by Nicky Hager that’s cross linked at the same location & thought it was very apt.

                      Have also now read the full IPCA report. In relation to the reports of AOS boarding and scaring a bus full of kohanga reo kids, I notice this.

                      230. The driver of the kohanga reo bus taking children from Taneatua to Ruatoki has confirmed to the Authority that, while he was in a queue of cars leading up to the Ruatoki road block, an AOS officer approached him. Upon seeing children inside, the officer asked if he was transporting children to kohanga reo and when he confirmed that he was, the officer assisted him to overtake the queueing vehicles and he was allowed through the road block without being stopped or his vehicle searched. This driver encountered both the Ruatoki and Taneatu road blocks throughout the morning, and was “waved through” each time without being stopped and searched.

                      Anyone with even my limited understanding of the history of the disgraceful invasion, mistreatment, confiscations and persecution of Tuhoe who were never signatories to the ToW would have to agree their grievances are real and support their resolution.

                      Nevertheless I think the investigation into these camps was justified. The police raids however were a shambolic over-reaction that should never have happened and that they should apologise profusely to the Tuhoe community for. I think the IPCA has reached the right balance and made sound determinations.

            • ghostrider888 5.1.2.1.1.3

              *kebab

      • The Al1en 5.1.3

        “yep.
        Holding up a bus full of scared schoolkids wile wearing balaclavas. Oh, wait, that was the cops.”

        Terrorist training in the forest is worse, but yeah, balaclavas on coppers suck.

        • Colonial Viper 5.1.3.1

          Great for enforcing a sense of individual non-accountability though. Hiding or misrepresenting your uniform badge numbers etc.

          • The Al1en 5.1.3.1.1

            The weird and wired world.

            Cell phones with cameras > police officers behaving badly.

            Video surveillance of terror training < wannabe terrorists behaving badly.

          • Populuxe1 5.1.3.1.2

            Yep, the badge number stuff is bad (and well substantiated) and needs to be dealt with (with extreme prejudice).

  6. Peter 6

    Another incident in the long history of the constabulary’s dislike of Tuhoe, and the attitudes of our law enforcement community towards Maori in general.

    At least this time, unlike 1916, there is eventually some part of government that condemns it.

    • tracey 6.1

      Tuhoe should take civil action as an iwi…

      • Blue 6.1.1

        Against the Labour government Minister responsible? Now that is a cracking idea.

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 6.1.1.1

          What did the Minister do again? Show everyone how completely clueless you are, please.

      • Ugly Truth 6.1.2

        If civil action didn’t involve an implicit loss of sovereignty then that would be a good idea.

        The Crown’s dishonor over the treaty is the central issue here, Maori sovereignty was not ceded at Waitangi because of the legal doctrine of contra proferentem.

        http://www.treatyeducators.org.nz/qa11

        • Populuxe1 6.1.2.1

          I would have thought using state infrastructure would involve an “implicit loss of sovereignty” too, but I guess not.

  7. Winston Smith 7

    One of the few things Labour can be proud of…

  8. Mark Fletcher 9

    If it weren’t for some abysmally drafted laws maybe the outcomes would have been very different. Having said that I still don’t think they (the laws) have been cleaned up even now.

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 9.1

      An entrenched Bill of Rights Act would go a long way towards taking out some of the trash legislation that’s on the statute books.

      • Mark Fletcher 9.1.1

        Can’t disagree with that but which politicians (of any flavor) will champion that?

      • Prove It 9.1.2

        An entrenched Bill of Rights just moves power from a democratically elected and accountable Parliament to an unelected and democratically unaccountable judiciary.

        Do you want a small group of lawyers as the ultimate policy makers for the country?

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 9.1.2.1

          Really? Is that how human rights legislation works? Excuse me for sounding sceptical, but I can’t help but wondering whether your assertions would pass a cursory reality check.

          I’m picking not.

          PS: I suspect if we were discussing property rights you would resist all parliamentary re-interpretations of established common law.

          • Prove It 9.1.2.1.1

            No idea what you are saying. Who do you think will interpret and rule on this entrenched Bill of Rights?

            Not sure where you get your PS from – as it is entirely inconsistent with Parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament can revoke/overule/amend the common law at will.

            • One Anonymous Knucklehead 9.1.2.1.1.1

              The UDoHR ia couched in plain language. Freedom of speech and assembly, for example are not difficult concepts.

              Yes, Parliament can indeed pass any law it chooses. Lets smash them down and keep our feet on their throats until they agree to limit their own authoritarian tendencies and entrench the BoRA.

              • freedom

                “Freedom of speech and assembly, for example are not difficult concepts. ”
                for some OAk, only for some 🙂

              • Prove It

                The simple concept of freedom of speech can be difficult to frame and balance – as indicated by the weight of First Amendment litigation before the USSC.

                • One Anonymous Knucklehead

                  So what? Because it’s beyond the mental capacity of some random wingnut complicated we should just give up?

                  • Prove It

                    Hmmm …

                    Who said we should give it up?

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead

                      Perhaps you have a different idea of how New Zealand can better defend itself against the National Party.

                    • Arfamo

                      I’m getting more and more keen on the idea of defenestration of the entire Nact executive but the logistics look difficult.

                    • Rhinocrates

                      You want to take their windows away from them?

                    • Arfamo

                      Defenestration is the act of throwing someone or something out of a window, preferably 2nd floor or higher.

                    • Rhinocrates

                      Yes, I know. I was just being silly.

                • freedom

                  really hate to break it to you Prove It, but this is actually a different country and I hazard to say as a whole, we have a far better grass roots grasp of freedom of speech

                  • Prove It

                    Not sure what your point is.

                    Whether or not “we” have or do not have a better “grass roots” grasp of freedom of speech ignores the key point, which is that even that what OAK seems to describe as simple (and what I would call fundamental) rights such as freedom of speech are constantly tested by changing cultural, social, technological and other factors.

                    When those rights are entrenched, it becomes the job of an unelected judiciary to make policy decisions as to the boundaries of the rights (such as what is ‘protected speech’). This is a transfer of sovereign power from Parliament (as representative of the electorate) to the judges. My links to USSC decisions are simply indicative of cases where judges (yes, granted, in a different country) have made decisions that – in most cases – are anachronistic to us as a society.

                    Would NZ judges in the current environment make similar decisions – unlikely. However, given the policy power of the USSC it has become increasingly politicised – with decisions in many cases dividing along political lines. The danger is that a similar position occurs here – resulting in decisions with which you (and the broader public) may disagree with, but which are immune to Parliamentary challenge.

                    • Colonial Viper

                      Justify to me why a judiciary should be elected, and elected by whom, and why it would be an improvement over what NZ has today.

                    • Prove It

                      Who is calling for an elected judiciary?

                  • Colonial Viper

                    A large part of your complaint about the judiciary is that they are unelected and unaccountable (which of course is false, they’re simply not accountable at the ballot box).

                    • Prove It

                      Where did I complain about the judiciary?

                      You are correct that the judiciary are accountable, but my meaning (in terms of electoral accountability for policy decisions) was quite clear in context.

                  • Populuxe1

                    I doubt we do, seeing as it isn’t actually protected by or defined by our laws, and indeed the whole thing seems a bit murky

                    http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/1966/freedom-of-speech

              • Colonial Viper

                Why are you using irrelevant to NZ US cases?

                What is it about the performance of the US executive or congress which makes you think that being “elected” brings any improvements whatsoever?

                • Prove It

                  I told you why – to illustrate that simply transferring policy decisions on human rights issues to judges is not always a panacea.

                  I would suggest that the US separation of power structure is in part responsible for the position they now find themselves in.

                  • Colonial Viper

                    We’re not looking for a “panacea” we’re looking for rule of law and due process. Which means accountability and responsibility. And it means a vigorous fourth estate.

                    I would suggest that the US separation of power structure is in part responsible for the position they now find themselves in.

                    That’s nonsensical. It’s the fusing of corporate and cross-branch governmental power which is screwing that nation.

  9. MrSmith 10

    And the police wonder why they have less respect in the community year after year, they need to get on their hands and knees and beg for forgiveness (but of-course they won’t), they work for us for fuck sake, their not some gang of paid thugs, until they stop acting like thugs they won’t be respected and there job will just get harder.

  10. I kid you not but the NBR headline for the story is “Terrorism raids justified – Urewera bus search did not happen”.

    Talk about spin …

    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/terrorism-raids-justified-urewera-bus-search-did-not-happen-ja-140465

    • freedom 11.1

      a whole 229 words,
      maybe they are cutting costs and don’t want to wear out their keyboards before the election spin begins

      -but the comments, wow, they read like transcribed talkback radio

      • prism 11.1.1

        Reminds me of the loose sensationalism of a story I read in a woman’s mag where a – “Dolphin Attacked Me”. The woman involved was seriously injured, and in a wheelchair. But it wasn’t that the boat was probably coming too close to the pod and were right in the way of their maneouvres. Attack is how it was proclaimed. And what happened to the dolphin after it fell onto the boat, and the woman? It slipped back into the water, probably seriously hurt itself.

        Everything in the police story gets given the sympathetic treatment. And Nga Tuhoe are supposed to slip back into their lives as if they had never suffered a village invasion.

      • Rhinocrates 11.1.2

        Had a quick browse, didn’t bother with the rest. People like to think that racism and xenophobia are the attitudes of the uneducated and poor, but Hooton has demonstrated that the rich are just as crude and bigoted as any skinhead or a stereotypical Alabama Sheriff. They just utter their slurs in smoother accents.

        • Murray Olsen 11.1.2.1

          The only difference I see is that an idiot poor racist like Kyle Chapman might beat up underage Somali refugees one at a time, but a rich racist can move whole Pasifika communities out of their homes with a stroke of a pen. Without the bigots in business suits, the bigots in combat boots wouldn’t last long at all.

          • rosy 11.1.2.1.1

            “Without the bigots in business suits, the bigots in combat boots wouldn’t last long at all.”

            True that. The bigots in combat boots do not understand who they are working for.

          • Populuxe1 11.1.2.1.2

            Actually I think you’ll find that the rich pricks (of any ethnicity) don’t particularly care what colour you are – if you are in the way of them making a profit, you are goneburger.

            • Murray Olsen 11.1.2.1.2.1

              Fair enough, but they use a different ideology to displace poor or activist people of their own ethnicity. They’re just not nice people all round.

              • Populuxe1

                What? Are you saying banksters never foreclose on white folks? Bahahahaha. Not every white fellah gets to sleep up in the big house.

                • Murray Olsen

                  Try reading what I wrote if you want to know what I wrote, Px1. Novel idea, I know, and maybe not as much fun as just making it up, but life sucks sometimes.

            • muzza 11.1.2.1.2.2

              Not so, Pop, its not about the money, not to those who actually control it in any case.

              Those who need to consider profit/money, are simply foot soldiers, nothing more.

              The system owners are not racist, they physically despise humanity!

          • ghostrider888 11.1.2.1.3

            that is well phrased Murray

  11. KJT 12

    I await with anticipation the suspension, arrest, charging, sacking and imprisonment of the police who broke the law.

    Same with the GCSB and those charged with their oversight.

  12. Rhinocrates 13

    From Granny:

    Police have made “many” changes to policies and practices since the raids and continued to rebuild trust with the Ruatoki community, Mr Marshall said.

    These are the stages of denial:

    1. It never happened.

    2. It may have happened, but there’s no definitive proof.

    3. It happened, but it’s been blown out of proportion. Move on.

    4. It happened and we’re at fault, but they aren’t saints either. Move on!

    5. It happened, and it was awful, but we’ve made changes since then! Why do you keep harping on about it?! What’s your agenda?!

    6. You’re enabling the enemy!

    7. You’re next!

    When there is a damning report, 3 is usually followed by retrospective legislation. The Pig Commissioner seems to be at about 4 or 5.

    • Colonial Viper 13.1

      6. You’re enabling the enemy!

      A hell of a lot of US govt accusations of journalists, wikileaks, foreign governments, etc seems to be based on this point.

      • Rhinocrates 13.1.1

        Oh yes, “enabling” – the word of last resort used by those who know that they have neither logical nor emotional support for their most barbaric instincts.

        • Populuxe1 13.1.1.1

          What. Like the Nats are enabling rich pricks? Don’t be so sanctimonious.

  13. This doesn’t surprise me, the Dotcom raid was even worse but the government got off scott free so far.

  14. Maybe Aunty helen should have t fly back from the non corrupt UN and say sorry also.

    • Murray Olsen 15.1

      She should. She could stand next to Key on a podium and they could both apologise for all these sort of government actions. Key and Shearer could come up with a cross party agreement to stop all future spying on Kiwis, and dismantle the SIS and GCSB. They could agree on binding legislation over maybe 35 years that any government employees caught breaking the law would not have their offending excused by a subsequent law change.

      Great idea, Comrade Dale. I would be proud to march shoulder to shoulder with you in this revolutionary crusade for a better world, where no PM of any party can change the law to suit themselves.

    • lprent 15.2

      I believe this has been pointed out many times before. But outside of the budget that they give them and what specific portions are targeted for, the police have few legal operational controls from politicians. Don’t believe me? Read the recently updated Police Act.

      Now I personally think that this is a good thing. Imagine a fruitloop crazy dingbat like Judith Collins or John Banks having actual operational control on a police force. However it does leave open the question about how the police themselves are held accountable for their policies and actions. At present it tends to be by the courts and on the odd occasion by the IPCA. Often parts of the police cheerfully ignore those anyway.

      Sure there is meant to be hierarchy of command in the Police. However that tends to be more of a polite fiction than an actuality. Much of the police looks like a series of personal fiefdoms run by rather strange people in an arcane mixture of corporate politics and a military bureaucracy.

      What is noticeable is that they have been becoming increasingly aware of public comment on their actions from outside of their traditional allies/enemies the journos

      • Murray Olsen 15.2.1

        “Few legal operational controls”, sure. However I’m pretty sure there’s a lot of winking and nudging going on, such as with the police invading newsrooms after the Epsom teacup saga. The invasion of Tuhoe land is unlikely to have gone ahead without at least tacit political approval. I do believe you, lprent, but I also know how much police officers and politicians find unofficial ways to do things when it suits them.

        How to make the police and other law enforcement agencies accountable in an ostensibly democratic society is one of the difficult questions we face. I suspect that until they start doing time for their offences, rather than having compensation paid out by the rest of us, not much is going to change.

  15. millsy 16

    We need a Royal Commission of inquiry into our police force and how they conduct themselves.

  16. Jenny 17

    That the police didn’t shoot anyone. Is something we are being told we should be grateful for.

    The police like the GCSB (and not just arguably) have been found by the Police Conduct Authority, to have committed illegal activities.

    Like many others caught up in the raids, my father and his family were detained in his own home, by the police. Forced by a large police officer guarding him to sit on the couch in his lounge. Meanwhile an unknown number of other police officers searched his house. Un-supervised by any independant body, these unknown officers came and went and had the full run of the rest of my father’s house. Detained on the couch and not allowed to get up, my father’s ordeal lasted for over 4 hours. They rummaged through every room of his house, while he was detained in the lounge. Going over all his personal effects and reading all his papers and accessing his computer. No doubt collecting names and details of his friends and acquaintances . He had to beg his police guards to get off the couch to go to the toilet, in which he passed the other rooms and saw police officers poring through his personal effects.

    After this ordeal my father was not charged with any offence.

    In the wake of these abuses, the police as they did for many others, paid him out a sizeable sum in compensation.

    Of course this money didn’t come out their pockets, but out of ours, as taxpayers.

    As I said my father was not charged with any offence. The offenders here, were the police. Yet they have suffered no meaningful liability for their actions.

    I have heard of others detained in similar and even worse circumstances who were also not charged. Most of these offences will not come to light, because of settlements made with the police.

    What does it mean for our free society if lawbreaking by those who are sworn to uphold the law is allowed to go unchecked?

    What does it mean for our democracy, if the rule of law can be flouted at will by the authorities, without any fear of even the slightest sanction?

    If we are not to have a repeat of such abuse of our democratic and free society, then disciplinary action, including dismissal, needs to taken against the individuals responsible for these illegal actions. Such minimal disciplinary actions would be slight. If these admitted acts of “illegality”had been committed by anyone else, except the police, they would be facing criminal charges.

    Police Commissioner Peter Marshall said on Wednesday there will be no disciplinary action for any of the officers involved because staff acted professionally and in good faith on the day.

    However, Mr Marshall accepts the IPCA report’s criticisms and acknowledges illegality in some parts of the raids.

    In an extraordinary and arrogant exchange in light of his admission of police illegality, the Police Commissioner Peter Marshall told Irene Williams on Radio NZ that, “They went to far, that is accepted”.
    In a heated retort to Irene Williams questioning about why then, no police will be disciplined. The Police Commissioner replied, “No one was shot”.

    Police didn’t go in there with any malice. They went in there with the view of being extraordinary safe. No one was shot.

    Commissioner Marshall interviewed on RNZ 1:31 minutes in

    (If someone had been shot. Charging, or even identifying the officer responsible, would as recent examples have proven, have been problematic as well.)

    That the police have such extraordinary powers to be above the law must be concerning.

    For his arrogant defence of lawbreaking by the police and for his callous attitude to the victims of the illegal police actions.

    In my opinion.

    One of the first to be sacked, or demoted, or otherwise disciplined, should be Peter Marshall himself.

    In the unlikely case that the police are ever held accountable for these “illegalities” it is unlikely that senior police, like Peter Marshall will be in the firing line. Just in case the shit ever does hit the fan. To avoid any chance of personal responsibility, Peter Marshall lays all the blame on his “staff”.

    “However the IPCA has identified some instances where staff invoked statutory powers to carry out their actions, which were later found not to meet the legal threshold. In other
    instances, staff exceeded their authority or didn’t interpret the legislation correctly.

    Commissioner Marshall Police News release.

    • The Al1en 17.1

      Terrorist training camps, love.
      The end.

      Police said sorry for the road blocks and busts on four properties.
      So far heard nothing from the scum planning thermite bomb attacks.

      So an old man had to sit down on a couch for four hours while police conducted a search.
      Planning to blow up our people is much more of an outrage.

      I may have to apologise to mike williams for his freaks comments.

      Enough of this nonsense. Bring it, or fuck off.

      • The Al1en 17.1.1

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22630303

        “sorry we had to do this in front of your women”

        :wanker:

        • felix 17.1.1.1

          Oh, I didn’t realise someone in england was being a wanker. Guess that puts the nz police above the law then.

          • The Al1en 17.1.1.1.1

            Focus, felix.

            • felix 17.1.1.1.1.1

              Very focused thanks.

              Like to elaborate on why you think a wanker in england is relevant to the nz police breaking the law?

              ps I hope you have a better answer than “TERRRRISSSTS” as we’re actually talking about the police detaining innocent, unsuspected, uncharged people.

      • felix 17.1.2

        (1). “So an old man had to sit down on a couch for four hours while police conducted a search.”

        (2). “Planning to blow up our people is much more of an outrage.”

        Unless the old man in (1) is under arrest in relation to (2), it’s utterly dishonest of you to link them like this.

        • The Al1en 17.1.2.1

          No it isn’t.

          You can slag the police for holding an old fella in his own home on his couch for four hours, for which he received an apology and a payout, whilst ignoring terrorist, but I won’t.

          Tuhoe should sue the police 😆
          Tuhoe should banish the terror suspects in their community first.

          • felix 17.1.2.1.1

            Then make the link. Because you haven’t yet, and neither have the police.

            • The Al1en 17.1.2.1.1.1

              I think you’re deliberately missing the point.
              Raids part wrong, terrorist wannabees 100% wrong.

              • felix

                No, I’m addressing the point directly.

                The rule of law is, in essence, the idea that no-one is above the law, including (perhaps especially) those responsible for enforcing the law.

                • Murray Olsen

                  Obviously Allen considers those enforcing the law to not be subject to it as long as “terrorists” are involved. Nobody was found guilty in any court of any terrorist activities. In fact the guilty verdicts were for something half the farmers in the country are probably guilty of.
                  Apologists for abuse of state power and denial of the presumption of innocence – 100% wrong. Your thinking is far more dangerous than any number of Tuhoe doing anything in the bush.

                  • Populuxe1

                    That’s not actually what he said at all. He said the police did wrong, but playing silly buggers with firearms and molotov cocktails is wrong also.

                    • Murray Olsen

                      You’ve already made it obvious you can’t read and have short term memory loss. No need to keep going.

          • framu 17.1.2.1.2

            so if the police point the finger at anyone and call them a terrorist any community involved should expell that person forthwith?

            • The Al1en 17.1.2.1.2.1

              Or end up looking like those ira and uvf dicks that use to refuse to condemn violence.

              • felix

                You’re the only one here refusing to condemn violence you fucking worm.

              • framu

                refusing to condem violence isnt the same thing as banishing someone just because the police point the finger at them is it.

                • “refusing to condem violence isnt the same thing as banishing someone just because the police point the finger at them is it.”

                  No, it isn’t, and I shouldn’t have used ‘or’ I should have written ‘And those that won’t see past their own hatred, prejudice or self serving ends’

                  • framu

                    fair enough –

                    so,if the police point the finger at anyone and call them a terrorist should any community involved expell that person forthwith before they have been arrested, tried and found guilty?

                    • I think Tuhoe can sue the police and condemn and banish iti at the same time.

                    • Te Reo Putake

                      No, but those who admit their involvement should be shunned for the pain they bought down on their communities. Wannabe Che Guevaras caused this incident, if their egos were smaller and their brains bigger, none of this would have happened.

                    • framu

                      ” if their egos were smaller and their brains bigger, none of this would have happened.” – applies to the police as well in this case

                      Dont get me wrong here – Im not sticking up for tama iti at all. I dont know enough about the evidence to categoriclly say one way or the other what was going on out that way – but the way the police gathered evidence, formed their opinions and carried out their actions has been found wanting to a huge degree.

                      The fact the entire case collapsed round the police’s ears kind of says something doesnt it? Remember, not even the organised crime group charges stuck – never mind the terrorism charges.

                      Why are we condeming people based on allegations from the police? Shouldnt that be based upon the outcome of the trial?

                      Even ross meurant – whos not some bleeding heart liberal, thinks its all a bit fishy

                    • “No, but those who admit their involvement should be shunned for the pain they bought down on their communities. Wannabe Che Guevaras caused this incident, if their egos were smaller and their brains bigger, none of this would have happened.”

                      I say banish, you say shunned, but they mean the same thing to me. I agree with that 100%.

              • Clockie

                “Tuhoe should banish the terror suspects in their community first.”

                Last time I checked, my neighbors don’t get to vote on whether I continue to live in my house..

          • felix 17.1.2.1.3

            “Tuhoe should banish the terror suspects in their community first.”

            Ah, there it is. So I can be illegally detained for something my neighbour, friend of a friend, cousin, customer, or employer is suspected of, according the TheAl1en’s rewriting of my civil rights.

            Fuck off cunt. I don’t think I want fasc1sts like you becoming nz citizens.

            • The Al1en 17.1.2.1.3.1

              “Ah, there it is. So I can be illegally detained for something my neighbour, friend of a friend, cousin, customer, or employer is suspected of, according the TheAl1en’s rewriting of my civil rights.”

              That’s not what I wrote at all.

              “Fuck off cunt. I don’t think I want fasc1sts like you becoming nz citizens.”

              I’m not a fascist, far from it, and tough fucking luck, numb nuts, you aint got a choice or a say so, so go do one 😉

              • felix

                “That’s not what I wrote at all.”

                It’s exactly what you wrote. You supported illegal detention and you justified it by saying the community as a whole was responsible.

                • “It’s exactly what you wrote.”

                  Again, no it wasn’t.

                  “You supported illegal detention”

                  Quote me or stfu and gtfo.

                  “and you justified it by saying the community as a whole was responsible.”

                  I did neither.

                  • felix

                    Ok, here’s your opportunity to clarify. Don’t squander it.

                    Was it ok for the police to illegally detain those people or not?

                    That’s a yes/no question by the way.

                    • I’m never gonna give a one word answer on demand or command, so you’ll have to accept that.

                      Of course it was wrong, only an idiot would suggest otherwise, especially as the report says it’s illegal… And I’ve never said it wasn’t wrong. I’m not surprised you can’t find the quote where I did.

                    • felix

                      Ah, so now it was wrong.

                      Funny, upthread you were cool with it, cos terrorists.

                    • “Ah, so now it was wrong.

                      Funny, upthread you were cool with it, cos terrorists.”

                      Like I wrote, you quote or you’re dope.
                      I’ve never stated it wasn’t wrong, or scary or anything about it being acceptable.

                    • felix

                      Sure, here you go:

                      “Terrorist training camps, love.
                      The end.”

                      That was your reply to Jenny’s original comment about the illegal actions of the police.

              • you should stay in the cities though allen because there are lots of guns out in the country and we wouldn’t want you squealing to the police about terrorists every time you see or hear one – that would make you appear like a fool, old chap.

                • With respect mm, that’s really disingenuous and I half expected better from you.

                  • framu

                    not really that disingenuous – there actually are a lot of firearms in rural towns.

                    I would put money on the more remote a location is the higher the incidence of lax gun ownership and useage – regardless of race or income

                  • I don’t care what you think because you don’t, but please continue mouthing off about stuff you don’t know, it’s funny.

                    • “I don’t care what you think because you don’t, but please continue mouthing off about stuff you don’t know, it’s funny.”

                      I’ve lost the respect I had for you, bruv.
                      You can get it back, but it’s a long road you’ll have to walk.
                      One foot after the other in a forward direction is a good start point.
                      Good luck.

                    • lol grow up mate you’re in the South Seas now

                    • Just saying you’ll never get anywhere starting with two steps back.

                      South seas – More like South Park

                    • felix

                      Fuck off back to the motherland any time you like, fascist.

                    • “Fuck off back to the motherland any time you like, fascist.”

                      😆

                • King Kong

                  Don’t forget the molotov cocktails. Its amazing when you drive through the countryside how often the horizon lights up from all the Farmers constantly lobbing them about.

                  • exactly – good on you kk you must live in the country or thereabouts.

                  • framu

                    while true – molotov cocktails arent actually illegal in and of themselves – weird i know

                    so molotov cocktails != crime – untill you intend to do some damage to something other than your own property

                    • “No, it isn’t, and I shouldn’t have used ‘or’ I should have written ‘And those that won’t see past their own hatred, prejudice or self serving ends’”

                      “while true – molotov cocktails arent actually illegal in and of themselves – weird i know

                      so molotov cocktails != crime – untill you intend to do some damage to something other than your own property”

                      “exactly – good on you kk you must live in the country or thereabouts.”

                      You see how that looks?
                      That’s called framing your opponent.

                    • framu

                      why are you mixing comments from separate people together then asking for a judgement on the combination?

                      Im framing no one – merely pointing out what NZ law says – considering this is a legal case it kind of matters

                    • framing your opponent? – quick call the hotline 0800terrorpolice

                    • felix

                      “why are you mixing comments from separate people together then asking for a judgement on the combination?”

                      Because he’s a dishonest authoritarian fuck-job, dear.

                    • Look, if you two can’t say the terror training camp wasn’t a bad thing, then framed by your position you are.

                      I’ll lose no sleep over it.
                      If and when it happens, I can not post here again because I’m too embarrassed at getting it so wrong, no worries.

                    • “Because he’s a dishonest authoritarian fuck-job, dear.”

                      You’re acting like an idiot with that line of attack.

                    • framu

                      ALLEGED terror training camp – thats the point im trying to make

                      and im not saying what was going on in the bush was a good thing – im saying the way the thing played out was a disaster that could have been avoided

                    • “ALLEGED terror training camp – thats the point im trying to make”

                      You’ve seen the videos.
                      Then I allege you’re a fuck nugget.

                    • framu

                      “I allege you’re a fuck nugget.”

                      really The Allen? – whats your problem? I havent said a single rude word to anyone here on this topic – why so hostile?

                      Is it easier to act like an obnoxious dick than engage with the points im tying to make?

                    • felix

                      “Look, if you two can’t say the terror training camp wasn’t a bad thing, then framed by your position you are.”

                      This has nothing to do with terror training camps you moron – the people involved in those have had their day in court. Over.

                      This is about the police breaking the law, nothing more nothing less.

                    • “really The Allen? – whats your problem? I havent said a single rude word to anyone here on this topic – why so hostile?

                      Is it easier to act like an obnoxious dick than engage with the points im tying to make?”

                      I’ve answered every point made my way, you’ve gone out of your way to diminish iti’s ‘alleged’ terror gang.

                      Fuck off, fuck nugget.

                    • framu

                      oh please – you are being a tad precious and dramatic

                      if you actually read what im saying im not diminishing anything – im trying to stick to the facts that as they have been proven by the courts and discuss them in a civil manner (ok a bit of light hearted humour now and then)

                      where as youve gone all swear-y

                  • For once, monkey man, you nailed it.

                    • look there is glass in the fire-pit quick call the hotline lol

                    • framu

                      also – nails go in nail bombs – obviously a threat to public safety this one 🙂

                    • felix

                      Oh shit I just realised I’ve got chlorine AND brake fluid in the house.

                      Think I’d better dob in my neighbours for not expelling me.

                    • I deal in basics because they are far easier to understand. I’m suggesting a few others here do the same.

                      1. Terror training, on NZ soil, by NZ nationals. Good or a bad thing?
                      2. Deliberately minimising, mitigating or dismissing terror training, on NZ soil, by NZ nationals, good or a bad thing?

                      Answer the wrong way to either, and calling me a fascist, or a racist, telling me to fuck off home because we don’t want your type here, mean nothing in the scheme of things.

                      For the sake of simplicity, I whittle most things down to there being two types of people, those who are good, those who are bad.
                      I proffer, that unless you have an ulterior motive, are blinded by activism or are simply devoid of common sense, it should be just as easy to condemn iti and his cell as it is to condemn the police and the illegal bits of their operation.

                      Seriously, it’s simplicity in itself… Or mike williams was right, and you’re all wasting my time here in a circle cluster fuck.

                      Good thing, or a bad thing?

                    • framu

                      “For the sake of simplicity, I whittle most things down to there being two types of people, those who are good, those who are bad.
                      I proffer, that unless you have an ulterior motive, are blinded by activism or are simply devoid of common sense, it should be just as easy to condemn iti and his cell as it is to condemn the police and the illegal bits of their operation.”

                      aww how cute – hes trying some framing of his own

                    • “aww how cute – hes trying some framing of his own”

                      Do you need a helping hand with those answers, friend?

                    • framu

                      ok then

                      1. un proven allegation (no im not supporting anyone here – its just an un-proven claim)
                      2. its not happening (see 1)

                      do you not see that making an allegation then asking for others to condem someone based on that allegation, while issuing a warning that if they disagree with the initial allegation they are somehow supporting the alleged offender is one massive exercise in framing?

                      its just the ol’ “your either with us or against us” routine and its really not advancing anything, anywhere

                    • “1. un proven allegation
                      2. its not happening (see 1)”

                      Well that’s you to the world for all to see.

                    • framu

                      ah – i see your not actually interested in debate

                      OK – one more chance – one more go

                      can you prove that what was going on in the bush was a terrorist training camp?

                      you like black and white so a yes or no will do. (no accusations, no name calling, no swearing – just answer the question for a change)

                      For the record – i think what they were up to was none to smart and wouldnt have advanced any cause in any way – im just not buying into the hype and spin of the police as well

                    • “ah – i see your not actually interested in debate”

                      I can’t and won’t be linked, by association or otherwise, to extremism of such intent, here or any where else. The rest is meaningless.

                      I’ve ‘met’ some good sorts on here, for for that I am grateful and better off.
                      Thanks for all the fish.

                      See you on the other side of (R)evolution, comrades.

                    • framu

                      so your not going to answer the question then?

                      typical – spout a lot of shit, throw a bunch of crap about the place, accuse people of having all sorts of positions that exist only in your head – then when asked a pretty straight forward question, that is central to the argument being made to you – you go all coy

              • Murray Olsen

                If you’re not a fascist, why are you trying so hard to sound like one?

                • Populuxe1

                  If you’re not a douche, why are you trying so hard to sound like one? This is all straw man bullshit. The Allen condemned the police as well as the terrorist wannabes. He does, quite rightly, note that the police had a right to be concerned.

                  • Murray Olsen

                    I’m trying to sound like a douche because you’re my hero and imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

                    • Populuxe1

                      You’d already lost that one when you started accusing people of being fascists.

    • Good points Jenny and sorry to hear about the terror inflicted upon your family, there are so many similar accounts out there. Marshall is a disgrace and he should resign.

    • idlegus 18.1

      tama iti escorted john key around, cordially. one of the more damning bits of the ipc report is the cops didnt go thru the local maori police, which would have been the easiest thing to do. but i guess running around like ninjas & scaring women & children is a fun thing for cops to do.

  17. I think police conduct has steadily got worse under National, even though it wasn’t great under Labour either.

  18. vto 20

    .
    lol

    innocent training camps

    lol

    innocent police

    lol

  19. Winton Smith 21

    WAR IS PEACE
    FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
    IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

    ……But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.

  20. Populuxe1 22

    It requires a particularly inferior sort of mind not to be able to simultaneoulsy hold onto the thoughts “the police fucked up and did wrong” and “Tama Iti is a fuck up and did wrong”. And Tuhoi unfairly suffers for everyone’s fucking stupidity.

    • TheContrarian 22.1

      With Iti running around playing ‘militia man’ and the police playing ‘SEAL Team Six’ it was bound to end stupidly.

      Bonfire of the Vanities has nothing on this clusterfuck

    • Clockie 22.2

      As gently pointed out to you by Ghost888 yesterday, it’s “Tuhoe”.

      • Populuxe1 22.2.1

        WHoops – intellectually I know that, but my fingers seem to have other ideas

        • Arfamo 22.2.1.1

          And he’s Tame Iti, not Tama.

          • Populuxe1 22.2.1.1.1

            And that is a typo. The A and the E being rather close together for my gnarled hands

            • felix 22.2.1.1.1.1

              Lolz you made the same “typo” three times in this thread alone, and didn’t manage to spell it without the “typo” ever.

              I’d say you were “lying” but the l, y, i, n, and g are all at the same end of the keyboard so god knows how I’d spell it.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts