Police is an obvious one….remember Clarks dirty backstabbing of Peter Doone to get Broad into the job…?

Read Wisharts “Absolute Power”….has her dead to rights.

Clark and her minions undermined the independence of the public service

How?

I feel I should write more, but that’s all I want to say :)

I worked in the public service during part of the 5th Labour government and saw public servants giving free and frank (and sometimes unwanted) advice.

Rubbish

Cullen regularly disowned Treasury advice.

Clark and her minions undermined the independence of the public service

As I said, Anita, consensual sex is not a crime. (And we live in a country where an accused is presumed innocent, though I suspect you’d prefer if that wasn’t so.) You seem to forget that he was charged with serious criminal offences. If he had said that he was wrong and had acted inappropriately, the comments may have been (mis)construed as evidence of guilt. Furthermore, it isn’t his job to make you or anyone else dislike him less.:)

As for him being a role model, I am not sure that he ever set out to be a role model or that it was in his job description. From memory, he worked as an undercover cop and used drugs as part of that job. Can a drug user be a role model?

But Rickards wasn’t a senior officer at the time. The alleged events happened more than 20 years ago. What you seem to be suggesting is that someone who makes a mistake 20 or more years ago cannot redeem themselves.

If Rickards had stood up and said “What I did was wrong, I was young and foolish then and I’ve grown up an learned a lot since. I wouldn’t do that now and I would counsel all cops against doing something so foolish and wrong” then I would feel very differently about him.

He didn’t, he stood up and said he actions at the time were just fine, and the only thing he was ashamed of was having been unfaithful to his wife. That is not someone who should be a role model or leader of Police, or anyone.

But Rickards wasn’t a senior officer at the time. The alleged events happened more than 20 years ago. What you seem to be suggesting is that someone who makes a mistake 20 or more years ago cannot redeem themselves. I happen to strongly disagree. A professional who stuffed up 20 years earlier should be disqualified from his or her profession? We’d all be the poorer if that was the case.

If you were a senior police officer, or an employee of Crown Law, or of the Solicitor General’s Officer (and so on), stating those views loudly and angrily in public would probably bring your continued employment into question. In all of our jobs there are times and topics when we have to be quiet so we don’t undermine our employer.

What about all those professionals, lawyers, psychologists, university lecturers, teachers, childcare workers, former MPs and even former Prime Ministers who signed petitions in 2003 supporting a wide-ranging inquiry into the Peter Ellis case? Did they really undermine their employer by publicly supporting a convicted paedophile? I agree that we shouldn’t publicly criticise our employers, but publicly supporting your friends or those who you think have been hard done by is another matter entirely.

Anita writes that she does not mourn the passing of the Fifth Labour Government and goes on to list a number of ‘failures’ of that government. I agree with all of the points of criticism that Anita makes, although I think, in the scale of things, ma…

I think that a lot of their problem is that they were scared of their public servants. Rather than try and seek out independent advice, they just accepted the (highly partisan) views of departments like Police and Treasury.

That makes sense early on, but they should have got better. From the bit of the public services I was hanging out in during the second term they didn’t seem particularly scared of us :)

Perhaps Judith Collins’ ridiculous defence of the police during the informant debacle is the same – new Minister scared of her public servants and just doing what the Police tell her to.

Having consensual sex is (surprise) not a crime.

Mostly true.

But anyhow, when a police officer can see absolutely nothing wrong with police officers using their physical, legal, moral and community power to obtain “consensual” sex from a very vulnerable teenage girl then one has to question the officer’s judgement. When that is a senior police officer who is a role model and leader it’s hard to see how he could continue in a leadership role with such poor judgement.

Meanwhile, I and many others support a convicted paedophile who just happens to be gay (Peter Ellis). What does that say about my and our moral fibre?

It says you stand up for what you believe in.

If you were a senior police officer, or an employee of Crown Law, or of the Solicitor General’s Officer (and so on), stating those views loudly and angrily in public would probably bring your continued employment into question. In all of our jobs there are times and topics when we have to be quiet so we don’t undermine our employer.

Rickards deliberately undermined his employer, and an employer that public confidence in is sometimes life-or-death. In addition he undermined the Police’s attempts to address their poor public perception when it comes to dealing with sexual violence.

If he had continued as Auckland District Commander while publicly supporting men convicted of gang rape what message would that have sent to victims of sexual violence trying to gather the courage to go to the Police?

Having consensual sex is (surprise) not a crime. Meanwhile, I and many others support a convicted paedophile who just happens to be gay (Peter Ellis). What does that say about my and our moral fibre?

If you…and others have earned the right by productive effort and can purchase the stuff without forcing non concenting others to pay as well thats fine with me….the issue is the press ganging of everyone into the collectivist nonsense of the “public good” whilst violating the individuals right NOT to be a part of the “public good” and not to be stolen from to fund it against their will.

And whats wrong with “foreigners”…? These are just human beings like us who live elsewhere on the planet…who cares about that? I have had more problems with home grown kiwis than I have foreigners….its the person not the place Millsy….to think otherwise is collectivist/racist nonsense.

Thanks!!

Yeah I now reallise that some of the insults were quoted (tho it’s hard to tell in your comment), so:

Millsy,

Could you please settle down too! :)

P.S. using blockquote makes it much easier to know who wrote what.

I will endevour to refrain from acting like Millsy (pointed barb ;-)) and stay on the issue…

Fewer insults would be appreciated. Your points would stand up for themselves just fine without the insults.

So what? The point was it should have been allowed to buy in to Air NZ as thats what was wanted by the people concerned….that was the market solution and a good one.But no the Labour socialits butted in and caused major damage to potential investment here by sending the message that investments aren’t safe under our nationaising Government.

Blip: Sigh….you are a bit dense aren’t you?

In the context of the point I am making and you are unable to grasp, the application of your logic would mean that the parents who purchased melanine-enhanced milk product are to blame for the death of their children.”

How so? Wsa melamine listed as an ingrediant in the product? No….so the parents are hardly at fault.Some scumbags added it in on the QT and we all know the results….and the ones found guilty have been dealt to by China.

You said: “The free market isn’t there to wipe the bums of the lazy and stupid….get off ya arse and find out for yourself whats what with the products you want to use….and sure as eggs a smart producer will make it as easy as pie to find out about their product…..thats the market at work guys…its all of us interacting.Get it now?”

In the context of the point I am making and you are unable to grasp, the application of your logic would mean that the parents who purchased melanine-enhanced milk product are to blame for the death of their children.

The barrier was lowered. The “reasonableness” test was abolished which meant that, in theory, a harassed parent smacking an unruly toddler on their (well padded) backside could be arrested and even possibly become a criminal (though I accept the risk of the latter being infinitely lower than the former, as I doubt any reasonable judge would wear it).

“Oh,” say the left, “show me an example where that’s happened”. To which I respond that it doesn’t happen till it happens. An innocent student didn’t get gunned down as he boarded a train by UK police eager to exercise their new anti-terrorism powers… till he did.

And if you’re unfortunate enough to be someone who’s on their “s**t list”, as I’ve come to call it, you’ll find that if they can’t get you for one thing, they’ll follow you round till you smack your kid on the bum and then you’ll cop it for that – a variation of the “he’s got it coming” philosophy, which is what a police officer said to my business partner when asked why they wouldn’t leave me the hell alone.

Paranoid? Maybe… but over here in WA police have used their hunt for the Claremont serial killer (still on the loose since he first killed in 1996) to target (and name as a suspect) the president of the WA Council for Civil Liberties.

Their other favourite suspect is a public servant whom they have been following for over a decade. At one point there was so much surveillance equipment in his office the roof caved in on another worker! He too has been identified in the press but never charged.

Then there’s the former prosecutor they publicly accused of murdering his wife, but won’t charge. He’s suing them for libel but even a win will only partly restore his reputation.

Give Police a power (or a taser or a gun) and sooner or later they’ll find a way to misuse it.