My Photo
Mobilise this Blog

Google

InvestigateDaily

INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.TV

Kiwiblog

New Zealand Conservative

InvestigatePodcast

AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] investigatemagazine.com and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« For what its worth | Main | Michael Moore gets a spanking »

Comments

AcidComments


Of course there's a hell of a lot of corruption in the police.

No wonder they won't prosecute drug dealers/fraudsters(sell fake documentation) who happen to be good mates of past and present politicians.

DarrenG

What I thought was significant was that Annette King chose to make her statement in the safety of parliament, where she is safe from potential libel action.
If she was sure of her allegations then surely she could have made them outside the Beehive.
Ian Wishart obviously has the courage of his convictions to make his allegations in public, at great risk to himself and his magazine.
I think that seems a fair test of what is true or not.

Lua

If this hadn't developed into puerile name calling I would not be responding.
I have personal experience of police lawlessness, and there is a culture of pleasing themselves. I have also been an IRD inspector and some of the same attitutes were prevalent there. If an investigation was started it was not expected to be fruitless. Promotion depended on it.
As to the Police, one Wellington regional station was well known in the 80's for beating those in custody. Police chases around a city area were apparently a sport. Search warrants were unsigned.
I have seen a dog handler set his dog on a 13 year old who was just standing still, unarmed. It was maliciious but a complaint was inneffective.
Broad has shoulders to match and if his integrity is questioned he has the proper means to defend it. If he is a drunkard he is plainly unfit for his office.

Gooner

"Howard Broad is a drunkard."

Where does this come from?

Pascal's bookie

Ian, you write:

"I'm in this to get a Commission of Inquiry on behalf of those whose voices can't be heard "

Assuming this is in good faith, I implore you to consider your actions more carefully. If there has in fact been corruption and injustice on the scale you are alleging the most important thing is to correct it.

Unfairly or not, you are widely percieved as lacking credibility. The fact that it is you that is making the case lessons the chances for success.

Whether this is fair or not is beside the point. The manner in which you are making the case, (drip feeding press releases, hinting at more damaging stuff to come and using mostly anonymous sources), is also damaging to the credibility of your case. It LOOKS like a trashy National Enquirer style beat up. If you are serious about this, start acting seriously

Given that your stated concern is for the victims why don't you hand over the reigns, along with all your evidence to someone else.

Obviously Labour is not going to do anything about this, especially if they are involved and particularly while you are leading the charge.

If you genuinely believe that the case you are making is solid and convincing surely you can convince one politition from another party to take over. They will be able to raise this stuff in the house, free from legal jeopardy and hopefully make progress on behalf of the people you claim to be acting for. If not, they will be able to campaign on the promise of a royal commission after the election.

As it is, you APPEAR to acting more in the interests of yourself, Investigate Magazine, and your own open anti-labour agenda. The interests of the victims of the alledged conspiracy are at the moment trailing in the distance, unseen because of the personal baggage you, fairly or not, bring to their story via the mutual mistrust and antipathy between yourself and the government.

Again, if you are serious about this, start acting seriously.

Dick

I am a former police officer. I recall in about 1981 (unsure of exact date, but it was before the Springbok Tour)a nuclear ship visited the port of Wellington. It was the Truxton. A couple of busloads of staff were ferried down to Wellington from Auckland to control demonstrators. Boozing and gambling including non-commissioned officers occurred on the bus. It was a marked police bus (one of those small 20 or so seaters they had)and grog stocks were replenished at Waiouru I recall.

While in Wellington we were barracked at the Police College at Trentham, so it may have been before 1981.

As there was time off while in Wellington, one morning a couple of hours of blue movies were screened in the camp theatre. About 50 staff were present. Unsure whether police women were there - it was voluntary and designed to give the boys something to do.

Senior non commissioned officers were there and at least one commissioned officer. They had to be, how else would they have got access to the camp theatre? Also needed someone to operate the camp projector, so no doubt camp staff were also there as licenced projectionists are not exactly a dime a dozen. Some of the guys left after the first, me included.

Viewing blue movies was a rare thing in those days and a sign of the times You can hire them now. So what, it occurred, you cannot change the facts. Systems in the police are much stronger, staff are far more answerable in a different fashion. Back in those days the police was structured in a military stlye, where today it is managed. Who is to say which way is right? How can we make judgemets on issues that are now legal.

Let us just get on with life, there is no need to try and jeopardise someone's career on issues that happened many years ago. Needless to say officers were also at the party that had more ability to stop or countenace what was occurring than Broad. People grow up, people grow with the times. All of us have skeletons.

Andrew Davies

Dick, your comments are measured and responsible and I would tend to agree with them with regards to Broad, at least with what we know so far.
The main allegations in the Investigate article, and especially those against Milton Weir, are another kettle of fish and need to be scrutinised thoroughly and independently.

ian

Dick and PB...I appreciate your points and the manner in which they are made.

This exercise does no favours to Investigate and the negative PR spin the government always runs so successfully through the MSM, so if anyone thinks there's a commercial reason for taking on a project like this, let's pop that balloon and put it to one side.

I have been forced to rearguard on the credibility of our story because of white-anting from the Government on the issue.

Dick, I don't know if you've read the 17 paqe article but it actually is not about Howard Broad and a chicken 26 years ago. That was an entree to the culture of Dunedin police in the 80s, which left unattended created the Dunedin Police of the 90s and today.

Unfortunately, it has got worse, not better. The story is about rape, extortion, drug use and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice - issues that go to the very heart of whether one is actually a police officer or just a crim in a blue uniform.

Those are the main issues that remain unaddressed.

What we published was largely ignored by the daily media who were too timid to venture into the shark infested waters of genuine, NSW-style police corruption (and again, I'm not talking about mere boozing or the occasional porn film, I'm talking the kind of crime people get locked away for 14 years for.)

However, because the media are ignoring the big stuff, and because the government is mounting a concerted attack on the only part of the Investigate story the media were brave enough to touch, I have no option but to return the favour.

I have my own reputation to protect as an investigative journalist, and given the evidence I have in hand I'm not letting this bunch of spinmeisters off the hook.

Pascal's Bookie, I would like nothing more than to take everything I have and dump it with an independent agency to investigate, I really would.

But there isn't one. The PCA is not only toothless but the investigations are themselves controlled by the police, not even police officers take the PCA seriously.

Of course the Government wants the PCA to look at it. Rubber stamp, nothing to see.

If I thought the PCA was capable I would not be calling for a Commission of Inquiry. The information provided to me about Broad (and not yet published by us) is the sort of thing that requires an independent agency capable of kicking down doors with a warrant, and dragging people away for questioning. It is not something the PCA can do.

If the information I have is correct, and I have exceptionally good reasons to believe it is, then Broad should be removed from office immediately.

But what do I do with this info? Who do I take it to? Am I going to put this next source through the corrupt grinder being used on Idour, with no prospect yet of an independent enquiry?

Hell no.

So I'm sitting on it, with copies of the data stored in some safe places.

In the meantime, yeah, I'm openly calling Howard Broad a drunkard. That's the least of his worries now.

You will soon see some major developments in this story. In the meantime, be patient.

And PB, If someone else in the MSM would do their own investigation into this, I'd be more than happy to take a back seat. But they won't.

I found out last night that one of the TV networks refused to let one of their star reporters break a story about police corruption recently, not for lack of evidence but lack of balls.

The journo was so disgusted he considered resigning.

It's the same problem with TV that I had a decade ago.

John Boy

Yep, Dick we all have skeletons. The difference is that I'm not out there enforcing the rules while breaking them myself.

I am so sick of being told no, don't, never, musn't, shan't , can't while the rule makers and enforcers ignore the endless and generally stupid rules anyway. Intelligent and moral people need very little governance.

If the Roman saying "The more corrupt the society the more numerous the laws" is correct we are well stuffed.

Pascal's bookie

Ian, why aren't any opposition MP's touching this story the way Winston did with the winebox? Have you shown any MP's your evidence? It is cases like this that MP's have privilege for. Surely there must be one. Particularly if your case is as as solid and devastating as you claim.

Pascal's bookie

John Boy, I also like another old Roman saying, that goes something like (I don't have my text handy)..

The foolish believe the gods exist, the wise believe they do not, and the politicians believe they are useful ;)

peter

Time to draw the curtain on this story I think. In fact it would do EVERYONE a favour if this were the case.

A search of Internet news suggests major media lost interest 12 hours ago and more.

Ian, Wayne and the Exclusive Brethrens should breathe a sigh of relief. End of embarrassment.

Not hot.

sg5

Pascal,
By Labour's own public admission they have a "dirt file" on Opposition M.P.s. (If you believe Ian's article then some of this file's content may have been supplied to Labour by the Police.)
For example, threats to out closeted opposition M.P.s.

Labour threatened to use its "dirt file" when the first round of the Benson-Pope saga began, which is why the Nats were silent when the second round of Pope allegations broke in November 06.

The "dirt" doesn't have to be anything like as bad as what Labour might be guilty of for it to have a major impact on individual M.P.s, e.g. Brash's adultery. (Which by the way was published overseas BEFORE the 2005 election. Our media chose not to report it at the time because NZ was in the middle of an election campaign, and sat on it for a year, until Labour made remarks to it in Parliament. So just because MSM aren't reporting on Ian's story doesn't mean it's untrue.)

Dick

Some interesting commentaries; however it seems there is little point in canvassing issues decades old that are no longer even offences. The people to whom you refer were generally young immature police officers. Even police officers are allowed to mature. Significant peer pressure doubtless existed at that time. The pressure I refer to was often referred to the "three p's" - I will leave that for another time.

Given the situation with Broad, a young copper and learning the job in Dunedin would have certainly been different than learning the job in say South Auckland - in my view what has occurred would not have occurred had the rules and the laws of the land at that time been enforced by Broad's superiors - the officers of the time, most of whom would now have passed on. So they cannot really add much. I will take your point about Lewis.

Interestingly, my reference to South Auckland, you may recall what was known as the "bread" enquiry, when about five police officers off Section 5 I think at Otahuhu were certainly fired and I think even convicted for stealing loaves of bread worth only a few dollars - ask Steve Rutherford. I am sure this is about the same period. Rutherford was a Sergeant then - he took action.

Watching blue movies or stealing a loaf of bread, which one is worse?

You talk about going after corruption - sure, lets do that. Stick to Weir et al, if its about Bain and others (Dunedin) that you refer to. Also define the corruption.

At the time of the Tauranga area controllers father issue, in the late seventies or early eighties, I recall that the matter was dealt with there and then. Was it written off, was there a full police enquiry, if so what was the outcome? You would have us believe, with not a jot of evidence, that this is a form of corruption. Is the corruption a matter that the Police were involved in what ever occurred, is there a police conspiracy in exist to protect certain persons? If so most of the participants are now probably dead, or a least witnesses will be. Define your corruption!

We have Idour waving the flag, and lets face it, even before the latest offering his credibility was a mixed bag shall we say, I have heard his allegations about witches and people hiding in cupboards. He like you makes a lot of allegations.

Ian, you promise the world, yet you only turn up with an atlas. If you have the information to corroborate - do so.

For you own credibility do not use this forum as a Kangaroo Court.

What I suspect you are doing is planting bits and pieces out there hoping that "the other side" will then commit themselves to a position, whereupon you will jump in and dump the other evidence on them.

As a former investigator, it is difficult for any person to recall fully what went on years ago, so give them some opportuntiy to defend themselves.

He, who alleges must prove. I ask you to do that. If there is current corruption get it out in the open, stop going after nebulous offerings of the past - watching a few blue movies, and this seems to be the most you have at the moment.

If you are wanting to improve the situation involving wrongful convictions, this is certainly not the way to go about it.

There are many of these cases such as Bain, no doubt there are many others, Haig is another and no doubt a number of others languish in prison waiting for a Joe Karam to turn up.

My point is if you want a RCE, it should be about the entire issue. The matters raised must gain momentum through efforts of the public, not simply mud-slinging with out any real or credible corroboration. Not one thing have I read from your offerings convinces me that there is a case to answer for anybody. If evidence exists against Weir and co, have some competent person brief it (not Idour) and take it to a QC and convince him to privately prosecute it. Better to put up and have an independent arbiter rule on it. Right?

Ian, you are a fine investigative journalist, stop moonlighting as a hack!

usabikes

Dick, it doesn't sound like you've read the article in question yet...

err..

"one of the most bent police forces in the Southern Hemisphere"

And how! I mean, you'd never imagine anything as depraved as watching a confiscated bestiality movie to happen in Angola, Argentina, Bolivia, Botswana, Burundi, Chile, Madagascar, Mozambique, Namibia, Paraguay, Peru, Rwanda, Samoa, South Africa, Swaziland, Tahiti, Tanzania, Tonga, Tuvalu, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Zambia or Zimbabwe.

And I have to say, anybody who accuses Ian of having a dreadful tendency towards hyperbole and unsupportable statements is clearly in on the conspiracy.

Dick

USABikes, I have read the articles a number of times.

My point is that whilst we can all make allegations, there is a much wider swathe of wrongdoings that should sit on the radar. Wrongdoings where there is far more evidence. It is clear from Wishart's many previous attempts to bring this and similar issues to some form of end that no one is going to take this seriously.

So, take action yourselves as a group. An application for a private prosecution is overseen by the Solicitor General I think, so if he throws it out, then you would start having something to complain about - particularly if the evidence is as compelling as suggested.

Convince me. I am afraid this will be a dead issue in a week.

Treetop

When dame Margaret's report was released into police culture Mr broad stated that he was part of the police drinking culture. To me this comment is now seen as being disclosure to having an alleged problem with alcohol. I also feel that Mr Broad comes across as being a bit mentally slow when he fronts to the media and blushes, also the beer gut has me wondering whether or not alcohol is the cause.

ian

PB...releasing something under parliamentary privilege might gain media headlines, but it does not make for an independent investigation, and still exposes those who might blow the whistle to undesired side effects.

Dick, as I've said in media interviews this week if this stuff was merely historic I wouldn't run it unless one of the players stepped up to be Prime Minister one day.

But it isn't historic. I was in Dunedin a few weeks ago talking to the victim of an attempted drug rape by a police officer over Christmas.

I'm looking at the moment at something a 30 year veteran of the force has just sent me relating to events that happened last year.

The big issue in all of this is not so much that corrupt practices occur, but that current systems like the PCA are unable to deal with them. Even cops who try to report dodgy behaviour internally are suddenly finding their lives turned upside down as the system closes in on them.

And this is happening now.

This is not some morality crusade about blue movies for heaven's sake...it's about why the public increasingly have no faith in the justice system.

These allegations, if you read the article, are significant and corroborated. They are based both on witness statements prepared for the Bain appeal by Colin Withnall QC, as well as fresh interviews with others.

I know, for example, about the arrangement Dunedin Police had with brothels not just because of the Conwell and Sutton statements, but because I interviewed a former sex worker totally unconnected with them who worked at the same parlour a few years earlier and told exactly the same story.

So I get back to my earlier point: if investigating the systemic failure of the NZ Police administration to put in place robust anti-corruption measures is not a valid story, then frankly I give up...I cannot really be bothered.

Scotty

Dick...I'm with usabikes. There's only one article...reading between the lines I don't think you've read it. Do you mean you've read posts about it online?

The comments to this entry are closed.