As pressure mounts for a Commission of Inquiry into Police Corruption, National Headquarters is now refusing to answer any further questions on fresh allegations.
Police Media liaison officer Jane Archibald invited Investigate to submit questions in writing on Tuesday afternoon about fresh allegations, some of which provided context for the Police Minister's attack on Wayne Idour under parliamentary privilege that afternoon.
However, PNHQ is now refusing to provide answers. This email exchange terminated yesterday, work backwards for the chronology.
Ducking for cover are we Jane...
Last time I looked you and the Commissioner were public servants. That requires you to provide information. I suggest you do it.
Investigate is not required to register itself as an “approved” media outlet with either Police or the Government.
I expect a response in an hour.
Ian Wishart
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, 17 May 2007 10:37 a.m.
To:
Subject: Re: Request of the Commissioner
PNHQ notes that the latest issue of Investigate Magazine was prepared without any approach or questions to this office prior to publication. "Investigate" has shown itself to be lacking in ethics associated with responsible publications. PNHQ, therefore, declines to answer belated questions from the magazine on policing or any other subjects.
"Ian Wishart" <
> 16/05/2007 16:29
To
cc
Subject
Request of the Commissioner
A number of senior police and former police have been in touch with Investigate magazine offering further information about the activities of the Police Commissioner and his team, and also some historical information that puts other events in context.
One officer who went through training in 1976 says cadets were shown porn movies as part of their training, and also a bestiality movie called Animal Farm.
We require confirmation from National Headquarters of when the practice of screening porn movies and bestiality movies to police cadets ceased.
We have also been advised by direct witnesses of shift inspectors inscreening porn movies late at night in the control room and running the sound feed through the headphones of the police operators there. Wellington
Has Commissioner Howard Broad EVER been drunk on police premises? If so, what was the occasion and what penalty if any did he suffer?
As a result of the above exchange and Investigate's "Ducking for cover?" query, National HQ is now saying it will provide answers within 28 days under the Official Information Act.
Good job Ian, keep up the good work and don't let the flack get to you
Posted by: Luke | May 18, 2007 at 11:06 AM
"One officer who went through training in 1976 says cadets were shown porn movies as part of their training, and also a bestiality movie called Animal Farm."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm_(video)
Surely this video wouldn't even have made it to NZ that early ('70s).
Linda A
Posted by: aladin | May 18, 2007 at 11:54 AM
We require confirmation from National Headquarters of when the practice of screening porn movies and bestiality movies to police cadets ceased.
If the police comms people had any sense of humour they'd have asked you if you've stopped beating your wife yet.
Posted by: Danyl Mclauchlan | May 18, 2007 at 11:56 AM
Ian don't hold your breath regarding getting an answer in 28 days.
Posted by: Treetop | May 18, 2007 at 12:37 PM
Forget it Danyl.
The police have a prerequisite that none of them shall have a sense of humour.
Posted by: George | May 18, 2007 at 12:40 PM
Jane Archibald has put the Investigate article very neatly in context!
This whole witch hunt is already off the radar of credible news channels.
Shame about the Budget Ian!
Start working on something else ready for the July issue Ian. See what else Wayne Idour can come up with. Or find another sex worker prepared to say "I wus raped" - but preferably not one who is doing time for murder or manslaughter etc.
Or what about a man eats dog story. And you must do something about Page 3!!!
Posted by: peter | May 18, 2007 at 01:15 PM
Well done Ian, in solidarity.
Peter do you remember the 15th March article in Ch Ch Press " Blog Attack - Canty police accused of corruption ."
Never did find out the name of that website ??? lol - Play with fire and a BURNS will hurt you.
Posted by: dad4justice | May 18, 2007 at 01:26 PM
Peter: your comments would be marginally less offensive if you knew for a fact the rape allegations were false - but only marginally.
Posted by: Psycho Milt | May 18, 2007 at 01:30 PM
Oh dear me Peter, nearly forget that was 7 days after I contacted dear Ms Goddard of PCA, who was ditched from High Court to front up as token delinquent at the PCA toothless tiger .
Posted by: dad4justice | May 18, 2007 at 01:32 PM
dad, what are you doing here? Didn't we have a meeting at Hagley?
psycho, I guess you need to learn the difference between an allegation, a charge and a conviction. Many false allegations are made, why Investigate is full of them. As is this blog.
Posted by: fugley | May 18, 2007 at 01:36 PM
aladin,
"Surely this video wouldn't even have made it to NZ that early ('70s)"
Read ypur own link:
"To keep up with the growing demand for video titles, Color Climax had taken to transferring their stocks of 8 mm and 16 mm animal films onto cassette, and it was these films...that comprised the notorious Animal Farm video, hence its generic title (which at no point appears on the screen) and shadowy origins.
The 1970 documentary, A Summer's Day, apparently formed at least some of the content of the Animal Farm bootleg....
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm_%28video%29"
Perfectly possible for them to have seen "loops" of film that were later incorporated into the "Animal Farm" video.
The Broad screening also apparently involves a projector and film, not video tape.
Posted by: sg5 | May 18, 2007 at 01:42 PM
I know ALL about false allegations, ask the 36 judges involved in my case .
Posted by: dad4justice | May 18, 2007 at 01:57 PM
dad, I asked them.
All 36 agreed, your allegations were false.
Posted by: fugley | May 18, 2007 at 02:40 PM
Fugley, you and Peter may think ridiculing women who claim to have been raped is a laff riot, but most of us don't. The truth or otherwise of the allegations doesn't come into it.
Posted by: Psycho Milt | May 18, 2007 at 04:19 PM
One comment, to sg5 nd Wishart: prove it! Can you prove that 'Animal Farm' was available to NZ police in the '70's? It wasn't, and you cannot.
Linda A
Posted by: aladin | May 18, 2007 at 10:28 PM
aladin. Its nigh impossible to prove. Even a 1000 sworn affadavits saying it was available, dosent 'prove' it was. I went to at least 2 evening screenings of pornagraphy in the 1970's organised by the police but cant specifically remember the movie subsject(s). But of course, I cant 'prove' the showings actually occured either. So whats your point?
Posted by: Paul Marsden | May 18, 2007 at 11:09 PM
Linda A - " Animal Farm" and other porn vids were played at many function's at our rugby club in late 70's and cops ALWAYS supplied the videos..
Posted by: dad4justice | May 19, 2007 at 07:11 AM
so dad, what did YOU do about it? watch or lay a complaint?
Posted by: fugley | May 19, 2007 at 09:46 AM
OK so I accept that a small proportion of police have not always done what they should have done.
Lets not get distracted from the fact that other trusted people in society let us down too.
Take the clergy for instance.
So we smear all society because in every role you can think of, we can find bad in people.
Where can this lead but to anarchy>
Posted by: peter | May 19, 2007 at 11:53 AM
My point, Paul Marsden, is that if you throw accusations around, you'd better be able to prove them, pretty logical I would think.
If a policeman says he saw a video that didn't exist, then where is the credibility? I don't believe 'Animal Farm', which is the movie in question, existed in 1976.
Linda A
Posted by: aladin | May 19, 2007 at 12:34 PM