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

« Family Tragedy behind Non-Disclosure of Source | Main | Farrar's Blog »

Comments

Andrew Davies

And all done in budget week. Who could have thought of it?
Go Ian, you good thing.

pacman

Ian, I am surprised everyone finds the thought that this could have happened so remote especially considering the Bazley report and the efforts the Aussies have gone through in the past decades against police corruption. I does not seem impossible and for that reason alone it should be investigated. I came across this - old but interesting http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/05/26/1085461830675.html
Personally I think your religion sways some arguements too much but if some of these guys did half of what you claim then I hope they come to trial.

sg5

I've long remarked on the poverty of imagination shown by the media in attaching -gate to every scandal since Watergate.

And if you want anyone to take you seriously, referring to "chickengate" is not going to help. You've just given the rest of the media licence to call it that.

If you must do it, then I think "Sty Gate" would be a good choice, since besides the "dirty cop" allusion, the dictionary gives the non-literal meaning of "sty" as "any extremely filthy place; any place of gross debauchery" (Chambers). All too appropriate in this case.

Have Doyle or Weir's lawyers called yet?

pacman

Just read through some of the Woods RC into the NSW police : http://www.pic.nsw.gov.au/PDF_files/VOLUME1.PDF interesting reading on the schemes and ways the corruption permeated the force.

peter

Q: Why did the chicken cross the road?

A: To escape from the police!

Psycho Milt

The balance at day 3 is there's been a stoush about whether Broad watched some gross movie a quarter of a century ago, which is completely pointless and does the more serious allegations no favours.

Re the serious allegations, particularly the conspiracy theory about Labour MPs, you say this:

"...and we've released documents on the internet substantiating the wider claims of corruption against the Police rolling into the 1990s and early 2000s."

The thing is, you haven't, except in the minds of conspiracy theorists. In the Conwell statement, you've released some allegations. Allegations don't "substantiate" anything, they're just assertions. For all I know, Weir is exactly the kind of person this statement paints him as. No opinion either way based on a convicted criminal's statement though. Hopefully you've got some actual substantiation for the complaint.

In the fax from Matt Robson, you have nothing other than an indication that Robson was doing his job, even if we throw caution to the winds and simply assume Conwell's statement is true, which you seem to have done. This fax tells us that Robson as Mininster of Corrections received a complaint from a prisoner about a Police officer, and forwarded it to the Minister of Police. No doubt every Minister of Corrections receives no shortage of such complaints about the Police from prisoners, and forwards them all on. The govt sent Barnett to hear the prisoner's complaint, but on hearing it, decided it wasn't worth pursuing. So far so everyday uneventfulness.

Only a conspiracy theorist could begin from a default setting that the complaint must be the truth and therefore the govt must be complicit and acting to cover it up, rather than the more mundane and far less newsworthy version I just described. I must say that if I was Barnett sitting listening to the Conwell statement you've posted, I'd be assuming the poor woman had been put in the wrong kind of institution. I invite those readers who aren't gullible conspiracy fans (surely some of you aren't) to consider the likely outcome if the complaint had been received by a Minister of Corrections in a National-led govt. Could you honestly suspect a different outcome?

Justice

Why are police and associates exempt from the law?
It was disgusting to hear Peter Gibbons state on TV3 last night that he was aware of the beastiality movies at a Dunedin police party when he was Head of the Dunedin CIB. Obviously because it was his associates no criminal charges were laid.
Peter only stated what many of us have thought "the police cover up and look after there own" and are exempt from prosecution for illegal actions.
Ian I have three questions that should be put to Peter:
1) Was criminal charges ever laid on this incident you knew about when you were Head of the CIB - if not why not?
2) Why would Wayne Idour bring these videos to the attention of Pete Hodgson seven years ago (confirmed to me by Pete not Wayne) and again now if he was the "guilty party".
3) Did the fact Wayne is your main competitor in the investigation business in Dunedin influence your interview on TV3.
Also Ian perhaps you could ask Pete Hodgson to confirm Wayne brought this to his attention 7 years ago.
This is why cops should not investigate cops.

John Boy

Psycho's world goes round and round in circles - just like police complaints and political corruption allegations.

Looking back over history there's lots of examples where a fundamental shift in thinking started with some one. "Facts" like the earth is flat, the earth is the centre of the universe, the sun goes round us, there's nothing left to invent / patent, I'm from the govt and I'm here to help and so on all got questioned eventually.

After some one says maybe its not like that and gets bumped off by the bureaucrats of the day for dissenting a bit of time goes by and the new assumption becomes the new truth with the many sheep all saying how obvious it was, I knew it all the time blah blah blah when in reality they are complete pig ignorant wankers who shut up and went with the flow to save their sorry arses.

At the end of the day some ONE made a difference and the credit is theirs. At least conspiracy theorists have their eyes and ears open and I'm grateful for the weird and wonderful. Some of it is true and you trust blindly in govts and their police at your peril.

Murray

Milt believes what Dear Leader tells him to believe at the daily briefing.

Just another socialist mouth piece toeing the party line. Him, Paris Brown and Herr Rottenfurher. A real three ring circus.

Must be getting to feel a bit like Dien Bien Phu in there.

Psycho Milt

Told you before Murray, haven't voted Labour since the 80s. But I do note that, as usual, your response to someone pointing out unpalatable facts is to fling abuse.

John Boy - for lefties like me, the concept that the Police are violent, corrupt exploiters of the weak is not a "fundamental shift in thinking," it's our default setting. If Investigate wants to bring examples of Police corruption to public notice, it has my support. But if it proceeds to drastically undermine the corruption investigation by throwing in sideshows like whether a cop watched a dirty movie, or far worse, exercising its usual paranoid conspiracy theories about Labour based on nothing more than the editor's imagination, no support will be forthcoming. It's not hard to figure out.

The comments to this entry are closed.