What would it take?

Having stumbled across Russell Brown - the Paris Hilton of NZ's blogosphere - commenting everywhere he possibly can that Investigate's story is built on the "paranoid delusions" [is he channelling Michael Cullen?] of Joyce Conwell, let me offer some commentary of my own.

Firstly, liberal Russell is blaming the victim, and in a sense violating a rape victim by minimising and ridiculing her testimony. I thought that was verboten in the liberal set but apparently no, not if the victim is daring to complain about the police.

Russ is supporting the police on this occasion, unlike Rickards, because he's taking his cue from Dear Leader. She was also anti Rickards but pro Dunedin police.

Conwell is not delusional. I have spoken to those closest to her. They are admant she was framed by Milton Weir as a bid to shut her up and prevent her talking to the Bain defence.

Another woman likewise.

Are you calling these women liars Russell? Why? Because they identify massive police corruption? Or because they were former sex workers and despite the liberal policy to legalise prostitution you still sneer at them behind their backs?

Unlike Russell, I'm an investigative journalist. It's what I do. Forensic journalism, weighing credibility, motive, opportunity, documentary evidence, corroboration etc. Stuff Russell can pontificate about but I've never actually seen anything in that genre from him. Certainly nothing significant.

I have digressed however. The title of this post is "What would it take?"

I ask our resident lefties to tell me what burden of proof they would require before believing that a proper independent investigation into police corruption is needed.

Would statements from respectable pillars of the Dunedin community be sufficient? Seeing as Conwell's statement is mainly confined to Milton Weir, I presume her credibility would be automatically enhanced if I could find other people willing to testify that Weir is a corrupt cop? Yes?

Tell me, Peter et al, what threshold you would require?

Comments

[unaha-closp]

...lefties to tell me what burden of proof they would require before believing that a proper independent investigation into police corruption is needed.

Standard issue political loyalists do not deal in proof and have no care for it if confronted. The "left" would really like a whiff of National Party within the corruption, but are probably too afraid to be seen to ask you.

[George]

Question is what would it take for the daily media to take you up on this, item by item?

My guess is a fairly hefty whack of crystal meth!

[ian]

If Nats had figured...they'd be included...but they didn't.

Labour isn't being pinged because they were vicariously in charge...they're pinged because they took an active role in both occasions.

Those with better memories might recall how Investigate published, just weeks before the 2002 election, damning leaked documents about BRT influence with National, incl financial influence.

Despite the fact I wanted the Nats to win, it was still my job to publish the story.

[unaha-closp]

If Nats had figured...they'd be included...but they didn't.

Too used to blogs where inference is enough, not professional journalism.

Like your work.

[Psycho Milt]

OK, I'll bite. At the very minimum, it would require the story to be picked up by some journo or blogger who wasn't a right-wing extremist using it as an anti-Labour smear campaign. Your credibility in this respect approximates to 0.

Re Joyce Conwell, see the first comment on this thread. No doubt Hawkins would have passed on this one too if it was referred to him - would that make him a participant in the powerful conspiracy of satanic child abusers keeping the poor Civic Creche parents in fear for their lives? What would it take to make you believe?

[John Boy]

Some One has asked this before, a long time ago. Healing the sick, calming the storm, feeding lots of people on more than one occasion and raising people from the dead didn't do it then and facts and reason won't do it now.

[dad4justice]

I really hope Mr Brown and the coterie of wackos , weaklings and witches like this ? I just posted it on public address for a stirr .

I am so angry I could smack a rapist copper in the head. What having to watch on TV those corrupt bastard pigs like Broad and Pope laughing away with maggot King gathered around a table discussing appropriate police behaviour guidelines is more than I can take. And today to pick up a newspaper to find headlines “Klark denies police misconduct hidden and sick police culture revealed “ is beyond f##king belief. Liarbour are gutter dwellers devoid of integrity and scruple’s. Good on Ian Wishart and Joe Karam stuff the rapist dogs as prima facie rape offences has been determined and these filthy pigs should be charged. For anybody to defend the scum who lived an extraordinarily sick culture of sexual depravity is a sad reflection of the society rapidly plummeting down the sewer. What about the women victims these animal bastards raped? The cover up from the twisted lying liarbour politicians just highlights callous disrespect and systematic degradation of moral standards by idiots not worthy of holding public office. Where else can a constituent go to address a grievance by the dirty rotten pigs!! Liarbour’s attempt to create a fools paradise of self delusory goodness will inevitably bring about explosive consequences as everybody know the words, police and politicians leaves a disgusting taste in ones mouth.
Maybe the liarbour-smacking police could raise funds for the porno fund and start selling baton biscuits as the ultimate in bad taste after dinner mint.

[dad4justice]

For the record 9/11 am comment was not me . James Sleep are you playing the truancy game , please Georgina let him go to school rather than playing d4j imposter all day !!
Russell Brown is going to ban me over my comment. They're getting rather nasty over on public address, but you know WAR is WAR - onward -burn the big bad witch !!

[John Boy]

D4J, you wouldn't get banned if you didn't rant. While I agree with you a lot of the time your tone is a often wee bit annoying. The mental view of foaming mouth and flying spittle is yucky. Now go and have a nice cup of tea.

[James]

They're getting rather nasty over on public address...

nasty? care to quote an example? Compared to the invective flying over on the equivalent thread at kiwiblog, proceedings at PA are polite beyond belief.

[dad4justice]

James , read the thread over there at public address , I am not a Stan Graham , just another victim of police corruption . I do not want to cause anymore friction over this, as I like fairness and facts as a man's integrity and credibility is all that he owns .

[peter]

Ian says:

"Those with better memories might recall how Investigate published, just weeks before the 2002 election, damning leaked documents about BRT influence with National, incl financial influence."

Yes Ian but you failed dismally where Nicky Hager succeeded in 2005.

You still wanted National to win. Yet there were greater risks with National in 2005 than in 2002! We would have lost a Prime Minister one year into the term and the reasons why seemed to be well known at the outset.

[Psycho Milt]

"...a man's integrity and credibility is all that he owns."

Quite so. Which is one reason it would be very foolish of him to bombard blog comment threads with deranged, abusive ranting that can only lead some readers to conclude that he's quite possibly a violent loony. Just a thought...

[getalife]

Violating a rape victim, the Paris Hilton of NZ blogging. Wow, such pithy humour Ian. one could be forgiven for thinking you're also a complete idiot.

[Murray]

Meanwhile Milt freely admits that no amount of evidence, witnesses or facts will be acceptable to him.

Only the party line decides what he believes in.

What colour does dear leader say the sky is today Milty?