Serious Fraud Officer merger with Police now unlikely

National's new Attorney-General Chris Finlayson has been given explicit responsibility for the Serious Fraud Office, and it now appears Labour's plan to merge the SFO with Police will be dumped.

Speaking to TGIF Edition this afternoon, Finlayson would only confirm that the merger is now officially "under review" by the new administration.

Comments

[belt]

"under review".

Sound like what I tell my kids (I'll think about it) when I don't want to hit them just yet the inevitable "no".

[peter]

What does Rodney Hide want to do with the SFO. That is what matters.

If National don't follow agenda of ACT (being spelled out in every more detail each day by Rodney Hide) then their only option will be to get closer to the Maori Party. Truly!

John Key is between a rock and a hard place. Cabinet looks very week.

Ian - there is a lot of material for you to investigate, given your stated aim a few years ago of keeping NZ govt under scrutiny.

Did you read about the ACT #5 David Garratt over the weekend. Sounds like he will be lots of fun.

[Rick]

The ETS is under review as well, thank god - or at least some version of "under review."

Bring on the "reviews", I say.

Any news yet on whether the non-toxic lightbulb ban will be "under review" too?

[Rick]

Can someone put peter under review?

[KevOB]

So long as climate change is reviewed, Kyoto scrapped and the other follies repealed I'll be happy. It may take Hide a little while to convert Smith but it will happen.

[Graeme]

The position of Attorney-General always notes that it includes respoisbility for the SFo (e.g. this about the 1993-6 Bolger cabinet http://executive.govt.nz/93-96/minister/index.htm ).

You may be right about it's fate, but you're reading too much into that reference. Michael Cullen was the same (see this Parliamentary question http://www.parliament.nz/mi-NZ/PB/Debates/QWA/6/8/e/QWA_01089_2008-1089-2008-Kate-Wilkinson-to-the-Attorney-General-Includes.htm ).

[Ian]

I've now had it confirmed on the record. The SFO will NOT be merged with Police. That deal is officially 'off'.

[baxta]

Either Key or Finlayson stated the SFO would not be scrapped on morning ZB yesterday.

[peter]

Newsflash from the world of the wacky:

'Thirteen years in the writing and approving, the Vatican has issued guidelines for candidates for the priesthood.

They call for "psychological testing whenever there is suspicion that psychic disturbances may be present."

"Such evaluations help diagnose a sexuality that is confused."

"It is not enough to be sure that a candidate is cable of abstaining from genital activity." "It is also necessary to evaluate his sexual orientation."

"Homosexuality is a 'deviation' that conflicts with the spiritual paternity, essential to the nature of the priesthood."

The Vatican spokesman suggested that "homosexuality might be 'cured' through psychotherapy."

"Church law requires 'positive evidence' of a candidates suitability, so a refusal to be evaluated could disqualify him from priesthood."'

[Peter Bickle]

Peter, you could be describing the Gaybour, oops, I mean the Labour Party of NZ. Your god I believe. They were/still are the biggest collection of sodamists and homosexuals in NZ. Clark, Wilson, Carter the anal farter, (is Kaiser still being cheated on?), new boys Charlie, Robertson, to name some.
BTW, did your psychotherapy work at all? Are you now straight? If so, you are still deluded by Labour.

[peter]

Good god Peter B. Are you suggesting I would apply to be a Roman Cathoic priest? Ha Ha Ha!!!

I found one piece of the above very funny

'The Vatican spokesman suggested that "homosexuality might be 'cured' through psychotherapy."'

Interesting - how is heterosexuality cured for intending priests then?

Two possibilities:
(a) There are not many heterosexuals applying for the priesthood OR
(b) Heterosexual relationships by priests are unlikely to cause much scandal.

Which is it Fletch?

[ian]

Peter, I'm unsure what gay priests have to do with the Serious Fraud Office....I'd love to see the narrative for his tangential plotline.

However, go back to Eve's Bite, which you claim to have read, and dissect again the studies completed by gay academics and researchers.

They argued, convincingly I felt, that homosexuality is not innate but part of a sliding spectrum of sexual behaviours restricted only by societal mores.

The more society "loosens up", they argued, the higher the occurence of homosexual behavious.

The church would say the more we abandon moral absolutes, the more behaviour slides, which is essentially the same argument the gay academics are making, couched differently.

The idea that anyone is "locked" into being homosexual, according to the gay research, is a fallacy (phallusy?).

The researchers cited their own studies showing they could turn "a straight man gay", and of course there is evidence of the opposite.

Environmental conditioning, peer group acceptability and similar social factors played a bigger role in predicting sexual orientation than anything else they could find.

In ancient societies like the Greeks and Romans, where bisexual acts were highly commonplace, it was widely recognised that people could play both sides of the field.

The argument raised by modern academics is that - for purely political reasons - gay behaviour has come to mean than a person MUST be "gay" - hence all these deep and meaningful movies and TV shows where characters wrestle with "coming out".

In truth, the position appears to be that they are simply less sexually inhibited than exclusively heterosexual people, and that pigeonholing anyone as "gay" is a misnomer.

Effectively their words, not mine.

The vast majority of "gay" people, according to studies within those communities, have had and continue to have heterosexual encounters to some degree.

[peter]

Ian - you say:

"They argued, convincingly I felt, that homosexuality is not innate but part of a sliding spectrum of sexual behaviours restricted only by societal mores."

I am not convinced. Surely Roman Catholic priests are more stringently bound by mores than the lay person? And by "societal mores" you are talking about the old functionalist world view - societal mores in this area are more often than not societal prejudices.

You also say:

"Environmental conditioning, peer group acceptability and similar social factors played a bigger role in predicting sexual orientation than anything else they could find."

I think they are sadly mistaken. Peer group acceptability may have a bearing on BEHAVIOUR that is known about, but what about people like Senator Larry from the US - who was caught out in the Minneapolis airport toilet?

That is the issue here - whether gay people feel safe to be gay, or whether they are closeted like the old days.

The researchers were saying:

'they could turn "a straight man gay", and of course there is evidence of the opposite.'

I am sorry but this fails the common sense Ian, as you would realise if you had any common sense!

You say:

"The church would say the more we abandon moral absolutes, the more behaviour slides, which is essentially the same argument the gay academics are making, couched differently."

I say the church says nothing. Extreme right wing Christian fundamentalists demonstrate prejudices however.

And of course such judgmental language as "behaviour slides" is extremely insulting to homosexual people who have their human rights.

Eve's Bite was a very weak book, much like Divinity Code. Full of quote mining.

So you have got your new govt Ian - what happens next? Homosexual law reform repeal? Ha Ha Ha!!!

[ian]

Neither Eve's Bite nor Div Code were 'weak', Peter, except perhaps in your fevered imagination. There has been no substantive criticism of either book.

More to the point, the comments in regard to gay baheviour come from genuine scientitic and sociological studies carried out by gay academics and scientists..so stop trying to blame the messenger, and start showing where their studies, acknowledged as the best in the field, are wrong.

Or do you know better?

[peter]

Ian

Of course I know better, of course the vast majority of authorities know better. You know nothing.

What do you make of long time Christian Cliff Richard by the way? Living now with a retired Catholic priest. Looking very camp recently too.

You are making irrational judgements regarding people who know for themselves what is right for them, and it has no impact on you whatsover.

If you must get all religious follow the lead of Cliff Richard - he says that judgement on him will be over to god.

I repeat, both Eves Bite and the Divinity Code were weak books, unworthy of any serious reviewer.

[ian]

Peter, you're evading the facts because you know you're on a hiding to nothing.

None of what I said was my words: I was paraphrasing what SCIENTIFIC studies (which you continually laud elsewhere) have concluded.

Show all of us where those studies are wrong, because they are directly germane to virtually every flawed argument you raise in this forum.

Your gay mythology is just that, a myth. According to the researchers, it's really about behaviours (choices), rather than innate orientation.

Stop blustering and diverting and just answer the simple question: where are those studies wrong?

[belt]

"Neither Eve's Bite nor Div Code were 'weak', Peter, except perhaps in your fevered imagination. There has been no substantive criticism of either book."

Ian, just out of interest, who would you accept to have the required credentials to provide informed criticism?

(and what's will all the Peters here? Perhaps God is trying to tell you something? ;)

Peter

[belt]

(why can't I see the misspellings before I click "Post"?)

[peter]

Sanctimonious, patronising, pronouncements at your level make you a figure of fun Ian.

The two books referred to are weak because they try to push weird minority views, rather than mainstream knowledge and simple observation.

More importantly, you fail to recognise the importance of recognising human rights, and you try to convert a valid minority in our population into second class status.

This area must not be a plaything for bigots. We are talking about real people here, real contributors to society.

Christianity is unsafe in your hands.

And more responsible mainstream denominations have now moved on, realising how much symbolism is all over the bible and religious ritual. Mainstream Christians have broadly come to realise the narrow mindedness and bigotry of the past and now almost anything goes.

It is true that their numbers have diminished but that is just as it should be, as people throwing out the bath water cannot find the baby!

Ha Ha Ha !!!

[peter]

Oh and Belt - posting of the week award goes to you. You ask:

"Ian, just out of interest, who would you accept to have the required credentials to provide informed criticism?"

The answer is quite obvious. Anybody that agrees with Ian has the credentials.

Ha Ha Ha!!!