Police Minister

Let’s get the dirt out in front: Police Minister declares his conviction

Mickey Woodhouse has a drink driving conviction. ?Did the papers find out via hacking? ? Nope, the minister and Key wants it out there in advance.

Police Minister Michael Woodhouse has owned up to a past drink-driving conviction during a wide-ranging interview about his new portfolio.

Asked if he had had any brushes with the law, Woodhouse revealed: “I have a conviction for driving with excess blood alcohol – it’s 27 years old, I was 21.”

He said: “You’ve asked, I can’t say no . . . I suppose that’s on the public record.”

People with drink-driving convictions are not allowed to become police officers. Woodhouse was appointed police minister this month.

Those that can, do. ?Those who can’t, become ministers.

Prime Minister John Key’s office confirmed last night that Woodhouse disclosed his conviction when applying to become a National Party candidate in 2008.

Woodhouse did not offer further details of the incident, but it has been reported that he was working for the BNZ about that time, before leaving in 1987 to play rugby in Britain.

Asked if he was now an upstanding MP, he said: “Certainly there’s too many eyes to be getting into too much mischief.”

Interesting dodge, don’t you think? ? Sill hedging. ?Wonder why… ? Read more »

So, the whole police force will vote National, that much is clear

If Labour get to lead the Coalition of the Damned later this year, the police minister will most likely be Jacinda Ardern.

After a good run with Tolley and Collins, the police know what it is like to have a minister that has your back.

If Labour get to the levers of power, that’s not looking likely

Labour is questioning the decision not to discipline a police officer who used excessive force when he tasered a Whakatane driver.

The officer said he thought he was in danger of being hit, but an Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) report released on Thursday said he could have been less forceful.

The long-serving officer used pepper spray when he was restraining Mark Smillie on Christmas Day 2011 but he continued to lash out.

After protecting himself with a baton, the officer twice used a Taser on Mr Smillie while he was on the ground.

The IPCA found the use of the Taser was “excessive and contrary to the law”. Read more »

An idea for Crusher

Judith Collins is probably now the most popular Police minister in living memory. Cops I’ve spoken to rave about the loyalty and?dedication?of her efforts to reform?the?Police. I think there are still plenty of improvements to be made, especially in rewarding frontline cops.

Fortunately the UK has given us a good idea for rewarding the frontline cops and penalising the seat warmers.

Back room officers are to lose up to ?4,000 a year so those serving on the front line can earn more, under proposals for the biggest shake-up in police pay for three decades.

At least two in five officers will see their pay packets cut under plans to slash perks, allowances and overtime as an independent review yesterday signalled a culture shift in the way police are paid.

Under the proposed changes, those on the front line and working ?unsocial hours?, such as night shifts, would benefit by up to ?2,000 a year while desk-bound officers and other office staff would be hit.

It came as Tom Winsor, the former rail regulator who carried out the review, revealed police on average earn up to 15 per cent more than other emergency service workers and soldiers.

He proposed a series of changes in police pay and allowances that would save ?485 million over the next three years and allow a further ?635 million to be redirected to front line officers.

I just bet the new Commissioner and his disdain for those with shiny trouser seats would embrace a change like this that rewards the cops in the frontline and reduces the pay of the bosses sitting warming a seat.

Cosgrove is a Count

Yesterday was a day for awards. Firstly I gave Clayton Cosgrove a Bronze Star for his truthful explanation of why Labour supported the Christchurch earthquake enabling legislation. Then I gave a Silver Star to Simon Bridges for a brilliant Facebook wall comment.

Unfortunately for Clayton Cosgrove the sheer shock of getting an award from me went straight to his head and he decided to try and score points against Judith Collins by asking her to compare real numbers (they are good) with projections (which are moronic) on Police numbers. The ensuing chaos as poor Plughead got a maths lesson from the minister and another supplementary lesson in dealing with reality rather than figures conjured up by the Police Association was something to behold. You almost feel sorry for the guy, up to his arms in sh*t at home and it’s over his head at work.

To top all that off Louise Upston mocked him by saying he can’t count on her Facebook wall. Todd McClay, ever the quick wit, added the following;

Clayton Cosgrove is a count

Clayton Cosgrove is a count

Gold Star for Boris. Actually I think he should get the Kevin Taylor Truth in Politics Award. Him and Simon Bridges can be the?inaugural?nominees.

Of course I must also hand out a Gold Star to Judith Collins for her comments on the dopers smoking it up on the lawn outside parliament.

Police Minister Judith Collins wasn’t impressed to learn what protestors had got away with.

?Well there is a moron born every moment, you know, people like that,? she said.

?I’m sure if you look at the policing act you’ll see that I’m not in a position to tell police how to enforce the law but I also know that if they do enforce the law in matters like that there will be plenty of people willing to criticise them for doing so.?

No wonder Plughead got a flogging again after that.

Phil Goff – The cut and paste politician

Where did Phil Goff get his inspiration for his Police Association speech?

Has Phil Goff become the cut and paste speech maker? I think he has.

Judith Collins on fleeing drivers ? 18 Sept

“Police will be damned if they do and damned if they don’t.?

Phil Goff on fleeing drivers ? Police Association speech 15 October

?What is difficult for officers is that you are damned if you do, and damned if you don’t.?

Judith Collins on courageous cop Mike O?Leary ? 13 October

?His courage is an inspiration.?

Phil Goff on Mike O?Leary – Police Association speech 15 Oct ober

?His courage and selflessness was inspirational.?

Judith Collins ? 29 June

?An opportunity exists to look very hard at different ways of approaching crime and justice, with an emphasis on preventing crime.?

Phil Goff ? Police Association speech 15 October

?Prevention is always better than cure.?

Judith Collins on fleeing drivers ? 28 August

?A very strong message needs to be sent that if they run, there is a good chance they or other innocent people will die,”

Phil Goff on fleeing drivers ? Police Association speech 15 October

?The evidence has never been clearer – drivers who try to outrun police are likely to kill themselves or innocent people.?

Judith Collins ? 13 October

?Officers will spend less time behind desks and more time on the streets where they can respond more quickly to calls for service.?

Phil Goff ? Police Association speech 15 October

?Too much of the time is taken up on paper work and other compliance requirements which take officers away from front line duties.?

Close Up ? 22 June

The Police Minister, Judith Collins, says she will look at increasing fines for failing to stop.

Phil Goff ? Police Association speech 15 October

Labour is committed to tightening up the laws on failure to stop.

Judith Collins ? 13 October

?Criminal gangs generate much of the crime in the community in the form of drug dealing, violence and money laundering.?

Phil Goff ? Police Association speech 15 October

?A huge amount of the crime in our community ultimately routes back to organised crime – including drugs, money laundering and violence.?

Goff's One Strike Policy a winner

Phil Goff has released what appears to be a new Labour “One Strike” Policy for driving fleeing froim Police.

Drivers who try to outrun police should have their vehicle impounded and licence suspended on a first offence, Labour leader Phil Goff says.

So far this year 15 people have died on the roads during police pursuits. Police engage in 2500 pursuits every year and one in four of those ends up in a crash, Mr Goff said.

Mr Goff said a Labour government would tighten the laws on failure to stop. Current proposals involve tougher penalties for repeat offenders.

”But I believe that we need to act more strongly on the very first offence,” he said. ” I say the blame rests fairly and squarely with the drivers who are trying to outrun the police.”

The good news is we won;t need to wait 6 years for a Labour government to implement this, I think it is safe to say that Police Minister Judith Collins will implement this for Phil Goff, she may even go as far as to call it Goff’s Law.

He outlined three options to the Police Association in Wellington this morning.

– toughening up existing provisions in the law such as mandatory licence suspension and impoundment of a vehicle on a first offence

– failure to stop to become a qualifying offence under sections 128 and 129 of the Sentencing act 2002? – which means the offender’s vehicle would be a risk of confiscation

-? a new law that introduces new offences with serious terms of imprisonment as a penalty, similar to one about to be passed in New South Wales

”You can’t afford to wait for two or three offences or for someone to die before you get serious. Drivers who fail to stop…don’t deserve a second chance.”

He told the senior officers they were ”damned if you do, damned if you don’t,” when it came to chases.

Glas to see that Phil Goff has realised that some criminals are beyond redemption, even at first offence. Well done Phil Goff, finally some policy?initiatives?that are reality based.

The onus is now on Judith Collins to push for these to be adopted quickly. No doubt Justice Minister Simon power will oppose them, but he has problems in other areas so can be safely ignored.

Compare and Contrast

Time for a Compare and Contrast.

Judith Collins is perhaps the most popular?Police?Minister ever. My sources in the Police say her support is nigh on 100%. ?Her working relationship with the coppers on the beat and the with the Police Association is at record highs, and her nobbling of PNHQ has met with wide-spread approval.

On almost every issue she has been in step with the thinking of the people in the street as well.

Her latest success is supporting the introduction something that is popular with 60% of New Zealanders.

All police should carry guns, almost 60 per cent of the public and more than 70 per cent of officers believe, a poll shows.

Police Minister Judith Collins said this week that she would support all patrol vehicles carrying pistols in lockboxes. Police Commissioner Howard Broad is preparing a report into arming police officers and will make recommendations at the end of the year. Both have said they don’t favour beat officers routinely being armed.

Last night the Police Association issued a poll it commissioned which said 72 per cent of all association members supported general arming. Asked if they supported it two years ago, 47 per cent were in favour.

The survey showed 58 per cent of the public also supported general arming. Association president Greg O’Connor said the results were no surprise.

The association, holding its 75th annual conference in Wellington this week, endorsed a motion “to support general arming of all sworn New Zealand police officers”.

Our police are increasingly coming up against armed and dangerous criminals. We can no longer delude ourselves that our police shouldn’t be armed.

Now contrast that with the high-handed and petulant?attitude?of Justice Minister Simon Power. FIGJAM has enraged the blogosphere with his bizarre tilt at trying to impose Hugo Chavez (that is now an alternate nickname) type controls on new media. He has ensured ?a uniting of the blogosphere where we will go all out to explain how unpopular he is, no matter our loyalties. Right,Left and Centre are going to ?make it their business to see this out of touch control freak of minister unseated.

Witness the attacks that have started;

Bomber at Tumeke -?National Government shouldn’t empower BSA to gag bloggers

And I think there isn’t much issue with that, Cam got righteously nailed by the Courts recently as the Judiciary stamped its authority on-line, issues regarding trials and suppression orders aren’t controversial expansions of power, but it’s this next part that is the danger…

He said there should be one set of rules for all news media, and the review – by the Law Commission – would look at extending the powers of the Broadcasting Standards Authority and/or the Press Council to cover new media.

…which means Simon Power wants to force the same gag rules of ‘balance’ used in the mainstream onto the blogosphere. The BSA can go fuck itself if it wants to try and enforce it’s narrow view of what can be said and what can not be said because decisions by a political board as to what can be said on-line are not warranted or needed

MacDoctor -?Go Fer Yer Guns,?Power!

The central error that you make, Mr. Power, is contained in your second sentence. You call bloggers ?news media?.?News Media? Very few bloggers actually deliver much in the way of news. We do not have the resources for this. What we deliver is?opinion. And I am afraid, Mr. Power, that if you don?t like my opinion, then tough?bikkies?

There is a word for regulation of opinion:?censorship. New Zealand is a free society precisely because I can call you an idiot, Mr Power, and not be shot at dawn by your goons. If I wish to call you stronger words than that, I may bump up against a law or two, and that is sufficient to maintain the distinction between free speech and decent speech. You do not need artificial standards except perhaps to cushion certain soft politician?egos.

Talking about ?professional and ethical standards? and bloggers in the same breath is laughable. Sure, we already follow a set of unwritten and un-enforcable rules, but these will never be ?standards? in any bureaucratic, measurable way. And the outrageous, unethical behaviour of some bloggers is what makes them entertaining. Bit like Paul Henry, really ? oh,?wait?

The point being is that the blogosphere thrives?because it is a ?wild west?. All you will get with regulation is that the wilder ones will clash with your regulations or, much more likely, will go quite feral. By this, I mean that they will use software that hides their?ID(easily obtainable from Warez sites) and move their sites to countries with less restriction. They will then proceed to snipe at you from inaccessible places with information that, at best, will be embarrassing and, at worst, horribly?destructive.

Recall what happened to the?US?marshals that tried to tame the West, Mr. Power ? they were shot down in large numbers. Recall that the West was not subdued by the application of law but by the?maturation of the society. Be patient and wait. Bloggers come and go. The Fail Whale reigns supreme. Facebook seems to be sliding into a black hole of flash applications. Eventually this will all sort itself out into a new society. I doubt if it will be as polite as you wish, Mr Power, but at least there will be less?cowboys?

Not PC – Cry ?Power-Lust? and let rip the censorship of the blogosphere

While most eyes here and round the world were on the miner miracle in Chile, a speech in the House by Simon Power-Lust this afternoon signalled (if anyone were looking) that things ahead are looking ominous for bloggers.

Cameron Slater?s tilt against name suppression?did eventually earn him a partial victory. But as I said when Cameron, akaWhale Oil, was given his lumps earlier by Justice Harvey, that decision was very much?not a victory for free speech?becausein his bewailing the lack of official ?oversight? of the blogosphere, Harvey was floating a trial balloon to which Power-Lust this afternoon gave motive power by asking Jeffrey Palmer?s inveterately lemon-sucking Law Commission ?to review the adequacy of regulations around how the internet interacts with the justice system.?

In other words, to begin drawing up plans for full regulation of the blogosphere by bureaucrats like Jeffrey?who has never seen a committee, board or tribunal he hasn?t wanted to join.

We may continue to post what we like and what we think. For the moment.? But all that will stop when Jeffrey Palmer and Simon Power-Lust?men who look at the freedom of the blogosphere and see only a ?Wild West? that needs manacles?men between them who have a face that needs punching and an ego that needs puncturing?bring in the very shackles on we bloggers that Justice Harvey?s 70-page decision presaged.

This is how easily censorship comes to a country.

Who now will rise up in protest?

It seems quite a few of us Peter. See above and now the links below.

Government looking at further regulation of speech on the Internet ? Thomas Beagle, TECH LIBERTY
?These is no mention in the press release of the freedom of expression guaranteed to New Zealanders in the Bill of Rights Act. Nor is there any recognition that many forms of old media such as leaflets, posters and books are also unregulated??
??this, in a socialist country where the MSM are no more than lickspittles pushing government propaganda and recycling handouts!? No wonder this little statist creep wants blogs to conform to the same standards?.?
High Noon ? ROAR PRAWN
??who in tarnation advised him to set about making the bloggers and online community the enemy??
From The Hood : Absolutist?Simon Power Corrupts Absolutely ? Lyndon Hood, WEREWOLF
?Simon is so powerful nobody?s allowed to argue with him..?
Internet no wild west ? lawyer ? NBR
?I don?t agree internet is the Wild West,? Rick Shera told NBR?

Idiot/Savant – No Right Turn – Against regulating the blogosphere

These are all things worth looking at, because the law needs to keep up with the technology (if it can). But Power is fundamentally mistaken about two things. First, he’s fundamentally mistaken in thinking bloggers should be treated as if they were professionals, because we simply aren’t. The typical blogger is a private individual mouthing off on the internet. Some of us know a little about what we are mouthing off about, some of us don’t – but fundamentally, its no different from people talking in a cafe. The government wouldn’t dream of trying to regulate and force “professional standards” on that, and rightly so. So why is it trying to regulate and force professional standards on the same conversations in the blogosphere? It smacks of another example of the old problem of things being suddenly scarier the moment you attach the word “internet” to them.

Secondly, the claim that we are not subject to any form of regulation is simply false. As a blogger, I’m subject to exactly the same laws as Power is in issuing his press releases. If I defame someone, I can be sued. If I publish objectionable material, I can be prosecuted. If I breach a court suppression order, I can be fined. Rather than showing that the blosophere is a “wild west”, the recent Whale Oil case showed that the law is?perfectly capable of dealing with it.

The problem for the justice system isn’t the blogosphere, but the net’s combination of strong anonyminity and a free market in legal jurisdictions. The same technology that allows human rights activists to hide from the Iranian regime and circumvent the?Great Firewall of China also allows people to read or post or host information which undermines our justice system. It could be used, for example, to set up a website whose sole function is to violate New Zealand suppression orders. If located in the right jurisdiction, such a site could never be taken down at source. It could never be effectively blocked – “the net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it” is an old saw, but its also true (in that such blocks are also fundamentally ineffective). And unless the authors were very, very stupid, they would never be caught.

But there’s nothing the government can do about that. Nothing. The collective minds of the world’s most powerful dictatorships can’t stop it, so I doubt New Zealand could. More importantly, adding new laws does nothing to help. The problem is not that such behaviour wouldn’t be illegal, its that we now have reliable technological means to?not get caught.

But the blogosphere isn’t in that space. Its already subject to existing laws. And those laws seem to generally be up to the task. We don’t need new ones.

Pedobear Power on Q+A

Pedobear Power on Q+A

You know you are in trouble with a political position when left, right and centre attack you. When Bomber, Idiot/Savant, MacDoctor, Peter Cresswell and Whaleoil all agree on something then you know that what they say is right and what the politician says is dead wrong. Simon Power is about to find out what a united blogosphere will do to his silly proposition to limit our freedoms.

One wonders what meds FIGJAM is taking, on a day when Bill English had some good news to release, Simon Power goes and takes his limelight. If he thinks the new media will lie down while he attempts to impose Chinese style limits on our freedom of opinion then he is sadly mistaken. We marched in the streets over the Electoral Finance Act, and DOF and I ran a bill board campaign against the law.

Simon Power is heading for a similar campaign that will be brought up close and personal in Rangitikei. If he thinks that won;t work then he should look very carefully at what happened to Andrew Williams. Because right now he is next on the list. When you add on his refusal to look at introducing ?a NZ version of Megan’s Law, then you get the picture that Simon Power is a friend of criminals, pedophiles and other assorted scum.

We need politicians that will?govern?for the people not for the liberal elite and their cotton-wool view of the world.

Parting gift from Chief Wiggum

Howard Broad parties it up

Howard Broad parties it up

It is no secret that Chief Wiggum Howard Broad has no friends at the Police Association and therefore no surprise that Chief Wiggum left the little landmine of his opinion about licencing of police bars.

What Chief Wiggum didn’t tell the media though in his little spin-fest was that he once got so hammered at a police bar he once tried to fly….down a bannister. He broke several limbs. Now he wants to “comply” police bars. That’s a little hypocritical of Chief Wiggum I think.

I think the Police, Fire Service and Armed Forces should keep their bars but let’s have a little more circumspect behaviour on the premises.

The? main problem from what I hear, is that they (the Police) cover up all the damage, be it to the person, the cost or the premises.

It’s not really ok for half of them might be pissed at 9am in the morning – and oh I don’t know slide down bannisters or even shoot a hole in the wall playing Quick Draw McGraw …. the list goes on, I could be here all day, but it isn’t the point.

One thing though that Crusher cold do to help the Police is to install a container bed or 10 at the station so they can crash (or maybe some of these), fireman are fine they have beds, so do the army, navy and the bryl-creem boys, the problem seems to be the police. That way they won’t go home crashing into innocent citizens.

The point is there probably needs to be some transparency surrounding those who enforce the law and how they act in their own bars. We don’t mind cops and such having their bars but they have to behave within the law that they are upholding.

One wag said to me that they’d sure as hell like to see someone, anyone, try and shut down the SAS bar on base.

I think Judith Collins had it right when she said;

“Cabinet has decided that the exemption for our defence, fire service and police should remain,” said Police Minister Judith Collins.

All this fuss seems to be just a parting gift to the Police Association from Chief Wiggum, it’s a pity he wasn’t smart enough to avoid standing on the landmine he set. He really should just STFU and retire without another word. His time is over, and we can all thank the Lord for that.

Gun hysteria

Police Minister Judith Collins says the Government is looking seriously at legislation to restrict the sale of high-powered air rifles which are being blamed for two recent slayings in Auckland.

Police Sergeant Don Wilkinson died after he was shot with a FX Monsoon air gun while on a undercover drugs operation in 2008.

And now it has been revealed the same type of weapon was used in the slaying of Keith Kahi, 44, in the eastern Auckland suburb of Botany Downs nine days ago.

This is simply hysteria and based on total ignorance of firearms including air-rifles. The news article constantly refers to the FX Monsoon as “high-powered”. A check of the manufacturers specifications show that .177 calibre has a muzzle velocity of1000fps and the .22 version a muzzle velocity of 920fps.

By way of comparison a standard .22 long rifle cartridge generates not less than 1,080fps and up to 1,750fps. The air rifles could hardly be considered high-powered, just as no-one would dare call a .22 rimfire rifle “powerful”. In fact most air rifles these days are around 750fps -1000fps making the distinction between high-powered and low-powered almost impossible.

The other thing about legislation is that it doesn’t ever stop criminals from arming themselves. They simply ignore restrictions and legislation, that is why they are criminals. What it does do though is further dis-arm the general populace. It isn’t access to the weapons that is the problem, if that was the case then criminals wouldn’t have assault rifles, pistols and shoguns, for they are already far more restricted than air-rifles. The simple fact is that restrictions will not stop criminals arming themselves.

New Zealanders need to face up to reality that we have lost control of general society to criminals, who generally act with impunity and can count on an un-armed Police force.

The Police should be armed as a matter of cousre, and they should be trained appropriately. We also need to allow our general citizenry to defend themselves in the face of increasing violence in our drug addled society.

No-one has mentioned that the neighbours of these criminals who committed the latest shooting will have been living in mortal fear next door, knowing full well that there were armed criminals in there, yet unable to defend themselves because they were law abiding citizens.

If we need any reason for allowing the open carry of firearms in our society then Navtej Singh is it. He was abandoned to die for simply running a shop, while Police cowered unarmed behind their vehicles.

Let’s have a proper look at our gun laws and a proper look at our ability to defend ourselves, we need this because it is clear that the Police can’t protect us, they can’t even protect themselves. We need to take back our streets from the criminals. We need the right to keep and bear arms.