That surveillance bill thingymajig

[mashman]

I'm curious as to how far this would go. Whilst I don't mind being filmed outside of my own house, will this give the "Police" the ability to break into a house and place cameras and microphones etc... for the purposes of obtaining a conviction? If that's the case, me nonno likey.

[Oakie]

I'm curious as to how far this would go. Whilst I don't mind being filmed outside of my own house, will this give the "Police" the ability to break into a house and place cameras and microphones etc... for the purposes of obtaining a conviction? If that's the case, me nonno likey.

Only with a court order of some sort signed by a judge or JP (think search warrant) I would imagine. Sufficient 'reason to suspect' would have to be provided to get said warrant.

[Scuba_Steve]

Only with a court order of some sort signed by a judge or JP (think search warrant) I would imagine. Sufficient 'reason to suspect' would have to be provided to get said warrant.

I thought they could do that now tho??? Thought the idea was to be a law to circumvent the law???

[SPman]

Only with a court order of some sort signed by a judge or JP (think search warrant) I would imagine. Sufficient 'reason to suspect' would have to be provided to get said warrant.
And it would have to relate to a crime, the conviction of which would render you liable to a term of imprisonment of...3 years or more, I think. Anyway - all here
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2009/0045/latest/DLM2136536.html

[Flip]

I don't have a problem with that.

[Usarka]

The really scary part of this is that the government is changing the law to apply retrospectively. The cops acted illegally but hey we'll pretend it was legal all along with this law change.

What's next, they'll make everyone who brought Kronic a criminal even though it was legal at the time?

[puddytat]

I think that the laws brought in after 9/11 (terrorism suppression laws?)were why the police got so sure of themselves that they thought the could do what they want.
And as I understand it, the ammendment to it is to legalise them doing whatever the fuck they want ,where they want to whom ever THEY suspect for reasons only known to themselves.....& ostensibly to not jeopardise the 40 odd cases where this has been done.
This is why that KeyCo.is having problems getting the numbers needed to pass the law,as various political parties have asked for info on what these cases are about & the Govt. is refusing to relase the info to them.....
Now I have no problems with this when it comes to Hardcore crimminals, but then it begs the question of whether it should be the police deciding whom they suss out & for what reasons.
Which could lead to people being targeted for Enviromental, Human rights ,Political beliefs or any other organisation that MAY percieved to be a threat by the Police.As has been done in America since 9/11
Police State anyone?

[James Deuce]

Hardcore criminal? Anyone the Government decides is one.

[Zamiam]

The really scary part of this is that the government is changing the law to apply retrospectively. The cops acted illegally but hey we'll pretend it was legal all along with this law change.

What's next, they'll make everyone who brought Kronic a criminal even though it was legal at the time?

Agree whole heartedly - applying law changes retrospectively is just plain WRONG. Where will it end - The Police broke the rules end of matter - chuck the evidence out. If you want the right to enforce the rules YOU MUST ADHERE TO THEM.

[mashman]

Only with a court order of some sort signed by a judge or JP (think search warrant) I would imagine. Sufficient 'reason to suspect' would have to be provided to get said warrant.

The above bit is where I have the concern... especially when it comes to video footage which can be chopped out of context... whereas when a cop is giving evidence, it's him that carries the can if he lies...



Which could lead to people being targeted for Enviromental, Human rights ,Political beliefs or any other organisation that MAY percieved to be a threat by the Police.As has been done in America since 9/11


As mentioned elsewhere, if there is well founded suspicion, they can go and get a warrant anyway... if they've fucked up leaving a loophole open, then the Police should be prosecuted for not following correct procedure, and the judges sacked for not following the law... TUI

[Zedder]

The above bit is where I have the concern... especially when it comes to video footage which can be chopped out of context... whereas when a cop is giving evidence, it's him that carries the can if he lies...

As mentioned elsewhere, if there is well founded suspicion, they can go and get a warrant anyway... if they've fucked up leaving a loophole open, then the Police should be prosecuted for not following correct procedure, and the judges sacked for not following the law... TUI

You're definitely not Sgt. Stadanko.

[puddytat]

For the record its called:
The Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill :yes:

The preliminary draft looks like that they are going to give these unrestrained video surveilance powers to other Govt. Agencies....

What Agencies & what Govt.?:blink::shifty::clap:

[Winston001]

You're definitely not Sgt. Stadanko.


Noooo...but he bears a striking resemblance to Sister Mary Elephant...

[mashman]

Noooo...but he bears a striking resemblance to Sister Mary Elephant...

I gotta find that movie... I saw a Cheech and Chong movie once at a party yeeeeeeeeeeears ago... but never since.

[Zedder]

I gotta find that movie... I saw a Cheech and Chong movie once at a party yeeeeeeeeeeears ago... but never since.

Yeah, they did several movies and heaps of other skits over the years. You'd probably be into Monty Python too then. Oldies but goodies.

[Bikemad]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/RX_Wuvya0iU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[MisterD]

I thought they could do that now tho??? Thought the idea was to be a law to circumvent the law???

Currently they are allowed to place microphones but not cameras, which seems nonsensical to me.

I don't have a problem with the basic principle, but haven't looked at the detail of the bill.

[Zedder]

They never fail to put a smile on my dial.

[imdying]

Only with a court order of some sort signed by a judge or JP (think search warrant) I would imagine. Sufficient 'reason to suspect' would have to be provided to get said warrant.I thought they already had that, but this was the one that lets them do it for up to three days without a warrant?

Retrospection is bullshit. If the police were breaking the law by obtaining the evidence they currently have, then two things need to happen:
- The people they have charged should be released
- The police involved should be convicted and imprisoned

Or is it ok to break the law if you're a police officer? :facepalm:

[admenk]

Or is it ok to break the law if you're a police officer? :facepalm:

I'm convinced the majority are fine (just like you and maybe me), sadly for a seemingly growing minority, the answer to that seems to be yes.

I'm totally sure that that lovely smiling Mr Key can be trusted on this one.....(insert Tui ad here)

[puddytat]

And on the Radio just heard that Labour will support the progress of the bill:facepalm:

[SPman]

Or is it ok to break the law if you're a police officer?

The police have been found to be breaking the law in a deliberate and systematic fashion, potentially putting 50 serious criminal cases in jeopardy due to tainted evidence.

But nothing will happen...it seems NZ police is getting more and more like Queensland police.............

All they have to do is amend the Crimes act to allow Video surveillance, but, then, the Crimes Act provisions are limited to organised criminal offending, serious violent offences, and terrorism....that would never do...it seems the police now want carte blanche, to spy on whoever they want........

[imdying]

All they have to do is amend the Crimes act to allow Video surveillance, but, then, the Crimes Act provisions are limited to organised criminal offending, serious violent offences, and terrorism....that would never do...it seems the police now want carte blanche, to spy on whoever they want........I'm pretty pro the baconators in general, and too lazy to wear a tin foil hat, but it sure does seem that way.

[Zedder]

The police have been found to be breaking the law in a deliberate and systematic fashion, potentially putting 50 serious criminal cases in jeopardy due to tainted evidence.

But nothing will happen...it seems NZ police is getting more and more like Queensland police.............

All they have to do is amend the Crimes act to allow Video surveillance, but, then, the Crimes Act provisions are limited to organised criminal offending, serious violent offences, and terrorism....that would never do...it seems the police now want carte blanche, to spy on whoever they want........

So what? They can spy on me all they want, I don't do anything that calls for me to arrested.

Video surveillance is just about everywhere anyway. If it helps keep me, my family, friends and the wider community safe from crims then I'm fine with it.

[James Deuce]

So what? They can spy on me all they want, I don't do anything that calls for me to arrested.

Video surveillance is just about everywhere anyway. If it helps keep me, my family, friends and the wider community safe from crims then I'm fine with it.

That is precisely how National Socialism asserted its grip on Germany in the '30s.

Thread's over. Godwin's Law FTW.

[oneofsix]

So what? They can spy on me all they want, I don't do anything that calls for me to arrested.

Video surveillance is just about everywhere anyway. If it helps keep me, my family, friends and the wider community safe from crims then I'm fine with it.

yes but wit ha few minor law changes it would be easy to arrange it so you do.
If you think video surveillance is just about everywhere you need to visit Britain. One thing that seems to constantly crop up in Britain is that it doesn't keep you and yours safe, the surveillance is only used how and when the authorities want it not when you get mugged or your bike trashed.

[oneofsix]

That is precisely how National Socialism asserted its grip on Germany in the '30s.

Thread's over. Godwin's Law FTW.

:no: not direct enough to invoke Godwin's law. Your statement requires intelligence or knowledge before Godwin's law is affective therefore you will miss your target. :yes:

Propaganda and apathy, the tools of Goebbels

[Zedder]

yes but wit ha few minor law changes it would be easy to arrange it so you do.
If you think video surveillance is just about everywhere you need to visit Britain. One thing that seems to constantly crop up in Britain is that it doesn't keep you and yours safe, the surveillance is only used how and when the authorities want it not when you get mugged or your bike trashed.

Well OO6 when it does look like it's going to change to the general detriment I'll worry about it then.

We're not in Britain but where's your evidence on the Brit surveillance issue? I've seen it used to reduce crime and when in conjunction with a Public Address system to actually stop crime.

[Zedder]

:no: not direct enough to invoke Godwin's law. Your statement requires intelligence or knowledge before Godwin's law is affective therefore you will miss your target. :yes:

Propaganda and apathy, the tools of Goebbels

Goebbels was hugely aided by the fact that Germany was recovering from being beaten in a World War, had no direction or economic future and was therefore ripe for the picking. Don't forget the Nazis also burnt books in 1933 to destroy anything that was "un German".

I can't see any comparison of that here.

[Bikemad]

:no: not direct enough to invoke Godwin's law. Your statement requires intelligence or knowledge before Godwin's law is affective therefore you will miss your target. :yes:

Propaganda and voter apathy, the tools of every NZ political party
fixed that for ya

[imdying]

That is precisely how National Socialism asserted its grip on Germany in the '30s.I've no problem with that, I'll try to make sure I pick the right side along the way if that's the way it goes.

[oneofsix]

Well OO6 when it does look like it's going to change to the general detriment I'll worry about it then.

We're not in Britain but where's your evidence on the Brit surveillance issue? I've seen it used to reduce crime and when in conjunction with a Public Address system to actually stop crime.

When they have decided to change it to a genera; detriment you will be too late, don't forget you have to get past the general apathy before you can generate the mass great enough to even be noticed.

Arhh so you've seen the propaganda, or advertising is you prefer, on why surveillance is good but haven't seen any of the comments by people in the news etc complaining they couldn't get to use that same surveillance when things went wrong for them. Pays to look at both sides.


Goebbels was hugely aided by the fact that Germany was recovering from being beaten in a World War, had no direction or economic future and was therefore ripe for the picking. Don't forget the Nazis also burnt books in 1933 to destroy anything that was "un German".

I can't see any comparison of that here
That's because you don't see you might have swallowed their propaganda and you are happy waiting apathetically for things to get worse.

What's so bad about the police having to get a warrant to video on private property?

[Zedder]

fixed that for ya

I don't think there's voter apathy, people do vote. One of the big problems though is getting people to get out and protest against issues that do matter.

[oneofsix]

I've no problem with that, I'll try to make sure I pick the right side along the way if that's the way it goes.

You aren't Italian are you? Not much to like about the guy but one of his great quotes went something like 'it doesn't matter which side Italy enters the war on it will come out on the winning side'

[Bikemad]

I don't think there's voter apathy, people do vote. One of the big problems though is getting people to get out and protest against issues that do matter.

79.46% 2008 down from 80.92% 2005...........so if the other 20 odd % of voters actually voted............where would we be??? probably be a labour led govt as i reckon it would be their supporters that were too dumb/ lazy/broke to get up and go vote

[Zedder]

When they have decided to change it to a genera; detriment you will be too late, don't forget you have to get past the general apathy before you can generate the mass great enough to even be noticed.

Arhh so you've seen the propaganda, or advertising is you prefer, on why surveillance is good but haven't seen any of the comments by people in the news etc complaining they couldn't get to use that same surveillance when things went wrong for them. Pays to look at both sides.


That's because you don't see you might have swallowed their propaganda and you are happy waiting apathetically for things to get worse.

What's so bad about the police having to get a warrant to video on private property?

I do look at both sides. People will always complain that nothing is being done for them at a certain time. Maybe the cops were just too busy catching a major criminal to worry about Joe's place being vandalised or whatever. It's about priorities.

Happy waiting apathetically? Perhaps you're better off asking what I've done.

I joined MAG and marched down Queenstreet with the anti-mining protestors (plus worked with NZ Forest and Bird society to fight it) as well as protested the Foreshore and Seabed issue. I am still involved. Incidently the protest march was filmed by the cops. Big deal. I haven't had my door kicked in yet or been arrested because of it.

They can use surveillance all they like on me and if they've got the evidence that I'm going something illegal, then bring it on.

[oneofsix]

I do look at both sides. People will always complain that nothing is being done for them at a certain time. Maybe the cops were just too busy catching a major criminal to worry about Joe's place being vandalised or whatever. It's about priorities.

Happy waiting apathetically? Perhaps you're better off asking what I've done.

I joined MAG and marched down Queenstreet with the anti-mining protestors (plus worked with NZ Forest and Bird society to fight it) as well as protested the Foreshore and Seabed issue. I am still involved. Incidently the protest march was filmed by the cops. Big deal. I haven't had my door kicked in yet or been arrested because of it.

They can use surveillance all they like on me and if they've got the evidence that I'm going something illegal, then bring it on.

No wasn't referring to too busy, you will always get that. I was referring to asking for a copy of the tape or a copy to be viewed at a later date so there wasn't the urgency factor. More a case of not interested or not in the authorities best interest.

As for your march being filmed, you were in a public place so anyone can film you.

[Zedder]

No wasn't referring to too busy, you will always get that. I was referring to asking for a copy of the tape or a copy to be viewed at a later date so there wasn't the urgency factor. More a case of not interested or not in the authorities best interest.

As for your march being filmed, you were in a public place so anyone can film you.

Maybe so with the authorities, they can be very frustrating but as far as I know they have to respond to an official logged complaint. I'm not sure though that their idea of 'interest" is always the same as ours.

My point about the march being filmed was not about legality and private property. If the cops saw me acting criminally during the march I would expect to be arrested and if they had video proof then that's too bad for me. It's about acting criminally.

The same applies to private surveillance, although I can't think what the hell I'd be doing on my property that's illegal.

[Zedder]

79.46% 2008 down from 80.92% 2005...........so if the other 20 odd % of voters actually voted............where would we be??? probably be a labour led govt as i reckon it would be their supporters that were too dumb/ lazy/broke to get up and go vote

That's only two election years worth of numbers. What about the other years and what were the factors that caused the decrease?

NZ is actually in line with many other countries (Except the USA which can drop to below 60%) in terms of voter turnout of around 80%.

[Bikemad]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_New_Zealand#History_of_voting_in_New_ Zealand

all results at bottom of page

[oneofsix]

Maybe so with the authorities, they can be very frustrating but as far as I know they have to respond to an official logged complaint. I'm not sure though that their idea of 'interest" is always the same as ours.

My point about the march being filmed was not about legality and private property. If the cops saw me acting criminally during the march I would expect to be arrested and if they had video proof then that's too bad for me. It's about acting criminally.

The same applies to private surveillance, although I can't think what the hell I'd be doing on my property that's illegal.

You can't think of what illegal thing you might be doing? There is most likely plenty and if not well we can make something that you are doing illegal once we have the evidence. :buggerd: used to be regardless of the genders involved perhaps they could make doggy style illegal.

Rather than me using half arse sniping replies because I don't have the time to completely answer you try reading your way through this;
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/blogs/john-pagani-left-leaning/5695972/Why-police-need-that-video-warrant

[Zedder]

You can't think of what illegal thing you might be doing? There is most likely plenty and if not well we can make something that you are doing illegal once we have the evidence. :buggerd: used to be regardless of the genders involved perhaps they could make doggy style illegal.

Rather than me using half arse sniping replies because I don't have the time to completely answer you try reading your way through this;
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/blogs/john-pagani-left-leaning/5695972/Why-police-need-that-video-warrant

So you admit to using half arse sniping replies then? But at least you don't get all aggro and personal like some people on KB. I might read the info after I've finished this big fat joint......

[Zedder]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_New_Zealand#History_of_voting_in_New_ Zealand

all results at bottom of page

Thanks for that.

It looks ok to me, some fluctuations as expected and a bit of a downward trend over the last few voting years but that's happend before (You could have supplied a graph with trendline though, some people....)

What about the factors causing the fluctuations like I asked for? The fact that NZ has an aging population and things like weather etc do affect voter turnout.

[Winston001]

So what? They can spy on me all they want, I don't do anything that calls for me to arrested.

Video surveillance is just about everywhere anyway. If it helps keep me, my family, friends and the wider community safe from crims then I'm fine with it.

I agree and feel the same.

But...the issue is the individual's right to privacy and non-intrusion by the State.

Although Jim2 vastly exaggerated with his reference to Nazi Germany, there is a kernel of truth and warning in it. Granting wide surveillance rights to the State opens the door for corrupt individuals to abuse that right.

We need to tread carefully here.

[oneofsix]

So you admit to using half arse sniping replies then? But at least you don't get all aggro and personal like some people on KB. I might read the info after I've finished this big fat joint......

Oh yeah I admit it. The replies occur between phases of work so I don't/can't get as detailed as others, also not the way my mind works, when it works that is. :innocent:

[Zedder]

I agree and feel the same.

But...the issue is the individual's right to privacy and non-intrusion by the State.

Although Jim2 vastly exaggerated with his reference to Nazi Germany, there is a kernel of truth and warning in it. Granting wide surveillance rights to the State opens the door for corrupt individuals to abuse that right.

We need to tread carefully here.

Very true Winston, privacy is sacred. I think though if there's any form of warrant involved then one is in big trouble anyway. Perhaps warrants should have been upgraded years ago to include the electronic age and a search warrant should have been a "search and leave devices warrant" if the cops can prove justification.

[oneofsix]

Very true Winston, privacy is sacred. I think though if there's any form of warrant involved then one is in big trouble anyway. Perhaps warrants should have been upgraded years ago to include the electronic age and a search warrant should have been a "search and leave devices warrant" if the cops can prove justification.

A surveillance warrant and a search warrant are different and separate warrants aren't they? I remember there being all the noise when they chanced the wire tap rules. IMO they should be separate, search for something a person already has is different from keeping someone under surveillance. And really cameras have been around for over a century now so they have had time to get it sorted.

[Zedder]

A surveillance warrant and a search warrant are different and separate warrants aren't they? I remember there being all the noise when they chanced the wire tap rules. IMO they should be separate, search for something a person already has is different from keeping someone under surveillance. And really cameras have been around for over a century now so they have had time to get it sorted.

I'm saying the cops should have got their act together way back and combined it. I think they stuffed up and the Urewera incident is a prime example.

[Usarka]

That is precisely how National Socialism asserted its grip on Germany in the '30s.

Thread's over. Godwin's Law FTW.
Exactly.


But! East German secret police porn. Rule 34 pwn's Godwin.

NWS http://img.photosex.biz/imager/w_500/h_500/70d044ecc2793360706689431bbb2912.jpg

Now the thread is over. :innocent:

[Zedder]

Exactly.


But! East German secret police porn. Rule 34 pwn's Godwin.

NWS http://img.photosex.biz/imager/w_500/h_500/70d044ecc2793360706689431bbb2912.jpg

Now the thread is over. :innocent:

Gott im himmel! Das ist ein illegal videoflugen von hausen.

[SPman]

So what? They can spy on me all they want, I don't do anything that calls for me to arrested.

Video surveillance is just about everywhere anyway. If it helps keep me, my family, friends and the wider community safe from crims then I'm fine with it.
The fact we are all using the net shows that privacy and security are the least of our concerns.........

[Zedder]

The fact we are all using the net shows that privacy and security are the least of our concerns.........

No arguement there.

[Winston001]

A point of clarity for those who think the police deliberately acted unlawfully: the High Court initially ruled the video surveillance in the Urewera cases was not allowed for in the warrants issued to the police. In other words, the evidence was outside the scope of the warrants and thus unlawfully obtained.

The Court of Appeal disagreed - and ruled the evidence could be used.

Then the Supreme Court reversed that by a majority of 3 - 2 that the evidence was unlawful and could not be used - for 13 defendants. However the Supreme Court also ruled the evidence could be used against 4 other defendants.

So...we have 3 Court of Appeal judges saying the video surveillance was fine, plus 2 Supreme Court judges agreeing with them (but in the minority vote). Furthermore the Court has allowed 4 charges to proceed.


All of which explains the police believing video surveillance pursuant to a warrant was lawful.

In fact I think the sticking point wasn't video surveillance itself but the fact it took place on private property. That was ruled unlawful which is why the law is being updated.

[oneofsix]

The fact we are all using the net shows that privacy and security are the least of our concerns.........

but that is something we do publicly. We have always separated public and private. Like wise there is no avoiding being photographed or videoed when in public or public view, but when in private or on private property not in public view then I would prefer they at least have to justify a warrant being issued.

[marty]

A point of clarity for those who think the police deliberately acted unlawfully: the High Court initially ruled the video surveillance in the Urewera cases was not allowed for in the warrants issued to the police. In other words, the evidence was outside the scope of the warrants and thus unlawfully obtained.

The Court of Appeal disagreed - and ruled the evidence could be used.

Then the Supreme Court reversed that by a majority of 3 - 2 that the evidence was unlawful and could not be used - for 13 defendants. However the Supreme Court also ruled the evidence could be used against 4 other defendants.

So...we have 3 Court of Appeal judges saying the video surveillance was fine, plus 2 Supreme Court judges agreeing with them (but in the minority vote). Furthermore the Court has allowed 4 charges to proceed.


All of which explains the police believing video surveillance pursuant to a warrant was lawful.

In fact I think the sticking point wasn't video surveillance itself but the fact it took place on private property. That was ruled unlawful which is why the law is being updated.


how dare you post such relevant details! the police were acting like the SS! burn them!

[Usarka]

It still doesn't matter. Governments should not change the legal status of historical events.

[FJRider]

The fact we are all using the net shows that privacy and security are the least of our concerns.........

So your anti-virus/security software is switched off then ... ???

[marty]

I'm saying the cops should have got their act together way back and combined it. I think they stuffed up and the Urewera incident is a prime example.

So given the actual story as posted above, who exactly should have got their act together?

[marty]

Agree whole heartedly - applying law changes retrospectively is just plain WRONG. Where will it end - The Police broke the rules end of matter - chuck the evidence out. If you want the right to enforce the rules YOU MUST ADHERE TO THEM.

the urewara monkeys are only the tip of the iceberg here. there are multiple serious meth and Class A drug cases that are hanging in the balance over this law change.

but I'm sure your extensive legal background gives your opinion weight

[Usarka]

the urewara monkeys are only the tip of the iceberg here. there are multiple serious meth and Class A drug cases that are hanging in the balance over this law change.


Tough. People get off on technicalities alll the time. The cops will just have to catch them again like usual, and it should be easier because they know who they are.

The good of the many should outweigh the good of the few. And it is much better for the country (the many) that we don't make it ok to change laws retrospectively.

[Zedder]

So given the actual story as posted above, who exactly should have got their act together?

I presume you're talking about the law makers.

[Zedder]

Tough. People get off on technicalities alll the time. The cops will just have to catch them again like usual, and it should be easier because they know who they are.

The good of the many should outweigh the good of the few. And it is much better for the country (the many) that we don't make it ok to change laws retrospectively.

Yep, under legal convention a retrospective law change doesn't change the actual effect of the law. This is in order to stop the law makers changing things to suit themselves and jeopardise the publics right to have faith in the certainty of law.

The lawmakers/cops made a mistake and they should start again.

[imdying]

So your anti-virus/security software is switched off then ... ???They're a bit like locks on your front door mate, a little tickle here and there and open they go.

[Winston001]

The good of the many should outweigh the good of the few. And it is much better for the country (the many) that we don't make it ok to change laws retrospectively.

LOL you appreciate you've given the argument in favour of retrospective law change...?? Ie. the good of the many over-rides the good of the few.

In any case, constitutional lawyers (academic types) abhor retrospective law and I'm with them. It is frustrating for the police to have carried out surveillance believing they were lawfully entitled to do so. Still, this isn't the first time the Courts have limited police powers and its an ongoing process. A healthy process.

[imdying]

there are multiple serious meth and Class A drug cases that are hanging in the balance over this law change.Well, that's the problem with living in a country full of pussys. If meth is as bad as we're led to believe by the media (I have never ever come across it, but then I don't roll with junkies), then it's good enough to shoot users/dealers on sight. That's a law I'll vote for.

[scumdog]

I'm saying the cops should have got their act together way back and combined it. I think they stuffed up and the Urewera incident is a prime example.

Are you trolling or just thick?

Or do you never bother to read the facts???:blink:

[Zedder]

Are you trolling or just thick?

Or do you never bother to read the facts???:blink:

I think you should read Winston's earlier clarity post or are you just being nasty as usual?

[scumdog]

I think you should read Winston's earlier clarity post or are you just being nasty as usual?

I'm being nasty as usual.

The cops didn't screw up

The Courts 'moved the goal-posts' AFTER the kick.


I think that's simple enough for now.:rolleyes:

[Zedder]

I'm being nasty as usual.

The cops didn't screw up

The Courts 'moved the goal-posts' AFTER the kick.


I think that's simple enough for now.:rolleyes:

Let me explain it slowly: If the cops did the job properly in the first place there would not have been a need to have the courts involved at all.

[scumdog]

Let me explain it slowly: If the cops did the job properly in the first place there would not have been a need to have the courts involved at all.

Are you an activist or something?

Let me also explain: The cops did everythign as they always did, they checked it was 'ok'.

But (insert reason here) the Courts were dragged into things and changed the rules.

Like went from: "There no law against it so it's OK" (what had been happening up until now)

To: "If it doesn't say in law you CAN do it - then it must be illegal"

Sort of like telling you out of the blue that walking backwards across the street is illegal because the law doesn't SAY you can - after you had been doing just that for yonks.
Kapeesh???:blink:

[Zedder]

Are you an activist or something?

Let me also explain: The cops did everythign as they always did, they checked it was 'ok'.

But (insert reason here) the Courts were dragged into things and changed the rules.

Like went from: "There no law against it so it's OK" (what had been happening up until now)

To: "If it doesn't say in law you CAN do it - then it must be illegal"

Sort of like telling you out of the blue that walking backwards across the street is illegal because the law doesn't SAY you can - after you had been doing just that for yonks.
Kapeesh???:blink:

How is it then police were warned by the Law Commission in 2007 that this type of evidence gathering was on shaky ground and they could rely on their interpretation of the Evidence Act to use it safely?

[scumdog]

How is it then police were warned by the Law Commission in 2007 that this type of evidence gathering was on shaky ground and they could rely on their interpretation of the Evidence Act to use it safely?

So they should have sat on their arses, 'just in case' the evidence obtained was not able to be used.??
They used all means that at the time were legal.

Had they done nothing or pussied around they wouldn't have been any further ahead - the way it was done was deemed correct AT THAT TIME.

[Zedder]

So they should have sat on their arses, 'just in case' the evidence obtained was not able to be used.??
They used all means that at the time were legal.

Had they done nothing or pussied around they wouldn't have been any further ahead - the way it was done was deemed correct AT THAT TIME.

They did have prior warning in the 1996 Aziz Choudry case where the Security Intelligence Service overstepped the mark.

Don't get me wrong, it must be frustrating to see scumbags walk free because of technicalities but as crazy as it sounds, even they have rights.

[mashman]

Is it this thursday that they have until to get the legislation through before the election? Because some people really aren't happy at the idea. (http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/10382103/wgtn-protestors-march-against-video-bill/)

[Usarka]

LOL you appreciate you've given the argument in favour of retrospective law change...?? Ie. the good of the many over-rides the good of the few.


Doh and lol, but I think im still correct as I was meaning the few as in the victims of the crimes. (all crimes have victims don't they?)


Is it this thursday that they have until to get the legislation through before the election? Because some people really aren't happy at the idea. (http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/10382103/wgtn-protestors-march-against-video-bill/)

Perfect timing for this with RWC distracting the media and therefore the sheep. Go the protest!

[Zedder]

Is it this thursday that they have until to get the legislation through before the election? Because some people really aren't happy at the idea. (http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/10382103/wgtn-protestors-march-against-video-bill/)

Yep, this Thursday. I can't say much more cos I'm being watched......