Roastbusters

[scissorhands]

its the quiet ones you've got to watch out for

[Akzle]

its the quiet ones you've got to watch out for

-george carlin

[Zedder]

-george carlin

Well, he's dead so that would qualify as quiet even for him.

[pzkpfw]

There are countries where if a girl or woman is raped, even after she's able to prove it in a "justice" system stacked in favour of the males, she will end up being lashed or put in jail too!

Totally agree that people need to help avoid putting themselves in danger, and I do wonder what the parents knew about what these girls were doing at the time the offences occurred, but really, any talk of how short their skirts were (the cops brought this up in the interviews with the girls) or comparisons like "if I leave my keys in my unlocked car I can expect it to be stolen" just make me think - we don't live in one of those countries.


From what I've read, the boys in this case stayed sober while plying the girls with drink. That's a very deliberate act.

[husaberg]

it may have been mentioned but if theses alleged incidents occurred where where the young girls friends why weren't they looking out for them. i am not blaming any of the girls, but friends are meant to look out for friends when they have had to much to drink.

[FROSTY]

Exactly. Bling sent.

There are two slightly different issues here which some posters have highlighted.

Firstly, it is unlawful to have sexual intercourse or any sexual connection with a child under the age of 16. Even if the other person is under 16 themselves. This is a no-go area.

Secondly, stupifying a girl/woman with alcohol or drugs means she cannot knowingly consent to a sexual act. Age is irrelevant. Sexual intercourse in those circumstances is rape even if she is 40+ years old. There is no lawful consent.

Yes it happens with adults and the result is self-loathing, feeling awful but no complaint is made. That still does not make it right and women do report rape sometimes. The problem for the police is if both parties were drunk and can't remember much, prosecution is impossible.
gal darn it why diddn't ZI say it like that ??
That was what I was trying to say

[jonbuoy]

There are countries where if a girl or woman is raped, even after she's able to prove it in a "justice" system stacked in favour of the males, she will end up being lashed or put in jail too!

Totally agree that people need to help avoid putting themselves in danger, and I do wonder what the parents knew about what these girls were doing at the time the offences occurred, but really, any talk of how short their skirts were (the cops brought this up in the interviews with the girls) or comparisons like "if I leave my keys in my unlocked car I can expect it to be stolen" just make me think - we don't live in one of those countries.


From what I've read, the boys in this case stayed sober while plying the girls with drink. That's a very deliberate act.

Clearly you DO live in one of those countries!

[Indoo]

but really, any talk of how short their skirts were (the cops brought this up in the interviews with the girls)

Is it more plausible that a highly trained female detective who specializes in interviewing child victims of abuse, had the victim describe what she was wearing because she wanted to blame the child, or because getting a detailed description would be slightly important when it came to interviewing the suspects?

[Mom]

Is it more plausible that a highly trained female detective who specializes in interviewing child victims of abuse, had the victim describe what she was wearing because she wanted to blame the child, or because getting a detailed description would be slightly important when it came to interviewing the suspects?

I am not so sure. I wind up fairly quickly about this sort of thing, many on here will agree. My name is my way. I am not a cop hater! What you said here is really unfair on probably 99% of serving cops in NZ. What the victim was wearing is important, as to confirming what the victim says happened. It is common sense to see that she says she was wearing this and he raped her, then he says she was wearing the same...

I am not a cop, that is a job I would never entertain.

Lets wait for the investigations, and there findings. I will go hee if the cops are found wanting!

[pzkpfw]

Is it more plausible that a highly trained female detective who specializes in interviewing child victims of abuse, had the victim describe what she was wearing because she wanted to blame the child, or because getting a detailed description would be slightly important when it came to interviewing the suspects?

Is it plausible that a highly trained female detective who specializes in interviewing child victims of abuse, would be aware of the "blame the victim" issue, and would let the interviewee know the specific reason for the questions about her clothing, to avoid the predictable accusations?

[Indoo]

Is it plausible that a highly trained female detective who specializes in interviewing child victims of abuse, would be aware of the "blame the victim" issue, and would let the interviewee know the specific reason for the questions about her clothing, to avoid the predictable accusations?

Exactly, good to see you are now being logical. And given that the tone, method and conduct of the interview will be reviewed and scrutinized by the IPCA, there is no need to jump to baseless conclusions where you might be unfairly tarnishing the reputation of someone who has devoted a career to locking up child abusers.

[scumdog]

Is it plausible that a highly trained female detective who specializes in interviewing child victims of abuse, would be aware of the "blame the victim" issue, and would let the interviewee know the specific reason for the questions about her clothing, to avoid the predictable accusations?

And those others present during the interview will no doubt be able to confirm what was said - and in what context....

[pzkpfw]

And those others present during the interview will no doubt be able to confirm what was said - and in what context....

I can only go by what's been reported. It's an important issue (the "blame" attached to victims of rape, due to things like their clothing), and that's why I brought it up. Maybe the cops are innocent on this matter. If better information comes out later, maybe that'll clarify things.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/9367982/Rape-complaint-after-Roast-Busters-teen-says


She also alleged that police asked her what she had been wearing and had said that she was wearing clothing "that were pretty much asking for it".

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/9376283/Police-under-fire-for-Roast-Busters


Tolley asked the IPCA yesterday to investigate the case, particularly the questioning of a 13-year-old girl in 2011, saying the issue had been "poorly handled".

"Parents of young girls need to have confidence that complaints to police about sexual assault are investigated thoroughly and appropriately," she said.

She wants the IPCA to look at claims that police asked the victim what kind of clothes she was wearing.

[Zedder]

At least Tamihere and Jackson are off the air:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11155132

[Banditbandit]

At least Tamihere and Jackson are off the air:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11155132

Why ??? They did not say anything that has not been said here .. i.e. what were those girls doing out getting drunk ?? Where were the parents???

I do not see that as condoning rape or trying to blame the girls at all ..those are reasonable questions ...

[Scuba_Steve]

Why ??? They did not say anything that has not been said here .. i.e. what were those girls doing out getting drunk ?? Whwere were the parwents???

I do not see that as condoneing rape or trying to blame the girls at all ..those are reasonable questions ...


Cause advertisers pulled their cash moneys & businesses like cash moneys so they did whats best for the cash moneys... Simple economics

[Akzle]

and, theyre dicks.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Roast this you lil homos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=L-wpS49KN00#t=200

[Zedder]

Why ??? They did not say anything that has not been said here .. i.e. what were those girls doing out getting drunk ?? Whwere were the parwents???

I do not see that as condoneing rape or trying to blame the girls at all ..those are reasonable questions ...

Really? So those people who were disgusted with their behaviour, including victim support professionals, are wrong.

Do you think the advertisers thought their questions were reasonable or were they just saving on advertising expenditure this month?

[BoristheBiter]

Really? So those people who were disgusted with their behaviour, including victim support professionals, are wrong.

Do you think the advertisers thought their questions were reasonable or were they just saving on advertising expenditure this month?

No, the advertisers are swayed by public opinion.

[Maha]

Really? So those people who were disgusted with their behaviour, including victim support professionals, are wrong.

Do you think the advertisers thought their questions were reasonable or were they just saving on advertising expenditure this month?

Where those two are concerned, with their self opinionated arrogance, it was only a matter of time.

[Littleman]

Theres an elephant in the room in this thread.

[scissorhands]

I only ever drive through west auckland, but as a kid remember girls wearing FM boots, mini skirts and ac/dc tee shirts. A lot different from Ellerslie at the time. Now they have their own outrages show on the telly, and acting up goes up. A culture springs from a meme
I blame that ad man Bob Harvey bringing all that sin down on the good folks of west auckland

[Road kill]

Exactly, good to see you are now being logical. And given that the tone, method and conduct of the interview will be reviewed and scrutinized by the IPCA, there is no need to jump to baseless conclusions where you might be unfairly tarnishing the reputation of someone who has devoted a career to locking up child abusers.

Had my own dealings with police after a family member made a complaint about years of sexual abuse.

They "the police" turned out to be a pack of lying sweep it under the carpet cunts.

They told us "the family" that there was a warrant out out on the scumdog,,,,then the cunt flew out of the country a week later.

An arrest warrant huh,,,,,,,,,yeah right.

Those girls never stood a chance with our pigs in charge.

Reputation,,,,:rolleyes:

[blue rider]

http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/actionstation/pages/516/meta_images/original/update-__independent_police_conduct.png?1426729657

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11419766



Nikki Papatsoumas Nikki Papatsoumas is an NZME. News Service reporter based in Wellington.
IPCA: Police 'let down' Roast Busters' alleged victims


'Roast Busters' Joseph Lavell Parker (left) and Beraiah Hales.
'Roast Busters' Joseph Lavell Parker (left) and Beraiah Hales.
Victims were "let down" in the original police investigation into the alleged offending of the 'Roast Busters', the Independent Police Conduct Authority has found.

Today, the authority released the findings of the second of its investigations into police handling of alleged offending by the group.

This comes after the authority received a number of complaints relating to police investigations in November 2013.

The Roast Busters were a group made up of predominantly West Auckland youths who allegedly bragged on a Facebook page about having sex with drunk and underage girls, some as young as 13.

A report on the authority's first investigation, which focused on information provided by police to media, was released in May last year.

Today's report looked at the whether or not the initial police criminal investigations were adequate.

It also looked at the handling of any complaints or reports received by police from members of the public between 2011 and October 2013.

Independent Police Conduct Authority chair Judge David Carruthers said the authority investigated whether there was any police misconduct or any failure of police practice, policy or procedure in the handling of seven separate reports made to them in relation to the Roast Busters.

In its report, the authority found that investigating staff treated young women who were subject to alleged offending with "courtesy and compassion".

However, Judge Carruthers said the authority found investigations into original cases were not "robust and thorough".

"In a number of cases police failed to adhere to the basic tenets of any form of criminal investigation."

Judge Carruthers also said police failed to undertake adequate follow up enquiries and pursue positive lines of enquiry.

He said there was also a lack of record keeping and assessment of evidence during investigations.

The report also found that officers investigating the matters tended to approach each case on a "case by case" basis to consider whether there was sufficient evidence to prosecute offenders for sexual violation.

Mr Carruthers said in the authority's view, the officers should have identified connections between the various cases.

"Victims were let down by their failure to do so," Judge Carruthers said.

Judge Carruthers said details of alleged offenders were not correctly recorded in the police computer system.

"Moreover, police did not check whether the young men had been involved in any previous incidents."

The authority's report also criticised investigating officers for failing to properly consider alternative action, and take steps to address care and protection issues and the potential offending behaviours of the young men involved.

Judge Carruthers said only one of the young men was ever the subject of a referral to Child Youth and Family. "In one case, initial suspect interviews were held with the young men, but there was no further contact after that.

"In the other cases, officers did not speak to the young men or their parents during or at the conclusion of their investigations," Judge Carruthers said.

He said the officers' contact and interaction with young men who were the subjects of the investigations and their families was "inadequate or non-existent".

Police need to do 'whatever possible'
Police Commissioner Mike Bush has apologised "unreservedly" and says police will reach out to complainants in the Roast Busters case immediately.

Mr Bush said he completely accepted the IPCA findings and police officers need to do "whatever possible" to stop a repeat of the kind of sexual conduct that outraged New Zealand when the scandal broke.

He did not believe the reprimanded officers would or should be sacked.

"They were well-trained. It was a lapse in performance at this point in time."

Mr Bush maintained Operation Clover was a "comprehensive" investigation.

"I'm very disappointed," Mr Bush added.

However, he said staff failures were isolated incidents and the officers criticised in the IPCA report were no longer on the child protection or sexual assault investigation teams.

Well I for one am very pleased that the police went on with their lifes, I am very pleased that the little rapists get on to go with their lifes.....and who the fuck gives a shit about the victims. Oh yea....they were treated with Courtesy....we aint gonna investigate...but hey I call you Miss instead of slut...see I am very very courteous.

This stuff happens to girls and young women (and boys and young man btw), and the reason the victims don't come forward is simply the fact that the Police still treats rape as something the victim initiated..Should have worn something else, should have not been in this place, should have not been so pretty, so happy, so this or that.

Anyways, just in case anyone is actually giving a shit please sign the petition to force the police to re-visit this case and to entice them somehow to actually do their job. (not holding my breath....writing tickets is easier).

http://www.actionstation.org.nz/roastbusters_review

[TheDemonLord]

Well I for one am very pleased that the police went on with their lifes, I am very pleased that the little rapists get on to go with their lifes.....and who the fuck gives a shit about the victims. Oh yea....they were treated with Courtesy....we aint gonna investigate...but hey I call you Miss instead of slut...see I am very very courteous.

This stuff happens to girls and young women (and boys and young man btw), and the reason the victims don't come forward is simply the fact that the Police still treats rape as something the victim initiated..Should have worn something else, should have not been in this place, should have not been so pretty, so happy, so this or that.

Anyways, just in case anyone is actually giving a shit please sign the petition to force the police to re-visit this case and to entice them somehow to actually do their job. (not holding my breath....writing tickets is easier).

http://www.actionstation.org.nz/roastbusters_review

So without defending the Roast Busters - Rape is probably of all the crimes - the hardest to prosecute. With almost every other crime, evidence of the deed is evidence of a crime - with Rape, Evidence of the deed is evidence of something completely legal, enjoyed by millions of people everyday. What seperates a legal act from an illegal act is the mindset of the people taking part.

This is the big problem in cases like these - if someone voluntarily accepts alcohol and in their un-inhibited state got persuaded/pressured into doing something they wouldn't do when someone - this gives a goldmine to any defence lawyer.

[Akzle]

[IMG]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11419766



Well I for one am very pleased that the police went on with their lifes, I am very pleased that the little rapists get on to go with their lifes.....and who the fuck gives a shit about the victims. Oh yea....they were treated with Courtesy....we aint gonna investigate...but hey I call you Miss instead of slut...see I am very very courteous.

This stuff happens to girls and young women (and boys and young man btw), and the reason the victims don't come forward is simply the fact that the Police still treats rape as something the victim initiated..Should have worn something else, should have not been in this place, should have not been so pretty, so happy, so this or that.

Anyways, just in case anyone is actually giving a shit please sign the petition to force the police to re-visit this case and to entice them somehow to actually do their job. (not holding my breath....writing tickets is easier).

http://www.actionstation.org.nz/roastbusters_review

as long as noone travels in excess of the posted limit, we'll all be safe as houses!

just not uninsured. err, or insured, houses in christchurch.

[blue rider]

So without defending the Roast Busters - Rape is probably of all the crimes - the hardest to prosecute. With almost every other crime, evidence of the deed is evidence of a crime - with Rape, Evidence of the deed is evidence of something completely legal, enjoyed by millions of people everyday. What seperates a legal act from an illegal act is the mindset of the people taking part.

This is the big problem in cases like these - if someone voluntarily accepts alcohol and in their un-inhibited state got persuaded/pressured into doing something they wouldn't do when someone - this gives a goldmine to any defence lawyer.

young kids in the age groop from about 11 - 17 will do a lot of stupid stuff to be cool, and accepted....and gasp sometimes they even crush on someone and will do stupid shit to show the boy/girl how much they crush on them.

anyways.....

it is illegal to supply alcohol to a minor, but I agree if we just do away with age limits the booze industry will re-joice and anyone who supplies alcohol to a minor will have done nothing illegal and then there will be nothing to prosecute. However, as of today it is still illegal to supply alcohol to a minor. At a minimum the roast busters.....or rapists, should have been cited or charged with breach of the alcohol laws of this country.

next

it is illegal to have sex with a child under the age of 16..(age of consent in NZ I understand?). again, i agree we could just do away with any age of consent, and any fuckwit of any age can just start fucking by himself or with a group of mates the doughters of your friends, your daughters, and any other little girls (oh and boys). Once we have changed the legal restrictions on alcohol consumption, it will be really easy to fuck the little drunk girls and boys. Rejoice.


And in case that it is really hard to understand that the 13 year old girl did not deserve to be raped because she accepted a rdt from a boy/man she was probably crushing on, a boy who was either the son of a cop, or the son of a Hollywood star, or one of their mates i have an image that clearly lays out how to prevent rape.


https://marygriggs.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/dont-rape-2.jpg?w=487

[yokel]

young kids in the age groop from about 11 - 17 will do a lot of stupid stuff to be cool, and accepted....and gasp sometimes they even crush on someone and will do stupid shit to show the boy/girl how much they crush on them.

anyways.....

it is illegal to supply alcohol to a minor, but I agree if we just do away with age limits the booze industry will re-joice and anyone who supplies alcohol to a minor will have done nothing illegal and then there will be nothing to prosecute. However, as of today it is still illegal to supply alcohol to a minor. At a minimum the roast busters.....or rapists, should have been cited or charged with breach of the alcohol laws of this country.

next

it is illegal to have sex with a child under the age of 16..(age of consent in NZ I understand?). again, i agree we could just do away with any age of consent, and any fuckwit of any age can just start fucking by himself or with a group of mates the doughters of your friends, your daughters, and any other little girls (oh and boys). Once we have changed the legal restrictions on alcohol consumption, it will be really easy to fuck the little drunk girls and boys. Rejoice.


And in case that it is really hard to understand that the 13 year old girl did not deserve to be raped because she accepted a rdt from a boy/man she was probably crushing on, a boy who was either the son of a cop, or the son of a Hollywood star, or one of their mates i have an image that clearly lays out how to prevent rape.


https://marygriggs.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/dont-rape-2.jpg?w=487

Don't rape? Fuck me that's a useful idea.
Why did these young dudes do what they did?

[TheDemonLord]

young kids in the age groop from about 11 - 17 will do a lot of stupid stuff to be cool, and accepted....and gasp sometimes they even crush on someone and will do stupid shit to show the boy/girl how much they crush on them.

This is probably one of the hardest things to talk about - at what point does it stop being acceptable peer pressure? of course one could argue that No peer pressure is acceptable - but think of the times that you have shown no intention to do something and a friend suggested you try it, you tried it and enjoyed it? What limit would you define as acceptable or not acceptable? I would put forward that the moment you use physical force, its not okay, but to others it isn't okay far earlier than that - even others would say the amount of peer pressure that is acceptable changes with what they are pressuring to do (which I don't) - ie when it comes to say pressuring to study to do well in a test, any amount of pressure is okay, when it comes to sex, no pressure is okay



it is illegal to supply alcohol to a minor, but I agree if we just do away with age limits the booze industry will re-joice and anyone who supplies alcohol to a minor will have done nothing illegal and then there will be nothing to prosecute. However, as of today it is still illegal to supply alcohol to a minor. At a minimum the roast busters.....or rapists, should have been cited or charged with breach of the alcohol laws of this country.

but then if you were to strictly enforce that law - just about every teenager who ever shared a drink with their friends would be guilty of a crime - do we lock up the entire teenage population?



it is illegal to have sex with a child under the age of 16..(age of consent in NZ I understand?). again, i agree we could just do away with any age of consent, and any fuckwit of any age can just start fucking by himself or with a group of mates the doughters of your friends, your daughters, and any other little girls (oh and boys). Once we have changed the legal restrictions on alcohol consumption, it will be really easy to fuck the little drunk girls and boys. Rejoice.

What about 2 15 year olds experimenting? the Age of consent is there for a reason - to protect people, but at the same time it has to be used within reason - I was dating a 17 year old when I was 15 - She should have been charged with statutory rape which is what the rigid application of the Age of Consent would have mandated - just because we can't apply the law in a way that protects everyone it is designed to protect while allowing those that should be exempted from it to be allowed their freedoms isn't reason to do away with the law. It is reason however to talk openly about how it can be improved



And in case that it is really hard to understand that the 13 year old girl did not deserve to be raped because she accepted a rdt from a boy/man she was probably crushing on, a boy who was either the son of a cop, or the son of a Hollywood star, or one of their mates i have an image that clearly lays out how to prevent rape.


And there is the problem - "Probably crushing on" - firsly I agree entirely with does not deserve to be rapes - no one deserves to be raped - no man, no woman, no child. You said so however that 'crushing on' creates an ideal scenario for a defence:

You offered a drink, they of their own free will accepted, after they loosened up, you suggested sex - they were keen (who doesn't want to sleep with their crush?), the deed was done, they woke up with a hangover and regret.

Don't get me wrong - I agree that the Roastbusters are despicable, but how do you protects against the likes of them without turning every horny experimental teenager into a criminal?

As for the Picture - notice how it is a little one sided by its wording - implying that only men Rape, and only women get raped.

That all said - I have witnessed first hand Police Cronyism at its worst - All I'm going to say is there is a Dead Child, a Heart broken father and a 'mother' who should have her remaining kids taken off her before she kills them - I wish I could go into more detail

[Akzle]

I was dating a 17 year old when I was 15 - She should have been charged with statutory rape which is what the rigid application of the Age of Consent would have mandated

well, no. Because legally, you need a penis to rape.

[scumdog]

Anyways, just in case anyone is actually giving a shit please sign the petition to force the police to re-visit this case and to entice them somehow to actually do their job. (not holding my breath....writing tickets is easier).

http://www.actionstation.org.nz/roastbusters_review

People are always saying the IPCA cover up any negative Police issues and failings - so what happened here? I'm shattered.:wacko::oi-grr:

And yeah, it's YOU people getting tickets that take cops away from 'real' police work, shame on you....:whistle:

[yokel]

People are always saying the IPCA cover up any negative Police issues and failings - so what happened here? I'm shattered.:wacko::oi-grr:

And yeah, it's YOU people getting tickets that take cops away from 'real' police work, shame on you....:whistle:

The whole 'Roastbusters' thing makes no sense.
How are the cops meant to lay charges when the hot mess little missies wont well lay them?
they said what they did online so should be piss easy to charge them with something right?
where are the angry dads?

[Big Dog]

At its simplest: If they were unable to give informed consent at the time of the act it is rape.

From there it gets much muddier.
Who is responsible for burden of proof?
At what point can you no longer decide that was a bad decision?
No means no! But, what's about when your chosen participants body language says otherwise? Who here has never had a woman whisper "no, stop" in their ear? Did you? What was the reaction?
How accurate I don't know but in sex ed at high school educators came around and advised the statutory age does not apply to boys specifically and only applied to boys where they were not the initiator and even then that was a precedence rather than a law.
Essentially telling us to go forth and sow our wild oats but to always sleep with women above the age of consent.

Back to what does constitute consent.
If the boy is himself under age as well can he be held accountable for not gaining hers?
Is it still rape if you never got consent but then you never asked either? Assuming they are conscious and not under the influence.
Does that change where there was a clear agreement of an exchange of bodily fluids prior to intoxication if they were intoxicated at the time?
If you can be to intoxicated to give consent, can you be too intoxicated to retract consent?

Drunken sex can be fun. At what point are you too drunk to continue? Does this change because your relationship has?
I suspect the answer to that is going to be different for every person.

For me inhibitions gone is good. Slurring and star fishing is bad.
What Is your guide?


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Big Dog]

Now, answer all those same questions with your teen daughters relationship with another teen in mind.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Big Dog]

Are your answers different?
Would they be different answering about your teen son?
Why?


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Big Dog]

well, no. Because legally, you need a penis to rape.

Not entirely true. People have been successfully prosecuted for rape with an object. Including women.
Women have also been charged with raping men. Although, it seems there is a much higher burden of proof to even get the police to stop laughing.
Many still see an erect penis as consent.
I can tell you from experience it is not.
I can also tell you if a woman is determined enough she will likely get what she wants and even with alcohol force involved the first hurdle is still "how did she manage that if you weren't willing?"


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Big Dog]

Muddy subject indeed. I hope I never have to decide if someone is guilty or not on this subject.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[mada]

Were adequate follow-up enquiries conducted and positive lines of enquiry pursued?

47. In three of the six cases assigned to CPT staff for further enquiries to be conducted, the young women did not wish to further participate in the investigation process after providing preliminary statements to Police. It is accepted that, without the cooperation of the young women, the ability of Police to proceed was hampered. However, the Authority considers that it remained incumbent upon the assigned CPT investigators to make the necessary follow-up enquiries. Indeed, Police policy states that “all reports of child abuse must be thoroughly investigated” even if the child or young person recants or parents/caregivers are reluctant to continue.

48. The Authority has determined that the failure to undertake basic investigative tasks resulted in a lack of sound and evidence-based decision-making in each case. In Case 2, for example, there is no evidence on the Police file, or from any other material collected during the Authority’s investigation, to indicate that enquiries were made to determine if any of the young men had a history with Police. Had this task been undertaken, Police would have identified that one of the young men had also been involved in Case 1, and should have then recognised the existence of a possible pattern of behaviour, supporting the need for a more rigorous and extensive Police response.

49. The same could be said for Case 3, where there was no evidence that the files relating to the previous two cases were reviewed. There was highly relevant material contained in these files, which would have assisted Police during this investigation and, in particular, during the suspect interviews. Further, a review of these earlier files may well have led to a recommendation for these cases to be reopened so that additional enquiries could be conducted.

50. More generally, in all those investigations that were conducted subsequent to Case 1, the failure of Police investigators to recognise, or consider the significance of, the involvement of these young men in the earlier cases was a common theme. This was the most significant failing identified in the Authority’s investigation.

Other examples of deficiencies in investigative practices involved the failure to:

obtain statements from witnesses, particularly those to whom the young women first disclosed the incident (known as ‘a recent complaint witness’);

attempt to speak to or take statements from all of the young men involved in the incident;

make any enquiries that might have corroborated or refuted any inconsistencies between accounts;

adequately consider the evidence in relation to consent issues (discussed in detail in paragraphs 80—86);

secure all available evidence, such as CCTV footage, cellular telephone data, and photographic and video images.

The Authority has reviewed the transcripts of these interviews, and considers that the preparation for, and the standard of, the interviews with the young men were unsatisfactory. It is evident that the officers conducting the interviews did not have the requisite knowledge to challenge certain details provided by the young men or to discuss some of the highly relevant evidence that was obtained during Officer D’s investigation. As this was the first occasion that any of the young men had been subject to a formal interview, this process was critical to the assessment phase of the investigation.

54. Of the six cases, the Authority considers that the investigation of Case 6, undertaken by Officer E, was the most inadequate and unsatisfactory. There is, in fact, no evidence on the Police file, or from any other material collected during the Authority’s investigation, that any investigation was undertaken into the initial incident responded to by Police or the incident involving the members of the ‘Roastbusters’ group. Information recorded by Officer E reveals that he had a poor understanding of the details and facts of case, and that his management of the file fell well short of the standard expected of a qualified and experienced detective

Good job boys....

How about this?


While the Authority accepts that Case 3 was the most thoroughly investigated of the files reviewed, the investigation report completed by Officer D contains a number of significant inaccuracies and assumptions. It is unbalanced in its assessment of, and reference to, the evidence gathered (such as interview material and text data). For example, Officer D’s analysis of the young woman’s immediate response to the offending was tenuous and made unfounded assumptions regarding her “mindset” and motivations by placing significant weight on the text messages that were sent by others. In fact, cell phone data from the young woman, herself, was never sought by Officer D during his investigation. Officer D submitted that he had no legal grounds to seek her text data, as the meeting with the young men had been coordinated using the phone belonging to the young woman’s friend. However, Officer D could have sought the young woman’s consent to the release of her text data, and did not do so.

Critically, Officer D failed to appreciate that one particular aspect of the account given by the young woman, alleging criminal behaviour by one of the young men, was supported by the accounts given by three witnesses, two of whom were members of the ‘Roastbusters’ group. In this instance, the young man continued his behaviour despite being told by the young woman to stop. When he failed to cease what he was doing after again being told to stop, this time by one of the other young men, the two other young men physically intervened to stop the behaviour. The failure of Police to properly consider the evidence with prosecution in mind is discussed at paragraph 83.

[scumdog]

At its simplest: If they were unable to give informed consent at the time of the act it is rape.

From there it gets much muddier.
Who is responsible for burden of proof?
At what point can you no longer decide that was a bad decision?
No means no! But, what's about when your chosen participants body language says otherwise? Who here has never had a woman whisper "no, stop" in their ear? Did you? What was the reaction?
How accurate I don't know but in sex ed at high school educators came around and advised the statutory age does not apply to boys specifically and only applied to boys where they were not the initiator and even then that was a precedence rather than a law.
Essentially telling us to go forth and sow our wild oats but to always sleep with women above the age of consent.

Back to what does constitute consent.
If the boy is himself under age as well can he be held accountable for not gaining hers?
Is it still rape if you never got consent but then you never asked either? Assuming they are conscious and not under the influence.
Does that change where there was a clear agreement of an exchange of bodily fluids prior to intoxication if they were intoxicated at the time?
If you can be to intoxicated to give consent, can you be too intoxicated to retract consent?

Drunken sex can be fun. At what point are you too drunk to continue? Does this change because your relationship has?
I suspect the answer to that is going to be different for every person.

For me inhibitions gone is good. Slurring and star fishing is bad.
What Is your guide?


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

Good comments, very sensible and thought provoking!

(Are you sure you belong on KB???)

[98tls]

And yeah, it's YOU people getting tickets that take cops away from 'real' police work, shame on you....:whistle:

With the thousands of domestic violence related 111 calls from Thursday to Sunday weekly not to mention the spikes any time theres a public hloiday its a wonder theres any coppers doing road time let alone rape cases or anything else for that matter.The old lady can provide some staggering facts documented over many years re what takes up coppers time.

[mada]

The report clearly states that GDB (frontline) staff all did their jobs and reporting properly. There was no issues with them.

The cock up and extremely poor performance was by a specialist unit and group of detectives who only focus on Child Abuse/ Child Sex Abuse - the Child Protection Team who should have known and done better.

[mashman]

So, underage sex isn't against the law.

[98tls]

Needs to be said so...lets face facts good police work or bad the result will 9 times outta 10 be a fail as some geriatric with a robe surrounded by an army of otherwise unemployable do -gooders will see fit to impose a sentence which nullifies anything done or not by the coppers.

[TheDemonLord]

Have some posts been deleted?

[ellipsis]

Have some posts been deleted?


...I can delete all mine if you wish...I'm sure the world of dweeb wont notice...

[nodrog]

....The cock up and extremely poor performance was by a specialist unit.....

I would hardly call a couple of bantu kids with premature ejaculation a specialist unit.

[Katman]

I would hardly call a couple of bantu kids with premature ejaculation a specialist unit.

You'd more likely call them Peaches and Cream.

[nodrog]

You'd more likely call them Peaches and Cream.

mmmmh, I feel like a caramel Sunday.

[bluninja]

mmmmh, I feel like a caramel Sunday.
Why wait till Sundays for caramel?

[Conquiztador]

Somehow NZ has got the idea that these "Roast Busters" are something in isolation. The only thing they did different to others is to brag on fb. And I can tell you there is nothing new in their technique. It is used all around the world. And it has gone on for many many years.

This does not mean I in any way approve.

Once again it comes down to my simple solution to most problems: If all parents took care of their kids we would have no problems.

[husaberg]

Once again it comes down to my simple solution to most problems: If all parents took care of their kids we would have no problems.

Correct but It takes a whole village to raise a child.
It is not done by Facebook friends and there is no app to do it.

[Conquiztador]

Correct but It takes a whole village to raise a child.
It is not done by Facebook friends and there is no app to do it.

Perhaps. But I have been raising my 4 boys alone for the last 13 years and they are turning out OK. It is not that hard really; love them and feed them. (As they become teenagers the order of the two change around...). Add that their home is their safe-haven and you have it sorted.

[husaberg]

Perhaps. But I have been raising my 4 boys alone for the last 13 years and they are turning out OK. It is not that hard really; love them and feed them. (As they become teenagers the order of the two change around...). Add that their home is their safe-haven and you have it sorted.

What i was meaning that childrens while given grounding from home need to be compelled to act to societies standards.
For if as in this case if society is not abhored by this behaviour it is given credence for this sort of behaviour to continue on.

[Conquiztador]

What i was meaning that childrens while given grounding from home need to be compelled to act to societies standards.
For if as in this case if society is not abhored by this behaviour it is given credence for this sort of behaviour to continue on.

Still don't fully agree with you. As a parent it is my job to make sure my kids have the right moral compass and know right from wrong. Sadly there is too much of the "blaming the society for what is wrong with our kids" today. But it is part of where things are going. Today we have rules and regulations for everything and if something goes wrong the first thing people do is to find someone else to blame, and sue them if possible. Instead of taking responsibility for what happened. We sadly have started to expect someone else to have set the rules in place and then if we fuck up we blame the rules not covering what happened. All this instead of common sense and decency. Human kind is soo screwed!

[TheDemonLord]

What i was meaning that childrens while given grounding from home need to be compelled to act to societies standards.
For if as in this case if society is not abhored by this behaviour it is given credence for this sort of behaviour to continue on.

Isn't that a bit of a cop out for bad parenting?

Surely it is the Parents who compell the child to act to a standard, until such time that the child is an adult and then society compells the Adult to act to a standard

[mashman]

Isn't that a bit of a cop out for bad parenting?

Surely it is the Parents who compell the child to act to a standard, until such time that the child is an adult and then society compells the Adult to act to a standard

You can fill your kid full of the best of intentions to the highest standard imaginable and they will display that behaviour whenever they are around you... but the moment your back is turned the kid will implement their own free will and everything that you have offered them in regards to wisdom, experience, morality etc... will all be for nought. But sure, blame the parents.

[TheDemonLord]

You can fill your kid full of the best of intentions to the highest standard imaginable and they will display that behaviour whenever they are around you... but the moment your back is turned the kid will implement their own free will and everything that you have offered them in regards to wisdom, experience, morality etc... will all be for nought. But sure, blame the parents.

If that is the case, then surely at some point in the rich tapestry that makes up raising a child, a thread was cut.

[mashman]

If that is the case, then surely at some point in the rich tapestry that makes up raising a child, a thread was cut.

No thread needed, a bad experience will suffice... society reaping what it has sewn springs to mind for some reason.

[husaberg]

Still don't fully agree with you. As a parent it is my job to make sure my kids have the right moral compass and know right from wrong. Sadly there is too much of the "blaming the society for what is wrong with our kids" today. But it is part of where things are going. Today we have rules and regulations for everything and if something goes wrong the first thing people do is to find someone else to blame, and sue them if possible. Instead of taking responsibility for what happened. We sadly have started to expect someone else to have set the rules in place and then if we fuck up we blame the rules not covering what happened. All this instead of common sense and decency. Human kind is soo screwed!


Isn't that a bit of a cop out for bad parenting?

Surely it is the Parents who compell the child to act to a standard, until such time that the child is an adult and then society compells the Adult to act to a standard

I don't disagree which much you are saying at all but....
Lets put it this way... remember those times say as a kid raiding neighbours orchards and so forth.
When you were up to what was considered pretty harmless fun at the time by you and your mates.
It was likely a dare to do it....
When everyone knew everybody else, and when they cared they told the other parents what was up.
The parents dealt with it etc. Either that or the other party who was wronged put the fear of god into the kids.
That's where the saying that it takes a village to raise a kid comes from, I don't see it as a modern cop out.
Especially since the saying comes from ancient Africa in the first place.