Nicholas rape trial outcome discussion

[terbang]

Bumped into a couple of prison guards the other day that had stopped for coffee, they had a buch of crims in a bus and were headed south. Got talking about the weather and shit and I quipped that they almost had 3 coppers to take with them to which they replied "well we allready have 2 of them inside serving time for previous rape charges anyway" once jaws were picked up from the ground they told us that it was evidence that was suppressed or withheld or something like that. They also said that the word on the street was that these rozzers had been boasting for years about deeds with a police baton..!
What the fuck is going on here..? they tell the whole world about your drunk driving charges but not your rape charges..? What sort of message is being sent to the cops.? Go for it guys you won't be found guilty..?
What sort of message is being sent to NZers here about our Police integrity..?
If you cant trust cops (and priests for that matter) then who can you trust..?

[kickingzebra]

If only I could say I was surprised. Seems nothing is sacred.
The thoughts probably echo everyone elses, but what exactly is our justice system? The law seems sometimes to be not only an ass, but the excrement proceeding from it.
What does the justice system boast? Something like a 70 percent failure rate? bugger all of the crims in there don't reoffend. One has to wonder, if the guilty walk free, how many of the innocent are thrown away?

The standard for politicians and public servants needs to be far higher than that for the rest of the nation (listening aunty helen and benson pope?) otherwise we create chaos.
Raise the bar I say.

[Cookie]

Well that is pretty interesting. I thought I saw at least two of them at different times on the TV walking around free but I could be confused - it would not be the first time.

I will be very interested to find out more about the "supressed" evidence in this case. Part of living in a democracy is having an open legal system. I don't trust our current bunch of limp-wristed liberal judges to decide what the public should hear and not hear in relation to a case.

[onearmedbandit]

Just remember the judges comments, something along the lines of 'internet bulliten boards (forums) and chatrooms may have to be watched with relevance to supressed evidence'.

[Hitcher]

Amen to OAB's comments. Suppression orders are in place for good reason. Not least of which is to ensure that people get a fair trial.

[Madness]

Just remember the judges comments, something along the lines of 'internet bulliten boards (forums) and chatrooms may have to be watched with relevance to supressed evidence'.

On that basis I will keep this post very short, on the grounds that I may incriminate myself.

SCUM:angry2:

[Ixion]

Amen to OAB's comments. Suppression orders are in place for good reason. Not least of which is to ensure that people get a fair trial.

Uh, which is now concluded. And quite often suppression orders are in place for a lot of other reasons, some at least of them being much less justifiable.

However , in this case the suppression order is irrelevent, since the information in the original post did not originate in the trial.

[Streetwise]

Yea i heard the same thing, How can it be the rapists being trialed for rape dont have there past brought up. I know the trials where not to far apart but if they had been found guilty that should have been told in the court room,. We do have a weird justice system dont we....

[Swoop]

Amen to OAB's comments. Suppression orders are in place for good reason. Not least of which is to ensure that people get a fair trial.
Hmmm, disagree here. On the jury case I was involved with, there was suppressed evidence. The accused had admitted to the murder three times, and this was not presented in court. We only found out later on that our decision was correct.

[Smorg]

If you cant trust cops (and priests for that matter) then who can you trust..?


No one...................... thats the way i like to keep it, all 007 like. -MI5-

Hiiiiyaaaa.

p.s COPS ARE RETARDED

[Paul in NZ]

"It is not because men's desires are strong that they act ill; it is because their consciences are weak." (John Stuart Mill)

Lets not turn this into a Police bashing thing. 99% of Police that I have met are as appalled at this as you and I are!

I have followed this case with some interest. On one hand. there is in all probability no system that is totally 'fair' to all people at all times. As soon as you have a 'system' and rules of any type, exceptions, awkward circumstances and unfair situations will arise. On the other, thank god we do live in a country where this trial could occur. I a large part of the world it would have been deemed easier and cheaper just to have the claiment quietly disappear altogether.

The expression fair trial is an interesting one though. Fair to whom? The victim or the accused? Guilt is supposed to be judged on evidence and evidence alone and frankly, given the time of the alleged offences and the nature of them, and the people involved I doubt that this trial was ever going to be fair to anyone!

What has appalled me is the moral behaviour of the men in question and the apparent lack of shame. They have disgraced the organisation of which they were members.

Forgetting the rape question (thats difficult I know) the actions of these men was utterly appalling! They were older and married for goodness sakes and took advantage of someone in a situation them must have known was wrong! Without a doubt, I do not want any of these people in a position of power or authority ever again. If they have a shred of decency they will slink off into obscurity and pray to be forgiven for their actions.

ANY media that prints their stories should be boycotted and actively targetted! Aquitted or not, they did a disgraceful thing!

Paul N

[Streetwise]

Yea i would agree with that, But if you where a (P) dealer im sure if you where back in court, old charges of the same event would be bought up in your new trial, ???

[Ixion]

No, evidence of previous convictions (whether for the same/similar offences , or not ) is normally not permitted (there are a few exceptions). Obviously, previous charges or allegations that did not result in a conviction are even more forbidden.

Previous convictions will be noted and (maybe) taken into account by the judge when sentencing.

[MisterD]

Yea i heard the same thing, How can it be the rapists being trialed for rape dont have there past brought up. I know the trials where not to far apart but if they had been found guilty that should have been told in the court room,. We do have a weird justice system dont we....


That is an interesting question, especially considering that it sounded from the TV news reports that the defence team were using the accuser's past and track record against her...doesn't seem particularly even handed that.

[Hitcher]

Uh, which is now concluded. And quite often suppression orders are in place for a lot of other reasons, some at least of them being much less justifiable.

However , in this case the suppression order is irrelevent, since the information in the original post did not originate in the trial.
There are presumably more trials coming, which is one reason the suppression orders are in place. Please don't do or say anything that may subvert orders of the Court. Suppression orders placed to protect the identities of individuals are designed for exactly that purpose and not as narrow as encompassing only Court-related matters. The Judge in this case has issued a warning in relation to suppression orders. Let it go.

[Streetwise]

OK ill take the hint, Fnal word on the matter,

POICE DONT GO THROUGHT THE SYSTEM THEY CREATE A SYSTEM THAT SUITS.

[terbang]

But are we not voters..? Do we have rights as well..? These bloody assholes have been behaving like a bunch of hoods for years and then get away with it under the very justice system that we as joe bloggs kiwi is supposed to believe in and abide by and then we are not allowed to ask questions or express our views....?

[Paul in NZ]

OK ill take the hint, Fnal word on the matter,

POICE DONT GO THROUGHT THE SYSTEM THEY CREATE A SYSTEM THAT SUITS.

I don't think thats quite fair.

However, the Police do have a lot more experience and knowledge OF the system and how to give evidence etc in court. Plus they have had a lot of time to prepare and that was always going to make this a little unfair.

Paul N

[terbang]

An interesting comment from our prison officers was that 7 of the jury were women and that women tend to be much tougher on other women over rape trials.
The question I ask is what did Nicholas have to gain from accusing these guys.. Nothing at all but infamy..! So why.? Or is it just possible that she may be telling the truth..

[Hitcher]

But are we not voters..? Do we have rights as well..? These bloody assholes have been behaving like a bunch of hoods for years and then get away with it under the very justice system that we as joe bloggs kiwi is supposed to believe in and abide by and then we are not allowed to ask questions or express our views....?
Of course you have rights to express your views. But getting back to the first post in this thread, there are Court-imposed suppression orders in place in relation to the identities of some people involved in the trial. You are OK discussing any matters regarding this case as long as you don't repeat comment or speculation about protected individuals and their circumstances.

[Lou Girardin]

On the face of it, I don't see how the jury could have convicted them. There was just too much doubt. Having said that, those three cops are the lowest form of scum. Consensual sex or not, they are supposed to be pillars of society, not gangbanging animals like gang members.
If Rickards isn't shunted into some nothing job for the rest of his career there's something very wrong.
And then again, if Nicholas was telling the truth, she must be in the depths of despair that more cops have got away with what they did to her.

[u4ea]

.

The question I ask is what did Nicholas have to gain from accusing these guys.. Nothing at all but infamy..! So why.? Or is it just possible that she may be telling the truth..
:weep: its hard to know wot Nicholas was thinking.i wonder if she woke up one day and felt guilty for having it off with her wormates knowing they were married.she doesnt get my sympathy.am a surviver myself and she isnt behaving like a victim.male cops are just men in uniforms,they still have animal instincts like everyone else.

[Grahameeboy]

On the face of it, I don't see how the jury could have convicted them. There was just too much doubt. Having said that, those three cops are the lowest form of scum. They are supposed to be pillars of society, not gangbanging animals like gang members.
If Rickards isn't shunted into some nothing job for the rest of his career there's something very wrong.
And then again, if Nicholas was telling the truth, she must be in the depths of despair that more cops have got away with what they did to her.

Lou.......you are starting to see the light........God bless

I agree.....those guys were still out of order..........some serious bad morals.............no one is perfect but this kinda stuff is just toilet.

[terbang]

If Rickards isn't shunted into some nothing job for the rest of his career there's something very wrong.


In the eyes of the law a jury has said that Rickards has done nothing wrong so why should he stand down from the assistant police commisioners job. ?
Yup very wrong indeed..!

[Patrick]

Some wise person once said something along the lines of..."It is better that a guilty man walks free than an innocent man goes to jail..."

That is why we have the system we have. Guilty men do walk free because of a multitude of rules and procedures that must be followed, to protect the innocent.

Other rapes, convicted of or not, had nothing to do with this case, which is why it would not be presented. If it had been, the probability that the jury might think, "he did it before, he must be guilty of this one too then" is exactly why it is not permitted. Guilt of past deeds does not mean automatic guilt of any further deeds.

Once a guilty verdict has been reached, judges often let the jury know of the past convictions, but only then. (Can help appease those who might have ummed and arghed for a while during deliberations...).

[Streetwise]

I don't think thats quite fair.

However, the Police do have a lot more experience and knowledge OF the system and how to give evidence etc in court. Plus they have had a lot of time to prepare and that was always going to make this a little unfair.

Paul N

Have you been to court and watched the copper lie, I have, Seen them press charges on friends of mine for bike accidents that where not there fault, They cheappen the system something terrable,

[Patrick]

In the eyes of the law a jury has said that Rickards has done nothing wrong so why should he stand down from the assistant police commisioners job. ?
Yup very wrong indeed..!

Yep...but if you fling enough shit, some will stick, somewhere, somehow...

[u4ea]

Yep...but if you fling enough shit, some will stick, somewhere, somehow...
and they are called pigs for a reason................:puke:

[Jantar]

The question in this trial was whether the three men had raped an 18 yr old woman some 20 odd years ago. It wasn't about whether policemen should have higher moprals than the rest of society, or whether other rapes or even other consensual group sex may have taken place.

On the basis of the evidence reported in the media, I would have felt that a guilty verdict would not have been possible. That doesn't mean that it didn't take place, nor that it did happen. Just that to try and prove guilt or otherwise after such a long time period without any physical evidence such as DNA, or even a complaint at the time would be a mis-carriage of justice.

As Hitcher has already said. "Let it go."

[Grahameeboy]

The question in this trial was whether the three men had raped an 18 yr old woman some 20 odd years ago. It wasn't about whether policemen should have higher moprals than the rest of society, or whether other rapes or even other consensual group sex may have taken place.

On the basis of the evidence reported in the media, I would have felt that a guilty verdict would not have been possible. That doesn't mean that it didn't take place, nor that it did happen. Just that to try and prove guilt or otherwise after such a long time period without any physical evidence such as DNA, or even a complaint at the time would be a mis-carriage of justice.

As Hitcher has already said. "Let it go."

Agreed...................................

[terbang]

As Hitcher has already said. "Let it go."

So is this the attitude that, we as a society, should take (let it go) when three men (married in their 30's & 40's) who have positions in the community that wield clout, take full advantage of their status and position to abuse a young woman who has obviously had a tough time over it since.
You know, like we all know, that these guys behaved extremely poorly and crossed boundarys that a normal crossection of society would not. So just because rape could not be proved it doesn't mean thay are any better than they were before and that we should now accept them (assistant police commisioner) and just let it go..!
Lets just hope your teenage daughters/nieces or whatever dont start hanging around with 3 middle aged cops.

[Jantar]

So is this the attitude that, we as a society, should take (let it go) when three men (married in their 30's & 40's) who have positions in the community that wield clout, take full advantage of their status and position to abuse a young woman who has obviously had a tough time over it since.

Lets just hope your teenage daughters/nieces or whatever dont start hanging around with 3 middle aged cops.

If my daughter (now in her early twentys) tells me that she has been raped, I'll lay a complaint immediately, and ensure that as much evidence as possible is taken.

If she waits 18 years, to tell me, then I'd have the opinion that if it wasn't bad enough to consider it rape back then, then its not rape now.

And I'd rather have my daughter hang around with a middle aged cop (or 3), than with the loser she's with at the moment.

[MSTRS]

.... (married in their 30's & 40's) ......
To be fair, the events occurred 20 years ago. The cops involved were relative newcomers to the force and were not in their 30/40's at that time. However, the fact that they did not deny the sex shows a sick culture existed well before the allegations of that term in South Auck more recently. Sure, they are men under the uniform, but that does not excuse their behaviour. I'm with those on here that reckon Rickards & co should not be allowed to retain their job on the grounds of immoral behaviour.

[Hitcher]

So is this the attitude that, we as a society, should take (let it go) when three men (married in their 30's & 40's) who have positions in the community that wield clout, take full advantage of their status and position to abuse a young woman who has obviously had a tough time over it since.

Lets just hope your teenage daughters/nieces or whatever dont start hanging around with 3 middle aged cops.
The alleged incidents took place 18 years ago, when the people in question were decidedly less than "middle-aged". The jury found the defendants not guilty on all charges. They were not on trial because of "their positions in the community".

[terbang]

If she waits 18 years, to tell me, then I'd have the opinion that if it wasn't bad enough to consider it rape back then, then its not rape now.



Or she could have felt intimidated, degraded and humiliated by her experience and the maturity of 20 years finally gave her the courage to speak up..
Or is that not allowed by the law..

[Patrick]

and they are called pigs for a reason................:puke:

Wallowing in shit, getting shit, dealing with shit, locking up shitheads... should be sewer workers really....

[Hitcher]

Pamphlets Reveal Suppressed Nicholas Case Info

NewsRoom.co.nz Agency Story at 11:03 AM, 03 Apr 2006

Pamphlets releasing suppressed information about two men last week acquitted in the Louise Nicholas rape case have been handed to Wellington commuters this morning.

Four young women printed and handed out 1,200 leaflets titled "We Believe Louise Nicholas" at the Wellington railway station.

The pamphlets contain information about two former police officers which was suppressed by the court and which media cannot broadcast.

One of the women responsible for the pamphlet, Grace Millar, says she knows the group is in contempt of court, but believes the public has a right to know the full story.

(c) NewsRoom 2006

[Goblin]

So is this the attitude that, we as a society, should take (let it go) when three men (married in their 30's & 40's) who have positions in the community that wield clout, take full advantage of their status and position to abuse a young woman who has obviously had a tough time over it since.

Lets just hope your teenage daughters/nieces or whatever dont start hanging around with 3 middle aged cops.
I for one am finding it hard to "let it go"....These men were in a position of responsibility and abused that position in the worst possible way and have got away with it.


its hard to know wot Nicholas was thinking.i wonder if she woke up one day and felt guilty for having it off with her wormates knowing they were married.she doesnt get my sympathy.am a surviver myself and she isnt behaving like a victim.male cops are just men in uniforms,they still have animal instincts like everyone else.
So how does a victim behave? She has been fighting this for something like 13 years. I dont think it was a case of waking up one day feeling guilty for her actions...she was taken advantage of and had the guts to stand up & do something about it. That takes a huge amount of courage to go through what she has and I am really disappointed that these scumbags got away with it.

[Streetwise]

Wallowing in shit, getting shit, dealing with shit, locking up shitheads... should be sewer workers really....


Social Sewer workers,

[Paul in NZ]

Let it go? From a legal point of view? Certainly. I can see no grounds for appeal (unless new or previously suppress evidence is forthcoming) that would have any more chance of success in the courts.

Let it go from a social point of view? Thats slightly different.

3 Policemen took advantage of a situation that a lot of other people would have also leapt upon. I'm sure that there are people indulging in group sex every day in this country. Were they wrong to do this? Yes, of course they were. Was it illegal? Was it rape? Now THAT is the $64,000 question.

Pragmatically, the best people to fight crime are those that think a bit like criminals and are tough enough to get the job done. It's not a nice job, not a nice job at all and it does change people, sometimes not for the best either. Sometimes, the Police go over the line and do bad things for good reasons and sometimes society turns a blind eye to that because we all know it needs to be done and we are just glad we don't have to do it! But doing this has consequences! The lines get blurred, morals get blurred and the wrong people get hurt. But is that really what happened here? Did the lines get blurred?

Because the lines are always blurry! Criminals are seldom 100% evil and Policemen are rarely 100% innocent

The real judge in this situation will be society and I include the NZ Police in this. If a certain person is reinstated they will have a real credibility issue. If we just let it go, what are we saying about their actions?

No, I can't just let it go because the slide in our social behaviour has to be stopped. SENIOR Policemen cannot be caught doing stuff like this!

[terbang]

Too true there Paul and there is also an issue of supressing information. So if the public or society are to be the ultimate judge (well not quite because of god) then the truth needs to prevail. An alcoholic is an alcoholic, a bully is a bully, a gambler is a gambler, a speeder is a speeder and a rapist is a rapist. These are all patterns of behaviour that do have a relevant bearing on the way we see people in our society because it is all too esy to hide behind a uniform or a title in an attempt to remove oneself from the light of scrutiny and hide the truth. To then have the law supress evidence of such behaviour begs the question who really has control here (us the voters or them the servants) and do we really know what the truth is..?
Who are the good guys and what about the victims..
Rickard has a little bit of mud on his uniform, is publicly defiant and more than likely has a golden handshake coming his way. Nicholas remains the victim and thats to be her lot.. And all we say is "let it go" while there is witheld evidence out there that may give us a better picture (and in this case not a pretty one) of the behaviour of a part of our police force and how it can go wrong.. The door is still wide open for this kind of behaviour to continue so what have we (a supposedly civil and decent society), apart from serving the letter of the law, really achieved..?

[Goblin]

SENIOR Policemen cannot be caught doing stuff like this!
See the thing is they WERE caught. Not only getting caught but BOASTING about it years after.... and our justice system failed the victim. She did not dream up these events or lie about any of it but our Assistant Police Comissioner lied through his teeth....again, another abuse of power! And these are the people who uphold the law?
I can only hope that natural justice will prevail. Those scumbags will get what's coming to them in one way or another.

[Jantar]

Yes, They admitted the events. What they didn't admit to was rape.

The trial was on whether or not the events were consensual, not whether they happened. The flatmates evidence raised reasonable doubts on whether it was consensual group sex or rape. Personally I feel that they possibly were guilty, but on the evidence presented in the media there is no way a jury could convict them "Beyond reasonable doubt".

[u4ea]

Let it go from a social point of view? Thats slightly different.
Policemen are rarely 100% innocent

No, I can't just let it go because the slide in our social behaviour has to be stopped. SENIOR Policemen cannot be caught doing stuff like this!
thats how i see it too.ok good on her for reoporting it all. these years later,but she was a cop too and they seem to think they can behave as they wish.if we let it go then who will ever be socially moral if we are to be led by this example?

[terbang]

but on the evidence presented in the media there is no way a jury could convict them "Beyond reasonable doubt".

Have to agree there and we would be naive to think that police wouldnt know how fuck with evidence/jurys to suit their own purpose. Thats an important point here starting with finer issues such as Rickard fronting to court on the first day in his full police regalia. The truth never stood a chance in this case.

[MSTRS]

Have to agree there and we would be naive to think that police wouldnt know how fuck with evidence/jurys to suit their own purpose. Thats an important point here starting with finer issues such as Rickard fronting to court on the first day in his full police regalia. The truth never stood a chance in this case.
Correct on all points.

[Hitcher]

The truth never stood a chance in this case.
I don't want to go all post-modernist, but "truth" is rarely objective in the manner you suggest.

What was on trial was Louise Nicholas' "truth" against the "truth" of two former and one serving (albeit suspended) Police officers. Clearly the jury found sufficient doubt in Ms Nicholas' "truth" to warrant 20 not-guilty verdicts.

[Paul in NZ]

Yes, They admitted the events. What they didn't admit to was rape.

The trial was on whether or not the events were consensual, not whether they happened. The flatmates evidence raised reasonable doubts on whether it was consensual group sex or rape. Personally I feel that they possibly were guilty, but on the evidence presented in the media there is no way a jury could convict them "Beyond reasonable doubt".

My feeling, without seeing the suppressed evidence, is that this was not rape of the 'classical' sort.

My feeling is that these men took advantage of a stupid young person for their own personal gratification and gain. While thats not technically a crime, it is however still wrong. (If it was a crime half the booze, tobacco, fashion, auto and music industry would go broke tomorrow) However, it was a line call! Good on the Police for bringing it to trial but based on the evidence presented in the public forum, the verdict was probably the correct one.

The difference is, Assistant Commissioner is a powerful public position! The Police have know about this difficulty for quite some time and regardless of anything else, this gentleman seems only to regret being caught out and embarrased. I'm sorry, there is a great shame in this! If he can't see this, he should definately NOT be in this position!

[terbang]

Because an elected government, of the time and country, made it perfectly legal to gas 6 million Jews certainly didn't mean that it was the right thing to do.
The law should reflect the tempo or mood of the society thus it should be no crime in questioning its methods and it should at least be available to the scrutiny of those living within it.

[mangell6]

this gentleman seems only to regret being caught out and embarrased.

The first day the the serving officer arrived at court indicated his attitude, which on the media face of it has not changed in all that time.

20 years ago societies attitudes towards the Police force was very different than it is today.

This case had to be brought to the courts so that "justice" could be seen to be done. Was there a "Prima Facie" case, if so one individual was of enough importance not to bring the charges to court, oops sorry wrong thread.

Hopefully his attitudes and the way he lead his life back in the 80's has changed, along with the people he used to associate with.

The prosecution didn't have a hope from day one, three respectable policemen, and where did that batton go?

Mike

[Phurrball]

I don't want to go all post-modernist, but "truth" is rarely objective in the manner you suggest.

What was on trial was Louise Nicholas' "truth" against the "truth" of two former and one serving (albeit suspended) Police officers. Clearly the jury found sufficient doubt in Ms Nicholas' "truth" to warrant 20 not-guilty verdicts.

Yep, 'truth' with a very high burden of proof (Rhyming unintended.).

'Not guilty' means unproven at an evidential level of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. It does not mean innocent.

[Lou Girardin]

Louise Nicholas did not "wait 20 years to complain". She went to the Police not long after the incident and was deterred from proceeding by Rickards boss.

I'm also amazed that some people in this thread think that the Police needn't have a higher standard of behaviour than the general population.
It may be unfashionable, but if one has state granted power over other citizens they should be as close to squeaky clean as humanly possible. Maybe then we wouldn't have recent cases of Police Officers committing rape, assault on females, drug dealing, drink driving etc.

[TONO]

To be fair, the events occurred 20 years ago. The cops involved were relative newcomers to the force and were not in their 30/40's at that time. However, the fact that they did not deny the sex shows a sick culture existed well before the allegations of that term in South Auck more recently. Sure, they are men under the uniform, but that does not excuse their behaviour. I'm with those on here that reckon Rickards & co should not be allowed to retain their job on the grounds of immoral behaviour.

I would have to agree & there was this type of culture around in Rotorua in those days.
You only had to live here & associate with some of them to know that.
These guys were far from angels & macho to fuck
Its all gone now though.....just poor management to contend with, from what I hear now.

[Ixion]

Yep, 'truth' with a very high burden of proof (Rhyming unintended.).

'Not guilty' means unproven at an evidential level of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. It does not mean innocent.

In this case it probably means the classic "She deserved it, not guilty, but don't do it again"

[Paul in NZ]

I'm also amazed that some people in this thread think that the Police needn't have a higher standard of behaviour than the general population.
It may be unfashionable, but if one has state granted power over other citizens they should be as close to squeaky clean as humanly possible. Maybe then we wouldn't have recent cases of Police Officers committing rape, assault on females, drug dealing, drink driving etc.

I agree with you Lou....

Paul N

[spudchucka]

That is an interesting question, especially considering that it sounded from the TV news reports that the defence team were using the accuser's past and track record against her...doesn't seem particularly even handed that.
She isn't the one going to jail if convicted and there have been many of these types of complaints made in absolute malice. It is right to question the accussers integrity and credibility. However it isn't right or fair to judge an accussed person based on past action that are unrelated to the current matter they are accussed of, even if those past actions are of a similar nature.

[spudchucka]

In the eyes of the law a jury has said that Rickards has done nothing wrong so why should he stand down from the assistant police commisioners job. ?
Yup very wrong indeed..!
If he were to take up his former position it would be a PR nightmare for the police. Also, where is the good faith between the employer and the employee now that the employer has tried to put the employee behind bars? How could a positive working environment exist between them?

The police will have to go through the normal resolution process, they will both have goals they want to achieve but I'd pick that Rickards is in for a huge golden handshake and early retirement to some tropical paradise.

[spudchucka]

and they are called pigs for a reason................:puke:
Pride
Integrity
Guts

Don't judge me by the actions of Mr Rickards.

[Blairos]

However it isn't right or fair to judge an accussed person based on past action that are unrelated to the current matter they are accussed of, even if those past actions are of a similar nature.

And why is that??

Say someone is serving time for a similar offence, and they are out on day leave from the klink (or whatever), commit the exact same thing again, only to go to court and have it suppressed?
What sort of joke is the law if you are unable to indentify a dangerous pattern of offences, are powerless to show this "evidence of historic offending" and put the said scumbag off the streets for a few years?
Sheesh! :bash:

[spudchucka]

Or she could have felt intimidated, degraded and humiliated by her experience and the maturity of 20 years finally gave her the courage to speak up..
Or is that not allowed by the law..
It is allowed, although some are now calling for that to change.

The problem with sexual offences reported many years after the fact is that there is no physical evidence at all.

It comes down to who is the most convincing, credible witness. There only needs to be reasonable doubt and the jury has to acquit.

Look at what the jury has to consider, how do they tell if one or both parties are telling the truth? How do they tell how much is gospel, how much is fiction and how much is exageration? Getting a conviction on a historic sex offence like this can be extremely difficult.

[MSTRS]

Don't judge me by the actions of Mr Rickards.
But we will tho....you both wear/wore the uniform & stand/stood for law & decency. In Rickards's case it was a sham (at least the decency part - and the other thread on this subject had lots of references to the attitude displayed by Rickards at the time of the events) and as such reflects on all cops.

[MisterD]

She isn't the one going to jail if convicted and there have been many of these types of complaints made in absolute malice. It is right to question the accussers integrity and credibility. However it isn't right or fair to judge an accussed person based on past action that are unrelated to the current matter they are accussed of, even if those past actions are of a similar nature.

I disagree Spud, it's hard enough for a lot of women to even go and make a complaint, without having this additional gauntlet to run in court.

[spudchucka]

And why is that??

Say someone is serving time for a similar offence, and they are out on day leave from the klink (or whatever), commit the exact same thing again, only to go to court and have it suppressed?
What sort of joke is the law if you are unable to indentify a dangerous pattern of offences, are powerless to show this "evidence of historic offending" and put the said scumbag off the streets for a few years?
Sheesh! :bash:
If you get caught speedong today does that automatically make you guilty of speeding tomorrow?

Cases before the courts have to be judged on the facts pertaing to that case only. There are a few exceptions to the rule but it is a basic function of the justice system that won't change.

[spudchucka]

But we will tho....you both wear/wore the uniform & stand/stood for law & decency. In Rickards's case it was a sham (at least the decency part - and the other thread on this subject had lots of references to the attitude displayed by Rickards at the time of the events) and as such reflects on all cops.
I realise that he has tarnished the public opinion of all police and to a degree I accept that. However I have never raped anyone and I have never been into any kinky threesome type pervy nonsense either. So don't judge me as a person because of his poor behaviour as a police officer.

[MSTRS]

I disagree Spud, it's hard enough for a lot of women to even go and make a complaint, without having this additional gauntlet to run in court.
And with the Defense having the right to utilise character witnesses etc in an effort to discredit a rape victim's credibilty, then the playing field is stacked towards acquitall?

[spudchucka]

I disagree Spud, it's hard enough for a lot of women to even go and make a complaint, without having this additional gauntlet to run in court.
Yep, it might seem unfair but so is making false allegations of rape. The complainants credibility must be tested. Or are we to believe every woman that cries rape based solely on her testimony, after all we are all potential rapists, aren't we?

[Blairos]

If you get caught speedong today does that automatically make you guilty of speeding tomorrow?

No, but if you are a habitual speeder, and get hauled before the courts for that reason, then its fair to have that information made available, in order to allow a proper picture to be painted...

Dont they read out lists of previous DIC convictions in open court if there is no jury present? (just the presiding judge)

[spudchucka]

And with the Defense having the right to utilise character witnesses etc in an effort to discredit a rape victim's credibilty, then the playing field is stacked towards acquitall?
A mate of mine caught a rapist red handed, (red penised???) on top of the woman in bushes, she was screaming. There was good physical evidence, (DNA, torn clothing etc) plus his evidence as a witness to the offending (he was a cop on duty at the time). The jury acquitted the guy because the woman was heavily intoxicated at the time and they could not be certain that her statement that she hadn't given consent wasn't made up by her afterwards.

And the guy did have previous convictions for rape.

You have to ask yourself why you bother sometimes?

[MSTRS]

I realise that he has tarnished the public opinion of all police and to a degree I accept that. However I have never raped anyone and I have never been into any kinky threesome type pervy nonsense either. So don't judge me as a person because of his poor behaviour as a police officer.
Personally I would take you as I found you (we met at Manfield IIRC) but being of the cynical sort, I would be quick to believe that you have the potential to abuse the power of your position as those 3 did. I'm sure you are a fine chap and actions/deeds speak louder than words.

[MisterD]

Yep, it might seem unfair but so is making false allegations of rape. The complainants credibility must be tested. Or are we to believe every woman that cries rape based solely on her testimony, after all we are all potential rapists, aren't we?

Agreeing with you there on every point. It's unfair and so are any false allegations made, that's why I would say we need everything lined up to encourage women to report whilst there is still a good chance of firm physical evidence to back up the accusation.

If it comes down to one person's word versus another then I would hope the police would gently say to the complainant "Sorry, there's just not enough evidence to proceed".

[MSTRS]

A mate of mine caught a rapist red handed, (red penised???) on top of the woman in bushes, she was screaming. There was good physical evidence, (DNA, torn clothing etc) plus his evidence as a witness to the offending (he was a cop on duty at the time). The jury acquitted the guy because the woman was heavily intoxicated at the time and they could not be certain that her statement that she hadn't given consent wasn't made up by her afterwards.

And the guy did have previous convictions for rape.

You have to ask yourself why you bother sometimes?
This is the law but it certainly ain't justice.

[Streetwise]

Dosnt matter anymore anyway as the info has been released at wellington railway station this afternoon, Someone has handed out info on the officers and info on the case.

[spudchucka]

No, but if you are a habitual speeder, and get hauled before the courts for that reason, then its fair to have that information made available, in order to allow a proper picture to be painted...

Dont they read out lists of previous DIC convictions in open court if there is no jury present? (just the presiding judge)
It isn't permitted to use past offending as evidence of new offending. Once convicted of a new offence the history of past offending is considered in sentencing. It cannot be used to establish guilt of new offending, which is a pity sometimes but thems the rules and we have to stick to them.

[spudchucka]

Personally I would take you as I found you (we met at Manfield IIRC) but being of the cynical sort, I would be quick to believe that you have the potential to abuse the power of your position as those 3 did. I'm sure you are a fine chap and actions/deeds speak louder than words.
Thanks for the vote of confidence, I think??

Yeah, we did meet briefly at Manfeild some time ago now.

[Hitcher]

Dosnt matter anymore anyway as the info has been released at wellington railway station this afternoon, Someone has handed out info on the officers and info on the case.
The Court suppression orders are still in place. The wee dears who took the law into their own hands this morning are clearly in Contempt of Court and will, no doubt, be dealt with accordingly. By their actions they may have reduced considerably the chance of a "clean jury" being found for subsequent cases.

[spudchucka]

Agreeing with you there on every point. It's unfair and so are any false allegations made, that's why I would say we need everything lined up to encourage women to report whilst there is still a good chance of firm physical evidence to back up the accusation.I agree that we need to do everything we can to get women to report rapes as soon as they happen. It is a hell of an ordeal that they have to go through though and I understand their reluctance sometimes. However women need to realise that their chances of obtaining a conviction in a rape complaint is seriously lessened by delaying the reporting by nearly two decades.


If it comes down to one person's word versus another then I would hope the police would gently say to the complainant "Sorry, there's just not enough evidence to proceed".It happens reasonably often but can you imagine the uproar that would have followed if the investigators had said this to Nicholas? Which is another reason that this particular prosecution was somewhat beyond the realms of normality.

[spudchucka]

This is the law but it certainly ain't justice.
I question whether it had anything to do with the law. I thought it was outright stupidity on the part of the jury.

[spudchucka]

Dosnt matter anymore anyway as the info has been released at wellington railway station this afternoon, Someone has handed out info on the officers and info on the case.
Just because somebody else has released the information doesn't mean that anybody else doing the same couldn't be done for doing the same thing. There is a court order supressing those details, all would be well advised to drop it.

[Streetwise]

yes this is true,

[spudchucka]

By their actions they may have reduced considerably the chance of a "clean jury" being found for subsequent cases.
Exactly. And how have they served the complainants in those matters, the victims they profess to care about?

[Patrick]

If it comes down to one person's word versus another then I would hope the police would gently say to the complainant "Sorry, there's just not enough evidence to proceed".

But should that be up to the Police solely to decide? As in this case, it was one persons word against three. That apparently was the call years ago (when the complaint was first laid, whenever that was???...) and it leapt up and bit them in the arse. Was that original decision sound? Who knows.... that is why there is a huge investigation continuing to historic rape complaints/police response/handling etc etc etc...

[Streetwise]

Just to clear the air it was not me who passed around the info on this case, BUT i do happen to agree with the people trying to bring it to light, These chaps should be held accountable if they are guilty of this, With the evidence from the other trial comming out it looks like the are.

[Patrick]

These chaps should be held accountable if they are guilty of this, With the evidence from the other trial comming out it looks like the are.

Exactly the problem...guilty already. What if they weren't guilty? One hell of a roundabout going on here...

[Paul in NZ]

I realise that he has tarnished the public opinion of all police and to a degree I accept that. However I have never raped anyone and I have never been into any kinky threesome type pervy nonsense either. So don't judge me as a person because of his poor behaviour as a police officer.

I doubt that we will think badly of you Spud. Those that hate the Police will always do so and those that don't won't! However, over all, the postive aspect of this case is that it was bought to trial! As I mentioned earlier, in a hell of a lot of the world the complainent might just disappear! Thank god we live here in NZ!

Kudos goes to those that decided to work on the case. Mr R must be a formidable target inside that organisation and their lot would not have been easy!

Overall. I think the Police have behaved properly as an organisation. They went ahead knowing that a guilty outcome was unlikely but that the 3 accused would still suffer some sort of punishment, even if it's just embarassment.

The rest is just speculation! To be fair, the complainent did herself no favours at the time but thats probably down to foolish youth. One would have hoped that an 18 year old girl in similar circumstances today would be helped instead of being taken advantage of! I have 3 daughters myself and the thought of this makes me angry! You don't take what you haven't earnt! Those men behaved disgracefully and i see little shame on their faces! Arrogance!

Sigh! There are no winners in this eh! A bad business all round!

[Hitcher]

Just to clear the air it was not me who passed around the info on this case, BUT i do happen to agree with the people trying to bring it to light, These chaps should be held accountable if they are guilty of this, With the evidence from the other trial comming out it looks like the are.
Utter twaddle. The hoary old presumption of smoke being evidence of combustion. This case was held before a clean jury. The actions of the naively self-righteous at Wellington railway station this morning may result in a situation where other complainants whose cases have yet to be heard may not get their day in Court. Where is the justice in that? Idiots.

[Lou Girardin]

Utter twaddle. The hoary old presumption of smoke being evidence of combustion. This case was held before a clean jury. The actions of the naively self-righteous at Wellington railway station this morning may result in a situation where other complainants whose cases have yet to be heard may not get their day in Court. Where is the justice in that? Idiots.

Too true. But the they're probably not that concerned about Nicholas or any other victims, they have their own agenda.

[Scouse]

There are more trials coming, which is one reason the suppression orders are in place. Please don't do or say anything that may subvert orders of the Court. Suppression orders placed to protect the identities of individuals are designed for exactly that purpose and not as narrow as encompassing only Court-related matters. The Judge in this case has issued a warning in relation to suppression orders. Let it go.No one has mentioned any names here up to the stage of your post Hitcher

[onearmedbandit]

I don't recall any names being mentioned at all. I posted in about the 4th post regarding the Judges comments, it was just a warning to anyone who thought they might add some sensitive info to the fray. Someone commented about the chace of anything posted here being picked up by the media. Well they don't have to, chances are there could be someone who is a member here who has some involvement in the case, ie they may know someone involved. All it would take is the wrong info posted, someone reads it and alerts someone who is in a position to act on it, and Spankme as the owner of the site has some explaining to do. (Sorry, I don't know what the exact repurcussions would be.)


Not debating the merits of supressed evidence, just making people aware that you are not entirely safe with what you post here.

[Madness]

Anyone here see TV3 news tonight?? Item about this very topic. A group of women in Wellington handed out 1600 pamphlets in town today, containing information that supression orders relate to.....

The plot thickens (or is that sickens??)

[Hitcher]

Sigh. Read the thread...

[Hitcher]

No one has mentioned any names here up to the stage of your post Hitcher
And just as well too. I have been keeping a watchful moderator's eye on this thread and have luckily only had to delete one post so far.

[Skyryder]

If you are going up to the base to bat, you must always remember that there is every possibilty that you may be struck our. Nichols was struck out. The 12 umpires decided to belive the men instead of her. That's the name of the game and if you can not lose don't play. Harsh as this may be that's the reality of the game that was played. For my part I believed her. If I ever saw a bully Ricards is that. The body language was obvious.

Skyryder

[MikeL]

To sum up:

1. In a trial previous behaviour is admissible evidence to challenge credibility of a witness but not of a defendant.
2. On the basis of the evidence the verdicts were correct.
3. Nevertheless the police were right to lay the charges.
4. The "truth" is not ascertainable and it is pointless to continue to speculate about "guilt" or otherwise.
5. The concept of "law" is not the same as that of "justice".
6. A legal judgement is of quite a different nature from a moral judgement.
7. There are no winners in this case.
8. Mud will stick.
9. Not all policemen are pigs (or rapists).
10. The actions of the women at Wellington railway station were deplorable.

Have I forgotten anything?

[Madness]

Have I forgotten anything?

There is always time for lubricant, especially where a baton is to be used.

[Ixion]

No one has mentioned any names here up to the stage of your post Hitcher

And nor they have. Which highlights the pernicious nature of suppression orders. Whilst they may sometimes be used for legitimate reasons (to ensure a fair trial etc), there is reason to suspect that all too often they are in reality gagging orders, used to protect the wealthy, and those with friends in high places.

We can only suspect of course, because often, not only is the identity of all parties suppressed, all evidence suppressed, the fact that there is a trial at all is suppressed, and even the existence of the suppression order itself is suppressed. Mr Berryman of the NBR was the one who blew the whistle on that practice some years ago , and got into much trouble for it. Few questioned whether such a practice was not itself incompatable with justice. I think it was Lord Denning (one of the few judges I would respect - another would be Mr Justice Avory - 'Hanging Horace') who said "Justice must not only be done but openly and manifestly be seen to be done".

There are much more subtle ways of corruption than used banknotes in a brown paper bag.

How often does it happen? We cannot know. By definition, it is suppressed! And editors with the balls of Mr Berryman are few and far between. But corruption always flourishes in the dark, so we may reliably presume that it is far more common than we think.

NZ desparately needs a truely free press. The present groveling toadying arse licking sycophants are not worthy of that name

Even more desparately, we need a half way decent judiciary. I wish that some of the rancour that is visited here upon the police were to be directed to the judges.

They deserve the slagging far more. And, if they were honest and forthright, a lot of the more dodgy police practices (not used by any KB members I am sure) would be stopped. It only needs a judge to ask "But, constable, how exactly was 160 kph dangerous under these specific cirucmstances" and instantly we have a much more sensible speed regime. Never will though, NZ is abysmally served by our judicary.

EDIT. The judges fail us , and the police, in the other direction too, when some vile villain is handed a token slap with a wet bus ticket. Thus ratifying the scumbag's belief that crime pays, making all of our lives less safe , and causing the police (who have gone to much trouble and perhaps personal risk to catch scumbag in the first place) to ask, why do we bother.

[Timber020]

Would I be breaking any rules by saying that alot of his colleagues refer to him as "the rapist" and that at social gatherings men are quick to take there partners home and guys generally make sure no women are left unaccompanied if a certain high ranking officer is about?

Hes been a bad guy for a long time.

[kickingzebra]

To be honest, I just think it is so damn sad when we view all authority figures with such malcontent. Does that mean they aren't worthy of our trust? I don't know, but how nice would it be to be able to trust and respect the motives of any and all authority figures?! Humanity can suck sometimes

[MisterD]

But should that be up to the Police solely to decide?

Currently it's the police that have the role of deciding when to prosecute (hey we went through all this on the quad bike affair). I have to say though, I was somewhat surprised that we don't have an equivalent of the UK's Crown Prosecution Service....

[Krusti]

I don't really care about the outcome of the trial....what does concern me is that we have some people enforcing laws and holding themselves up as good upstanding citizens who pop round to a young girls place with some work buddies and have group sex with her behind their partners backs.

I am dumb but even I know that if I was to put myself in that situation then there is a very good chance that it will come back to bite me...

When you are a Police officer you know that there is a higher level of conduct/ moral accountabillty required.

Just a dumb, direspectfull, stupid thing to do....

[Hitcher]

NZ desparately needs a truely free press. The present groveling toadying arse licking sycophants are not worthy of that name.
Just think for one moment about what you have just said. You're saying that a "truly free" press should be able to publish anything it likes about anybody? What about checking for factual accuracy? What about defamation? What about protecting the rights of the innocent -- such as the victims and the families in child abuse cases? What about Harmeet Sooden's employment history being "suppressed" (voluntarily) while he was being held hostage? You're saying that we should dispense with our Court and justice system and let trials be held through the media?

I think you should think carefully about the roles of citizens who wish to live in a "truly free" society and the support mechanisms they need to achieve this state.

[kickingzebra]

Yet if the media is unable to hold government to account, who is? Relying on word of mouth and public feeling is too surreal, and completely partial. The cost of that has been bloody revolts the world over, they typically aren't that good for the economy.
Media are well set up with rules and guidelines to follow, but if nobody digs to see what the truth is, then society would be as much as saying go ahead with your corruption. What we don't know can't hurt us.
Ixion is right, mainstream media are doing a woefully inadequate job of being an impartial standpoint. They are simply acting out the role of left of centre political puppets. That does no one any favours.

[Ixion]

Just think for one moment about what you have just said. You're saying that a "truly free" press should be able to publish anything it likes about anybody? What about checking for factual accuracy? What about defamation? What about protecting the rights of the innocent -- such as the victims and the families in child abuse cases? What about Harmeet Sooden's employment history being "suppressed" (voluntarily) while he was being held hostage? You're saying that we should dispense with our Court and justice system and let trials be held through the media?

I think you should think carefully about the roles of citizens who wish to live in a "truly free" society and the support mechanisms they need to achieve this state.

You confuse freedom and irresponsibility. Freedom always carries a concomitant duty. In the case of the press, duties (inter alia) of truthfulness ; of decency; of care, public and private. And of merit, for mere titillation hath no freedom.

A free press thus bears upon its shoulders a correspondingly grave responsibility - and should be held accountable for it. The press likes on occasion to claim the title of the "fourth estate". But, so being, it must conduct itself with the sobriety and attention to public and private good that should be (but, alas, so seldom is) the nature of the other three estates.

And, it should be held accountable , before the law , for the performance of that duty.

A nation blessed with a truly free press would have no scandelsheets. For what good purpose , private or public, can they claim? Lacking the justifcation of either public or private good, they should be condemned and extinguished.

But any matter that that is of merit or which touches uopon the common weal, should be brought forward for public examination and debate. Evil always seeks the darkness- the most certain guarantee of freedom and liberty in any state is to ensure that no matter of civic comity is allowed to pass without such approbation or censure as it may merit.

Such invigilation is not incompatible with a respect for individual privacy or the (equally important) needs of justice.

Few I think could claim that the news media of our country meet such a standard



This is true liberty, when free-born men,
Having to advise the public, may speak free,
Which he who can, and will, deserves high praise;
Who neither can, nor will, may hold his peace:
What can be juster in a state than this?

[Goblin]

Even more desparately, we need a half way decent judiciary. I wish that some of the rancour that is visited here upon the police were to be directed to the judges.

They deserve the slagging far more. And, if they were honest and forthright, a lot of the more dodgy police practices (not used by any KB members I am sure) would be stopped. It only needs a judge to ask "But, constable, how exactly was 160 kph dangerous under these specific cirucmstances" and instantly we have a much more sensible speed regime. Never will though, NZ is abysmally served by our judicary.

EDIT. The judges fail us , and the police, in the other direction too, when some vile villain is handed a token slap with a wet bus ticket. Thus ratifying the scumbag's belief that crime pays, making all of our lives less safe , and causing the police (who have gone to much trouble and perhaps personal risk to catch scumbag in the first place) to ask, why do we bother.
This opens a whole new can of worms. Not that I've had much to do with Judges but it seems to me that alot of the old, long time judges are too well paid and so far removed from reality they have no idea what grief they cause the Police and the public with their feeble attempts at sentencing. The slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket is all too common for hardened crimimals and sex offenders. When minor cannibis charges are given harsher sentences than child molestation it idicates to me that the judge is partial to kiddy fiddling himself. And who judges the Judges?? They get caught breaking the law and it gets swept under the carpet.

[The Stranger]

However it isn't right or fair to judge an accussed person based on past action that are unrelated to the current matter they are accussed of, even if those past actions are of a similar nature.

I disagree. Many of these things show a pattern.

For example kiddy fiddling - either you are bent that way or not. Personally I find the thought repulsive, as does I am sure the vast majority of the pupulation, however some obviously find it acceptable. It is this acceptability which the past can establish.

Rape is the same bag baby. Personally I find it deplorable, because I feel it is the ultimate demonstration of the strong persecuting the week in a most vulgar manner. However again some find that acceptable I feel it would be preferable for a jury to know if X considers it acceptable.

Sure it does not mean X is automatically guilty in this case, but it does mean X is capable of being guilty.

[slimjim]

yea man , reckon only reason that it got :weird: shifted cause the folks in rotovegas would have found them guilty:spudgrr:

[Ixion]

To some measure your thoughts are addressed by the defence of "good character".

If a person (I'll assume man, though the law does not), be accused of "kiddy fiddling", one defence he may maintain is that he of a person of unblemished good character. He may bring character witnesses, he may bring evidence to show that he has himself children, that there has never been any suggestion of impropiety, that he is a pillar of the community etc. To say to the jury "How unlikely then is it that a man such as I, held in high esteem, no shadow previously having crossed my reputation, trusted by all, how improbable it must be that I would do such a thing as I am accused of".

But (I think - correction welcome) that if a defendant does maintain a defence of good character, then the prosecution may bring in evidence of previous convictions. (" The defendant claims to be of unimpeachable moral character - how then does he account for his three previous convictions of kiddy fiddling").

But the prosecution may not refer to previous transgression unless the defendant claims first that there is none.

[spudchucka]

To sum up:

1. In a trial previous behaviour is admissible evidence to challenge credibility of a witness but not of a defendant.
The exception being that if the defendant elects to present evidence of their own good charachter then the prosecution can then counter that evidence and bring up their previous offending.

[spudchucka]

Currently it's the police that have the role of deciding when to prosecute (hey we went through all this on the quad bike affair). I have to say though, I was somewhat surprised that we don't have an equivalent of the UK's Crown Prosecution Service....
We do have a crown prosecutors office. They are lawyers who are independant of the police but work for them to prosecute serious matters.

The investigating police have to get their files past the crown prosecutor before they can proceed.

[Patrick]

And who judges the Judges?? They get caught breaking the law and it gets swept under the carpet.

Know of three judges that got done for things (probably others, but three that spring to mind), an EBA guilty plea, a fraud guilty plea and his cooffender, not guilty and was found not guilty...kudos to the first two who put their hand up and said, fair cop guv. The last one... well...ummmmmmm

[spudchucka]

I disagree.
Millions of others don't. Thats why it is a basic fundamental of the justice system that a defendant needs to be tried on the facts pertaining to the current matter before the court only. Whatever crime a person has done in their life does not automatically make them guilty of a similar crime as soon as somebody accuses them of it.

From a police perspective it certainly brings them into the investigation as a suspect but they still need facts to prove the ingredients of the offence. If there are holes in the prosecution case they can't plug the holes by saying, "well he did in the past so therefore he must have done it this time too".

[Goblin]

To some measure your thoughts are addressed by the defence of "good character".

If a person (I'll assume man, though the law does not), be accused of "kiddy fiddling", one defence he may maintain is that he of a person of unblemished good character. He may bring character witnesses, he may bring evidence to show that he has himself children, that there has never been any suggestion of impropiety, that he is a pillar of the community etc. To say to the jury "How unlikely then is it that a man such as I, held in high esteem, no shadow previously having crossed my reputation, trusted by all, how improbable it must be that I would do such a thing as I am accused of".

Which imo is what these poor excuses for men have effectively done in their defence of these rape charges.(or turned it around to make it like she asked for it) Which is also why Police and Laywers, Judges etc. should be of extraordinarily high moral standard. I think greed and power tripping has alot to answer for here.

[MSTRS]

I think greed and power tripping has alot to answer for here.
Gotta catch 'em first. I think they are hanging out with the other 4 horsemen....

[The Stranger]

Ok is this in contrast to the police whom provide a public service by alerting the community when say a kiddy fiddler is about to be released into a community. We are usually able to mostly all agree that is a good thing.
It would appear to me that in these cases millions do.

Is there that much difference in these cases, hell the person being released isn't even a suspect in a crime and his past is dragged up.

A mate of mine was done for carnal knowledge, quite simply he was young and shall we say sexually advanced, unfortunately for him she was a little younger. No rape, no nothing, consensual but the parents got wind of it and the shit hit the fan. Now he is just a regular red blooded male. Every time for the next 20 yrs there was any crime in the area that involved a female the cops were knocking on his door. His past was certainly used then.

So which way is it?

I think there is some hypocrisy in there.

[Scouse]

You confuse freedom and irresponsibility. Freedom always carries a concomitant duty. In the case of the press, duties (inter alia) of truthfulness ; of decency; of care, public and private. And of merit, for mere titillation hath no freedom.

A free press thus bears upon its shoulders a correspondingly grave responsibility - and should be held accountable for it. The press likes on occasion to claim the title of the "fourth estate". But, so being, it must conduct itself with the sobriety and attention to public and private good that should be (but, alas, so seldom is) the nature of the other three estates.

And, it should be held accountable , before the law , for the performance of that duty.

A nation blessed with a truly free press would have no scandelsheets. For what good purpose , private or public, can they claim? Lacking the justifcation of either public or private good, they should be condemned and extinguished.

But any matter that that is of merit or which touches uopon the common weal, should be brought forward for public examination and debate. Evil always seeks the darkness- the most certain guarantee of freedom and liberty in any state is to ensure that no matter of civic comity is allowed to pass without such approbation or censure as it may merit.

Such invigilation is not incompatible with a respect for individual privacy or the (equally important) needs of justice.

Few I think could claim that the news media of our country meet such a standardHey Ixion could you say that in English paticularly this word "invigilation" for all us dumb bastard out here

[Goblin]

Gotta catch 'em first. I think they are hanging out with the other 4 horsemen....
:cool: Well...I'll take the high road...you take the low road & we'll ambush them at exit 69:ar15: :ar15:

[Ixion]

Hey Ixion could you say that in English paticularly this word "invigilation" for all us dumb bastard out here

Invigilation - sleepless watching and superintendance of those undertaking some task. Cognate of vigil. Invigilator - one who performs thus.

Commonly nowdays (but not necessarily) restricted to those who perform such tasks with regard to students sitting examinations.

[Jackrat]

Of course you have rights to express your views. But getting back to the first post in this thread, there are Court-imposed suppression orders in place in relation to the identities of some people involved in the trial. You are OK discussing any matters regarding this case as long as you don't repeat comment or speculation about protected individuals and their circumstances.

This is a private conversation amongst friends,we can discuss and say anything we like about any subject.

[Jackrat]

and they are called pigs for a reason................:puke:

Yeah thats right mate,but I bet you don't know why.
The term was first used by the police themselfs during the race riots in Watts.Watts is some black suburb in the states.One of the resident Yanks may enlighten us as to which city.
Anyway a "pig" is a device for cleaning shit out of oil rig drilling pipes.
The pigs in this case were cleaning the shit out of Watts.
Or so the story goes.

Snopes anyone??

[Winston001]

Yeah thats right mate,but I bet you don't know why.
The term was first used by the police themselfs during the race riots in Watts.Watts is some black suburb in the states.One of the resident Yanks may enlighten us as to which city.
Anyway a "pig" is a device for cleaning shit out of oil rig drilling pipes.
The pigs in this case were cleaning the shit out of Watts.
Or so the story goes.

Snopes anyone??

Watts = Los Angeles. Riots started on 11 August 1965 and lasted for 6 days. Black Panthers arose about a year later as a direct result.

[Winston001]

Not that I've had much to do with Judges but it seems to me that a lot of the old, long time judges are too well paid and so far removed from reality they have no idea what grief they cause the Police and the public with their feeble attempts at sentencing.


A common misconception. The irony is that most of the community agree with you, yet they never darken the door of a courtroom to actually see what goes on.

The fact is that judges have to deal with the dregs of society every day. And that's just the lawyers. The crims are even worse. :D

Judges do not sit in ivory towers. They have to listen to witnesses describing appalling situations - what do you think happens in a rape/kiddy fiddling case? The evidence is graphic and then there are the photos and medical descriptions. The public don't have any idea what goes on in a court.

For example - there is a decision in the New Zealand Law Reports which describes a man feeding his semen to a child to get her used to the taste.

Judges have a better (or worse) idea of humanity than the rest of us. But they are constrained by sentencing laws as to what they can do. And it needs to be said that imprisoning people doesn't seem to alter the crime rate.

[Madness]

For example - there is a decision in the New Zealand Law Reports which describes a man feeding his semen to a child to get her used to the taste.

That is just fucking SICK
:sick: :sick: :sick: :sick: :sick: :sick: :sick: :sick: :sick:

[Hitcher]

This is a private conversation amongst friends,we can discuss and say anything we like about any subject.
Well, not quite. It's a "private conversation amongst friends" in a public forum, with a written and discoverable record kept.

[Goblin]

Yes...that just turned my stomach!:sick: :sick: :sick: :sick: :sick: :sick: :puke: :puke:

[Streetwise]

thats just wrong,,,, bbbblllaaahhhhh sicky sicky

[mikey]

Would I be breaking any rules by saying that alot of his colleagues refer to him as "the rapist" and that at social gatherings men are quick to take there partners home and guys generally make sure no women are left unaccompanied if a certain high ranking officer is about?

Hes been a bad guy for a long time.

interesting that a cop can read through all your previous charges /convictions / fines, before writing you out tickets on the side of the road. but you cant tell a jury that the defendant has done it before!

[scumdog]

interesting that a cop can read through all your previous charges /convictions / fines, before writing you out tickets on the side of the road. but you cant tell a jury that the defendant has done it before!


The jury is not deciding the penalty.

The judge does that - and he gets to see the offenders record.

Likewise the cop at the side of the road - if you have a shitload of tickets in your past them you are obviously a slow learner and need to take on the consequence -as opposed the the 'Joe Average' who has maybe only had one or two tickets who MAY get a warning, I could go on but it gets a little compicated.

[Paul in NZ]

Whats more intersting is that a thread about some fairly important and topical issues with some stunningly usefull obsevations can finally peter out and end up back on traffic tickets.... sssiiiigggghhhhhhhhhh!

[crashe]

I think we should all be applauding the woman who took on two of the alledged abusers and won her case against them... as they are doing time now for the same offence that happened to LN 20 years ago.

Why did she wait so long to report it?

Well some women NEVER report a rape... some need time to deal with what happened to them... some never get over it.

Maybe back then she was threatened if she reported it. We don't know this...

But good on her for taking all three of them to court.

Should previous past violent sex attacks be brought up in court... then YES it should be. I reckon the outcome would have been different to what it is now.

Do I believe her.... YES I do.
Should these 3 men serve time - YES I do.

I hear that she and her lawyers are supposed to be appealing the case.

Should CR remain a cop - NO he should be sacked with no pension.

If I sound harsh about this... then tough...
But what they did is wrong and they should be damn well punished.

[Hitcher]

If I sound harsh about this... then tough...
But what they did is wrong and they should be damn well punished.
Were you a member of the jury and presented with the same evidence and legal instruction as they were? I think not.

The jury handed down 20 not guilty verdicts.

"Punishment" is a relative term. Nobody involved has escaped this case without significant impact on their lives and reputations.

[Goblin]

The jury handed down 20 not guilty verdicts.

"Punishment" is a relative term. Nobody involved has escaped this case without significant impact on their lives and reputations.

Not least Louise Nicholas and her family and friends. These men ARE Guilty and have got away with it by paying shitloads of money to scum sucking lawyers and by bullying. CR will no doubt get his Golden Handshake and move overseas, rubbing his hands together with glee! What sort of example is that to young impressionable police? Or the general public for that matter? I'd like to see those men strung up by the balls and repeatedly raped with a baton!!:angry2:

[Grahameeboy]

"
What has appalled me is the moral behaviour of the men in question and the apparent lack of shame. They have disgraced the organisation of which they were members.

Forgetting the rape question (thats difficult I know) the actions of these men was utterly appalling! They were older and married for goodness sakes and took advantage of someone in a situation them must have known was wrong! Without a doubt, I do not want any of these people in a position of power or authority ever again. If they have a shred of decency they will slink off into obscurity and pray to be forgiven for their actions.

Paul N

Gotta agree with the morals issue Paul....sucks

[Goblin]

"Punishment" is a relative term. Nobody involved has escaped this case without significant impact on their lives and reputations.
Are you saying the impact on the accused's lives and reputations is punishment enough? 'cos that how I read it. Correct me if I am wrong.

[Hitcher]

Are you saying the impact on the accused's lives and reputations is punishment enough? 'cos that how I read it. Correct me if I am wrong.
I'm not taking sides on this. But on the basis that a jury found the accused not guilty on all 20 charges then, arguably, they have suffered too much. My point was that nobody involved with this trial escaped unscathed.

[Maha]

Years ago, flated with a guy that worked for MOT in Rotorua. We would sometimes go up to the police station bar area before the clubs opened. Any cop leaving the bar that had been drinking was told where the check points were, if they didnt already know. One of those guys accused had the rep of being a ' fucking shocker ', and that came from a bloke that knew him very well. And whats with the P O L I C E reffering to themselves as PLEECE. All the top brass/ministers pronounce it that way, it is po-lice. Was on a jury that aquitted a guy of class 'B' drugs for supply because the defence in my view had the better case, its amazing to watch a trail unfold in the court room, and how someone can sway your judgment. Any evidence ommited from a trail is (to my knowledge ) agreed to by both party's, not just the one. They trade off so to speak, they confer.

[Goblin]

I'm not taking sides on this. But on the basis that a jury found the accused not guilty on all 20 charges then, arguably, they have suffered too much. My point was that nobody involved with this trial escaped unscathed.
What about the suffering Louise has endured for 20 years or more?? If it weren't for these scumbags actions in the first place, she wouldn't have had to suffer anything. I really hope she does find the strength to appeal this case. My heart goes out to Louise and her family.

[Maha]

Rickards wont go any higher on the police ladder, and like i said in an earlier post that one of the accused had the rep of a ' fucken shocker ' in Rotorua, his name rhymes with Glad Shrimptown.

[Lou Girardin]

I think I've just changed my mind about these rapist scum. Shame the jury couldn't hear about their past history.

[Indoo]

Pfft cmon Lou we all know it was a vast conspiracy to stop Rickards becoming the first Maori commisioner.

[Ixion]

I do not know if the one who got the job (Howard Broad) is such am improvement. In my dealing with him I found him to be a first class wally, though I would think he is honest enough. Just thick. And not very helpful.

I doubt he will be much of a friend to biking or the motorist in general, though he has accepted the need to improve the public perception of the force.

Serving cop members may have a different experience of him of course - mine was as a member of the public seeking greater police presence on the streets.

[Indoo]

I haven't heard anything bad about him. And I think more importantly hes unlikely to have any skeletons coming outa the closet.

Just be thankful it was actually a cop who got the post. The way things are moving at the moment it won't suprise me if we have a 'ceo' next time.

[Patrick]

And it needs to be said that imprisoning people doesn't seem to alter the crime rate.

It sure as hell alters their crime rate...

[spudchucka]

Serving cop members may have a different experience of him of course - mine was as a member of the public seeking greater police presence on the streets.
I haven't met the guy so I'll reserve judgement. Met Rob a couple of times, he's a decent bloke actually and I think he did a pretty good job considering the mess he acquired from Doone. Broad has inherited a much tidier organisation so hopefully he can make some worthwhile advances.

[spudchucka]

It sure as hell alters their crime rate...
Strangley enough our local burglary rate has hit rock bottom since one or two of our local losers have found their way into prison.

Prison may not have a great effect on re-offending rates but it sure as hell stops the arseholes from stealing your dvd or playstation while they are behind bars.

[spudchucka]

I think I've just changed my mind about these rapist scum. Shame the jury couldn't hear about their sexual history.
You've changed your tune. You're usually the champion of due process and a fair justice system.

[Lou Girardin]

I haven't heard anything bad about him. And I think more importantly hes unlikely to have any skeletons coming outa the closet.
.

It's a sad day when that's the main criteria for the top cop.

[Lou Girardin]

You've changed your tune. You're usually the champion of due process and a fair justice system.

The jury was allowed to hear about hers.

[Hitcher]

The jury was allowed to hear about hers.
Probably with good reason. Such as it would have prejudiced them to a point where the defendants could not have had a "fair" trial. Despite the outcome, the case that the jury was asked to consider was a weak one -- no evidence, few witnesses that would support the plaintiff's claims, etc.

[spudchucka]

The jury was allowed to hear about hers.
She wasn't on trial, facing a lengthy jail term if found guilty.

As explained elsewhere in this thread, an accuser's credibility needs to be tested when the only evidence is their word against that of the accused (especially when the alleged offending happened nearly two decades ago). If the accuser's credibility is shown to be poor then do you believe all, part or none of their story?

What happened to beyond reasonable doubt? What happened to juries being the sole and ultimate judge of truth and justice (Gavin Vanner thread)?

[Winston001]

Just to introduce another question - now that Ricards and co have been acquitted, should the taxpayer refund their legal costs? After all, they have won and it's completely unfair that they should have to pay to defend themselves.

I recall this debate on an earlier (Vanner?) thread. I think Lou was pro costs being paid to successful defendants, but my apologies if I'm wrong.

[MisterD]

Just to introduce another question - now that Ricards and co have been acquitted, should the taxpayer refund their legal costs? After all, they have won and it's completely unfair that they should have to pay to defend themselves.

I recall this debate on an earlier (Vanner?) thread. I think Lou was pro costs being paid to successful defendants, but my apologies if I'm wrong.

Yep, done to death (so to speak) on the "For Cops only" thread.

[Lou Girardin]

She wasn't on trial, facing a lengthy jail term if found guilty.

As explained elsewhere in this thread, an accuser's credibility needs to be tested when the only evidence is their word against that of the accused (especially when the alleged offending happened nearly two decades ago). If the accuser's credibility is shown to be poor then do you believe all, part or none of their story?



Make no mistake, she was on trial. Just not in the legal sense, and she was found guilty of being a slut. As I've said before, try to imagine how she feels if what she's claimed is true. (and it seems likely)

[Lou Girardin]

Just to introduce another question - now that Ricards and co have been acquitted, should the taxpayer refund their legal costs? After all, they have won and it's completely unfair that they should have to pay to defend themselves.

I recall this debate on an earlier (Vanner?) thread. I think Lou was pro costs being paid to successful defendants, but my apologies if I'm wrong.

I believe Schollum and Shipton had legal aid. I had wondered why, now it's obvious.

[Hitcher]

A warning to all: Please note that there is a Court-imposed suppression order in place on certain elements of this case. Breaching this order puts at risk the "owner" of this site and contributors to it. You all should know the information to which I refer. I have already deleted two posts from this thread that overstepped the mark, and there are others that are dangerously close to this as well.

I recommend all who have posted to review and, if necessary, edit their earlier posts.

[Pixie]

Pride
Integrity
Guts

Don't judge me by the actions of Mr Rickards.
Or,depending on which cop it is....
Peurility
Ignorance
Gluttony (donuts)

[Motu]

This is an historic case,in more ways than one...maybe they to have a look at some new proceedures.Sure you can't bring previous convictions into the case....but these are,if the ''rumours'' are true,subsequent convictions,the defendents went on to reoffend in the same manner.

I also think the powers to be need to look at public interest in this case - just about everyone you meet is going WTF?? They are there for us remember...

[Winston001]

Now I'm confused. I understood certain "similar fact" evidence was given in Court, in front of the jury, but that it was suppressed from general publication. So if the jury heard it, then the public interest was served.

But that doesn't make sense here. So was this a case of the jury being sent out and a voir dire hearing of evidence for the judge to then decide whether the jury could hear it?

[Winston001]

Just to expand a little, and I think its been pointed out before - just because a defendant has a criminal history doesn't mean they are guilty of the current charge. Each new charge is a fresh case, not to be tainted by previous convictions.

However there is an exception - similar fact evidence. Thus if an accused's modus operandi is to, say, use a baton during rape, and this is known from previous trials, then the Crown (police) can apply to call that evidence. It is up to the judge to decide whether that would be prejudicial balanced against the need for the court to know the accused had a particular way of behaving.

It is a complex area and if there is doubt the accused gets the benefit and the evidence is excluded.

[MSTRS]

This is an historic case,in more ways than one...maybe they to have a look at some new proceedures.Sure you can't bring previous convictions into the case....but these are,if the ''rumours'' are true,subsequent convictions,the defendents went on to reoffend in the same manner.

This is true but neglects one fact....events referred to in all these cases happened some years ago, before any charges were laid. The lesson that was learned by......was that they could get away with it without being called to account. Bet they all know different now.

[Motu]

And that's a small positive for Ms Nichols,she has sacrificed a lot to bring public awareness.

[shazzygirl]

Well, look how much of the chatter it has created and she didn't win.
If those men had been found guilty there would not have been the public talk that there has been.
Good on you Louise, I commend your guts for taking it as far as you did, and I am proud that you stood for what you believed in.
Alas, I am of the same, and after 38 years of abuse am not strong enough to face my perpetrators, or stand up and point the finger, but by god the pain and the heartache still lives inside every day.
The bruises have long faded, but the heart and the mind will always be affected by what has been suffered. Its not forgettable and will never be forgiven.
To stand up and face the fear, and hold your head up high is the highest power that can be attained which is what I do to survive each day.
Well done Louise.

[terbang]

Probably with good reason. Such as it would have prejudiced them to a point where the defendants could not have had a "fair" trial. Despite the outcome, the case that the jury was asked to consider was a weak one -- no evidence, few witnesses that would support the plaintiff's claims, etc.
So it all boils down to her word against that of 3 coppers. Her background has had its fair share of public scrutiny and theirs is suppressed.
Doesn't sound fair to me.
We all know that Nicholas didn't stand a chance against the assistant police commisioner and all his rescourses.
A loud and clear message to current coppers about what they can get away with (if they want) and to young girls who wish to report a rape (if they now dare).

[Paul in NZ]

Well, look how much of the chatter it has created and she didn't win.
If those men had been found guilty there would not have been the public talk that there has been.
Good on you Louise, I commend your guts for taking it as far as you did, and I am proud that you stood for what you believed in.
Alas, I am of the same, and after 38 years of abuse am not strong enough to face my perpetrators, or stand up and point the finger, but by god the pain and the heartache still lives inside every day.
The bruises have long faded, but the heart and the mind will always be affected by what has been suffered. Its not forgettable and will never be forgiven.
To stand up and face the fear, and hold your head up high is the highest power that can be attained which is what I do to survive each day.
Well done Louise.

I think you have made a pretty big step here!

Theres more support than you think out there!

Paul N

[spudchucka]

Make no mistake, she was on trial. Just not in the legal sense, and she was found guilty of being a slut. As I've said before, try to imagine how she feels if what she's claimed is true. (and it seems likely)
I'm not saying anything against her claims, I have no idea whether they are true or false. However I certainly accept that where there is smoke tehre must also be fire (that goes for both sides). I'm just a little surprised at your willingness to toss aside due process regardless what the case may be.

[spudchucka]

Or,depending on which cop it is....
Peurility
Ignorance
Gluttony (donuts)
I'm amazed it took someone so long.

[Indoo]

So it all boils down to her word against that of 3 coppers. Her background has had its fair share of public scrutiny and theirs is suppressed.
Doesn't sound fair to me.
We all know that Nicholas didn't stand a chance against the assistant police commisioner and all his rescourses.
A loud and clear message to current coppers about what they can get away with (if they want) and to young girls who wish to report a rape (if they now dare).

Christ what a load of bollocks.

As one of these 'current coppers' I was disgusted by the trial, but I'm even more disgusted by your comments.

[scumdog]

A loud and clear message to current coppers about what they can get away with (if they want) and to young girls who wish to report a rape (if they now dare).

I hope this is a wind-up 'cos I sure as hell don't want to be labled with the lowest common denominator - would YOU????

I do confess that I jay-walk now and them and (cough) go a LITTLE faster than I should but that's it, that's the limit of "what I can get away with".

If it's NOT wind-up then its a load of cods-wollop and maybe you should have another think on things.

[Winston001]

A loud and clear message to current coppers about what they can get away with (if they want) and to young girls who wish to report a rape (if they now dare).

Sounds like a troll. But just in case you really believe this, check out the two gentlemen who are currently staying at Her Majesty's pleasure. And their former occupations. And their convictions.

[u4ea]

I hope this is a wind-up 'cos I sure as hell don't want to be labled with the lowest common denominator - would YOU????

I do confess that I jay-walk now and them and (cough) go a LITTLE faster than I should but that's it, that's the limit of "what I can get away with".

If it's NOT wind-up then its a load of cods-wollop and maybe you should have another think on things.
like i already said,she wanted it they gave it.maybe shes got the guilts about infidelity.cops are still naked under them uniforms and have animal instincs too.a surviver of childabuse<same diffrence> myself,i just dont beleive her.something isn;t ringing true.they were all young dumb and full o come!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[u4ea]

Sounds like a troll. But just in case you really believe this, check out the two gentlemen who are currently staying at Her Majesty's pleasure. And their former occupations. And their convictions.
what ??????????tell us more.

[Goblin]

like i already said,she wanted it they gave it.maybe shes got the guilts about infidelity.cops are still naked under them uniforms and have animal instincs too.a surviver of childabuse<same diffrence> myself,i just dont beleive her.something isn;t ringing true.they were all young dumb and full o come!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dont know how you thought that up. She never wanted ANY of it but she was young and INTIMIDATED by these scumbags. They abused their authority! Fact! Dont compare yourself to LN. The only thing that doesn't ring true here is these scumbags were found not guilty.

[Scorpygirl]

like i already said,she wanted it they gave it.maybe shes got the guilts about infidelity.cops are still naked under them uniforms and have animal instincs too.a surviver of childabuse<same diffrence> myself,i just dont beleive her.something isn;t ringing true.they were all young dumb and full o come!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have so far restrained myself on this thread but some people make my blood boil!!!

I am not going to comment on this trial, or the Rotorua pigs at the time... cause I know too much.

But I also brought an historic case to justice and lucky we won.... he pleaded guilty before it came to court. It was shit having to make a statement to the police (thanks Rhino for being by my side) and to have to remember stuff from the past that you put in the back of your memory.

I hug all women that stand up in court to the oppressor!!! :sunny: :grouphug:

[u4ea]

Dont know how you thought that up. She never wanted ANY of it but she was young and INTIMIDATED by these scumbags. They abused their authority! Fact! Dont compare yourself to LN. The only thing that doesn't ring true here is these scumbags were found not guilty.
ok .its been a hard discussion and i apologise for upsetting you guys.i am not personally involved with these people concerned and i have voiced some strong opinions.i dont normally throw stones.my grandfather was a cop but he was murdered before i was born so i am on the fence.:confused:

[Kickaha]

Dont know how you thought that up. She never wanted ANY of it but she was young and INTIMIDATED by these scumbags. They abused their authority! Fact! Dont compare yourself to LN. The only thing that doesn't ring true here is these scumbags were found not guilty.

And you can prove all of this how?

Just that I'd be interested in seeing the evidence you must have that is capable of proving your statement

[SixPackBack]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10376320

"At the University of Auckland yesterday, more pamphlets were circulated, also containing suppressed information before the issue was debated on the university quad by nearly 100 students who said they supported the Wellington women's cause."

Personally I beleive the pigs raped Wallace with a baton.

[shazzygirl]

I think you have made a pretty big step here!

Theres more support than you think out there!

Paul N

I have been through the system for the last few years, and the support and understanding has been overwhelming. With this support and hard yakka I am going to make it, the light at the end of the tunnel is wide and shining bright.
Yes I have made a big step, and the thoughts of people who care is what lightens the heart and opens the eyes. Thanks

[Goblin]

And you can prove all of this how?

Just that I'd be interested in seeing the evidence you must have that is capable of proving your statement
Well where are two of the accused at the moment? The fact they were found not guilty in this case does NOT make them innocent!

Well I know too much so i'm going to shut up before I put my foot in it.

[Lou Girardin]

Christ what a load of bollocks.

As one of these 'current coppers' I was disgusted by the trial, but I'm even more disgusted by your comments.

Disgusted by the trial? Or disgusted by the cops actions?

I am amused that, apparently, it's Ok for the cops to target crims/paedophiles, et al because "once a crim always a crim".
But it doesn't seem to apply to rapist cops.

[Paul in NZ]

Folks...

It's a subject that gets us all pretty het up! However, a pretty exceptional thread with some insightfull commentary and genuinely intelligent observations is now in danger of degenerating into complete bollocks!

And yet reading this I think we all agree on more points than we disagree over.

We all agree that something digusting occured, something that is frankly all too common an occurance in nearly all societies and not something that these men, guitly or innocent (legally) and given their proffession at the time should be proud of! Lets NOT confuse justice with the law!!

How about we let this thread continue with intelligent and informative commentary without descending into emotional mud slinging eh! No need for US to behave like animals?

Paul N

[The Stranger]

I hope this is a wind-up 'cos I sure as hell don't want to be labled with the lowest common denominator - would YOU????

I do confess that I jay-walk now and them and (cough) go a LITTLE faster than I should but that's it, that's the limit of "what I can get away with".

If it's NOT wind-up then its a load of cods-wollop and maybe you should have another think on things.


Please be careful to not include all cops in your statements!!!

In any group/organisation etc there are good and bad, not just the police.

Hell I know an All Black who was bragging of raping a woman. A long standing and well respected AB at that.

Should we disband the AB's? are they all bad people?

no one likes to be included, even if by inference, and particulrly if you find the group despicable.

[The Stranger]

I'm not saying anything against her claims, I have no idea whether they are true or false. However I certainly accept that where there is smoke tehre must also be fire (that goes for both sides). I'm just a little surprised at your willingness to toss aside due process regardless what the case may be.

Yeah, but your statement implies that the due process is correct/propper/right etc.

[terbang]

I hope this is a wind-up 'cos I sure as hell don't want to be labled with the lowest common denominator - would YOU????

I do confess that I jay-walk now and them and (cough) go a LITTLE faster than I should but that's it, that's the limit of "what I can get away with".

If it's NOT wind-up then its a load of cods-wollop and maybe you should have another think on things.

I havn't labelled you or any other coppers (incl Indoo who got so offended that he red repped me for it) at all.
It doesn't take rocket science to figure that Rickard and pals abused their positions in society for thier own sexual fantasy/perversion (baton perversion) a fact that most here (Nzers) seem to agree upon. We are disgusted with these pricks that held positions of trust and responsibility and let us down. As a result of a fairly public court case where they were accused of rape and all the gritty details were made public, Rickard (a fairly senior policeman) and co remained publicly defiant throughout the case and yet Nicholas, who had little to gain from her complaint, is made to look like a bad woman. You go figure the message to the community..
My suggestion to you Rozzers who are feeling indignant about some of the comments here is, instead of attacking us for our views, to send the message up to your superiors from within that you are not happy with the image that your ilk is getting over the fact that someone very close to the top of your organization has been behaving in a fashion unbecoming of your positions.
Remove the blinkers boys, your dirty washing is hanging on the line for all to see. Please do something about it..!

[The_Dover]

Should we disband the AB's? are they all bad people?



I think we should disband the AB's. They are a bunch of bottlers and simply not up to the job. They'll never win a world cup and it is a disgrace that they steal other countries players.

As for the whole cop debate, suppressing evidence is simply wrong. How can a fair decision be made when all the facts are not known?

The NZ police seem to be a bunch of corrupt motherfuckers, that is for sure. Maybe not all of them but this country still has a fuckload of deliverance mentality about it.

[kickingzebra]

Disband the ABs. My vote is an Aye. Then pump Motorcycle racing as a sporting alternative. To the general police, who aren't power tripping. You're great, I like you a lot. The ones that would be far below reproach, the power trippers, sexual predators etc. One day it'll bite you in the arse. Grow up and think about it.

[scumdog]

I havn't labelled you or any other coppers (incl Indoo who got so offended that he red repped me for it) at all.
Remove the blinkers boys, your dirty washing is hanging on the line for all to see so do something about it..!

I never said you HAD labelled me, I just said I hope you hadn't put me in with 'the lowest common denominator' and it's nice to know you hadn't

BTW, It ain't MY dirty linen, no sirreee!:innocent:

[terbang]

Rugby, Rugby, and more fucking dished up Rugby is all we hear about. Just another form of tribal gang warfare that seems to have easily caught on here as our National pride.. Bring on more Motorsport..

[SixPackBack]

The NZ police seem to be a bunch of corrupt motherfuckers, that is for sure. Maybe not all of them but this country still has a fuckload of deliverance mentality about it.

True that....bent as hell:Oi:

[Grahameeboy]

True that....bent as hell:Oi:

Oh SixPack......have a beer........................:Playnice:

[Grahameeboy]

The NZ police seem to be a bunch of corrupt motherfuckers, that is for sure. Maybe not all of them but this country still has a fuckload of deliverance mentality about it.

Oh please 'Get Dover' this corruption chip........:rolleyes:

[terbang]

Oh please 'Get Dover' this corruption chip........:rolleyes:

Well as we all agree here not all cops are corrupt but as recent events have indicated that some are or have been and that it also didn't seem to falter their career aspirations and progression (rickard did just a little better than a constable). It makes peoples suspicions here perfectly understandable..

[Grahameeboy]

Well as we all agree here not all cops are corrupt but as recent events have indicated that some are or have been and that it also didn't seem falter their career aspirations and progression (rickard did just a little better than a constable). It makes peoples suspicions here perfectly understandable..

Walk slowly I say....................

[scumdog]

goblin
why can't you replie on the thread rather than being a chicken and saying it with comments out of public veiw.
are you to chicken that your opinion is not inline with the group and scared you will be scorned for it with red reps like you gave me?

This belongs in the 'bitchin about bitchin threads' thread.

[Paul in NZ]

Ok.. Trying to lift the game a little and ignore the...

Rosemary McCloud had this to say...

Swapsies. The banality, puerility and deadness of that flat little word says more than you'd ever want to know about the Louise Nicholas case.

It's a word from childhood, surely, for swapping scented erasers shaped like rabbits, or My Little Ponies. It goes with beaded hair ties, pink skivvies and posters of Justin Timberlake. It just doesn't belong with graphic pornography.

It says much about Nicholas, still, that she would use it in court to describe the ugly choreography of sex she engaged in with three police officers 20 years ago when she was still a pretty, fresh-faced 18-year-old. It suggests that a child still lingers inside a lined and sad-looking woman, a child that wanted to please. There is a story there that we will never know.

That much-published photo of Nicholas is a puzzle. How could she look so young, then, and how can she now look so old? It's a photo young girls should be made to look at, and think about. While the men involved grew corpulent in two decades, she seems to have shrunk and withered. She has the slimness of youth without its hope. It's as if her past has gobbled her up.

The pornography trade has it that young girls are willing and waiting to be so degraded, and enjoy it. There was even evidence given that Nicholas did, from the men who had sex with her. Apparently they could tell, but I doubt whether they cared.

I also doubt very much that she liked what was happening. There was nothing in it for her, not money, not even friendship. She was just a prop on a stage, cast in a piece of physical theatre, and props get dumped when the show's over.

This is not the sort of sex young girls imagine, and these men, though cleared of the crimes they were charged with, were not the lovers a happy 18-year-old would hope for. Sex like this – swapsies – does not feature in books which deal in love and romance, or in literature. It belongs in pornography, where it makes sense.

If this was sexual fantasy made real, what a toll it has taken. It shamed everyone who took part in it. You'd wonder how anyone who was in a real relationship could compartmentalise it away, and go home afterward to a roast dinner. Those weeping men, after the verdict, and that sad, withered woman – this is what vice is all about. It promises much, but delivers emptiness.

Vice – let's be clear about this old-fashioned word – isn't youthful, high-spirited experimentation. It takes advantage of the sad and vulnerable, is calculated and knowing. I don't know why we allow it to be glamorised. Vice is just depressing.

The Nicholas rape trial was about many things, personal and public, but at the bottom of it was morality, another old-fashioned word. The law is not much use about morality; it deals only with the law, which is not always the same thing. I could always see the men Nicholas accused being acquitted because of this.

It is, of course, legal to have sex in whatever combinations you choose, with girls over 16 who agree to participate or whose demeanour suggests compliance. If women don't fight, or try to escape, or complain afterward, if they go through the same sexual routine with you more than once, if they are inconsistent in what they say, they haven't a hope of convincing a jury.

The real question about this case was always simply: was it right? You won't find the answer to that in law, but in conscience.

Morality is about dealing fairly with other people, and maintaining your own dignity because of it. It's about respect. I imagine that there are people, probably not many of them, who lead sexually promiscuous lives, who are unfaithful to their partners, but who still manage to achieve this. There may be people who perform the acts Nicholas talked about without afterward feeling revulsion.

But my guess is they would be adult in their outlook, honest in their dealings, clear about what was happening and what was intended, and careful not to harm the vulnerable. They would also use the language of adults, not that of a hurt child playing a squalid game.

[u4ea]

funny,she was probally lieing to get attention and a pay out out of court coz she's a broke hore.
didn't she get bummed out
you dont need a trial to get a payout.as in my sitation,i had post traumatic stress disorder and memories are pretty scattered.,which the detective told me it wont be enuff in court.i was devistated.survivors show lots of tendancies ie;suicide,alcahol abuse,drug abuse,prostitution,being gay,anxiety,bi polar.just because there is no prosecution does not mean the bastards are not guilty.how do we prosecute if the perpertrator is deceased???????all i will add is we are ultimatly answerable to ourselves at the end of the day and i go to sleep with a clear concience.

[Goblin]

goblin
why can't you replie on the thread rather than being a chicken and saying it with comments out of public veiw.
are you to chicken that your opinion is not inline with the group and scared you will be scorned for it with red reps like you gave me?
I have replied in this thread and it seems most others agree with my opinion. Red reps dont bother me in the slightest but dickheads like yourself just make me want to puke! You are indeed a village idiot and you dont even have the balls to put up any information in your profile. You're probably a pizza faced little scumbag wagging school....you obviously missed the english lessons. Now fuck off back to your bitching thread!

[MSTRS]

and I don't have information on my profile for a reason
I have a very good reason not to be known.
Oh....hello Helen

[Goblin]

and I don't have information on my profile for a reason
I have a very good reason not to be known.
Go do a search on threads about "Rep"!

Yep! Your name says it all!:weird:

[The_Dover]

and I don't have information on my profile for a reason
I have a very good reason not to be known.

Are you a former assistant police commisioner with a penchant for gang bangs?:chase:

[spudchucka]

Disgusted by the trial? Or disgusted by the cops actions?

I am amused that, apparently, it's Ok for the cops to target crims/paedophiles, et al because "once a crim always a crim".
But it doesn't seem to apply to rapist cops.
They were targeted with all that could be thrown at them. The police poured more money and resources into this prosecution than most murder inquiries.

There would be very few life long crims out there that have received as much attention and faced such strong determination to prosecute.

[Blairos]

As a good friend once told me...

Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one, and mine doesnt stink!

:rofl:

[spudchucka]

Yeah, but your statement implies that the due process is correct/propper/right etc.
Of course due process is right and proper. Without it you could maliciously prosecute anyone for virtually no reason. It is a fundamental function of justice.

[spudchucka]

The NZ police seem to be a bunch of corrupt motherfuckers, that is for sure.
You are way off beam. I know hundreds, if not thousands of cops personally that I trust with my life. Don't judge the many on the actions of the few, its an act of outright ignorance to do so.

[spudchucka]

Well as we all agree here not all cops are corrupt but as recent events have indicated that some are or have been and that it also didn't seem to falter their career aspirations and progression (rickard did just a little better than a constable). It makes peoples suspicions here perfectly understandable..
Those crying coruption etc are overlooking the fact that the organisation is investing a hell of a lot of $$$ and resources into weeding these people out. There will always be some shit that gets through but 99% of cops are just hard working honest people trying to do the best that they can.

[Blairos]

There will always be some shit that gets through but 99% of cops are just hard working honest people trying to do the best that they can.

I agree with you - its a shame when a few bad eggs let the side down for all the rest of the good ones - ahhh, gotta love human nature... tar everyone with the same brush...

[terbang]

I have a very good reason not to be known.
Well if you really did have a good reason not to be known then you wouldn't have posted that..

[Lou Girardin]

funny,she was probally lieing to get attention and a pay out out of court coz she's a broke hore.
didn't she get bummed out

You've obviously given this a lot of thought.
BTW apt login.

[Lou Girardin]

They were targeted with all that could be thrown at them. The police poured more money and resources into this prosecution than most murder inquiries.

There would be very few life long crims out there that have received as much attention and faced such strong determination to prosecute.

I wasn't referring to that Spud. I was referring to the fact that we're not supposed to think that if they did it once they'll do it again.

[Blairos]

You've obviously given this a lot of thought.
BTW apt login.

Yeah, couldnt have put it better myself- check out the thread that this retard started - sort of sums it up really...

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=27486

[The_Dover]

You are way off beam. I know hundreds, if not thousands of cops personally that I trust with my life. Don't judge the many on the actions of the few, its an act of outright ignorance to do so.

Don't get me wrong Tattietosser, I'm sure the front line joe is an honourable and trustworthy colleague and someone that you personally can rely upon in times of need.

But there still seems to be a lot of murky goings on behind closed doors and whether or not you personally, or any of your known colleagues, are involved the pigs currently stink of shit for a reason.

Every cop I have met in NZ has been a thoroughly pleasant and professional person and they are only human like the rest of us, in fact I thoroughly fuckin appreciate the discression that has been applied to some of my dickhead behaviour and recognise the job you guys do.

However the institution and modus operandi of the force as a whole is somewhat questionable.

[spudchucka]

I wasn't referring to that Spud. I was referring to the fact that we're not supposed to think that if they did it once they'll do it again.
You can think what you want, doesn't make it true. No one has said don't think it but you can't base a prosecution upon that assumption, can you? And the reality is that in court proceedings it really proves nothing it just taints the outcome through predjudice.

[spudchucka]

Every cop I have met in NZ has been a thoroughly pleasant and professional person and they are only human like the rest of us, in fact I thoroughly fuckin appreciate the discression that has been applied to some of my dickhead behaviour and recognise the job you guys do.
So why label us a bunch of corrupt motherfuckers?

[terbang]

Those crying coruption etc are overlooking the fact that the organisation is investing a hell of a lot of $$$ and resources into weeding these people out. There will always be some shit that gets through but 99% of cops are just hard working honest people trying to do the best that they can.
Yes I totally agree and good on them for finally investigating the case but why 20 years later..?
We are also "Our Brothers Keepers" to a certain extent as I should be watchful and harsh on fellow pilots who, flew in a manner putting passengers at risk thus degrading our industry I expect police to watch and, if required, hold their colleagues accountable for questionable practise. This requires a very high order of professionalism in persons that people place trust upon.
The question I ask is how come, after Nicholas reported the abuse/rape 20 years ago (and was ignored), that Rickard was allowed to continue in his police role, rise to a very high rank when by all accounts it was widely known by many other police officers that he and his pals had behaved in such a questionable fashion. You couldn't honestly say that there wasn't any inkling of suspicion among other police officers that these guys may have stepped over the line. Silence is often a clear sign of acceptance or agreeance..

[The_Dover]

So why label us a bunch of corrupt motherfuckers?

Apologies, I meant as an institution and a group. There have been a number of cases/incidents since I have been in this lovely colony that have made me really think that there is something very wrong with the system, don't really recall the others though I am trying.

Anyway, most of the fuckin cops I have spoken to were bloody poms, no wonder they were decent and honest.

And I'll retract my statement, should have said corrupt adolescentfuckers.

[spudchucka]

The question I ask is how come, after Nicholas reported the abuse/rape 20 years ago (and ignored), that Rickard was allowed to continue in his police role, rise to a very high rank when by all accounts it was widely known by many other police officers that he and his pals had behaved in such a questionable fashion. You couldn't honestly say that there wasn't any inkling of suspicion among other police officers that these guys may have stepped over the line. Silence is often a clear sign of acceptance or agreeance..
We can only speculate but generally an employer couldn't hold a person back from promotion because of unproven allegations. The employer would no doubt end up before the employment court getting sued for $$$$$$$$.

[terbang]

Christ what a load of bollocks.

As one of these 'current coppers' I was disgusted by the trial, but I'm even more disgusted by your comments.

Oh and could you please explain how my comments could be more disgusting than 3 men gang-banging a teenage girl with the aid of a police baton..?
BTW thanks for the bling and I also believe that one good turn deserves another..

[Goblin]

We can only speculate but generally an employer couldn't hold a person back from promotion because of unproven allegations.
But the allegations were never proven because they were 'covered up'....'swept under the rug'. She was ignored.
It has only been LN's sheer determination and guts that it has finally been investigated all these years later. And what a tragic outcome! I does look bad for the police in that they are still covering each other and bullying and lying to escape punishment for their wrongs.

Now I dont believe that ALL cops are bad but same as any group or organisation, they will have a few who let the team down.

[mdb]

How can a set of rules (laws) delivery justice? Surely justice involves far more than whether or not a rule was broken. Doesn't situation and motivation pay a large part? Surely Bill Gates stealing a loaf of bread is completely different to someone displaced by war with no house and a family to feed doing the same thing. The law (which is an ass) says both are guilty of a crime punishable by the same sentence.

[The_Dover]

It's not as if Bill Gates isn't a fucking thief anyway! Lock the geek up!

And redistribute his wealth to the needy.

I need new fairings, boots and gloves.

[Paul in NZ]

Look this is crazy!

You are expanding the scope of this thread and turning it into another stupid 'I hate the cops' rant and rave!

Of course there are dodgy police in NZ, but bugger all. In fact I would go so far as to say less than nearly any other country I have ever been too including the UK! However, most people forget that good and evil are NOT absolutes, it's a sliding scale. Does fudging your income tax make you evil? What about taking home a pencil from work? No it does not!

Go back and read my repost of the Rosemary McCloud article, this case is about morality, not about the law. Based on law, this poor woman was always going to lose in court but thats not the point is it? These men behaved poorly but from a legal point of view, possibly legally. "The real question about this case was always was it right? You won't find the answer to that in law, but in conscience."

If the system here was dodgy, this trial would not have happened! It did, the dirty laundry was hung out and those that need to know, now do so. Peoples reputations are in tatters and I think the system did work eventually and I thank my lucky stars that I live in a country that lets a trial like this happen at all! Sure I would have wished for a slightly different result BUT the system did function!

I suggest that we all take the lesson in morality to heart! "Morality is about dealing fairly with other people, and maintaining your own dignity because of it. It's about respect."

Trash talking is not about respect!

Paul N

[The_Dover]

If the system worked and was not dodgy I suspect there would have been a fairer trial a few years back.

Read what I said, I have no beef with the cops they have always been good to me (except some cunt in Scotland when I was 17), but the police FORCE in this case was in the wrong.

[Paul in NZ]

If the system worked and was not dodgy I suspect there would have been a fairer trial a few years back.

Read what I said, I have no beef with the cops they have always been good to me (except some cunt in Scotland when I was 17), but the police FORCE in this case was in the wrong.

No it wasn't.

It was some bad people inside the force. Any organisation is vunerable to this! Our government, the UK's etc etc, any organisation that has rules and in particular some warrent of athourity over other people.

The force can only act on proper information. In this case, based on the evidence it may have been assumed that some people inside the force behaved improperly or badly, but not illegally.

The quest you are asking is, did some other people inside the NZ Police force deliberately either tamper with evidence or cover up evidence that they knew would resul in the conviction of these people. I'm not sure that that is the case!

What I do believe is that for a brief period, the organisation was allowed to develop an attitude that was unhealthy. ie, In my employment contract I'm not allowed to bring disgrace to my company (it's a multi national japanese company) by my private actions. ie, I'd get my arse canned for something like that! Thats not necessarily corruption! Did the British Army act in a corrupt fashion in Northan Ireland? technically probably, moraly yes..

Cheers

[Lou Girardin]

We can only speculate but generally an employer couldn't hold a person back from promotion because of unproven allegations. The employer would no doubt end up before the employment court getting sued for $$$$$$$$.

Come on now Spud, organisations like the Police live by the 'face fits' principle.
Rickards had some powerful patronage down the years.

[The_Dover]

Did the British Army act in a corrupt fashion in Northan Ireland? technically probably, moraly yes..

Cheers

A little off topic and an entirely different scenario.

I think there was a fair amount of corruption in this case and it is not the only one. The shit is probably floating to the top and I would imagine that the force is probably more honest now than 20 years ago.

Luckily one turd has just been flushed tho.

[Indoo]

Disgusted by the trial? Or disgusted by the cops actions?

I am amused that, apparently, it's Ok for the cops to target crims/paedophiles, et al because "once a crim always a crim".
But it doesn't seem to apply to rapist cops.

Disgusted by their actions, legally guilty or not.

[Paul in NZ]

A little off topic and an entirely different scenario.

I think there was a fair amount of corruption in this case and it is not the only one. The shit is probably floating to the top and I would imagine that the force is probably more honest now than 20 years ago.

Luckily one turd has just been flushed tho.

Now that we can agree on!

[terbang]

What I do believe is that for a brief period, the organisation was allowed to develop an attitude that was unhealthy.
Cheers

Yup and as a result of that period (and I would like to believe it was brief) Louise Nicholas initial complaint about certain members of an organisation (the police) conveniently slipped through the cracks for the next 20 years.
Ok the law was eventually carried out to the letter but the trail was cold and the boys walked and she has bared her life to the whole of NZ for nothing but the sting of realisation that the law has little relevance to the issue of morals and the consequence of such actions. Well fuck I reckon it should..! This woman and her family more than likely had a tough life as a result of what happened back then while these guys became sucessful and will probably be paid off well to just slink away into the shadows where they belong in disassociation with the police and keep their traps shut.! I have lived in countries where you bribed police on a daily basis to survive so yes I will give our coppers some credit here and hope we don't go that way but I am apalled at the inhuman nature that the law and its staunch proponents have dismissed Louise Nicholas's plight as just another unfortunate but inevitable fact of law...

[Indoo]

Oh and could you please explain how my comments could be more disgusting than 3 men gang-banging a teenage girl with the aid of a police baton..?
BTW thanks for the bling and I also believe that one good turn deserves another..

The fact that your insinuating that cops are corrupt rapists, based on what three idiots did 20 years ago. And somehow you've made the leap of logic that cops have the kind of mentality that they will take this as a message to go out and rape.

I don't know anyone who hasn't expressed utter disgust at that kind of behaviour and has been glad that legally guilty or not guilty they were held accountable for what they did.

I gave you red with my name attached because you wrote something that not only I disagreed with but also found personally extremely insulting. If you want to cry about it go ahead, hell I could have sent you abusive p'ms like you have, but thats what the red rep function is for. Oh and btw I don't care how much green bling you claimed to have gotten for your comments.

[Lou Girardin]

Disgusted by their actions, legally guilty or not.


For once we agree. Don't let it happen again!

[Goblin]

The fact that your insinuating that cops are corrupt rapists, based on what three idiots did 20 years ago. And somehow you've made the leap of logic that cops have the kind of mentality that they will take this as a message to go out and rape.

I don't know anyone who hasn't expressed utter disgust at that kind of behaviour and has been glad that legally guilty or not guilty they were held accountable for what they did.

I dont think it's so much a case of "cops are corrupt rapists" but these particular cops seem to have given themselves permission to rape and knew they will be protected by the organisation they worked for. Like Terbang said in a prevoius post, there should be an obligation to "hold their colleagues accountable for questionable practise. This requires a very high order of professionalism in persons that people place trust upon." So the from outcome of this trial it seems that you can behave in any manner that takes your fancy and you wont be held accountable. The sadest part is they weren't held accountable! They turned it around to make it look like she was some sort of slut.


Have another read through the thread and you will see a couple at least, who believe what they did was all in good harmless fun. ie she asked for it.

[Goblin]

And how did Rickards make it ALL the way to Assistant Comissioner?

[terbang]

The fact that your insinuating that cops are corrupt rapists, based on what three idiots did 20 years ago.

Uh you mis-interprate my posts as that is not my intention though corrupt police are not unheard of in NZ and in this case at least of 3 of them were not exactly bahaving well

I don't know anyone who hasn't expressed utter disgust at that kind of behaviour and has been glad that legally guilty or not guilty they were held accountable for what they did.

Uh did I say otherwise..?
I gave you red with my name attached because you wrote something that not only I disagreed with but also found personally extremely insulting. If you want to cry about it go ahead, hell I could have sent you abusive p'ms like you have,
I sent you no PMs

but thats what the red rep function is for. Oh and btw I don't care how much green bling you claimed to have gotten for your comments.
The point I was making was that others (including coppers) had agreed with me on this issue and yet you reacted in an agressive and unfounded fashion.


I have a few replies above in red and quite frankly I think your reaction reeks of a raw nerve being touched by my comments (I sincerely hope not) and comes across as similar reaction to that of a cornered ferret. As I stated, while returning you the Rep favour, that you appear to be a bitter and twisted rozzer who does your professions image no favours. In hindsight maybe I wrote the post poorly as Scumdog also reacted and put his reasoned opinion forward and gained an explaination and for that I apologise to him. Perhaps, in the interests of providing a balanced debate, if you disagree with a post you could offer your reasoned disagreeance rather than leaping in and declaring someones post a load of bollocks and red repping them.

[Ixion]

We can only speculate but generally an employer couldn't hold a person back from promotion because of unproven allegations. The employer would no doubt end up before the employment court getting sued for $$$$$$$$.

Hm. Debateable in this case. Certainly an employer may not allow unproven allegations to prejudice employment.

But - an employer certainly may make general reputation standing and esteem of collegues part of the criteriaa for considering promtion.

After all , if every cop in land were to say, when asked, "Oh, Bloggs, he's a totally useless deadweight, I've no repect at all for him, don't trust him, wouldn't want to work with him or for him", then I doubt Bloggs's career would go much further .

So, Mr Rickard's continued rise must provide reason to suppose that the most senior levels of the police hierarchy considered his known reputation as a bully , and the rumours circulating about him, would not lessen the esteem his collegues had for him.

They believed , in fact , that the average cop , if asked, would say "Oh, yeah, we know that he's a nasty piece of work, and yeah, I've heard some pretty foul things about, but that's OK , I'm happy to work with him, I reckon he's a good copper". Not saying the average cop DOES think that, but clearly the police top brass thought that was the general consensus. That Mr Rickard's reputation did not in fact lower him in the estimation of his peers.

Which would seem to indicate something very rotten about the collegiate values of the police force.

Their was an old word . Honour. Went with others, like duty. Seems to be forgotten now.

[terbang]

Careful Ixion you might be implying something there..!

[Scouse]

I gave you red with my name attached because you wrote something that not only I disagreed with but also found personally extremely insultingI suppose you write out parking tickets just as easily as you spread red rep once an officious twat always an officious twat eh Indoo.

[Scouse]

I am amused that, apparently, it's Ok for the cops to target crims/paedophiles, et al because "once a crim always a crim".
But it doesn't seem to apply to rapist cops.I totaly agree with what you are saying here Lou but I am happy that the Police aply this practice particularly to paedophiles. but there does seem to be a hint of a double standard with some of our KB freinds who are in the force.

[Indoo]

reeks of a raw nerve being touched by my comments (I sincerely hope not) and comes across as similar reaction to that of a cornered ferret. As I stated, while returning you the Rep favour, that you appear to be a bitter and twisted rozzer who does your professions image no favours..

Yeh you did hit a raw nerve, I absolutely despise rapists and strongly believe they should all be castrated upon first offence so they can never repeat the act. I've dealt with a few and seen the horrible pain they inflict upon their victims which literally scars them for life not to mention their family and partners. Rape victims will never get over it, the offenders will and will resume the same crimes upon being released to create even more victims.

When you imply that im part of an immoral corrupt organisation who harbours and supports rapists then like hell I'm gonna take offence. What exactly did you expect?


Perhaps, in the interests of providing a balanced debate, if you disagree with a post you could offer your reasoned disagreeance rather than leaping in and declaring someones post a load of bollocks and red repping them.

If you make a balanced intelligent post then you can expect the same in return. Your post in my opinion was a load of bollocks and hence i red repped you and told you it was me who was red repping you. You've sent me abusive pms in the past, because I disagreed with you, why are you crying now?

[Indoo]

I totaly agree with what you are saying here Lou but I am happy that the Police aply this practice particularly to paedophiles. but there does seem to be a hint of a double standard with some of our KB freind who are in the force.

Wow buddy, just please quote the posts from these KB Freind who have given you this impression.

Can you back up what you claim or not?

[Scouse]

Wow buddy, just please quote the posts from these KB Freind who have given you this impression.

Can you back up what you claim or not?Just go back to the beggining of the thread there was a comment made "that just because they have been found guilty of this in the past doesnt mean that they are guilty this time" is a double standard when the normal everyday Scumbag gets a visit every time there is a crime that "fits their modus operandi " like I say I am happy that this happens but this pratice should aslo be Extended to the less normal scumbag the sort of scumbag that devalues the credibility of our police force

[terbang]

why are you crying now?


Looks like the only thing that we are both in agreeance is that each other talks a load of bollocks..! Since I don't value your opinion so much Im also very happy to agree to agree on that..!

[Roadrash]

The verdict is in, let go of the rumours and let the peolple get on with their lives, We have courts to judge people, they had all facts and they came to the conclusions. Rumors help no one

[Scouse]

The verdict is in, let go of the rumours and let the peolple get on with their lives, We have courts to judge people, they had all facts and they came to the conclusions. Rumors help no oneYour very welcome to let it go so see ya later if you dont like it you dont have to look

[terbang]

The verdict is in, let go of the rumours and let the peolple get on with their lives, We have courts to judge people, they had all facts and they came to the conclusions. Rumors help no one

Try telling that to Arthur allan Thomas..

[oldrider]

Try telling that to Arthur allan Thomas..
Yeah, you are right, that is one of the things that keep on playing on my subconscious.:confused:
I have little faith in our justice system and it's not something I feel good about. :no: Ill at ease. John.

[Patrick]

Try telling that to Arthur allan Thomas..

Yep, the bullet was planted, but a lawyer I know also said he is as guilty as sin...but who really knows.

Which was the problem in this Nicholas trial. The facts the jury heard, the arguments etc all came down to "She said they did it against her will. They said she was willing..."

The truth is somewhere in between. Guilty beyond reasonable doubt? Not likely, but who really knows...

[Lou Girardin]

Yep, the bullet was planted, but a lawyer I know also said he is as guilty as sin...but who really knows.

..

You guys will never get over this one will you? Thomas was freed. A cop, or cops, were found to have planted evidence. End of story.

It now seems that an email campaign is spreading the pamphlet's story throughout the country.
It looks like we will have transparency in court dealings whether they like it or not. True people power, thanks to the web.

[SixPackBack]

You guys will never get over this one will you? Thomas was freed. A cop, or cops, were found to have planted evidence. End of story.

It now seems that an email campaign is spreading the pamphlet's story throughout the country.
It looks like we will have transparency in court dealings whether they like it or not. True people power, thanks to the web.

Sure would like to see that E-mail...link anyone?

[Patrick]

You guys will never get over this one will you? Thomas was freed. A cop, or cops, were found to have planted evidence. End of story.

It now seems that an email campaign is spreading the pamphlet's story throughout the country.
It looks like we will have transparency in court dealings whether they like it or not. True people power, thanks to the web.


Duhh......thats what I said? "Yep, the bullet was planted..."

Got over it years ago.

As for the pamphlet, it would be hard for any of the pending matters to get off the ground because they won't receive a fair trial, they are guilty before one will even start. They now need to prove their innocence, which is not how it ever has been. It has been up to the prosecution to prove their guilt, but not now, it would seem. And this pamplet will now help these other victims how????? Looks like it just screwed up their chances of a trial getting off the ground.

[Lou Girardin]

Looks like it just screwed up their chances of a trial getting off the ground.

It seems that the States credit their juries with a lot more sense than here. They rarely use suppression orders to the degree we do, what they do is an voi dire examination of jurers during selection. To assess the influence publicity may have had on their attitudes to the defendant.
But then, this wouldn't allow the legal fraternity to protect their mates, celebrities, cops etc. So we'll never see it.

[terbang]

When you imply that im part of an immoral corrupt organisation who harbours and supports rapists then like hell I'm gonna take offence.

The assistant police commisioner stands in full uniform in the court along with other ex policemen accused of rape and admits that they gangbanged a teenage girl and used a police baton to sexually stimulate her. Rape is not proved but the country is enraged by this immoral behaviour that happened 20 years ago. It has been fairly common knowledge in the organization that he and his buddies had behaved in a manner inappropriate to their positions. During that 20 year period Rickard, under a cone of silence and remaining un-challenged rises through the ranks to a distinguished position in our community. The evidence of a cone of silence indicates that there has been a rotten culture within the organization during that 20 year period that has, for what ever reason, turned a myopic eye to this behaviour. In the same way that it could be implied that I am capable of driving a jet airliner into Mount erebus, the actions of the police leadership has now smeared every member of the police force with a taint of suspicion therefore implying that they could do the same. So don't shoot at me as it is your own kind that has allready implicated you and attacking me will not make the problem go away.
That is the Bitter pill that those that have behaved appropriatly have to swallow when the organisation leadership gets it wrong. Unless you have a badge on your lapel that tells us that you havn't been to Murapara or Rotorua or we know you personally then all we are going to see is a policeman in uniform just like Rickards. Most thinking people in society know that there is a very high chance that any policeman before them is straight but unfortunatly, due to the actions of your ex boss, all policemen are now under suspicion in some small way because of the revelations (official or unofficial) of this case. If your leadership behaved that way and got off scot free then (you go figure)..? Just like when they hear me on the PA they may think of the Mt erebus incident 25years earlier and its "orchestrated lytany of lies" and hope that I wasn't part of that culture that led to NZ's worst air disaster. Sacking rickard will only partially placate the public but will not remove the culture that allowed him to manouvre. The responsibility is now on all policemen in NZ to go to their superiors and get the message across that the actions of a minority has disgusted you and must never again be allowed to go unchecked for so long and to publicly remove the culture that allowed it.. In other words become your brothers keepers and some serious house keeping is now required for your organization.

[spudchucka]

But the allegations were never proven because they were 'covered up'....'swept under the rug'.
There may still be enquiries into those matters so I aint commenting.

Either way the Nicholas allegations have remained unproven and an employer couldn't discriminate based on unproven allegations.

[Blairos]

After reading this thread, i think need to go out for a Ride... :ride: