NZ Police public image

[spudchucka]

Semantics I think
As are a large pecentage of the most recent posts to this thread.

[spudchucka]

Read post 978
I have now......

[Lias]

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but isn't left wing Communist and right wing Fascist ?

Not according to politicalcompass.org

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/images/enParties.gif

Thats a pic from the website that shows the orientation of the major parties in the upcoming british election.

Wolf and I were both about the same place on the left to right axis (roughly midway between the greens and the BNP), but he was way down where the greens are on the vertical, whereas I was about 2/3 of the way to where the BNP is.

Quite an interesting site.

[SPman]

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but isn't left wing Communist and right wing Fascist ?
Left wing, right wing....same fuckin bird!

[Wolf]

Left wing, right wing....same fuckin bird!
Some species of predatory bird that smells of carrion but frequently seeks to feed on the living flesh of the population...

[SPman]

Quite an interesting site.

Shit - I was just inboard of Ghandi ..um...almost as left as the greens and slightly more anarchistic than the Lib - Democrats

Economic Left/Right: -5.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.64

[Wolf]

Shit - I was just inboard of Ghandi ..um...almost as left as the greens and slightly more anarchistic than the Lib - Democrats
I'm not quite as left as Gandhi but about as Libertarian -

Economic Left/Right: -2.63 (Leftish)
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.90 (Libertarianish)

LiasTZ was about that far left and as far into the Authoritarian realm as I was into Libertarian so sorry to say, Jim2, but LiasTZ is politically closer to Stalin than he is to Hitler (however, Economic differences aside, Hitler and Stalin had a lot in common.)

The whole "test your political leaning" thing came about from me chiding LiasTZ for calling me a "Commie" - I said it was nothing but a knee-jerk reaction to my disagreeing with his beliefs and that I expected better of him.

What sucks is I now have to stop calling him a "bloody Nazi" every time he disagrees with me...

[Wolf]

Mrs wolf's (strayjuliet) score was:
Economic Left/Right: -2.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.26 - bloody near dead in the middle of the Social spectrum and "slightly leftish" - she'd be an ideal moderator in arguments between me and LiasTZ if it weren't for her overly right-wing tendencies :killingme

[marty]

Mrs wolf's (strayjuliet) score was:
Economic Left/Right: -2.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.26 - bloody near dead in the middle of the Social spectrum and "slightly leftish" - she'd be an ideal moderator in arguments between me and LiasTZ if it weren't for her overly right-wing tendencies :killingme
i thought that said 'slightly fetish' when i first read it

[RDJ]

By this definition every crime becomes a crime against the person!

In some respects almost* every crime is - IMO - against the person. If a person litters someone has to pay (with his time - turned into money, by tax on his pay) to clean it up. If a person burgles, someone has to pay with his time to replace the stolen goods, fit 'better' protection against burglars, and so forth.

I emphatically would not propose some extra special punishment, but it would be good if occasionally those who decide what crimes will be punished could remember this e.g. that a burglar steals time and that burglary is not a victimless crime to be filed and forgotten.

*but definitely not every crime.

[Clockwork]

As are a large pecentage of the most recent posts to this thread.

Do I detect a hint of anti-semanticism? :laugh:

[Clockwork]

*but definitely not every crime.

Examples please?

[spudchucka]

Economic Left/Right: -1.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.69

That surprised me somewhat.

[MSTRS]

Interesting.
Econ L/R -1.75
Soc/Lib 0.05

[Wolf]

i thought that said 'slightly fetish' when i first read it
What do you mean slightly fetish? :killingme

[RDJ]

Examples please?

Blasphemy

Obscenity

Name-calling whether sexist or racist

Not keeping your yard tidy enough for neighbours' or council's tastes

Failure to carry your driver's licence and produce it on demand

etc.

[drummer]

Actually, LiasTZ and I are about equally "left wing" but we're both equally removed from "Centrist" - in opposite directions (me toward Libertarian/Anarchist, LiasTZ toward Authoritarian/Facist) so with LiasTZ being a strongly Authoritarian Left Winger, that would make him a "Communist"... :killingme

I am a mere "Libertarian Socialist".
Say what? Liaz doesn't sound left wing to me... but there again maybe you know him better... for the record I am far right.

[drummer]

Economic Left/Right: -1.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.69

That surprised me somewhat.
Why? I would have agreed with that from your posts.

I was Economic Left/Right: 5.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.33

About where I thought

[spudchucka]

Why? I would have agreed with that from your posts.

I was Economic Left/Right: 5.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.33

About where I thought
So you're a political scientist who can sum up a persons political leaning from reading a few posts on an internet forum as well as an expert in police procedure and judicial matters???? :niceone:

[inlinefour]

So you're a political scientist who can sum up a persons political leaning from reading a few posts on an internet forum as well as an expert in police procedure and judicial matters???? :niceone:

Well done! I think you've pretty much summed up a few people here "who think they can", which at the end of the day is far worse than those who can...

[drummer]

So you're a political scientist who can sum up a persons political leaning from reading a few posts on an internet forum as well as an expert in police procedure and judicial matters???? :niceone:
Dam... just can't keep a secret can I LOL!

[drummer]

Spud For the record I would like you to show me the post where I argue about current law.... I don't... I say much of it is an ass... police procedures are failing NZer's... the Herald today finds that 1 in 3 kiwis have lost confidence in the constabulary... up significantly from a year ago... meanwhile you are burying your head in the sand and saying ...well it's the law... everythings ok... NO it's not ok Spud... things have to change!

[Blakamin]

the Herald today finds that 1 in 3 kiwis... blah, blah blah
Who did they ask??? other reporters???


what the papers say-----> :whocares:

[drummer]

Who did they ask??? other reporters???


what the papers say-----> :whocares:
You know, you may have a point... I would have thought many more would not be confident.

[drummer]

Good site this politicalcompass.org

[James Deuce]

Who did they ask??? other reporters???


what the papers say-----> :whocares:
What he said. Having studied research methodology, I've decided that it should be called Bullshitology. The questions will have been canted to produce the exact result required to create this particular controversy. They will have sampled no more than 200 people.

Any stats culled from any research study need to be viewed with the most jaundiced eye you can bring to bear. "Scientists" are not impartial observers or interpreters of data, they are money making ideas machines. Research companies attract the least ethical "scientists".

[drummer]

Thats not the point.... disatisfation with the police IS rising... or do you disagree

[James Deuce]

Thats not the point.... disatisfation with the police IS rising... or do you disagree
Yeah I do. I think that political point scoring between a state run media system and privately owned media companies are creating a self-fueled loop.

It obscures the lack of funding of the Police and the fact that Government policy, not Police policy, has set up a paradigm of a partially self funded Police force via the punitive traffic regime implemented of late. I suppose you expect to keep your job if you tell the boss (or client if you are self-employed) to piss-off every time you are given a job or a project to complete. Principles don't put food on the table for your family, and most Police officers I know are principled but pragmatic enough to know what their priorities are. Police officers are people too you know.

Political entities are a different matter, and the current road traffic enforcement policy was approved by anyone who voted at the last 2 elections.

[Lou Girardin]

Yeah I do. I think that political point scoring between a state run media system and privately owned media companies are creating a self-fueled loop.

It obscures the lack of funding of the Police and the fact that Government policy, not Police policy, has set up a paradigm of a partially self funded Police force via the punitive traffic regime implemented of late. I suppose you expect to keep your job if you tell the boss (or client if you are self-employed) to piss-off every time you are given a job or a project to complete. Principles don't put food on the table for your family, and most Police officers I know are principled but pragmatic enough to know what their priorities are. Police officers are people too you know.

Political entities are a different matter, and the current road traffic enforcement policy was approved by anyone who voted at the last 2 elections.

This doesn't seem to have worried several UK Police forces whose representatives have publicly disagreed with their bosses focus on speed revenue.
Surely the Poms aren't braver?
And I don't recall the current traffic policies ever being specifically referred to in any parties manifesto.
But it sure is this time. Face it, people have had enough. They are sick of little old ladies, mums doing the school run etc all being ticket fodder. In fact, the level of disatisfaction with the Police has mirrored the increase in tickets issued.

[James Deuce]

Surely the Poms aren't braver?

That appears to be the case doesn't it? At least from an institutional autopoietic perspective.



And I don't recall the current traffic policies ever being specifically referred to in any parties manifesto.


Neither do I, but things like the stiffer sentences for crims referendum are partially to blame for providing justification for increasing the penalties. Plus I rather suspect that the current Labour led coalition has a penchant for trying out intellectual social theory in the "real" world. Somehow they are getting away with it in a country that used to punish people for winning the local pub quiz twice in a row, let alone studying at University. I'm not saying the old attitudes were a good thing, but a common sense based balance seems to be lacking in in general in NZ at the moment.

[idb]

Yeah I do. I think that political point scoring between a state run media system and privately owned media companies are creating a self-fueled loop.

It obscures the lack of funding of the Police and the fact that Government policy, not Police policy, has set up a paradigm of a partially self funded Police force via the punitive traffic regime implemented of late. Police officers are people too you know.

Political entities are a different matter, and the current road traffic enforcement policy was approved by anyone who voted at the last 2 elections.
I think that dis-satisfaction with the Police IS rising but most of the fault lies elsewhere.
How could they win? They have to enforce government policies that put them into conflict with thousands of ordinary people that they would normally would have no negative contact with, they have to operate within budgets set by politicians with all of the other agendas that they have, they are at the pointy end so they will cop the flak for any complaints (think of the poor desk clerk in the foyer of your local council office) and they are unable to defend themselves from the criticism by directing it to where it belongs.
As well as having their perceived or real failings constantly being exposed by politicians and media for their own agendas.
Sounds like a no-win position to be in when you think about it.

[Lou Girardin]

Who did they ask??? other reporters???


what the papers say-----> :whocares:

Actually there is a public confidence survey commissioned by the Govt every year and has been going for many years. It's even worse, it shows only 53% of respondents consider that the Police are doing a good job.
You are merely shooting the messenger. It would be preferable if Robinson and his cohort start to realise something is going very wrong. But that would mean admitting it's their fault and resigning.
Never mind, they could always sue Helen 5 years later.

[James Deuce]

Actually there is a public confidence survey commissioned by the Govt every year and has been going for many years. It's even worse, it shows only 53% of respondents consider that the Police are doing a good job.
You are merely shooting the messenger. It would be preferable if Robinson and his cohort start to realise something is going very wrong. But that would mean admitting it's their fault and resigning.
Never mind, they could always sue Helen 5 years later.

Yes, and despite appearances Mr Robinson is probably more on to it than he will let on until after he has retired. I saw an interview on Nightline about 3-4 months ago where he was given some stick about the speeding issue and the Police force's focus on speeding and drink driving, and he made some very pointed comments about how the HP were funded by government organisations to provide data or "results" for particular targets and how that translated into funding for extra Police resources.

He was very, very clever in the way he worded the response (though I know that will probably raise a laugh from some) and it certainly made me think quite hard about how my perceptions of the Police Force were being manipulated by all sorts of input and not necessarily in a wholly ethical fashion.

[Lou Girardin]

If that's so, it makes him all the more reprehensible in that he's allowing a once proud and respected force to be demeaned as it is.
Never has the phrase "golden handcuffs" been so apt.

[Blakamin]

Actually there is a public confidence survey commissioned by the Govt every year and has been going for many years. It's even worse, it shows only 53% of respondents consider that the Police are doing a good job.
You are merely shooting the messenger. It would be preferable if Robinson and his cohort start to realise something is going very wrong. But that would mean admitting it's their fault and resigning.
Never mind, they could always sue Helen 5 years later.
but thats a bit different from a newspaper poll... and if they want an opinion, why do they just ask rich people in auckland or wellywood? I've never been asked my opinion (but you get to hear it anyway)

[James Deuce]

If that's so, it makes him all the more reprehensible in that he's allowing a once proud and respected force to be demeaned as it is.
Never has the phrase "golden handcuffs" been so apt.
Nice picture in that AMPS advert. :niceone:

[drummer]

Yeah I do. I think that political point scoring between a state run media system and privately owned media companies are creating a self-fueled loop.

It obscures the lack of funding of the Police and the fact that Government policy, not Police policy, has set up a paradigm of a partially self funded Police force via the punitive traffic regime implemented of late. I suppose you expect to keep your job if you tell the boss (or client if you are self-employed) to piss-off every time you are given a job or a project to complete. Principles don't put food on the table for your family, and most Police officers I know are principled but pragmatic enough to know what their priorities are. Police officers are people too you know.

Political entities are a different matter, and the current road traffic enforcement policy was approved by anyone who voted at the last 2 elections.
what you say I partly agree with however, no-one I have met and spoken with in recent times believes the police are doing a better job now than say 10 years ago. No blame aportioned here just a statement of fact.

[scumdog]

what you say I partly agree with however, no-one I have met and spoken with in recent times believes the police are doing a better job now than say 10 years ago. No blame aportioned here just a statement of fact.

Nobody asked me!! :D

Still doing the same job but spin-doctors and the media are driving a neg attitude

[Lou Girardin]

Nice picture in that AMPS advert. :niceone:

Nice? You need to change your seeing eye dog. :yes:

[Lou Girardin]

Nobody asked me!! :D

Still doing the same job but spin-doctors and the media are driving a neg attitude

They'd have nothing to work with if some of your colleagues didn't give them ammunition.

[spudchucka]

Actually there is a public confidence survey commissioned by the Govt every year
Do you mind posting the latest survey results or a link to them? I'd like to have a read to see how I'm doing.

[spudchucka]

Spud For the record I would like you to show me the post where I argue about current law.... I don't... I say much of it is an ass... police procedures are failing NZer's... the Herald today finds that 1 in 3 kiwis have lost confidence in the constabulary... up significantly from a year ago... meanwhile you are burying your head in the sand and saying ...well it's the law... everythings ok... NO it's not ok Spud... things have to change!
You have become extremely boring and predictable. You want change? Vote National Front!

[Lou Girardin]

Do you mind posting the latest survey results or a link to them? I'd like to have a read to see how I'm doing.

Public confidence in you Spud has not changed.

[spudchucka]

Public confidence in you Spud has not changed.
I suppose you do count as "public" but I didn't need to see a survey to know what you think and quite frankly I don't care. Where's the link I asked for?

[Funkyfly]

Yeah I do. I think that political point scoring between a state run media system and privately owned media companies are creating a self-fueled loop.



Well I don't trust em anymore, I now view them as a necessary evil. This is because 1/2 of those i have met were shockers, power tripping fools.

I have also spent quite a bit of time inside a police station (working by the way) and was pretty shocked with the way they carried on and their comments.

[spudchucka]

Well I don't trust em anymore, I now view them as a necessary evil. This is because 1/2 of those i have met were shockers, power tripping fools.

I have also spent quite a bit of time inside a police station (working by the way) and was pretty shocked with the way they carried on and their comments.
I think I've posted this before. Its pretty melow dramatic but quite true.

Regarding your comments about the way cops carried on inside the police station, all I can say is that cops deal with all sorts of stuff on a daily basis that would make most people faint, black humour and silly antics is a legitimate way for cops to handle these experiences. It isn't unique to police, I know quite a few fire fighters that have similar coping mechanisms.


WHAT IS A POLICE OFFICER?



POLICE are human (believe it or not) just like the rest of us. They come

in both sexes but mostly male. They also come in various sizes. This

sometimes depends on whether you are looking for one or trying to hide

something. However, they are mostly big.



POLICE are found everywhere - on land, on sea, in the air, on horses,

in cars, sometimes in your hair. In spite of the fact that "you can't find

one when you want one", they are usually there when it counts most. The

best way to get one is to pick up the phone.



POLICE deliver lectures, babies, and bad news. They are required to have

the wisdom of Solomon, the disposition of a lamb and the muscles of steel

and are often accused of having a heart to match. He's/she's the one who

rings the door-bell, swallows hard and announces the passing of a loved

one; then spends the rest of the day wondering why he ever took such

a "crummy" job.



On TV, police are an oaf who couldn't find a bull fiddle in a telephone

booth. In real life they are expected to find a little blond boy "about

so high" in a crowd of a half million people. In fiction, he gets help

from private eyes, reporters, and "who-dun-it fans". In real life,

mostly all they get from the public is "I didn't see nuttin'."



When he serves a summons, he's a monster. If he lets you go, he's a doll.

To little kids he's either a friend or a bogeyman, depending on how

the parents feel about it. He works "around the clock" split shifts,

sundays and holidays, and it always kills him when a joker says,

"Hey, tomorrow is Election Day, I'm off, let's go fishing" (that's the

day he works 20 hours).



The police are like the little girl, who, when she was good, was very

very good, but, when she was bad, was horrid. When police are good, "he's

getting paid for it". When he makes a mistake "he's a grafter, and that

goes for the rest of them too." When they shoot a stick-up man he's a

hero, except when the stick-up man is only a 16 year old kid with a toy gun," and anybody coulda seen that".



Lots of them have homes, some of them covered with ivy, but most of them

covered with mortgages. If they drive a big car, he's a chiseler? a little

car, "who's he kidding?". His credit is good; this is very helpful, because

his salary isn't. Police raise lots of kids; most of them belong to

other people.



POLICE see more misery, bloodshed, trouble, and sunrises then the average

person. Like the postman, police must also be out in all kinds of weather.

The uniform changes with the climate, but the outlook on life remains about

the same; mostly a blank, but hoping for a better world.



POLICE like days off, vacation, and coffee. They don't like auto horns,

family fights, and anonymous letter writers. They have a union, but they

can't strike. They must be impartial, courteous, and always remember the

slogan "At your service". This is sometimes hard, especially when a

character reminds you "I'm a taxpayer, I pay your salary".



POLICE get medals for saving lives, stopping runaway horses, and shooting

it out with bandits (once in a while his widow gets the medal). but

sometimes, the most rewarding moment comes when, after some small kindness

to an older person, he feels the warm hand clasp, looks into grateful eyes

and hears, " Thank you and God bless you


Instead of jumping in to criticise why not try putting yourself in their shoes and see if that changes your opinions, even just a little.

[Funkyfly]

I think I've posted this before. Its pretty melow dramatic but quite true.

Regarding your comments about the way cops carried on inside the police station, all I can say is that cops deal with all sorts of stuff on a daily basis that would make most people faint, black humour and silly antics is a legitimate way for cops to handle these experiences. It isn't unique to police, I know quite a few fire fighters that have similar coping mechanisms.


Instead of jumping in to criticise why not try putting yourself in their shoes and see if that changes your opinions, even just a little.

What I heard wasn't black humour, it wasn't some way of coping, it was a blatant disregard for Joe public, a vulgar display of power.

Im well aware of what cops have to put up with, its all you seem to rabbit on about, but as ive said before cops are not forced to do this job, in fact they APPLIED for it! whats more they even get paid!

I say enuff of this "cops suffer on a daily basis" talk, they asked to do it, any of them are free to leave at anytime, plenty of jobs out there at the moment.

And whats more, how about taking responsibility, blaming cops bad attitude on the work load or govt law is pathetic, cops have no excuse for a bad attitude, they are paid to uphold the law and serve the public, if they cant handle it quit! At least quit the moaning.

"oh boohoo I saw this, I saw that, whoa is me, whaaaa"

Do your job well, if you cant, or you cant handle it find another job where your not in charge of people lives!

There is no excuse for the bad attitide prevalent in the highway patrol today.

[Wolf]

Regarding your comments about the way cops carried on inside the police station, all I can say is that cops deal with all sorts of stuff on a daily basis that would make most people faint, black humour and silly antics is a legitimate way for cops to handle these experiences. It isn't unique to police, I know quite a few fire fighters that have similar coping mechanisms.
Instead of jumping in to criticise why not try putting yourself in their shoes and see if that changes your opinions, even just a little.
Up at A&E in my earlier riding days (when I could almost have had my mail delivered there for the sake of efficiency) I got to see the extermely "dark" humour and larking about that the A&E staff used to engage in - don't blame them in the least, not considering the FUBARed people they dealt with on a daily basis. I can't see the cops, fire service, ambos or any other emergency personnel being any different than that, really.

[Lou Girardin]

The black humour is a fact of life. But, you don't take humiliating photos of 'customers' and you don't share that humour with outsiders. That smacks of an arrogant "can't touch me, I'm a cop" attitude. Solomona was hoist with his own petard. Good job, no loss. Now they can hire a decent cop to replace him.

[marty]

There is no excuse for the bad attitide prevalent in the highway patrol today.

you were obviously never stopped and given a ticket by an MOT unit then

[scumdog]

What I heard wasn't black humour, it wasn't some way of coping, it was a blatant disregard for Joe public, a vulgar display of power.

Im well aware of what cops have to put up with, its all you seem to rabbit on about, but as ive said before cops are not forced to do this job, in fact they APPLIED for it! whats more they even get paid!

I say enuff of this "cops suffer on a daily basis" talk, they asked to do it, any of them are free to leave at anytime, plenty of jobs out there at the moment.

And whats more, how about taking responsibility, blaming cops bad attitude on the work load or govt law is pathetic, cops have no excuse for a bad attitude, they are paid to uphold the law and serve the public, if they cant handle it quit! At least quit the moaning.

"oh boohoo I saw this, I saw that, whoa is me, whaaaa"

Do your job well, if you cant, or you cant handle it find another job where your not in charge of people lives!

There is no excuse for the bad attitide prevalent in the highway patrol today.

I'll give you all the bad attitude you want - and still get the job done and do it well.

Job description never said "lock people up, give 'em tickets and make sure you do it with a good attitude". :msn-wink:

The public I deal with get all the attitude they deserve, it gets returned with interest if needed but a good attitude goes both ways too. :niceone:

You don't pay me enough to get a constant good attitude to those not deserving it. :mad:

[Lou Girardin]

you were obviously never stopped and given a ticket by an MOT unit then
You must've needed an attitude adjustment in those days.
I was politeness personified when writing a ticket.
Actually, excessive politeness was guaranteed to wind up the odd angry customer.

[scumdog]

Well I don't trust em anymore, I now view them as a necessary evil. This is because 1/2 of those i have met were shockers, power tripping fools.

I have also spent quite a bit of time inside a police station (working by the way) and was pretty shocked with the way they carried on and their comments.

Stay long enough and you'll get use to it!! :laugh:

I spent quite a bit of time inside a police station (working by the way) with criminals and was shocked at their attitude to the tax-paying public and how they treated them. :msn-wink:

[scumdog]

Solomona was hoist with his own petard. Good job, no loss. Now they can hire a decent cop to replace him.

And another generation grows up with less fear of authority.........

[idb]

I say enuff of this "cops suffer on a daily basis" talk, they asked to do it, any of them are free to leave at anytime, plenty of jobs out there at the moment.

And whats more, how about taking responsibility, blaming cops bad attitude on the work load or govt law is pathetic, cops have no excuse for a bad attitude, they are paid to uphold the law and serve the public, if they cant handle it quit! At least quit the moaning.

Sorry mate but I can't agree.
I actually think that cops in the main are pretty restrained in their "complaining".

Despite what you say, they do have to deal with shit day after day that I know I couldn't be bothered with or really wouldn't want to be dealing with.
When you think about it, how many of the people that they deal with actually want to be talking to them? Bugger all.

Despite that most of the gripes that I hear relate to resourcing issues rather than the work.

Large numbers of cops have taken the option of getting out in the last decade or so as you suggest through the PERF scheme but they are largely the most experienced ones, it can't be good for any organisation to lose the amount of senior staff that they have. Where do the new younger recruits learn a good work culture?

And sure, you're going to get pricks in any large organisation. Why should the Police be any different?
Unfortunately the pricks have just as many powers as the good guys and can really fuck our day up if they want to.
The constraint on inappropriate use of those powers of course is the extra scrutiny that cops are under from all quarters compared to any other section of the community.
I can't think of a more effective leash really - as over the top as it seems at times.

My 2c worth anyway.

[marty]

You must've needed an attitude adjustment in those days.
I was politeness personified when writing a ticket.
Actually, excessive politeness was guaranteed to wind up the odd angry customer.

my first brush with the MOT was @ 14 when i was driving my lawn mower powered go cart along the footpath from one side of my parents section to the other (about 10 metres). the cart was immobilised by said MOTer (who lived 10 houses up the road), never to go again. threatened to make my father's life hell too (he ran a garage).

next brush was in my 1951 6 volt anglia, blown headlight, driving in hamilton where i couldn't even tell if they were on, let alone one was blown - $75, no discretion, no diversion.

next was in my gto, painted in primer grey with spider man black dusting on it. no front bumper (was getting painted) but had the plate mounted on the front with lockwire. $75 for no front bumper. no discretion, no diversion.

all as polite as fuck.

wankers.

i think that people now days take efficient and ruthless ticket writing as having a bad attitude, when in reality it's someone doing their job well. maybe they would be happier if the HP cops stayed inside and trawled the net for porn....

[Ixion]

You must've needed an attitude adjustment in those days.
I was politeness personified when writing a ticket.
Actually, excessive politeness was guaranteed to wind up the odd angry customer.

Gotta say, the old snakes get a bad press nowadays, but I always found them very reasonable. And polite.

And, I know when I was young and starting out riding, I got stopped a few times , but not for a ticket. Local MOT bike guy just pulled me over, said "You're not going to get a ticket but I just want to talk to you about some things that you're doing that could cause you a lot of grief" (more or less) .

I learnt a lot from that guy - and from following some of the bike cops and watching how they rode. Fast AND safe.

And I know for certain that they turned a huge blind eye to the antics that I (and the other local youff) got up to. I reckon they could have filled a ticket book with us anyday of the week , but so long as it wasn't actually dangerous they pretty well turned a blind eye.

Not saying they wouldn't come down hard on you if you did step over the line, mind you.

I reckon the snakes were OK myself.

[drummer]

You have become extremely boring and predictable. You want change? Vote National Front!
Boring and predictable... well Spud thats because I have been consistant in my argument. I ask you again to show me where I argue current law.

[Funkyfly]

I'll give you all the bad attitude you want - and still get the job done and do it well.

Job description never said "lock people up, give 'em tickets and make sure you do it with a good attitude". :msn-wink:

The public I deal with get all the attitude they deserve, it gets returned with interest if needed but a good attitude goes both ways too. :niceone:

You don't pay me enough to get a constant good attitude to those not deserving it. :mad:

To quote from Spuds little poem "What is a police officer?"................

"They must be impartial, courteous, and always remember the

slogan "At your service"."

The measure of a good cop imho is getting the job done while applying those three points. Not sinking to the tit for tat attitude you display above.

You arent the only ones dealing with pricks all day.

You say the public "get all the attitude they deserve", well that kinda flys in the face of being a public service officer.

You should be adove that. Hard? for sure! but a measure of a good man.

[drummer]

Instead of jumping in to criticise why not try putting yourself in their shoes and see if that changes your opinions, even just a little.

Spud... that is an invalid agrument. Why would we put ourselves in "their" shoes? Would they want to walk in mine? If so... they are free to do so... NZ is about choice... if someone is a cop then they CHOOSE to be one... no-one has forced them chainganged them or bullyed them into becoming a member of the police force.

I had a very interesting chat today with a senior police officer. he totally agreed with my thoughts on standards and said that most of his colleagues were sick and tired of being given laws to police that were either too lenient on the criminals or too harsh on the average man... The quota system for ticketing speeders was criticised as being one of the reasons for young people dying in high speed crashes. Instead of targeting areas where the ticket ratio would be low but the offences truly dangerous, all too often to meet the quota Officers were directed towards areas with high offenders of far less danger... eg 60 in a 50 area.

Spud, you call be moring and predictable, but you carry on defending the police force, defending laws which are an ass, defending the average cop on the street (if there is such a thing as average). You argue with me over increased police funding... defend the police who charged a man and then say the outcome of not-guilty was correct DESPITE the outcome costing the poor bloke tens of thousands. Even when confronted with the FACT that the official government survey has found a massive increase in the public disatisfation with the poliuce force, you STILL don't waver from the "company line". Spud, maybe that attitude is what is fundementally wrong with the police... the ole "she'll be right" attitude... the one that bury's it's head in the sand.

Mate, we may have the same interest in our love of bikes, and that is what will see us having a beer togeather sometime. But fundementally you and I are different because I believe that something is amiss with the NZ police. I am not an expert in law, police procedures or "walking in a cops shoes". I am a member of the public... the great unwashed mass out there who's truse in the NZ police has sunk to an all time low.

My suggestion is to listen... and learn what the public need... what the public expect from you and your colleagues... individually we are not all correct... not all experts, but collectively we do have a point.

[Funkyfly]

Sorry mate but I can't agree.

And sure, you're going to get pricks in any large organisation. Why should the Police be any different?
Unfortunately the pricks have just as many powers as the good guys and can really fuck our day up if they want to.

My 2c worth anyway.

the Police force SHOULD be different, these are the guys upholding the LAW!

Its like saying "well the School sector is big, we should expect pricks like child porn viewers to work in it"

Well of course we dont, and shock horror if we find out one is! we expect them to be adove that, why? because their job is one of trust, and people in these positions need to be trusted.

Same with cops, they hold power over the general public, for no special reason other than they applied for it. Its a position of power and therefore trust, and we can rightly expect more for people in these positions.

They are public servents here to protect and serve, not hassle and abuse

Thats prob a bit more than 2 cents worth, any chance of a refund? :D

[avgas]

Ok i leave here alone for a few (weeks not drinks), and the shambles continues....
We do need cops - if your arrogant enough to think otherwise, just remember there are left-handed, mathmatically deranged, motorcycle riding, car driveing assholes out there like me - and we have access to god knows how many chemicals, an ici explosives licence (good for 10,000kgs ive been told), and at least half a dozen firearms.....and i dont even take p.
Without the police, we have no law, no law and i dont think about some of the things i do.
However i dislike the fact the rozzers are now a big fat company, with quotas to fill - why the hell pay tax? The bloody thing is self sufficent just like any other company. When was the last time you had 'Holden NZ tax' on your rego - never. So get rid of the fucken quota, free the good boys to get back to they're jobs and make the world a fuckn better place.
Otherwise people like me might start thinking we wont get caught if our car is all legal, and we drive safe.......;)...........just look at all the gangs in NZ - they have changed all theyre tactics

[scumdog]

To quote from Spuds little poem "What is a police officer?"................

"They must be impartial, courteous, and always remember the

slogan "At your service"."

The measure of a good cop imho is getting the job done while applying those three points. Not sinking to the tit for tat attitude you display above.

You arent the only ones dealing with pricks all day.

You say the public "get all the attitude they deserve", well that kinda flys in the face of being a public service officer.

You should be adove that. Hard? for sure! but a measure of a good man.

In case you didn't notice, the post that refers to is to show the opposite one to that certain members ofthe public show police, funny how it upsets those members of the public????? The fact it may not be accurate doesn't seem to enter into it, (not me at all - as any who have met me will tell you but believe what you want).

[Funkyfly]

In case you didn't notice, the post that refers to is to show the opposite one to that certain members ofthe public show police, funny how it upsets those members of the public????? The fact it may not be accurate doesn't seem to enter into it, (not me at all - as any who have met me will tell you but believe what you want).

All i can go by by mate is your comments, and so far im not impressed with your "your gonna get what i think you deserve" attitude, pretty disappointing really.

By your own admission you give public "attitude" because you think they deserve it, for whateva reason.

I believe the police should try and be above that.

[idb]

the Police force SHOULD be different, these are the guys upholding the LAW!
Its a position of power and therefore trust, and we can rightly expect more for people in these positions.

They are public servents here to protect and serve, not hassle and abuse

Thats prob a bit more than 2 cents worth, any chance of a refund? :D

You're right of course but you snipped out my point about them being under greater scrutiny as a result. That's as it should be.
No refunds but you can carry a credit to your next post.

[idb]

...cops, they hold power over the general public, for no special reason other than they applied for it.
That, however is rubbish.

[spudchucka]

I think I've posted this before. Its pretty melow dramatic but quite true.

Regarding your comments about the way cops carried on inside the police station, all I can say is that cops deal with all sorts of stuff on a daily basis that would make most people faint, black humour and silly antics is a legitimate way for cops to handle these experiences. It isn't unique to police, I know quite a few fire fighters that have similar coping mechanisms.


Instead of jumping in to criticise why not try putting yourself in their shoes and see if that changes your opinions, even just a little.
Drummer is really upset! For some reason he felt he had to give me negative rep for this post.

[spudchucka]

Do your job well, if you cant, or you cant handle it find another job where your not in charge of people lives!
No body is in charge of a persons life other than themselves. As for the rest of your post :finger: :finger: you've missed every point.

[spudchucka]

The black humour is a fact of life. But, you don't take humiliating photos of 'customers' and you don't share that humour with outsiders. That smacks of an arrogant "can't touch me, I'm a cop" attitude. Solomona was hoist with his own petard. Good job, no loss. Now they can hire a decent cop to replace him.
I agree 100% about Solomona, good ridance.

[spudchucka]

Actually, excessive politeness was guaranteed to wind up the odd angry customer.
Nothings changed!

[drummer]

Drummer is really upset! For some reason he felt he had to give me negative rep for this post.
Hmm... now how did I do that? I posted a comment... anyhow someone posted something about me... how do you tell who it is?

[spudchucka]

Boring and predictable... well Spud thats because I have been consistant in my argument. I ask you again to show me where I argue current law.
Post 919

There you go... quoting existing law... but don't you understand that the existing law is an ass...

Post 916

The one that the farmer was charged under. If you haven't got my point, the farmer should NOT HAVE BEEN CHARGED!!!!!

Post 898

Spud... thanks for your long reply earlier, however you are arguing on a different plane... I am not debating what the law is now... I am simply saying that the current law is an ass...

Secondly... you say I am a hard man... yes... I am... against lowlife scum. Let me ask you a simple question.. (assuming you made the law) Do YOU believe that a criminal caught in the act of stealing should be protected or not? If you do then how far would YOU allow the victim to go in preventing the crime from happening?

Post 849

What an absolute load of codswallop. Maybe the farmer broke the existing law... but the existing law is stupid to the max. Why.... WHY do you as a cop justify some piece of scum having any rights when committing an offence against a person. You say... it wasn't against the person... bollocks... the farmer worked hard to afford the Quad.... to steal it IS an offence.

The existing law is an ass! The one the farmer was charged under! The current law is an ass! The existing law is stupid to the max!

What law(s) are you talking about? I don't think you even have any idea and are just ranting generically about "The Law". Try being specific.

[drummer]

Post 919


Post 916


Post 898


Post 849


The existing law is an ass! The one the farmer was charged under! The current law is an ass! The existing law is stupid to the max!

What law(s) are you talking about? I don't think you even have any idea and are just ranting generically about "The Law". Try being specific.
Late nighter as well huh! I have repeatedly said that I believe that in particular the law that allowed the police to charge the farmer in question and yet didn't protect him financially. However there are many laws I feel are an "ass". For example the law that detirmines speed on roads being uniform for different skill levels of drivers and riders.

I am not a lawyer... not a cop... try reading my lengthy post earlier tonight.

[spudchucka]

Spud... that is an invalid agrument. Why would we put ourselves in "their" shoes?If you are so quick to find fault why not put yourself in the shoes of those you critiscise? What harm can it do. All police officers were civilians before they were cops, they know what it is like to be "the public". The public don't "know" what it is like to be a police officer.


if someone is a cop then they CHOOSE to be one... no-one has forced them chainganged them or bullyed them into becoming a member of the police force.I agree 100%. If they don't want to do the job they should quit. I love my job! Somethings about it suck, other things about it are great. In that respect its no different to any job.


I had a very interesting chat today with a senior police officer. he totally agreed with my thoughts on standards and said that most of his colleagues were sick and tired of being given laws to police that were either too lenient on the criminals or too harsh on the average man...I'd be surprised if there were many cops that thought terribly different to this.


The quota system for ticketing speeders was criticised as being one of the reasons for young people dying in high speed crashes. Instead of targeting areas where the ticket ratio would be low but the offences truly dangerous, all too often to meet the quota Officers were directed towards areas with high offenders of far less danger... eg 60 in a 50 area.You got anything new to tell us?


you carry on defending the police force, defending laws which are an ass, defending the average cop on the street (if there is such a thing as average).Defending laws that are an ass? I'll ask you again, which laws are you talking about?

The average cop on the street deserves to be defended because he / she is the life blood of any police force. Without them there would be chaos.

I defend the New Zealand Police where I see the organisation being unjustly critiscised. Where critiscism is fair I will also critiscise but not with the over emotional BS that most nay sayers do.


You argue with me over increased police funding...I do what? Have you been reading the same thread? Give me funding! I want more funding!


defend the police who charged a man and then say the outcome of not-guilty was correct DESPITE the outcome costing the poor bloke tens of thousands.This appears to be your main issue with me. I'll explain it once more. The farmers quad was stolen in a burglary. The farmer shot one of the burglars. The farmer was charged, correctly, as he had offended against a number of statutes. This was the correct action as it is not the police role to decide on guilt or innocence. Their roll is to prosecute offenders and put the evidence before the Court. The Court is the correct and only appropriate forum to decide whether the farmer could be convicted of those offences. It is my PERSONAL opinion that the outcome of the Court was the correct one as I too believe in the right to defend property. However, putting on my law enforcement hat, I also believe that the farmer was quite lucky to not be convicted as the laws are quite clear. The legal costs faced by the farmer are irrelevant, he put himself in that position when he pulled the triger. The same costs could be faced by anybody speeding or drink driving and subsequently caused a serious injury of fatal crash. Its the legal system we have, its not always fair but thats life for you isn't it.


Even when confronted with the FACT that the official government survey has found a massive increase in the public disatisfation with the poliuce force, you STILL don't waver from the "company line".On this forum the opinions I express are my own. If people like you want to actively put the police down thats fine but if I dissagree with your arguement then I'm just a brain washed cop towing the company line?


Spud, maybe that attitude is what is fundementally wrong with the police... the ole "she'll be right" attitude... the one that bury's it's head in the sand.There is very little of that attitude in the police as far as I'm concerned. How do you justify that comment?


Mate, we may have the same interest in our love of bikes, and that is what will see us having a beer togeather sometime. But fundementally you and I are different because I believe that something is amiss with the NZ police. I am not an expert in law, police procedures or "walking in a cops shoes". I am a member of the public... the great unwashed mass out there who's truse in the NZ police has sunk to an all time low.

My suggestion is to listen... and learn what the public need... what the public expect from you and your colleagues... individually we are not all correct... not all experts, but collectively we do have a point.I've never said you don't have a point. Nor have I said that the public should not be listened to. I do believe the police should be under a constant state of self / peer review. However I don't think that the police should be an organisation that is instantly reactive to any sign of public dissatisfaction. The nature of police work is such that there will always be aspects of the job that gets up the nose of the public.

[spudchucka]

Hmm... now how did I do that? I posted a comment... anyhow someone posted something about me... how do you tell who it is?
You haven't been around long enough to see who gives you rep, either good or bad. When you become a senior member you will be able to see who has blessed you with their good or bad tidings.


It looks something like this....

NZ Police/Police Public... 3rd May 2005 22:14 drummer "shakes head"

Thanks a lot by the way, I hope you didn't shake your head too hard and get a neck strain.

[spudchucka]

Late nighter as well huh! I have repeatedly said that I believe that in particular the law that allowed the police to charge the farmer in question and yet didn't protect him financially. However there are many laws I feel are an "ass". For example the law that detirmines speed on roads being uniform for different skill levels of drivers and riders.

I am not a lawyer... not a cop... try reading my lengthy post earlier tonight.
I did read it. If you are going to have very strong opinions about something shouldn't you at least take the time to become fully informed before lighting up over it?

[drummer]

If you are so quick to find fault why not put yourself in the shoes of those you critiscise? What harm can it do. All police officers were civilians before they were cops, they know what it is like to be "the public". The public don't "know" what it is like to be a police officer..
Nor does the public need to. The police have taken on a job that is known to be difficult. The public will never fully understand... either what it's like or why you choose that job.


I agree 100%. If they don't want to do the job they should quit. I love my job! Somethings about it suck, other things about it are great. In that respect its no different to any job... Then why does Joe Average need to know what it's like? If it's not forced upon anyone then it is indeed just another job... however, there is a couple of differences... the "power factor"... the one factor the public currently can not control. If a "bad cop" wants to, he or she can make life very hard for someone... Also, the public expect the police to do their job efficiently, honourably and fairly. Unfortunately, the public disatisfation is increasing because the force is becoming inefficient, many officers are dishonourable, and the perception of unfairness is also a factor.


Defending laws that are an ass? I'll ask you again, which laws are you talking about?. Already answered.


The average cop on the street deserves to be defended because he / she is the life blood of any police force. Without them there would be chaos.. Maybe so... but just who is the "average" cop? Take my experience... every cop (bar two that work in schools nearby) I have met since returning to NZ 3 years ago from oZ has appeared to be arrogant, a couple were outright rude. I have never had a ticket or been issued a warning since returning... I am talking about ringing police to report a crime... talking to them asking for directions and being told to "move along"... things like that... hey I AM THE PUBLIC!! What do you reckon I should think?


I defend the New Zealand Police where I see the organisation being unjustly critiscised. Where critiscism is fair I will also critiscise but not with the over emotional BS that most nay sayers do.. See above!


I do what? Have you been reading the same thread? Give me funding! I want more funding!. Good agreed on that!


This appears to be your main issue with me. I'll explain it once more. The farmers quad was stolen in a burglary. The farmer shot one of the burglars. The farmer was charged, correctly, as he had offended against a number of statutes. This was the correct action as it is not the police role to decide on guilt or innocence. Their roll is to prosecute offenders and put the evidence before the Court. The Court is the correct and only appropriate forum to decide whether the farmer could be convicted of those offences. It is my PERSONAL opinion that the outcome of the Court was the correct one as I too believe in the right to defend property. However, putting on my law enforcement hat, I also believe that the farmer was quite lucky to not be convicted as the laws are quite clear. The legal costs faced by the farmer are irrelevant, he put himself in that position when he pulled the triger. The same costs could be faced by anybody speeding or drink driving and subsequently caused a serious injury of fatal crash. Its the legal system we have, its not always fair but thats life for you isn't it.. That just does Not stack up... firstly you state that it isn't the roll of the police to decide on guilt or innocence. Maybe so... but there is a little word called discretion... that is used everyday when a police officer may overlook something... if the police have a stated role to prosecute offenders (your words... how can they be offenders until proven guilty?) when statutes are broken then no discretion could be used. The police have a duty to keep the peace by upholding the law. Their prime role must be to keep the peace... not uphold the law... and thats where I believe as a member of the great unwashed mass out there that the NZ police failed in the case of the farmer.

I strongly take issue with you on your comment that the cost to the farmer is irrelevant... ask the farmer if those costs are irrelevant. The farmer has been found to be not guilty... the police LOST...


On this forum the opinions I express are my own. If people like you want to actively put the police down thats fine but if I dissagree with your arguement then I'm just a brain washed cop towing the company line?. Again.. thats your opinion but not the way I see it as a member of the public


There is very little of that attitude in the police as far as I'm concerned. How do you justify that comment?. You for example say that the laws regarding the farmers case worked well. You have defended the 111 system... two issues that I find difficult to understand... you say those things are working well while we have a farmer that is almost bankrupt for defending his property from scum and a 111 system that has seen failure after failure.


I've never said you don't have a point. Nor have I said that the public should not be listened to. I do believe the police should be under a constant state of self / peer review. However I don't think that the police should be an organisation that is instantly reactive to any sign of public dissatisfaction. The nature of police work is such that there will always be aspects of the job that gets up the nose of the public.
easy answer Spud... I agree that the police shouldn't be reactive, howver they need to listen... I take issue with the mention of self and peer review... by limiting reviews in this manner the force becomes insular. What about something like Queensland has... the CJC... an independent body reviewing all aspects of policing.

I am off to bed... take care... stay safe from those naughty crims!

[drummer]

You haven't been around long enough to see who gives you rep, either good or bad. When you become a senior member you will be able to see who has blessed you with their good or bad tidings.


It looks something like this....


Thanks a lot by the way, I hope you didn't shake your head too hard and get a neck strain.
Aha... thats what happened!

[drummer]

I did read it. If you are going to have very strong opinions about something shouldn't you at least take the time to become fully informed before lighting up over it?
Are you saying that opinion should only be expressed by "experts"?

[Indoo]

[
Im well aware of what cops have to put up with, its all you seem to rabbit on about, but as ive said before cops are not forced to do this job, in fact they APPLIED for it! whats more they even get paid!.

Wow geez, some people actually 'APPLIED' to suffer daily verbal abuse, the constant threat of being assaulted/killed and whats even more they expected to be paid for it? what effrontery.


I say enuff of this "cops suffer on a daily basis" talk, they asked to do it, any of them are free to leave at anytime, plenty of jobs out there at the moment.

Unfortunately and somewhat stupidly maybe they actually thought that they could help a few people. I've got a degree and all that, i could make twice what i make in the private sector. But why should i expect others to do a job for me i didn't have the balls to do myself?


And whats more, how about taking responsibility, blaming cops bad attitude on the work load or govt law is pathetic, cops have no excuse for a bad attitude, they are paid to uphold the law and serve the public, if they cant handle it quit! At least quit the moaning.

No thats right cops have no right to complain. Just grin and take it on the chin, you don't have the same rights as all those other 9 to 5'ers.


Do your job well, if you cant, or you cant handle it find another job where your not in charge of people lives!

Thats right Funky and I'm sure there are people just like you willing to replace them, if your English was any better I'm sure you would be down there right now. After all how could you turn down a job that offers you average/poor pay, terrible working conditions and none of the rights every single other worker in the country has.

I at least have a smidgen of respect for Lou's opinions, at least he has been in similar shoes and has a degree (dare i say it) of wisdom. But unfortunately you have none of that.

[drummer]

[Unfortunately and somewhat stupidly maybe they actually thought that they could help a few people. I've got a degree and all that, i could make twice what i make in the private sector. But why should i expect others to do a job for me i didn't have the balls to do myself? Give me strength! here have a medal... :whocares:

[Clockwork]

Your post #1084 above has just demonstrated everything Drummer & Funkyfly have been saying about the attitude displayed by some officers. If you do your job with that chip on your shoulder then don't be offended because members of the non-criminal public (yes, we do exist) are starting to express dissatisfaction with the Police.

You may feel you are simply refelecting the publics attitude back at them but as you implied in your post, Police Officers are a higher form of life than the rest of us so maybe we should expect better from them.

[James Deuce]

Your post #1084 above has just demonstrated everything Drummer & Funkyfly have been saying about the attitude displayed by some officers. If you do job with that chip on your shoulder then don't be offended because members of the non-criminal public (yes, we do exist) are starting to express dissatisfaction with the Police.

You may feel you are simply refelecting the publics attitude back at them but as you implied in your post, Police Officers are a higher form of life than the rest of us so maybe we should expect better from them.

I just read, and reread post 1084, and I just can't read into it what you did. Did you remove "the I've been indoctrinated by the media to expect a cynical, laissez faire brute everytime I deal with a police person" filters before you read it?

It's getting a bit out of hand, to perform character assasinations on people you've never met just because of their occupation. The steadfast refusal to separate Government policy from Policing is, well, really, really OLD.

If you guys came up with a new tune, you might find yourself in a meaningful and worthy debate, but you're trotting out emotive over done arguments. Lou provides a perspective with his views, and he tends to have at least some ammo before opening fire.

[marty]

Thanks a lot by the way, I hope you didn't shake your head too hard and get a neck strain.

maybe it wasn't the head attached to the top of his neck he was shaking....

[Lou Girardin]

And another generation grows up with less fear of authority.........

It used to be RESPECT for authority. If fear of the Police is needed, then there are several good examples; Argentina, Chile, China, most of the Middle East, etc.
You don't really want that, do you?

[Clockwork]

I took particular exception to the comment....

"Unfortunately and somewhat stupidly maybe they actually thought that they could help a few people. I've got a degree and all that, i could make twice what i make in the private sector. But why should i expect others to do a job for me i didn't have the balls to do myself?"

...which I took to imply that anyone who isn't a cop is not fit to express a opinion on the matter.

Now I dont feel anything else I said constituted a charater assasination, but since you mention it, I can't recall ever seeing a post from indoo that wasn't sarcastic and/or abusive
eg.
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/s...34&postcount=52

[Lou Girardin]

my first brush with the MOT was @ 14 when i was driving my lawn mower powered go cart along the footpath from one side of my parents section to the other (about 10 metres). the cart was immobilised by said MOTer (who lived 10 houses up the road), never to go again. threatened to make my father's life hell too (he ran a garage).

next brush was in my 1951 6 volt anglia, blown headlight, driving in hamilton where i couldn't even tell if they were on, let alone one was blown - $75, no discretion, no diversion.

next was in my gto, painted in primer grey with spider man black dusting on it. no front bumper (was getting painted) but had the plate mounted on the front with lockwire. $75 for no front bumper. no discretion, no diversion.

all as polite as fuck.

wankers.
i think that people now days take efficient and ruthless ticket writing as having a bad attitude, when in reality it's someone doing their job well. maybe they would be happier if the HP cops stayed inside and trawled the net for porn....

It still rankles doesn't it, you were subject to efficient and ruthless ticket writing, the cop was doing his job well. Those tickets were no less deserved than doing 111 km/h on an empty Desert Rd.
But I really think that those cops were offended by your taste in vehicles though.

[marty]

nothing wrong with a ford pop, with 10hp E93a flat head even!

and the gto WAS one of the original BR cars.....didn't quite have the panache of the 160Jsss or series 1 RX7, or god help us the celeste.....but it was quick and reliable.

[Lou Girardin]

You don't have to be in an occupation in order to criticise it. Soemtimes the people doing the job can't see the forest for the trees. The Police DO have problems ranging from recruitment standards to resourcing to priorities, and their bosses don't seem to know/care about them.
For those that say "Police are just like everyone else", we were told at MOT training that we were no longer civilians. We had to be better, on and off duty. While there were 800 of us watching the public. There were 3 million of them watching us.
This still applies today.

[spudchucka]

maybe it wasn't the head attached to the top of his neck he was shaking....
I did think that for a moment but because I'm supposed to be above those thoughts I quickly discarded any notion of suggesting Drummer is a wanker.

[spudchucka]

Are you saying that opinion should only be expressed by "experts"?
No! I'm saying you should at least attempt to educate yourself on a topic before being excessively outspoken about it. Something that is seriously lacking around this thread.

[drummer]

I just read, and reread post 1084, and I just can't read into it what you did. Did you remove "the I've been indoctrinated by the media to expect a cynical, laissez faire brute everytime I deal with a police person" filters before you read it?

It's getting a bit out of hand, to perform character assasinations on people you've never met just because of their occupation. The steadfast refusal to separate Government policy from Policing is, well, really, really OLD.

If you guys came up with a new tune, you might find yourself in a meaningful and worthy debate, but you're trotting out emotive over done arguments. Lou provides a perspective with his views, and he tends to have at least some ammo before opening fire.
this absolutely personifies what is wrong here... The police motto is "Building safer communities togeather" Note that word "togeather"... in other words the police state in their motto that they want to work WITH the public... All the police reps here are doing is to argue AGAINST what many are trying to say... that the police force needs a major shakeup... it's an "us vs them" thing... all the police reps here have bleated about the poor "cops on the street"... but NOTHING about the poor public that feels a rapidly increasing disatisfaction with the NZ police force. There have been NO suggestions from any one of our police reps about how WE the public could better work with the Police... all we are told is that we the public don't understand how difficult the job is...

Like it or lump it, the disatisfaction is rising... now you can blame it on the media, lack of public perception... the Government, commissioner, you gand daddy's dog... but... the disatisfaction IS rising... thats a fact!

To cap it all off Spud has now resorted to a thinly deguised pattern of abuse... http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=229990&postcount=1094 and he also tells us that WE THE PUBLIC... (quote) "...should at least attempt to educate yourself on a topic before being excessively outspoken about it. Something that is seriously lacking around this thread." http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=229993&postcount=1095 is Spud seriously suggesting that unless we the public are not "educated" on the subject we can't express an opinion? Do you honestly believe that Spud? Lets go further... who detirmines the right "education"? Are you suggesting that the public isn't knowledgeable about what it's like to be let down, abused, accused incorrectly, etc etc? Plus... I would seriously doubt your own education on the subject... all you police reps here... you do NOT know what it's like to be a mere "member of the public" these days. So before any of you start lecturing to the public about needing to become "educated" on a subject before having an opinion, take a long hard look in the mirror... and for once... stop and listen to what we say... because we just may have a point!

[spudchucka]

Nor does the public need to. The police have taken on a job that is known to be difficult. The public will never fully understand... either what it's like or why you choose that job.You can have an informed opinion or you can have an ignorant opinion, the choice is yours. Putting yourself in the shoes of those you critiscise may help rationalise your arguements. Its only a suggestion, you choose for yourself.


Then why does Joe Average need to know what it's like?The don't need to know but it wouldn't hurt them to have some idea, especially if they are very outspoken about the faults of the organisation and those who work in it.


the "power factor"... the one factor the public currently can not control. If a "bad cop" wants to, he or she can make life very hard for someone... What "power" are you talking about? The power to arrest? The power to search? Be specific for once in this thread. Bad cops shoot themselves in the foot eventually or the system does it for them.


Also, the public expect the police to do their job efficiently, honourably and fairly. Unfortunately, the public disatisfation is increasing because the force is becoming inefficient, many officers are dishonourable, and the perception of unfairness is also a factor.The police have been aware for a long time that public confidence is falling. The last survey I read, (about 2000 - 2001) said that the major source of dissapointment was lack of follow up to complaints, not heavy handed policing of the roads, that caused the bulk of the dissatisfaction.

This to me suggests that the poor resourcing of general policing is a bigger factor than any road policing issues. In fact a 9 day survey of 750 people over the Easter period showed that 47.6% felt that road policing was about right at the moment. A further 22% said that police should be even tougher on the roads than the currently are. Only 27.8% said they thought the polcie were being too strict on the roads. If you had been here for more than five minutes you would have seen previously that I have always advocated increasing general police resources and leaving raod policing at it current level.


Already answered.No you haven't!


every cop (bar two that work in schools nearby) I have met since returning to NZ 3 years ago from oZ has appeared to be arrogant, a couple were outright rude. What did they do that made them appear arrogant?


That just does Not stack up... firstly you state that it isn't the roll of the police to decide on guilt or innocence. Maybe so... but there is a little word called discretion... that is used everyday when a police officer may overlook something...Do you want a police force that is judge, jury and executioner? The farmer committed an offence and in doing so he injured a person and could just as easily have killed that person. The correct course of action is to put him before the Court. There is no exception to this course of action and you will not persuade me otherwise, so quit trying.

Discretion is there to be used where appropriate. It is not appropriate for discretion to be used where somebody has been shot by another person. The suggestion is simply absurd.


if the police have a stated role to prosecute offenders (your words... how can they be offenders until proven guilty?) Oh well, golly, I guess we have to say "alleged" offender then if we are going to nit picky.


The police have a duty to keep the peace by upholding the law.Thats what they did, whats your problem?


Their prime role must be to keep the peace... not uphold the law... But you just said that they keep the peace by upholding the law. Which is it? Uphold the law or keep the peace? Ever give thought to the fact that you can't do one withoput also doing the other?



I strongly take issue with you on your comment that the cost to the farmer is irrelevant... ask the farmer if those costs are irrelevant. The farmer has been found to be not guilty... the police LOST... The matter of costs is a justice matter not a police matter. As part of any decision to charge an "alleged" offender should the police consider whether or not they may have to pay legal costs to the defendant if they are found not guilty? How would this effect what should be an inpartial decision, (whether or not to charge) on the part of the police. Would we then have area commanders shitting bricks over their operating budget dissapearing down the justice system gurgler. Would we then have senior police managers vitoing Court proceedings because of financial constraints? How would that serve justice?


You for example say that the laws regarding the farmers case worked well.Thats your interpretation. What I have sadi is that it was appropriate and correct to charge the farmer. Regarding the outcome of the Court hearing I have said that it is my personal opinion that the outcome was also appropriate. You have said that the law is an ass, I have simply been asking you to clarify which laws exactly are the asses you refer to.


You have defended the 111 system...Have I? Where? The people who work in the Comms centres by and large do an exceptional job. The 111 system itself however is full of flaws.


two issues that I find difficult to understand... you say those things are working well while we have a farmer that is almost bankrupt for defending his property from scum and a 111 system that has seen failure after failure. Whats your point?


I take issue with the mention of self and peer review... by limiting reviews in this manner the force becomes insular.Review isn't limited to only self and peer review. I didn't say that self and peer review was the only appropriate method of examining police performance. You are proving to be a master of assumption and misinterpretation.

There are currently a number of independant reviews underway as well as internal investigations and reviews.

http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/1880.php
http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/1879.php
http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/1862.php
http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/1858.php
http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/1860.php
http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/1854.php
http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/1841.php
http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/1840.php
http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/1821.php
http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/1809.php
http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/1793.php
http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/1766.php

These were from just the first four pages of the news section of the police web site.

[spudchucka]

To cap it all off Spud has now resorted to a thinly deguised pattern of abuse... http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=229990&postcount=1094 Have you lost your sense of humour somewhere in this "debate".


and he also tells us that WE THE PUBLIC... (quote) "...should at least attempt to educate yourself on a topic before being excessively outspoken about it. Something that is seriously lacking around this thread." http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=229993&postcount=1095 is Spud seriously suggesting that unless we the public are not "educated" on the subject we can't express an opinion?Go ahead and express whatever opinion you want to. Informed opinions will be treated with the respect accorded to them. Ignorant opinions will not.

[inlinefour]

Thats one thing that there is a plenty of here - ignorant opinions and people making assumptions :puke:

[Ixion]

The police have been aware for a long time that public confidence is falling. The last survey I read, (about 2000 - 2001) said that the major source of dissapointment was lack of follow up to complaints, not heavy handed policing of the roads, that caused the bulk of the dissatisfaction.


It's both actually. Bear in mind that 90% of the public are essentially law abiding. The only contact they will ever have with the police in the course of their lives is either when they are the victims of a crime (most commonly burglary/theft); or when they get a traffic ticket.

Before the police were responsible for traffic duties, it may have taken several days for Joe Public had someone come round and look at his burglary. But that contact was the only interaction Joe had with the police, and they were on his side. So he was willing to say "Yeah, took them three days to come round, but I guess they're busy as hell". Joe regarded the police as being "on his side" (Those bastige traffic cops were another matter)

But now, the day after the burglary, like as not Joe gets a speeding ticket. From the police. Who manifestly are now not on his side. So Joe thinks "Hummph. They haven't got time to come round to my burglary. But they've got time to give me a ticket. How come when I'm cast as the criminal there's plenty of police to pull me up. But when I'm the victim the police don't want to know."

Which may be unfair , but is human nature.

But - having said that, I must say that I do think there is some validity in the comments about the attitude of the police having changed somewhat, from a "partnership with the public" to "the public are the enemy". I suspect this is carry over from the VicRoads worship at headquarters. I certainly think that the attitude of the Victoria police force can be summed up as terrorise everyone. I don't really think the Victoria paradigm is suitable for a free country.

I think that the police (not necessarily anyone here, just "police" as an abstract entity) do need to look at how they regard the public. Like I said, 90% of the public regard themselves as lawabiding (ie they don't consider themselves as criminals). In some cases this may be self delusiuon, but in most cases it is valid. The guy who gets a ticket for 111kph does not consider himself as being in the same league as the guy who knocks an old lady down and steal her handbag. Or a burglar. Nor should he, but the attitude of the police (once again, not anyone here) all too often comes across as equating the two. Joe Public thinks "I'm no criminal". And resents the implication that he is. Since it is the police who are implying that he is a criminal, he feels anti toward the police.

[Lou Girardin]

No! I'm saying you should at least attempt to educate yourself on a topic before being excessively outspoken about it. Something that is seriously lacking around this thread.

A lot of us are reasonably well educated Spud, it's just that we don't agree with you.

[scumdog]

It used to be RESPECT for authority. If fear of the Police is needed, then there are several good examples; Argentina, Chile, China, most of the Middle East, etc.
You don't really want that, do you?

Read my PM to you Lou.
Respect for ANY authority is gone in a lot of cases for some and the only thing that kept them in line was fear (cane, boot up the arse) and now that is gone.

I'm only talking about a small minority here but boy! do they create a lot of mayhem out there with their crimes.

I guess 'fear' was maybe a bit strong a word to use but you get my drift.;

[Funkyfly]

Wow geez, some people actually 'APPLIED' to suffer daily verbal abuse, the constant threat of being assaulted/killed and whats even more they expected to be paid for it? what effrontery.
.

Grow up mate, if you apply for a job and dont know what it entails then your an idiot. Sheesh.




Unfortunately and somewhat stupidly maybe they actually thought that they could help a few people. I've got a degree and all that, i could make twice what i make in the private sector. But why should i expect others to do a job for me i didn't have the balls to do myself?

.

For those people in ANY job trying to help people hat off to them! But if youre trying to put all cops in the "im doing this for society" basket then you are very one eyed my friend cause theres a whloe basket over there filled with cops, its has a giant sign on it reading "POWER, Get your power here!"




No thats right cops have no right to complain. Just grin and take it on the chin, you don't have the same rights as all those other 9 to 5'ers.


Everyone can complain. But if you expect anyone to listen maybe you should listen to others! All you cops do is bash those that say they see a problem in the force and it seems to be getting worse. I dont recall one of you saying "gee we didnt realise how people view us thanks for that, you were treated wrong, we do need to work on that" its all "we have to deal with this, we have to handle that, moan, groan, boo hoo"



Thats right Funky and I'm sure there are people just like you willing to replace them, if your English was any better I'm sure you would be down there right now. After all how could you turn down a job that offers you average/poor pay, terrible working conditions and none of the rights every single other worker in the country has.

I at least have a smidgen of respect for Lou's opinions, at least he has been in similar shoes and has a degree (dare i say it) of wisdom. But unfortunately you have none of that.

and here come the personal attacks, "i have a degree, you cant spell yadda yadda" "you have no wisdom" - thats nice mate, i appreciated your comments, i will try and work on my english.

Yawn.

[scumdog]

I do my job, I do it the best I can, I am too old to even think about this "power trip" thing (let you know when I see someone who does have a "power trip" thing).

The most serious neg. comments I've had from anybody have been on this site.

I've never 'bashed' anybody.

I have never abused anybody.

I have as much fun as I can doing the job.

I don't give a fat rats arse about the members who post neg. comments on this site because I know in any society there are those who would NEVER find things completely to their satisfaction and whose reason 'd' etre' seems to be to complain.

The complaints are hollow shells, I mean WHAT is the complaining going to change?

Public opinion? meh, only bitching I get is from my riding mates and I give it back to them too.

Funkfly et al, keep going as you are if it makes you happy, I don't feel a need a change is due on MY part until I get some REAL feed-back that I'm not doing the right thing, THEN I'll happily change my ways/attitude etc.

Cheers guys :niceone:

[Lou Girardin]

The police have been aware for a long time that public confidence is falling. The last survey I read, (about 2000 - 2001) said that the major source of dissapointment was lack of follow up to complaints, not heavy handed policing of the roads, that caused the bulk of the dissatisfaction.

This to me suggests that the poor resourcing of general policing is a bigger factor than any road policing issues. In fact a 9 day survey of 750 people over the Easter period showed that 47.6% felt that road policing was about right at the moment. A further 22% said that police should be even tougher on the roads than the currently are. Only 27.8% said they thought the polcie were being too strict on the roads. If you had been here for more than five minutes you would have seen previously that I have always advocated increasing general police resources and leaving raod policing at it current level.



This survey was taken after a well publicised multiple fatality involving the dreaded boy-racers. It is a trifle suspect. As I've said before the number of dissatisfied people mirror the number of tickets issued very closely, too close to be coincidence.
Then there's all the anecotal evidence of dissatisfaction, general public discontent. Kiwi's are well known for saying what they think is expected of them in public. Their private opinions are often very different. I meet a lot of people daily, no-one has a good word to say about the ticket frenzy. Look at the marked change in treaty attitudes since Brash's speech, people became much more vocal when they thought they had 'official' support.

[James Deuce]

this absolutely personifies what is wrong here... The police motto is "Building safer communities togeather" Note that word "togeather"... in other words the police state in their motto that they want to work WITH the public... All the police reps here are doing is to argue AGAINST what many are trying to say... that the police force needs a major shakeup... it's an "us vs them" thing... all the police reps here have bleated about the poor "cops on the street"... but NOTHING about the poor public that feels a rapidly increasing disatisfaction with the NZ police force. There have been NO suggestions from any one of our police reps about how WE the public could better work with the Police... all we are told is that we the public don't understand how difficult the job is...

Like it or lump it, the disatisfaction is rising... now you can blame it on the media, lack of public perception... the Government, commissioner, you gand daddy's dog... but... the disatisfaction IS rising... thats a fact!

To cap it all off Spud has now resorted to a thinly deguised pattern of abuse... http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=229990&postcount=1094 and he also tells us that WE THE PUBLIC... (quote) "...should at least attempt to educate yourself on a topic before being excessively outspoken about it. Something that is seriously lacking around this thread." http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=229993&postcount=1095 is Spud seriously suggesting that unless we the public are not "educated" on the subject we can't express an opinion? Do you honestly believe that Spud? Lets go further... who detirmines the right "education"? Are you suggesting that the public isn't knowledgeable about what it's like to be let down, abused, accused incorrectly, etc etc? Plus... I would seriously doubt your own education on the subject... all you police reps here... you do NOT know what it's like to be a mere "member of the public" these days. So before any of you start lecturing to the public about needing to become "educated" on a subject before having an opinion, take a long hard look in the mirror... and for once... stop and listen to what we say... because we just may have a point!
Look, just to reiterate the point, I think you guys have an agenda, and you are filtering everything you see posted by anyone who works for the Police, or heaven forfend, anyone who might stick up for the individual employed by the Police posting here.

I work in IT. My professional life is an unrelenting wall of shit hurled at me for not knowing the resolution to someone's problem with a piece of software written in 1986 for an Atari, and ported to the PC under Windows 3.1, and why doesn't it work on Windows XP and you IT guys are all useless and liars. Somehow this translates into using black humour to cope with "Stupid Users". Gee, how could THAT possibly happen. Look, I know most computer users AREN't stupid - they just appear that way to people who know more.

Yelling at the guy at the front line is a complete waste of time (no disrespect intended spudchucker, et al). If you REALLY want to change things, there is a political and consultative process to use. This is a motorcycle site. It is supposed to be a community sharing the spirit of motorcycling, not an opportunity to make attacks on individuals about policies that they have limited influence on. If you are employed by a corporate, then you will know that the "consultative process" used by corporate management to address their employees concerns is a farce. It is no different in the NZ Police Force.

Cut these guys some slack will ya? Bleating on an Internet forum in an aggressive fashion won't change anything except your own blood pressure, and maybe that of someone who is already fully aware that people think he sucks because the media told them to think that.

[Funkyfly]

No body is in charge of a persons life other than themselves. As for the rest of your post :finger: :finger: you've missed every point.

If nobody is in charge its called anarchy.

Here is my point - Many Cops have are power tripping and have serious attitude problems, this is causing a public backlash that will get greater and greater until the average joe wont stop to help an office in trouble,opps that's already happened.

Case in point - This is a personal experience not an opinion and or assumption.

Travelling to Tekuiti I passed two cars up a long hill. One of the cars was a plain cop car who proceeded to pull me over and ticket me for passing on double yellow lines. He had a rather large smirk on his face (unless he was deformed) and what looked to be his wife and kids in the cop car were laughing. I stated I had passed on white lines and that I had pulled in on the broken yellow lines, the officer stated "there are no white lines, its double yellow all the way up the hill" I sad no, there is a strip of white you can pass on, at this stage he seemed to get bored, gave me a ticket and took off with his kids in the back laughing and pointing as they passed. I went back and measured the length of the white lines and the broken yellow and proceeded to write a letter explaining there had been a mistake, I get a letter back telling my my case had been considered and that my argument was rejected, Shocked I tracked down the person who had rejected my letter, Here is how the conversation played out.......

Me - "why did you reject it?"
Rejecter -"Well I considered your word against the officers, I believed the officer"
Me - "did you send him out to check the bit of road in question?"
Rejecter - "nope"
Me - "well how can you reject my application if you haven't checked the evidence"
rejecter - "I believe the officer, you can take it to court in Tekuiti"

Sheesh, this is that the public are dealing with, and I have a few other personal experiences where I did go to court and win, but never once did the officer say "sorry".

This is not an isolated incident! Wake up man, you have problems!

Thanks for the big finger as well, brilliant.

[MSTRS]

The police have been aware for a long time that public confidence is falling. The last survey I read, (about 2000 - 2001) said that the major source of dissapointment was lack of follow up to complaints, not heavy handed policing of the roads, that caused the bulk of the dissatisfaction.


Ahem - it's now 2005. A lot has changed in 4/5 years.

[James Deuce]

If nobody is in charge its called anarchy.



No it's not. Anarchy is the absence of active government. You've confused it with nihilistic entropism like most people do.

[Funkyfly]

The complaints are hollow shells, I mean WHAT is the complaining going to change?

until I get some REAL feed-back that I'm not doing the right thing, THEN I'll happily change my ways/attitude etc.

Cheers guys :niceone:

I think its great how we can pick and choose what feedback we think is REAL, that way we can all disregard the stuff we dont like. Wonderful.

[scumdog]

I think its great how we can pick and choose what feedback we think is REAL, that way we can all disregard the stuff we dont like. Wonderful.

I'm glad you agree with me, what a wonderful world we live in, I feel I have achieved something in my life and made such a positive change to so many others, well worth chucking in my freezing workers job for this one, I never knew I could meet so many nice people or I would have left the works sooner. :D

(You don't work for the media by any chance?? - they tend to pick and choose what stuff they like).

Keep at them windmills and don't drop your lance :laugh:

[James Deuce]

I think its great how we can pick and choose what feedback we think is REAL, that way we can all disregard the stuff we dont like. Wonderful.
It's called research :)

[spudchucka]

A lot of us are reasonably well educated Spud, it's just that we don't agree with you.
Was I talking to you? Mr Drummer and Mr Funkfly are another kettle of bullshit.

[Funkyfly]

Was I talking to you? Mr Drummer and Mr Funkfly are another kettle of bullshit.

Yawn.

Everything i say relates to personal experience, no media hype, no 2nd, 3rd hand stories.

I wish to express my feelings relating to my own personal experiences.

You cops (a collective whole) are getting worse in my opinion, End of story.

Argh, that feels soo much better.

Thank you for your time.

[scumdog]

Yawn.

Everything i say relates to personal experience, no media hype, no 2nd, 3rd hand stories.

I wish to express my feelings relating to my own personal experiences.

You cops (a collective whole) are getting worse in my opinion, End of story.

Argh, that feels soo much better.

Thank you for your time.

And you for yours.

Yes, there's always some poor bugger that's been hard done by in any group and unfortunately FF it seems to be you.

Whatever HAS happened to you it obviously cut pretty deep but you are raging against the storm so to speak (unproductive stuff) and need to try and put it behind you before you get any more bitter, life is too short to focus on such negetivity.

Posting here might help you vent your feeling but ultimately you need to put the neg stuff behind.

BTW A lot of my posts have been (PT). (but only seem to goad you).

[Funkyfly]

And you for yours.

Yes, there's always some poor bugger that's been hard done by in any group and unfortunately FF it seems to be you.

Whatever HAS happened to you it obviously cut pretty deep but you are raging against the storm so to speak (unproductive stuff) and need to try and put it behind you before you get any more bitter, life is too short to focus on such negetivity.

Posting here might help you vent your feeling but ultimately you need to put the neg stuff behind.

BTW A lot of my posts have been (PT). (but only seem to goad you).

Thanks for understanding Scumdog,

Its fantastic that you cops keep posting, venting to "the man" is great.

What stirred me up was a pommy officer that gave me a lot of grief, forcing me to go to court (where i was vindicated and never received any apology) was on the blimin TV as some kind of police spokesman!

There certainly are some good cops out there, who knows you maybe one of them, I hope so, This spud character despite all his flim flam ravings and name calling could be a nice guy while out on duty as well.

But as police officers you represent the team, and I have had a lot of grief for no other reason than what appeared to be a power trip.

Dont take it personally.

Ride on brother from a different mother.

[Funkyfly]

What "power" are you talking about? The power to arrest? The power to search? Be specific for once in this thread. Bad cops shoot themselves in the foot eventually or the system does it for them.

What did they do that made them appear arrogant?

.

This "Power" or "control" as i have called it relates to the power vested in an officer, he can make life very hard for people, i spent hundreds of dollars and a lot of time just to prove i wasnt guilty! Then got no "sorry" even after the evidence was presented which clearly showed the officer was wrong and i was let go they still had an arrogant attitude, it was shocking.

So this "power" relates to their ability to create havoc in peoples lives for no other reason than they feel like it.

I asked about laying a complaint against the officer and was told you cant win and it would cost $10,000!

Cops have power, control, whateva you you want to call it or dont want to call it, they have it!

[drummer]

Was I talking to you? Mr Drummer and Mr Funkfly are another kettle of bullshit.
Spud.... abuse shows you up... I thought you were above that... So here we have it... folks.. here we have a cop that doesn't agree that I should have an opinion about the police different to him and what comes out... abuse. Case proven Spud...

[Funkyfly]

Spud.... abuse shows you up... I thought you were above that... So here we have it... folks.. here we have a cop that doesn't agree that I should have an opinion about the police different to him and what comes out... abuse. Case proven Spud...

Dude Spud doesnt want to listen, esp to a couple of guys like us how have had the stuffing kncocked out of em by cops and want to tell the world.

I got no response from him at all to one of my bad experiences a couple of posts ago, it outlined exactly what we have been talking about, i think we just got to take the higher road and accept Spud wont listen to us.

Cant reason with everyone.

Ride on while you still can :ride:

[drummer]

Dude Spud doesnt want to listen, esp to a couple of guys like us how have had the stuffing kncocked out of em by cops and want to tell the world. yep... but you know what... I just have seen the change in the general attitude of the police since I returned from Aussie. Seems that Spud is merely carrying on with that... he will not listen to us... because we, according to his measure... are not educated. Instead of encompassing and listening, he criticises our concerns as being irrelevant whilst telling us we shouldn't voice or concerns.

What an absolute load of rot... perhaps all the police reps here should read their own slogan. "BUILDING SAFER COMMUNITIES TOGEATHER"

Have a look at this.. (taken from their own website)
"We aim to work in partnerships to build safer communities by:
Empowering communities to deal with issues of community safety and creating more effective community partnerships."

Yet when a debate is underway, and suggestions offered... our own "police on the ground" want nothing to do with a partnership, they eventually counter constructive criticism with abuse... and block their ears... because WE AREN'T EDUCATED!!! I can only be thankful that some police on the ground.. DO care about what the public thinks... and are concerned at the rising lack of confidence in the force.

It would be laughable if it were fiction but it is tragic because it's factual.

[drummer]

Dude Spud doesnt want to listen, esp to a couple of guys like us how have had the stuffing kncocked out of em by cops and want to tell the world. yep... but you know what... I just have seen the change in the general attitude of the police since I returned from Aussie. Seems that Spud is merely carrying on with that... he will not listen to us... because we, according to his measure... are not educated. Instead of encompassing and listening, he criticises our concerns as being irrelevant whilst telling us we shouldn't voice or concerns.

What an absolute load of rot... perhaps all the police reps here should read their own slogan. "BUILDING SAFER COMMUNITIES TOGEATHER"

Have a look at this.. (taken from their own website)
"We aim to work in partnerships to build safer communities by:
Empowering communities to deal with issues of community safety and creating more effective community partnerships."

Yet when a debate is underway, and suggestions offered... our own "police on the ground" want nothing to do with a partnership, they eventually counter constructive criticism with abuse... and block their ears... because WE AREN'T EDUCATED!!! I can only be thankful that some police on the ground.. DO care about what the public thinks... and are concerned at the rising lack of confidence in the force.

It would be laughable if it were fiction but it is tragic because it's factual.

[jazbug5]

F.F. and Drummer- can I come to your wedding..? :love:

[drummer]

F.F. and Drummer- can I come to your wedding..? :love:
Someone else was asked first to be my darling... but.. no... that would be taking civil union too far!

[Funkyfly]

F.F. and Drummer- can I come to your wedding..? :love:

We are brothers, not lovers. Were you hoping to catch the bouquet? sorry to disappoint you lassie, esp after you brought that new dress.

[jazbug5]

Oh, what a pity. And you seem so well suited, too!
Are you sure you're not both denying yourselves? Can't help it, I'm a hopeless romantic at heart... *sigh*

[jazbug5]

And no, the dress wan't new. But I've got a splendid new bonnet all ready and waiting for the nuptials, so just let me know if you change your minds...

[Indoo]

Yet when a debate is underway, and suggestions offered... our own "police on the ground" want nothing to do with a partnership, they eventually counter constructive criticism with abuse... and block their ears...


Please don't tell me you honestly believe that what you and funkyfly have contributed is 'constructive criticism' and claim that you have offered 'suggestions'. All you two have done is make ridiculous generalisations and bag the police in general. Whats even funnier is that your acting all aggreived and innocent when people respond inkind.

[drummer]

Please don't tell me you honestly believe that what you and funkyfly have contributed is 'constructive criticism' and claim that you have offered 'suggestions'. All you two have done is make ridiculous generalisations and bag the police in general. Whats even funnier is that your acting all aggreived and innocent when people respond inkind.
Dear me... you can't or won't read my posts.

[Funkyfly]

Oh, what a pity. And you seem so well suited, too!
Are you sure you're not both denying yourselves? Can't help it, I'm a hopeless romantic at heart... *sigh*

Yes "Hopeless" would be the word for you, well put.

Dont fret luv, you will meet someone one day. And no im not interested sorry

I have a wonderful woman who likes to ride a Red Ducati monster, the GN250 just doesnt do it for me sorry.

[Funkyfly]

Please don't tell me you honestly believe that what you and funkyfly have contributed is 'constructive criticism' and claim that you have offered 'suggestions'. All you two have done is make ridiculous generalisations and bag the police in general. Whats even funnier is that your acting all aggreived and innocent when people respond inkind.

I have offered my own personal experiences to help the local cops see what is going on out there. No generalisations, only facts. Like Drummer said maybe you should read the posts.

At least what i have contributed has been in good taste, not calling people uneducated and saying they lack wisdom, pulling down their grammar and the likes. You sound like you think your so high and mighty Indoo :puke: :puke: :puke: .

[RDJ]

A suggestion... this thread has gotten too long, and generates more heat than light, so wouldn't it now be better for everyone to quietly turn off its oxygen supply?

Perhaps a senior member could shut it down and start up a more-motorcycling-orientated one instead. For example:

"why do so many cruiser riders wear flame pattern shirts with denim jeans. Is it for the same reason that so many sportbike riders wear leather gloves embossed with plastic studs. Discuss."

[idb]

A suggestion... this thread has gotten too long, and generates more heat than light, so wouldn't it now be better for everyone to quietly turn off its oxygen supply?

Perhaps a senior member could shut it down and start up a more-motorcycling-orientated one instead. For example:

"why do so many cruiser riders wear flame pattern shirts with denim jeans. Is it for the same reason that so many sportbike riders wear leather gloves embossed with plastic studs. Discuss."
Spoilsport!
I agree with jazbug, I think we're about to see something remarkable and beautiful occur here.
Don't disturb the wildlife - we have to be very, very quiet.....

[drummer]

A suggestion... this thread has gotten too long, and generates more heat than light, so wouldn't it now be better for everyone to quietly turn off its oxygen supply?

Perhaps a senior member could shut it down and start up a more-motorcycling-orientated one instead. For example:

"why do so many cruiser riders wear flame pattern shirts with denim jeans. Is it for the same reason that so many sportbike riders wear leather gloves embossed with plastic studs. Discuss."
You are probably right... but the debate is interesting to say the least.

[marty]

Dude Spud doesnt want to listen, esp to a couple of guys like us how have had the stuffing kncocked out of em by cops and want to tell the world.

I got no response from him at all to one of my bad experiences a couple of posts ago, it outlined exactly what we have been talking about, i think we just got to take the higher road and accept Spud wont listen to us.

Cant reason with everyone.

Ride on while you still can :ride:

maybe he just can't be fucked listening to a couple of bleaters, especially while he's not working.

[marty]

and, the police do not prosecute, they lay an information on behalf of the crown. the police are merely the crown's agent.

[RDJ]

Spoilsport!
I agree with jazbug, I think we're about to see something remarkable and beautiful occur here.
Don't disturb the wildlife - we have to be very, very quiet.....

Ah... I don't think I can bear to watch to the end :no:

[RDJ]

You are probably right... but the debate is interesting to say the least.

If only it would improve to the level of debate! :msn-wink:

[Clockwork]

Carefull RDJ

..... get any closer and you too will tumble into the vortex!! :yes:

[James Deuce]

You are probably right... but the debate is interesting to say the least.

I haven't seen any debate. I've just seen a couple of guys waling away on government employees with a limited right of reply, and no hope of ever comunicating the underlying motivation for taking on the job and sticking with it, due to some hardline and uninformed views.

Bigotry has many forms.

[RDJ]

Carefull RDJ..... get any closer and you too will tumble into the vortex!! :yes:


'"I tried to get out... but they sucked me back in!!!!!""
(now look who's not raising the tone... I have been assimilated!)

[Funkyfly]

I haven't seen any debate. I've just seen a couple of guys waling away on government employees with a limited right of reply, and no hope of ever comunicating the underlying motivation for taking on the job and sticking with it, due to some hardline and uninformed views.

Bigotry has many forms.

Well i can sleep easy knowing my GSXR would kick your yammys butt any day. Arh yes, the serenity of bigotry, fantastic.

[spudchucka]

yep... but you know what... I just have seen the change in the general attitude of the police since I returned from Aussie. Seems that Spud is merely carrying on with that... he will not listen to us... because we, according to his measure... are not educated.
You surely aren't another escaped Iraqi harbouring in NZ. What did happen to the misinformation minister? Beating his drum on KB perhaps?

I have no idea what your education level is. I have said on the issue that you are bleating about that you have not educated yourself sufficiently to have an understanding of the issues involved. There is a difference between being generally uneducated, (which you allege I have suggested you are), and expressing a poorly informed opinion, (which you are actively engaged in).

[spudchucka]

yep... but you know what... I just have seen the change in the general attitude of the police since I returned from Aussie. Seems that Spud is merely carrying on with that... he will not listen to us... because we, according to his measure... are not educated. Instead of encompassing and listening, he criticises our concerns as being irrelevant whilst telling us we shouldn't voice or concerns.

What an absolute load of rot... perhaps all the police reps here should read their own slogan. "BUILDING SAFER COMMUNITIES TOGEATHER"

Have a look at this.. (taken from their own website)
"We aim to work in partnerships to build safer communities by:
Empowering communities to deal with issues of community safety and creating more effective community partnerships."

Yet when a debate is underway, and suggestions offered... our own "police on the ground" want nothing to do with a partnership, they eventually counter constructive criticism with abuse... and block their ears... because WE AREN'T EDUCATED!!! I can only be thankful that some police on the ground.. DO care about what the public thinks... and are concerned at the rising lack of confidence in the force.

It would be laughable if it were fiction but it is tragic because it's factual.
Posting everything twice? Thats a good way to boost your post count!

[spudchucka]

Spud.... abuse shows you up... I thought you were above that... So here we have it... folks.. here we have a cop that doesn't agree that I should have an opinion about the police different to him and what comes out... abuse. Case proven Spud...
Have whatever opinion you want. However if you want to have your opinion taken seriously then I sugget you research your background material beforehand.

[spudchucka]

Cops have power, control, whateva you you want to call it or dont want to call it, they have it!
What you fail to realise is that you have control over whether any power is imposed upon you in the first place.

[idb]

What you fail to realise is that you have control over whether any power is imposed upon you in the first place.
Can you explain this?
You're not referring to something like "you voted them in" are you?

[spudchucka]

Travelling to Tekuiti I passed two cars up a long hill. One of the cars was a plain cop car who proceeded to pull me over and ticket me for passing on double yellow lines. He had a rather large smirk on his face (unless he was deformed) and what looked to be his wife and kids in the cop car were laughing. I stated I had passed on white lines and that I had pulled in on the broken yellow lines, the officer stated "there are no white lines, its double yellow all the way up the hill" I sad no, there is a strip of white you can pass on, at this stage he seemed to get bored, gave me a ticket and took off with his kids in the back laughing and pointing as they passed. I went back and measured the length of the white lines and the broken yellow and proceeded to write a letter explaining there had been a mistake, I get a letter back telling my my case had been considered and that my argument was rejected, Shocked I tracked down the person who had rejected my letter, Here is how the conversation played out.......

Me - "why did you reject it?"
Rejecter -"Well I considered your word against the officers, I believed the officer"
Me - "did you send him out to check the bit of road in question?"
Rejecter - "nope"
Me - "well how can you reject my application if you haven't checked the evidence"
rejecter - "I believe the officer, you can take it to court in Tekuiti"

Sheesh, this is that the public are dealing with, and I have a few other personal experiences where I did go to court and win, but never once did the officer say "sorry".Take it to Court. Thats your right.

[spudchucka]

Can you explain this?
You're not referring to something like "you voted them in" are you?
How do people come to the attention of the police in the first place? Contrary to what FunkFly would have us believe cops are far too busy to simply make peoples lives a misery because they have nothing better to do. The person on the receiving end of "The Power" has undoubtedly done some act or otherwise to come to the atention of the cops in the first place. In that sense the public control "The Power" as much as the police do.

[idb]

How do people come to the attention of the police in the first place? Contrary to what FunkFly would have us believe cops are far too busy to simply make peoples lives a misery because they have nothing better to do. The person on the receiving end of "The Power" has undoubtedly done some act or otherwise to come to the atention of the cops in the first place. In that sense the public control "The Power" as much as the police do.
I accept that in the main but the act or otherwise could simply be looking a bit out of place in some manner to the cop's eye.
The cop does have "The Power" to detain that person to check them out. I'm sure that you can see how irritating that must be if the detainee is going about his lawful business.

[spudchucka]

I accept that in the main but the act or otherwise could simply be looking a bit out of place in some manner to the cop's eye.
The cop does have "The Power" to detain that person to check them out. I'm sure that you can see how irritating that must be if the detainee is going about his lawful business.
Cops can detain a driver at the roadside under the Land Transport Act. There are also other enactments that allow police to detain people for specific purposes, (Misuse of Drugs Act for example). However they can't just go around detaining people willy nilly just because they don't like the look of them. Cops can stop and talk to anyone, that is a common law right. Equally, the person being spoken to does not have to remain to answer any question unless required to do so under an enactment. That also is a common law right.

[Brian d marge]

Take it to Court. Thats your right.

With court cost being a min of 90 last time I checked ,,,,and who is the judge going to believe ,,,the great unwashed or a fine upstanding member of the force ....
even with photo evidence to insert that litlle bit of doubt....or even evidence from the person sitting next to u ..probably your wife.....
90 dollar gamble the judge will call it in favour ..off .......

set up a separate bank account... put the 90 dollars on the Gee Gees for a win and a place and if you win you use the money to pay the fine ..if not a dollar down a dollar a week or as slow as poss ...( my money does more good in my bank account than Helens,,and I had a lot of fun at the gee gees with that 90 dollars!!!)
better yet go slow ride an enfield or drive a robin reliant ............What made the policeman stop u un the first place!!!??

Stephen
Who Doesnt have to deal with mr ticket,,,,,, :Playnice: mr ticket

[idb]

Cops can detain a driver at the roadside under the Land Transport Act. There are also other enactments that allow police to detain people for specific purposes, (Misuse of Drugs Act for example). However they can't just go around detaining people willy nilly just because they don't like the look of them. Cops can stop and talk to anyone, that is a common law right. Equally, the person being spoken to does not have to remain to answer any question unless required to do so under an enactment. That also is a common law right.
Fair enough.
The occasions that most people are going to come into contact with cops however is on the road, and unfortunately that is in essence a matter of 'your word against mine'.
Now, if the cop uses his experience and judgement to decide that an offence has been committed he simply fills out a form and sticks it in his 'IN' tray. If he is wrong or the poor unfortunate disagrees (and he could be genuine, it does happen you know), it is a long and torturous process to prove it.
Sure, there is a process that the person can follow but there is a power imbalance (for want of a better term) there.
Simply pointing out that everyone has a right to contest a notice doesn't acknowledge the effort and cost involved.

[idb]

Just a small example that I know of;
A friend of mine was driving his Capri at night last winter when he struck a small patch of frost which caused his rear wheels to kick out slightly.
The car behind immediately turned on his red n blues and pulled him over.
As he came up to the driver's window he accused him of 'causing his vehicle to break traction' or whatever the term is and was in the process of describing how he could impound the car when he finally caught sight of the driver. He is about 55 and balding.
He changed tack and accused the driver of speeding through a posted road-works area and issued a fine accordingly.
This was incorrect as the signs had been shifted that afternoon but the driver had to go back to the site the next day, take photos of the area showing the sign locations, interviewed some of the workers on site and then go into the station and present his case.
The sergeant accepted it and tore up the notice.
Now it's good that he got off, but he is self-employed and had to take almost a full day away from his business to prove his innocence while the cop in question was still earning his pay untroubled by all of this (excepting that his sergeant may have had a word or two).

I am not going to join the throng that dredges up examples to show what pricks the cops are, my point is that there is an imbalance there which the public understands and mostly accepts as a consequence of having a functioning police force.

[spudchucka]

I agree that the system is at times unfair. But, we all sign up to it when we apply for drivers licences and in doing so accept the terms & conditions of using the roads. The justice system and the resolution processes involved are part and parcel to that accpetance.

Sure, some people undoubtedly get issued tickets who either didn't commit the offence or have a reasonable excuse for doing what they did. Cops make mistakes sometimes, they are human afterall, despite what some on here would suggest. Should we stop policing the roads because occasionally cops make mistakes? Why don't we stop locking up burglars for the same reason?

Anybody that has been wrongly charged with any offence has every right to feel agreived. I feel terribly sorry for those people and appreciate the hardship this puts them in.

I personally refuse to issue traffic tickets unless I am 110% certain the person involved has committed the offence, if there is any doubt in my mind I will not get out the ticket book. I don't give a stuff about so called quotas, I'll decide for myself when, where and who I write a ticket to.

[spudchucka]

I am not going to join the throng that dredges up examples to show what pricks the cops are, my point is that there is an imbalance there which the public understands and mostly accepts as a consequence of having a functioning police force.
Good point and very reasonably put. It was unfortunate for that chap but again there is an example of how the persons actions have brought them to the attention of the polcie. If the vehicle had not broken traction momentarily then the cop in all likelihood wouldn't have stopped the driver at all. The cop may have genuinely believed the driver had commited that offence and in his mind was totally justified in writing the ticket, who knows really? Only that cop I guess. There are ticket crazy cops out there and they piss me off as much as they piss you off, but for different reasons I would suggest.

[idb]

I agree that the system is at times unfair. But, we all sign up to it when we apply for drivers licences and in doing so accept the terms & conditions of using the roads. The justice system and the resolution processes involved are part and parcel to that accpetance.

Sure, some people undoubtedly get issued tickets who either didn't commit the offence or have a reasonable excuse for doing what they did. Cops make mistakes sometimes, they are human afterall, despite what some on here would suggest. Should we stop policing the roads because occasionally cops make mistakes? Why don't we stop locking up burglars for the same reason?

Anybody that has been wrongly charged with any offence has every right to feel agreived. I feel terribly sorry for those people and appreciate the hardship this puts them in.

I personally refuse to issue traffic tickets unless I am 110% certain the person involved has committed the offence, if there is any doubt in my mind I will not get out the ticket book. I don't give a stuff about so called quotas, I'll decide for myself when, where and who I write a ticket to.

Sure, I don't dispute any of that, this discussion started when I disputed your point that the police have powers unavailable to the general public except when a person has done something to deserve attention.
I concede that that is mainly true but unfortunately from the cops' PR point of view the most sweeping powers seem to be in the area that is going to bring them into conflict with the most people.
But as I said in my last post - most folk generally accept the system as necessary.

I'm rambling now of course, I need to go to bed. I think we raised the tone of this thread a bit - whaddaya reckon? :niceone:

[Ixion]

..
As he came up to the driver's window he accused him of 'causing his vehicle to break traction' or whatever the term is and was in the process of describing how he could impound the car when he finally caught sight of the driver. He is about 55 and balding...

That section of law has to be one of the most badly drafted on record. And there is anecdotal evidence (hasn't happened to me) that is abused. With front wheel drive cars it is often very difficult, when starting off on a steep hill, NOT to have a bit of wheelspin. There is a steep hill near us with a give way at the top , and whenever Mrs Ixion has to start off on the hill in the wet she ALWAYS spins her wheels . This is a respectable middle aged matron driving a Nissan Sunny 1300cc sedan! But if an officious plod decided to build his quota she could get done for it. The purpose of the act was obvious. It's application seems to be more as a clobbering machine. I wonder if it has actually ever been used against the intended target, the boi racers doing burnouts.

This (Mr Idb's tale) is probably also an example of the misuse of power that posters have complained of. In the event the cop decided not to proceed with the "breaking traction" because the driver could obviously not be labelled as a boy racer. But what if the driver had been 25 instead of 55 ? The act actually says "sustained loss of traction", and it must be "without reasonable excuse". So I would imagine that the driver in the tale, even if only 25, would be able to dispute the charge, and probably get it fropped . BUT ----- in the mean time his car has been impounded ! That could be a serious problem to many people. In some cases people could lose their jobs. And there is no provision for any redress. So that would be a case of power being abused.

Though I think the whole boy-racer law is throughly bad law, and an excellent example of what happens when politicians react emotively Bad laws tend to invite abuse.

[idb]

That section of law has to be one of the most badly drafted on record. And there is anecdotal evidence (hasn't happened to me) that is abused. With front wheel drive cars it is often very difficult, when starting off on a steep hill, NOT to have a bit of wheelspin. There is a steep hill near us with a give way at the top , and whenever Mrs Ixion has to start off on the hill in the wet she ALWAYS spins her wheels . This is a respectable middle aged matron driving a Nissan Sunny 1300cc sedan! But if an officious plod decided to build his quota she could get done for it. The purpose of the act was obvious. It's application seems to be more as a clobbering machine. I wonder if it has actually ever been used against the intended target, the boi racers doing burnouts.

This (Mr Idb's tale) is probably also an example of the misuse of power that posters have complained of. In the event the cop decided not to proceed with the "breaking traction" because the driver could obviously not be labelled as a boy racer. But what if the driver had been 25 instead of 55 ? The act actually says "sustained loss of traction", and it must be "without reasonable excuse". So I would imagine that the driver in the tale, even if only 25, would be able to dispute the charge, and probably get it fropped . BUT ----- in the mean time his car has been impounded ! That could be a serious problem to many people. In some cases people could lose their jobs. And there is no provision for any redress. So that would be a case of power being abused.

Though I think the whole boy-racer law is throughly bad law, and an excellent example of what happens when politicians react emotively Bad laws tend to invite abuse.
I read in yesterday's paper of a fellow having to go to court to clear himself of a charge brought under this law.
There were witnesses from all sides but he was finally acquitted because the judge decided that if there was any loss of traction, it was probably for less than two seconds.
I don't know if the two second thing is significant but Scumdog might have an opinion on this. :msn-wink:

[Funkyfly]

Take it to Court. Thats your right.

Yes i could, lets see, a $150 fine or take it to court.

Court would entail a day off work $250, plus travelling and gas $100.

so $150 vs $350? My wife made the decision easy. "Just pay the man"



What you fail to realise is that you have control over whether any power is imposed upon you in the first place..

Cops can stop whoever they want when ever they want, the public must stop. They dont need any reason at all, i.e cops stopping you to talk about your bike. Or if they think you "Look" shady.



cops are far too busy to simply make peoples lives a misery .

LOL, yea right mate, man i wish i could sit around in a van reading the news paper all day long, or sit in the sun on the side of the road sleeping, seen it far to many times.

[scumdog]

I read in yesterday's paper of a fellow having to go to court to clear himself of a charge brought under this law.
There were witnesses from all sides but he was finally acquitted because the judge decided that if there was any loss of traction, it was probably for less than two seconds.
I don't know if the two second thing is significant but Scumdog might have an opinion on this. :msn-wink:

Yeah, the guy did a skid take off right across from the Police station as he left the petrol station, he fishtailed his car, I heard it and another officer about to leave the station saw him as did a member of the public.

As we (cops) are honest we told the judge the tyres were spinning for two to three seconds, the judge gave him the benefit of the doubt and said "o k, I'll say you spun the wheels for only two seconds, I don't think that is enough for 'sustained' so I'll let you off, I almost convicted you for Careless Use but have decided to be lenient and let you go"

BTW The guy denied spinning his tyres AT ALL! But obviously the judge believed he did.

[scumdog]

LOL, yea right mate, man i wish i could sit around in a van reading the news paper all day long, or sit in the sun on the side of the road sleeping, seen it far to many times.

I think you mean the civilian camera van operators?

[spudchucka]

I concede that that is mainly true but unfortunately from the cops' PR point of view the most sweeping powers seem to be in the area that is going to bring them into conflict with the most people.I do see your point and agree to a certain extent. The role of police as law enforcers automatically puts them into an adversarial relationship with any person who is being dealt with over an offence. Traffic enforcement is what gets moaned about most often and because most people use the roads in some way, then most people experience some form of traffic enforcement, (even if its just a compulsary breath test checkpoint).


But as I said in my last post - most folk generally accept the system as necessary.You are correct again. Most people can see and accept the need for law enforcement and the powers accorded those acting as law enforcement officers. Everbody has the right to expect that those powers will not be abused and in the whole they are not being abused except by the absolute minority. However, the general anti police cry is simply generic moaning about traffic tickets being issued for offences that are perceived to be trivial in nature.


I'm rambling now of course, I need to go to bed. I think we raised the tone of this thread a bit - whaddaya reckon? :niceone:Again, I agree and I thank you for your input. You have displayed a level of wisdom and maturity that is by and large non-existant in this this and other anti police threads.

[spudchucka]

That section of law has to be one of the most badly drafted on record. And there is anecdotal evidence (hasn't happened to me) that is abused. With front wheel drive cars it is often very difficult, when starting off on a steep hill, NOT to have a bit of wheelspin. There is a steep hill near us with a give way at the top , and whenever Mrs Ixion has to start off on the hill in the wet she ALWAYS spins her wheels . This is a respectable middle aged matron driving a Nissan Sunny 1300cc sedan! But if an officious plod decided to build his quota she could get done for it. The purpose of the act was obvious. It's application seems to be more as a clobbering machine. I wonder if it has actually ever been used against the intended target, the boi racers doing burnouts.
That is absolute rubbish. The purpose of the Act is clear and any cop that put your good lady before the Court for a hill start squeally would be shat on by the Court. It isn't a new law anymore and the Courts have ruled as to what is a sustained loss of traction and your scenario just would not fit the offence.

[spudchucka]

I read in yesterday's paper of a fellow having to go to court to clear himself of a charge brought under this law.
There were witnesses from all sides but he was finally acquitted because the judge decided that if there was any loss of traction, it was probably for less than two seconds.
I don't know if the two second thing is significant but Scumdog might have an opinion on this. :msn-wink:
As explained in the last post, two seconds is not what is considered "sustained".

[Funkyfly]

You have displayed a level of wisdom and maturity that is by and large non-existant in this this and other anti police threads.

Like giving the big finger to peoples comments aye mate. :laugh:

[Funkyfly]

I think you mean the civilian camera van operators?

I have seen uniformed officers doing this, my comments were also reffering to HP officers sitting in the car sleeping, or reading the paper, or generally maxing out. Might be their break, smoko, granted, but i certainly wouldnt call it a busy job being a HP cop.

So the whole "far to busy to bug the public" comment doesnt sit really, in fact i would venture to say some even get bored!

On any given morning between Hawera and New PLymouth there is up to 6 cop cars on this 45min stretch or road.

Out of interest how many cars would they stop in an hour on average do you think?

[spudchucka]

Yes i could, lets see, a $150 fine or take it to court.

Court would entail a day off work $250, plus travelling and gas $100.

so $150 vs $350? My wife made the decision easy. "Just pay the man"
Like it or not, that is your option.


Cops can stop whoever they want when ever they want, the public must stop. They dont need any reason at all, i.e cops stopping you to talk about your bike. Or if they think you "Look" shady.
I assume you are talking about traffic stops here? The relevant section is below for your purusal.


114.Power to require driver to stop and give name and address, etc—

(1)An enforcement officer who is in uniform, or wearing a distinctive cap, hat, or helmet, with a badge of authority affixed to it, may signal or request the driver of a vehicle to stop the vehicle as soon as is practicable.

(2)An enforcement officer in a vehicle following another vehicle may, by displaying flashing blue, or blue and red, lights or sounding a siren, require the driver of the other vehicle to stop.

(3)An enforcement officer may require the driver of a vehicle that is stopped under this Act to—

(a)Remain stopped for as long as is reasonably necessary for an enforcement officer to obtain the particulars referred to in paragraph (b), or to complete the exercise of any other power conferred on an enforcement officer by this Act; and

(b)On demand by an enforcement officer,—

(i)Give his or her name and address and date of birth, or such of those particulars as the enforcement officer may specify; and

(ii)State whether or not he or she is the owner of the vehicle; and

(iii)If the driver is not the owner of the vehicle, give the name and address of the owner or such particulars within the driver's knowledge as may lead to the identification of the owner.

(4)The driver of a vehicle that is stopped under subsection (2) is not obliged to remain stopped if the vehicle with flashing lights and siren does not itself stop in the near vicinity of the place where the driver has stopped.

(5)An enforcement officer may require a driver to remain stopped on a road for as long as is reasonably necessary to enable the officer to establish the identity of the driver, but not for longer than 15 minutes if the requirement to remain stopped is made under this subsection only.

(6)An enforcement officer may arrest a person without warrant if the officer has good cause to suspect the person of having—

(a)Failed to comply with this section or a signal or request or requirement under this section; or

(b)Given false or misleading information under this section.



LOL, yea right mate, man i wish i could sit around in a van reading the news paper all day long, or sit in the sun on the side of the road sleeping, seen it far to many times.The camera operators are non-sworn civilian members. They aren't cops!

[spudchucka]

Like giving the big finger to peoples comments aye mate. :laugh:
When its deserved you will receive it. Here's another for good measure. :finger:

[denill]

Hey, you are all being sucked in.
The 'cops' who post here aren't really cops.

How could they be. The time spent here precludes them having any sort of a job......

They are just 'trolls'............

Cheers
Bill

[scumdog]

Hey, you are all being sucked in.
The 'cops' who post here aren't really cops.

How could they be. The time spent here precludes them having any sort of a job......

They are just 'trolls'............

Cheers
Bill
Hey! I might be ugly but I'm not a troll! :laugh:

[Lou Girardin]

maybe he just can't be fucked listening to a couple of bleaters, especially while he's not working.

Uuuh, Marty it's not listening, it's reading. We all have the choice to not read the posts. I have to say I enjoy this thread though.

[marty]

Yes i could, lets see, a $150 fine or take it to court.

Court would entail a day off work $250, plus travelling and gas $100.

so $150 vs $350? My wife made the decision easy. "Just pay the man"



Cops can stop whoever they want when ever they want, the public must stop. They dont need any reason at all, i.e cops stopping you to talk about your bike. Or if they think you "Look" shady.



LOL, yea right mate, man i wish i could sit around in a van reading the news paper all day long, or sit in the sun on the side of the road sleeping, seen it far to many times.

1. your choice. don't complain if you're gonna pay up. just roll over and take it where it hurts the least.

2. actually, there HAS to be a reason. even if it's for a WOF/licence check. if it ends up talking about your bike, then so be it. and i can't think how many 'shady' stops i have done that have ended in arrest/chase/scrap/impound/other. probably more than not.

3. the van sitters are not cops. they are (almost exclusively) non sworn civillians. and i don't think that you would.

[Lou Girardin]

Some of the examples given here of traffic stops, if true, are appalling and point to real issues with recruitment and training. The bottom line for the cop should always be "if in doubt, don't write a live ticket".
My biggest issue though, is with roadside licence suspension. This is really giving the Police the power of summary punishment without trial. If the driving is dangerous enough to warrant this it should be dealt with by arrest. What happens if you're suspended and subsequently aquitted of the charge? Do you get your 28 days back? Or do you get a credit for next time?
If anyone doubts that it happens. It actually did happened to several drivers when the cops set up a speed trap at an illegal 30 km'h roadworks restriction on the Waipu straights in 2003.

[Ixion]

1. your choice. don't complain if you're gonna pay up. just roll over and take it where it hurts the least.
..

Not exactly what most people would call "just" though , is it ? I'd say that if the choices are rollover and pay an unjust fine; or contest it but end up paying more than the fine anyway, then the person involved is perfectly entitled to complain. In either case they've been mulcted of hundreds of dollars without having done anything wrong. That's hardly just.

Think about it. The allegation is that a person has been wrongfully , and wilfully, accused of a crime they didn't commit. And the police officer making the allegation knew it was false. Sure, in this case the "crime" is a minor one. But what if the alleged crime was, say, rape ? Should they still "roll over" ? No, I don't think so either. And if we accept that spurious allegations are OK in "minor" crimes, where do you start drawing lines?

Which is really what this whole sub thread is about. The potential for injustice by the police . The reality is, that if a cop decides he doesn't like you he can hit you with at least several hundred dollars of fines even if you are totally lawabiding. Which is arbitrary punishment, in theory banned for nearly a thousand years.

Now I'm not saying that does happen. It's never happened to me. I've heard other people tell tales that suggest that now and again it does. But, we only ever hear one side of these stories and I imagine that in most cases the cop's story would be different. So we have to take them with a grain of salt.

Certainly, it is possible to contest unjust allegations. And our system is honest enough that I think it would be very rare for an unjust charge to get through the courts (but not impossible). As Mr Spudchucka has commented, judges will throw out overly imaginative interpretations of the law. But - and it is a realistic but, invoking this right will often cost more than the cost of "rolling over"

And there are sufficent BIG scandels at the moment involving misuse of police power (in some cases gross misuse) to make people suspicious. And nervous.

Like Mrs Ixion, who has taken on board that spinning your wheels is illegal and is scared that she'll be ticketed for doing it accidentally. Sure, a judge would throw it out. Sure, it's very unlikely that a cop would ticket her for it in the first place because she is so obviously not a boi racer. Would she contest the ticket if it did happen ? Maybe if it involved impoundment. Otherwise probably not. Would she be so sure of immunity to such a dubious charge if she was a 20 year old in a customised car ? I doubt it.

It must be pretty obvious to anyone that if (that's an "if" there guys so don't splode) there are cops abusing their power, they are a VERY small minority. After all, with about 9000 cops (is that right ? Or does that include non-sworn), if 99% of them are as decent and honest as can be, you'll still have 1%, that's 90 bastards. I think any organisation that could say that it only had 1% bad eggs would be doing pretty good.

But it's still 90 cops some where in the country off on a power trip. And every time they arsehole (sorry Mr Hitcher, I mean asshole) a person, that person tells all his mates, who tell theirs , who post the info on bulletin boards.

And the public hear, and at least semi believe and get nervous. Does it happen ? I suspect so. Is it comon ? No, obviously not. Should it happen? Obviously not. Is there any way to prevent it happening on rare occasion ? I doubt it.

And when it does and the victims of it recount their angst, the honest cops who hear will silently moan and curl up a bit inside. And , publicly, defend the system and the force, because they're proud of it, and they know that the bad eggs that occasion all the noise are a tiny tiny proportion of the total. And that it is not wise to throw babies out with bathwater.

And the good cops will be the ones who will (in private) come down hardest of all on any of their team who let the side down.

All of which leaves the poor sod who did run into a duff copper still smarting.

Not just because he's a few hundred bucks out of pocket. But also because he perceives that the Rule of Law has failed.

I'd also suggest that the volume of indignation is because people DO have a respect for the law. Consider parking tickets. I've had parking tickets I thought were unfair. But I just shrugged and paid them, as do most people. Life's too short to fight a parking ticket. So if we regarded speeding (etc) tickets like parking tickets , I doubt anyone would complain about the odd dud one. But that goes against all the messages about speeding ('.. be prepared to kill') etc.

[Ixion]

..
My biggest issue though, is with roadside licence suspension. This is really giving the Police the power of summary punishment without trial. If the driving is dangerous enough to warrant this it should be dealt with by arrest. What happens if you're suspended and subsequently aquitted of the charge? Do you get your 28 days back? Or do you get a credit for next time?
If anyone doubts that it happens. It actually did happened to several drivers when the cops set up a speed trap at an illegal 30 km'h roadworks restriction on the Waipu straights in 2003.

I also have very grave reservations about this. If you cop a fine that you think is unjust you can take it to court and defend it . Probably cost you more than the fine, but at least you don't have to pay up until you're found guilty.
But roadside suspension, and impoundment, the damage is done. By the time a court finds that you are actually not guilty, it's too late. And at least one of the guys caught in that illegal speed trap lost his job as a result. Once the courts determined that he had actually committed no offence, it was too late. The damage was done.

[spudchucka]

Roadside licence suspension only applies to very serious offences. Your licence will be suspended for 28 days if you:

* are caught drink-driving at more than double the legal alcohol limit

* are caught speeding at more than 50 km/h above any applicable speed limit (does not apply to speed camera offences)

* fail or refuse to supply a blood sample to be tested for excess blood alcohol.

The fact that parliament passed laws that allow this to happen show that the intent is to take the most dangerous drivers off the roads as quickly as possible. This is in the interest of all law abiding road users.

Talk to people about what deters them from speeding and or drink driving and it is usually the potential loss of their licence that is the strongest deterant, not huge over the top fines. Therefore roadside suspension sends a strong message to drivers that may otherwise be willing to take risks that will undoubtedly endanger other road users.

Targeting temporary 30kph zones stinks a little of revenue gathering and quota filling but as long as the temporay zone has been set up legally I have no problem with targeting idiots that zap through these zones at 90 - 100+ kph. Their actions are dangerous and they deserve to be heavily penalised.

[Funkyfly]

Some of the examples given here of traffic stops, if true, are appalling and point to real issues with recruitment and training. The bottom line for the cop should always be "if in doubt, don't write a live ticket".
My biggest issue though, is with roadside licence suspension. This is really giving the Police the power of summary punishment without trial. If the driving is dangerous enough to warrant this it should be dealt with by arrest. What happens if you're suspended and subsequently aquitted of the charge? Do you get your 28 days back? Or do you get a credit for next time?
If anyone doubts that it happens. It actually did happened to several drivers when the cops set up a speed trap at an illegal 30 km'h roadworks restriction on the Waipu straights in 2003.

Its certainly a bit of a worry, but thats a LAW issue not an attitude issue, i guess to quote a cop Lou you "just roll over and take it where it hurts the least."

Or get a GSXR and out run the suckers. LOL.

[Ixion]

Roadside licence suspension only applies to very serious offences. ..
* are caught speeding at more than 50 km/h above any applicable speed limit (does not apply to speed camera offences)
..
The fact that parliament passed laws that allow this to happen show that the intent is to take the most dangerous drivers off the roads as quickly as possible. This is in the interest of all law abiding road users.
..
Targeting temporary 30kph zones stinks a little of revenue gathering and quota filling but as long as the temporay zone has been set up legally I have no problem with targeting idiots that zap through these zones at 90 - 100+ kph. Their actions are dangerous and they deserve to be heavily penalised.

The intentions of Parliament are obvious, and probably laudable. But an example of where intentions and reality can part company is in the example that Mr Giradin instances. I cannot clearly remember all the details now but it went something like this :

A road gang doing some work that didn't involve digging up the road (tree trimming or something like that ?) had been given permission to set up a 30kph resriction while they were working. Fair enough, no-one wants someone clipping past their arse (sorry Mr Hitcher, I meant ass) at 100kph. When they went home at night the restriction ended, and they were supposed to remove the signs. (No need for the restriction because nothing happening)

They didn't remove them (probably seemed a lot of bother , just have to put them back tomorrow morning). The cops set up a speed trap. Now, apart from the signs, there was nothing to indicate any need to slow down. And there was some doubt about the visibility of the signs - which should not have been there anyway.

This was in a 100kph area. So motorists came along doing the "normal" (and legal) 100kph speed of 80 - 100kph. Didn't see the sign or saw it, looked around, said "what the hell, must have just forgotten to take in the sign" and proceeded on.

To be stopped , and ticketed for doing for than 50kph above the (30kph) limit. And instant suspension. And loss of job.

No danger here - indeed no actual offence (since the restriction didn't legally apply). Was that parliament's intention. I doubt it. But it's what happened. And nothing, nothing at all, could undo the damage for the guy(s) that lost his job as a result.

[denill]

Roadside licence suspension only applies to very serious offences. Your licence will be suspended for 28 days if you:

* are caught drink-driving at more than double the legal alcohol limit

* are caught speeding at more than 50 km/h above any applicable speed limit (does not apply to speed camera offences)

* fail or refuse to supply a blood sample to be tested for excess blood alcohol.

Yeah, apart from the "speeding at more than 50 km/h above any applicable speed limit" piece of crap - they are serious offences.

But the cop then becomes not only the cop - but judge and jury......... On the side of the road??

Not good...... Specially if the cop happens to be an arsehole.

But don't blame the police force - that is our politicians f*** up.

Cheers
Bill

[Lou Girardin]

Roadside licence suspension only applies to very serious offences. Your licence will be suspended for 28 days if you:

* are caught drink-driving at more than double the legal alcohol limit

* are caught speeding at more than 50 km/h above any applicable speed limit (does not apply to speed camera offences)

* fail or refuse to supply a blood sample to be tested for excess blood alcohol.

The fact that parliament passed laws that allow this to happen show that the intent is to take the most dangerous drivers off the roads as quickly as possible. This is in the interest of all law abiding road users.

Talk to people about what deters them from speeding and or drink driving and it is usually the potential loss of their licence that is the strongest deterant, not huge over the top fines. Therefore roadside suspension sends a strong message to drivers that may otherwise be willing to take risks that will undoubtedly endanger other road users.

Targeting temporary 30kph zones stinks a little of revenue gathering and quota filling but as long as the temporay zone has been set up legally I have no problem with targeting idiots that zap through these zones at 90 - 100+ kph. Their actions are dangerous and they deserve to be heavily penalised.



This still doesn't address the question of cop justice, which is completely contrary to the Westminster system of justice.
As I said, if the offence is that serious, arrest them, you have the power and always have had. The truth is that on many of these 50 plus over the limit offences, you guys would not get home on a dangerous charge.
BTW 81 k's in a temp 30 costs you your licence and with the proliferation of temp speed zones where there is no actual work being done, or loose chip or any other valid reason this is becoming a major problem. I know for certain that I'm reluctant to slow for a 30 temp when I'm at 100 k's with someone right on my tail. It's just asking for a Liberace. :buggerd:

[spudchucka]

This still doesn't address the question of cop justice, which is completely contrary to the Westminster system of justice.
As I said, if the offence is that serious, arrest them, you have the power and always have had. The truth is that on many of these 50 plus over the limit offences, you guys would not get home on a dangerous charge.
BTW 81 k's in a temp 30 costs you your licence and with the proliferation of temp speed zones where there is no actual work being done, or loose chip or any other valid reason this is becoming a major problem. I know for certain that I'm reluctant to slow for a 30 temp when I'm at 100 k's with someone right on my tail. It's just asking for a Liberace. :buggerd:
I don't always slow to 30kph either when there is no actual road workers present or if it is late at night. However I always make sure my speed is very well below licence snatching levels.

The Westminster system is the base of our justice system but does that mean we can't vary things to suit our own situation? The powers that be deem that excessive speed is a danger to other legitimate road users and +50kph is the level at which they have said "thats enough".

Perhaps we should arrest all speeders and take them straight before the nearest Court or JP, (if it happened outside Court hours) and let them decide the penalty on the spot.

[spudchucka]

Not good...... Specially if the cop happens to be an arsehole.

If the offence happened, what difference does it make whether the cop is an arsehole or not? The outcome is the same regardless.

[spudchucka]

This was in a 100kph area. So motorists came along doing the "normal" (and legal) 100kph speed of 80 - 100kph. Didn't see the sign or saw it, looked around, said "what the hell, must have just forgotten to take in the sign" and proceeded on.
Did the cops act in good faith, believing that the temporay speed zone was a legitimate one or did they act malitiously knowing that the tempoary zone was dodgy? I don't think anyone here can answer that.

The drivers still have to take some responsibility as there were 30kph signs in place and they failed to comply with those signs. Would it not have been prudent of the driver to slow down just in case there was an actual reason for the signs to be there in the first place? To assume that they are misplaced signs would be extremely foolish.

[Clockwork]

Maybe the suspension should be deferable for 24/48 hours and/or contestable. And maybe it could be taken into consideration at any subsequent court imposed sanction otherwise the offender is being punished twice for the same offence...... and lets not forget, our esteemed leaders are currently considering lowering the 50kph threshold to 40kph!!

BTW doesn't "sustained loss of traction" lead to automatic vehicle impounding?

[denill]

If the offence happened, what difference does it make whether the cop is an arsehole or not? The outcome is the same regardless.

You guys really are in denial............ You continue to defend the indefensible.....

You deliberately or undeliberately missed my point when I said - "But the cop then becomes not only the cop - but judge and jury......... On the side of the road??

Not good...... Specially if the cop happens to be an arsehole."

The point is surely obvious and on it's own causes concern how any poly not in the Third Reich could table it??
The point - If the cop is an arsehole he is likely to nail you 'cos he doen't like you!!!!!!

Now go on, say - "that would never happen".

[denill]

If the offence happened, what difference does it make whether the cop is an arsehole or not? The outcome is the same regardless.

In case you still miss my point.

If the cop happens to be an arsehole with attitude - you know the sort of cop. "If the offence happened" or not can very conceivably make no difference. That is the point!!!!!

Call that justice??

I don't. Unless you are in Bali. There they stop Tourists and just ask for money. Don't have to have done anything wrong. Yeah it happens all the time. Don't laugh, NZ is not too far behind.....

[Lou Girardin]

The Westminster system is the base of our justice system but does that mean we can't vary things to suit our own situation? The powers that be deem that excessive speed is a danger to other legitimate road users and +50kph is the level at which they have said "thats enough".


No you can't. That system was developed based on precepts set down in the Magna Carta. Change simple concepts like innocent until PROVEN guilty and you negate the entire system. (That's proven in a court of law, not some cops mind)
Something that seems to have escaped to micro second attention spans of our population.

[Lou Girardin]

Did the cops act in good faith, believing that the temporay speed zone was a legitimate one or did they act malitiously knowing that the tempoary zone was dodgy? I don't think anyone here can answer that.


Did they even check? We always had to ensure the legality of temp zones on the M/way BEFORE we enforced them. But then we were just snakes.

[Ixion]

Did the cops act in good faith, believing that the temporay speed zone was a legitimate one or did they act malitiously knowing that the tempoary zone was dodgy? I don't think anyone here can answer that.

The drivers still have to take some responsibility as there were 30kph signs in place and they failed to comply with those signs. Would it not have been prudent of the driver to slow down just in case there was an actual reason for the signs to be there in the first place? To assume that they are misplaced signs would be extremely foolish.

I'm assuming that the cops were acting in good faith. My point was really toward the draconian nature of the instant suspension law, because there is no way to reverse it. The guys who slowed down from 100 to 70 copped a fine. But they got it back once it was realised that the speed trap was actually "illegal". But the guys who slowed from 100 to 81 lost their license and jobs. Even once the error was realised the penalty could not be reversed. So despite being innocent they were still punished.

I agree that a wise person would slow down - as the vast majority did (though there was some argument about the signage, apparently it wasn't the clearest) . But I think most folk would do a I would, slow from 100 to 60 or 70 maybe look round , think "hm whats going on" push on a little further being ready to slow right down if necessary. Then figure "nothings happening, no road works, what goes on" . Letting speed slip back up to 80kph (still under the open road limit) doesn't seem unduly irresponsible.

Incidentally has anyone else noticed the tendency for there to be road works temporary limit signs at the beginning of the road works. But no "terminator" when you can go back to normal speed. I've seen this quite a bit lately - latest was on the Southern Motorway last night.

[Ixion]

Maybe the suspension should be deferable for 24/48 hours and/or contestable. And maybe it could be taken into consideration at any subsequent court imposed sanction otherwise the offender is being punished twice for the same offence...... and lets not forget, our esteemed leaders are currently considering lowering the 50kph threshold to 40kph!!

BTW doesn't "sustained loss of traction" lead to automatic vehicle impounding?


Personally I think that Mr Giradin is correct (incidentally, this isn't an argument with the police, it's an argument with the government). If the offence is serious enough to warrant instant suspension it's serious enough to warrant arrest. And let a judge impose the suspension at the bail hearing if necessary, after hearing any argument in defence. That's my real objection - if you are charged with an offence in court you do have an opportunity to state your defence to a neutral third party . Said neutral party may not believe you but you have the chance to put your case. With the instant loss of license you have no such chance. The only other person is the cop, who is effectively prosecutor, and judge. And even if a real judge disagrees later it's too late, the damage is done and can't be reversed.

[Funkyfly]

If the offence happened, what difference does it make whether the cop is an arsehole or not? The outcome is the same regardless.

Heh heh, man you are a strange one, only two dozen posts ago old scumdog was relating how he pulled up some speeding bikers, but he didnt ticket them, yet other cops would have.

The outcome is just as often based on the cops attitude as it is the offence.

Personal example - One cop pulled me over for 130kph and let me go with a warning, yet another cop pulled me up for 120 and gave me a ticket. Both were speeding offences but totally different outcomes.

[scumdog]

Personally I think that Mr Giradin is correct (incidentally, this isn't an argument with the police, it's an argument with the government). If the offence is serious enough to warrant instant suspension it's serious enough to warrant arrest. And let a judge impose the suspension at the bail hearing if necessary, after hearing any argument in defence. That's my real objection - if you are charged with an offence in court you do have an opportunity to state your defence to a neutral third party . Said neutral party may not believe you but you have the chance to put your case. With the instant loss of license you have no such chance. The only other person is the cop, who is effectively prosecutor, and judge. And even if a real judge disagrees later it's too late, the damage is done and can't be reversed.

Down here you might have to wait up to three weeks for the next available court day.
Would not change much except 'spose you got your licence back after 21 days instead of 28 IF you got found not guilty.

[scumdog]

[QUOTE=spudchucka]Did the cops act in good faith, believing that the temporay speed zone was a legitimate one or did they act malitiously knowing that the tempoary zone was dodgy? I don't think anyone here can answer that.
/QUOTE]

Did they even check? We always had to ensure the legality of temp zones on the M/way BEFORE we enforced them. But then we were just snakes.

Yup, I ALWAYS do Lou, drive through both ways to check the signs and then note loose gravel and/or workmen there before I go about making "innocent" motorists lives miserable.

[spudchucka]

Heh heh, man you are a strange one, only two dozen posts ago old scumdog was relating how he pulled up some speeding bikers, but he didnt ticket them, yet other cops would have.

The outcome is just as often based on the cops attitude as it is the offence.

Personal example - One cop pulled me over for 130kph and let me go with a warning, yet another cop pulled me up for 120 and gave me a ticket. Both were speeding offences but totally different outcomes.
We're talking about speeds in excess of 150kph at which point you may lose your licence for 28 days. Except in exceptional circumstances I can't see too much discretion being used in these circumstances. If the cop is going to suspend your licence it makes no difference to the outcome how grumpy or nice he is about it.

[spudchucka]

Did they even check?
I don't think anyone here can answer that question either.

[spudchucka]

In case you still miss my point.

If the cop happens to be an arsehole with attitude - you know the sort of cop. "If the offence happened" or not can very conceivably make no difference. That is the point!!!!!

Call that justice??

I don't. Unless you are in Bali. There they stop Tourists and just ask for money. Don't have to have done anything wrong. Yeah it happens all the time. Don't laugh, NZ is not too far behind.....
So you're suggesting that an arsehole cop would just make up a speed reading in order to snatch somebody's licence?

[James Deuce]

Well i can sleep easy knowing my GSXR would kick your yammys butt any day. Arh yes, the serenity of bigotry, fantastic.

I'm pretty sure penis extensions are available through the Public Health system for those poor unfortunates that find it difficult to interface with a reality that doesn't necessarily contain the urgent desire to spend one's life "kicking butt".

[denill]

So you're suggesting that an arsehole cop would just make up a speed reading in order to snatch somebody's licence?

Uh huh. Now we are getting there.....

Yes - I am suggesting that the illconcived law allows for that very thing to happen. And I strongly suspect that it has happened. I have been pulled up for an alleged speed that was bullshit, so what's the diff??
And for you to say that it would never happen is stupid and illogical.
But at least it would be consistent with the 'cop input' into this thread where logic is not applied. Where - 'thems is the rools' prevails.

I say again. It is dangerous to give a cop the power of a judge and jury......

[Clockwork]

Why does this thread keep degenerating into personal attacks?

No one in this debate is going to make ANY worthwhile point about other peoples "bad" attitudes without first addressing their own.

(and yes, I do know I took a cheap shot in reference to indoo earlier, which I almost immediately regretted)

[James Deuce]

Why does this thread keep degenerating into personal attacks?

No one in this debate is going to make ANY worthwhile point about other peoples "bad" attitudes without first addressing their own.

(and yes, I do know I took a cheap shot in reference to indoo earlier, which I almost immediately regretted)

It is pointless trying to discuss attitudes toward the Police on an Internet forum. There is a degree of separation introduced by an electronic format, and people feel safe to say outrageous stuff that they would never say in a face to face confrontation. There are a couple of characters who have decided to read a lot more into one individual's frustration with a bunch of "Internet Tough Guys", often labelling any Police person who sticks their head up as the worst kind of power abuser, merely because they are immune from the smack in the face they would probably get from ANYONE who was spoken to like that.

There are a vast range of options open to people who feel abused or misrepresented by individual Police persons, just as there are a vast range of options available for people to voice their displeasure with government policy in regard to Policing.

A special interest community is not the place for accusations and insults. However don't dish it out if you don't want it back. If people who are unhappy with the way Policing is going in NZ spent as much energy baiting their local MP as they did baiting guys who could be used as a helpful, anonymous resource to provide FACTS for your arguments, then that would be constructive! That's what communities are for.

Lou is the only person I see out of all the people who have an argument against the Police, who debates to a certain extent, but also pushes his views into the public arena. A lot of the stuff Lou writes to newspapers is much better reasoned than the stuff that makes it in here.

Being an arse in front of people who you actually have more in common with, isn't usually a diplomatic strategy of any merit.

[Lou Girardin]

So you're suggesting that an arsehole cop would just make up a speed reading in order to snatch somebody's licence?

It happened in ChCh, although it was not a suspension offence, whether it was deliberate or the cop didn't care to much about correct radar operation is debatable. The guy got off because he, luckily, had a reading of his speed from GPS.

[RDJ]

There is a degree of separation introduced by an electronic format, and people feel safe to say outrageous stuff that they would never say in a face to face confrontation.

Well put. I assume that in the absence of a moderator and despite the fact that the rider community in NZ is relatively small, some (few) people on the forum think that personal abuse is "safe" because of this apparent anonymity.

There is of course no real anonymity even on the net, and I'd ask the people who delight in personal attacks (you know who you are) to consider what effect this thread could have if introduced as an example of Kiwi riders' "attitudes" at, say, a Select Committee hearing on spending money on less slippery road markings, or lower ACC levies, or sharing bus lanes, or... we would not look good would we?

Not that self interest is the only reason not to bash police who after all are trying to do a difficult job well, just like most of the rest of us.

It would be good if we could debate the issues in a collegial fashion, but since that goal appears out of reach, perhaps we better not debate these issues at all.

[idb]

The outcome is just as often based on the cops attitude as it is the offence.

Personal example - One cop pulled me over for 130kph and let me go with a warning, yet another cop pulled me up for 120 and gave me a ticket. Both were speeding offences but totally different outcomes.
But that could be a good thing FF.
Aren't we all for cops using discretion?
Maybe 130 was OK in the circumstances and 120 wasn't in that situation?
One of the biggest complaints on this forum is being ticketed for exceeding the speed limit when (in the complainers opinion) there were no hazards at all.

[SPman]

A question for the policemen on here.
Do you guys ever get on job auditing? As in, a training officer type, follows you around, or goes out with you, at random times, to see how you are performing in the field and ensuring you do things "by the book", etc?

[spudchucka]

A question for the policemen on here.
Do you guys ever get on job auditing? As in, a training officer type, follows you around, or goes out with you, at random times, to see how you are performing in the field and ensuring you do things "by the book", etc?
Thats the job of your supervisor. He / She checks all your paper work for detail and accuracy. Sometimes they ride along with you but generally you'll only get serious performance audits after you stuff up and they put the cop on a performance management plan.

[spudchucka]

when (in the complainers opinion) there were no hazards at all.
What they fail to see is that at that time THEY were a hazard to anyone else using the road.

[spudchucka]

It happened in ChCh, although it was not a suspension offence, whether it was deliberate or the cop didn't care to much about correct radar operation is debatable. The guy got off because he, luckily, had a reading of his speed from GPS.
The speed was 113 as I recall, which is out of context in a discussion about licence snatching offences. Did the guy prove that he didn't speed or did he simply create reasonable doubt? As I've said before I won't ticket anyone unless I'm 110% certain of the offence and the offender. If this cop had lower standards than that at the time of this incident then hopefully he has raised them accordingly.

[spudchucka]

I say again. It is dangerous to give a cop the power of a judge and jury......
Its dangerous to travel at high speeds. Thats why laws were passed to deal with the worst offenders quickly and efficiently. Retaining your drivers licence is your responsibility.

[denill]

Its dangerous to travel at high speeds. Thats why laws were passed to deal with the worst offenders quickly and efficiently. Retaining your drivers licence is your responsibility.

I have to admire you.

You always come back with an answer - even if it is just a diatribe that does not address the topic with any logical reasoning. That pretty much makes sure no resolution is ever reached but just results in perpetuation of the thread. Until every body gets sick of it - or dies of old age.

I think I will settle for the former (rather than the latter).

Cheers
Bill

[saiko]

I'd just like to say that this is a very popular thread. Well, now I've had my say too....

[saiko]

...unless I'm 110% certain of the offence ....

Fair enough, but I often wonder when I read stuff like this, is it possible to be > 100%?

I mean I can understand when prices go up 110%, but how can a fixed quantity be greater than 100%. "No you can't have 110% of that cake - there will be none left for your brother"!

My failure rate in dating is 100%. It would be a pretty sad outlook if it got to 110%. I probably wouldn't even talk to myself any more....

[scumdog]

I have to admire you.

You always come back with an answer - even if it is just a diatribe that does not address the topic with any logical reasoning. That pretty much makes sure no resolution is ever reached but just results in perpetuation of the thread. Until every body gets sick of it - or dies of old age.

I think I will settle for the former (rather than the latter).

Cheers
Bill

Re your comment on Spuds comment:

They were actually intending to have an offence of "Crashing Due to Speed in Excess for Road Conditions" - but thought as a lot of the offenders in this catagory would end up dead and unable to pay the ticket fee, that it might be best to just have 'speeding tickets' and say speed is dangerous:whistle:

[Indoo]

(and yes, I do know I took a cheap shot in reference to indoo earlier, which I almost immediately regretted)

You did? I didn't notice so don't worry about it.



I say again. It is dangerous to give a cop the power of a judge and jury......

By that measure Police shouldn't be inflicting any instant punishments on anyone. Including taking people into custody, impounding racing cars, suspending the licenses of drunk drivers etc.

The law incorporates instant punishments to stop people from continuing to commit what it considers dangerous offences immediately. Its basically aimed to stop these people committing the same offences until they can be brought before the court. You would'nt really want a system whereby every recidivist drunk driver was allowed to keep on driving until a court appearence some 10 months down the track.

[marty]

The law incorporates instant punishments to stop people from continuing to commit what it considers dangerous offences immediately. Its basically aimed to stop these people committing the same offences until they can be brought before the court. You would'nt really want a system whereby every recidivist drunk driver was allowed to keep on driving until a court appearence some 10 months down the track.

well made point indoo.

obviously some people do want that though. or maybe only for the really serious stuff.

[drummer]

I don't always slow to 30kph either when there is no actual road workers present or if it is late at night. However I always make sure my speed is very well below licence snatching levels.OK.. so you admit to speeding at times... so it must follow that you show descretion... again a no-brainer I would hope. However... what is YOUR criteria for deciding descretion... do you have hard and fast rules... are you likely to act different if you have just had a hard time with the missus?

[drummer]

If the offence happened, what difference does it make whether the cop is an arsehole or not? The outcome is the same regardless.
What? hang on... you just said that you don't always slow down for roadworks... so an offence happens. Are you saying therefore that descretion doesn't exist..? Are you saying that YOU would be fined everytime in that situation if caught?

[drummer]

Thats the job of your supervisor. He / She checks all your paper work for detail and accuracy. Sometimes they ride along with you but generally you'll only get serious performance audits after you stuff up and they put the cop on a performance management plan.
Now this is where I believe the NZ police is not serving the public well. Internal audits have historically (look at Aussie for examples) been ineffective. There needs to be an independent body looking continuously at the performance of the Police department.

[drummer]

Its dangerous to travel at high speeds. Thats why laws were passed to deal with the worst offenders quickly and efficiently. Retaining your drivers licence is your responsibility.
crikey spud... I agree with you... on this post...

[Ixion]

You did? I didn't notice so don't worry about it.



By that measure Police shouldn't be inflicting any instant punishments on anyone. Including taking people into custody, impounding racing cars, suspending the licenses of drunk drivers etc.

The law incorporates instant punishments to stop people from continuing to commit what it considers dangerous offences immediately. Its basically aimed to stop these people committing the same offences until they can be brought before the court. You would'nt really want a system whereby every recidivist drunk driver was allowed to keep on driving until a court appearence some 10 months down the track.

Not logical argument. Wouldn't affect right to arrest at all . Arrested person is either police bailed - so there is no major harm if they are later found not guilty. Or they go before a judge next day to argue bail. And accused then has right to representation , to state his case etc.

Think about it. You arrest someone, you have to tell them their rights. You have to ensure they have access to a lawyer. They have a chance to state their case to a judge the next day. But when you do a roadside suspension , none of this occurs. They don't get told their rights. They have no opportunity to speak to a lawyer. There is no review by a third party. You are judge, jury, prosecuting counsel and bailiff.

OK, so we'll accept that you never make a mistake. Can you say the same for every copper, always ? (this isn't a hit on you, incidentally, or any individual - it's an argument against a bad law). Can you be absolutely 100% certain that every copper, everytime is going to be totally correct about whether someone is "racing" or not ? Absolutely certain that every copper everytime is going to make the right call on how long "sustained" loss of traction is ?

So here you have someone losing their license, but without any of the safeguards that accompany an arrest. What happens if you are wrong ? (As was the case with the speed trap that wasn't). The damage is done, someone has been punished, unjustly, for something they never did, with no chance for redress.

As to the recidivist argument, that is irrelevant because there is nothing in the law that says it applies only to recidivists. The guy you've just suspended may have no record at all - its the first time he ever exceeded the limit.

As for the "get dangerous people off the road quickly" argument, if that were the objective of the law it could have been much better addressed by giving the officer the right to arrest (if he didn't already have it ). Then the judge at the bail hearing next day would have the ability to make bail conditional on surrendering license (or car etc). No surrender, he gets locked up anyway, no danger to anyone.

Same result, but with safeguards. The accused gets told his rights. He gets to consult a lawyer. He gets to make his explanation, point out the error , whatever. The decision is made by an objective third party (the judge/magistrate)

[idb]

Not logical argument. Wouldn't affect right to arrest at all . Arrested person is either police bailed - so there is no major harm if they are later found not guilty. Or they go before a judge next day to argue bail. And accused then has right to representation , to state his case etc.

Think about it. You arrest someone, you have to tell them their rights. You have to ensure they have access to a lawyer. They have a chance to state their case to a judge the next day. But when you do a roadside suspension , none of this occurs. They don't get told their rights. They have no opportunity to speak to a lawyer. There is no review by a third party. You are judge, jury, prosecuting counsel and bailiff.

OK, so we'll accept that you never make a mistake. Can you say the same for every copper, always ? (this isn't a hit on you, incidentally, or any individual - it's an argument against a bad law). Can you be absolutely 100% certain that every copper, everytime is going to be totally correct about whether someone is "racing" or not ? Absolutely certain that every copper everytime is going to make the right call on how long "sustained" loss of traction is ?

So here you have someone losing their license, but without any of the safeguards that accompany an arrest. What happens if you are wrong ? (As was the case with the speed trap that wasn't). The damage is done, someone has been punished, unjustly, for something they never did, with no chance for redress.

As to the recidivist argument, that is irrelevant because there is nothing in the law that says it applies only to recidivists. The guy you've just suspended may have no record at all - its the first time he ever exceeded the limit.

As for the "get dangerous people off the road quickly" argument, if that were the objective of the law it could have been much better addressed by giving the officer the right to arrest (if he didn't already have it ). Then the judge at the bail hearing next day would have the ability to make bail conditional on surrendering license (or car etc). No surrender, he gets locked up anyway, no danger to anyone.

Same result, but with safeguards. The accused gets told his rights. He gets to consult a lawyer. He gets to make his explanation, point out the error , whatever. The decision is made by an objective third party (the judge/magistrate)

However.....because you have to be licensed by the gummint to operate a vehicle on the road (it isn't an automatic right) then the gummint can apply any rules they desire to the access to the roads.
They have decided to appoint the Police as their agents and allow them certain powers including the temporary revocation of the licence issued to you when in their judgement you have acted outside certain rules.
So normal law surely doesn't apply here - it's a bit like a bouncer at a night club. If he doesn't like the look of you he can stop you getting in with no explanation. You have no rights of entry, it is private property.

I must admit though, in the course of thinking about this, I am unsure about how they can justify in law the seizing of your property - namely your car.

[marty]

Now this is where I believe the NZ police is not serving the public well. Internal audits have historically (look at Aussie for examples) been ineffective. There needs to be an independent body looking continuously at the performance of the Police department.


???? for individual performance appraisal? do you really have ANY idea?

[idb]

???? for individual performance appraisal? do you really have ANY idea?
Do you really need that answered?

[drummer]

???? for individual performance appraisal? do you really have ANY idea?
read my post... and please... if you don't understand english... get some help :laugh: (smilie inserted to assist reader in the understanding of the nature of that comment lest I ever seriously abuse him!) note the word "department".

[Ixion]

However.....because you have to be licensed by the gummint to operate a vehicle on the road (it isn't an automatic right) then the gummint can apply any rules they desire to the access to the roads.
..
I must admit though, in the course of thinking about this, I am unsure about how they can justify in law the seizing of your property - namely your car.

Oh, the Gubbermint can do whatever they choose. As indeed they have done in this case. However there is a long tradition in English justice , going back at least to the Great Charter, and beyond , that the law should not be arbitrary,and that wrong should never lack a remedy.

This law ignores that tradition, and has the potential for injustice. And a licence to do something can be as valuable a property in law as a physical thing .

The ability of the Gubbermint to do it is not in question. Whether it is should do it is another matter.

This law allows for the possibility of injustice, without manifest need .That injustice has rarely eventuated so far represents the triumph of the conscience of our police offices over the constitutional understanding of our legislators.

Incidentally, I would dispute the theory currently in vogue that access to the Quen's Highway is a privilege not a right. There has been a right of free access (free as in free speech, not free beer) since at least Norman times - as long in fact as there has been a Queen's (or King's ) Highway. Gubbermints have only the power to administer and regulate that access for the common good. The Queen's highway is NOT private property (nor does it belong to the Gubbermint) , it is vested in the Crown, and there are Common Law rights to use it.

[marty]

read my post... and please... if you don't understand english... get some help :laugh: (smilie inserted to assist reader in the understanding of the nature of that comment lest I ever seriously abuse him!) note the word "department".

your original post was in reply to spud's comment on individual performance appraisal, so i presumed that was what you were talking about.

see here:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by spudchucka
Thats the job of your supervisor. He / She checks all your paper work for detail and accuracy. Sometimes they ride along with you but generally you'll only get serious performance audits after you stuff up and they put the cop on a performance management plan.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Now this is where I believe the NZ police is not serving the public well. Internal audits have historically (look at Aussie for examples) been ineffective. There needs to be an independent body looking continuously at the performance of the Police department.


or are you talking abvout 2 different things?

[James Deuce]

... are you likely to act different if you have just had a hard time with the missus?

Why not? As you've proven different human beings have a different level of tolerance. Some people can discuss a difference of OPINION in a civilised manner. Others push my bullshit meter so far off the scale it bends round the needle stop.

[James Deuce]

read my post... and please... if you don't understand english... get some help :laugh: (smilie inserted to assist reader in the understanding of the nature of that comment lest I ever seriously abuse him!) note the word "department".

I suggest you learn how reference your own previous posts, rather than jokingly accusing others of a failing you've demonstrated yourself, only too well.

I too took it to mean that you were questioning the viability of the Police Force's internal performance appraisal process. Like that's any of our business.

[drummer]

your original post was in reply to spud's comment on individual performance appraisal, so i presumed that was what you were talking about. or are you talking abvout 2 different things?I have said before on this thread that an independant body should review the whole department and I believe it would also filter down to individual reviews and audits. Much along the lines of the Education Review Office does in auditing schools.

[drummer]

Why not? As you've proven different human beings have a different level of tolerance. Some people can discuss a difference of OPINION in a civilised manner. Others push my bullshit meter so far off the scale it bends round the needle stop.
Thats what I also believe which contradicts Spuds argument about consistancy

[drummer]

I suggest you learn how reference your own previous posts, rather than jokingly accusing others of a failing you've demonstrated yourself, only too well.

I too took it to mean that you were questioning the viability of the Police Force's internal performance appraisal process. Like that's any of our business.
Well actually it IS our business... especially when the publics increasing perception is that the NZ police are no longer doing the job they expect.

[James Deuce]

Thats what I also believe which contradicts Spuds argument about consistancy

If you are going to bag others about their inability to read English, then at least attempt some consistency of your own, and aim for some accuracy in spelling, punctuation, and grammar.

Why is it so hard for people to accept that every human being on the planet has their good and bad days?

If the worst thing that can happen to you in NZ is the ocassional "unfair" speeding ticket, or a threatening act towards Police nets a textbook reaction you should thank your lucky stars.

I constantly marvel at how "things" manage to keep working, especially in light of how much I screw up on a daily basis.

Life isn't fair or easy, but it's a damn sight fairer and easier in NZ than just about anywhere.

[Ixion]

..
Life isn't fair or easy, but it's a damn sight fairer and easier in NZ than just about anywhere.

Very true. Ever thought that maybe the reason for that is because, over many centuries, people like Mr Drummer have made such a fuss when they perceived (rightly or worngly) that things were not being dealt with fairly ? We no longer need to object to unfairness on the battlefield as our forebears did. That is no reason to be more complacent or less vigilent than they, that we may pass on the legacy they have left us to our grandchildren's grandchildren.

[James Deuce]

Very true. Ever thought that maybe the reason for that is because, over many centuries, people like Mr Drummer have made such a fuss when they perceived (rightly or worngly) that things were not being dealt with fairly ? We no longer need to object to unfairness on the battlefield as our forebears did. That is no reason to be more complacent or less vigilent than they, that we may pass on the legacy they have left us to our grandchildren's grandchildren.

Fairness should never be the ultimate outcome of any question of societal balance.

"Mr" drummer doesn't strike me as someone arguing for a fairer or more just society. He's just pissed off because he's been busted for breaking what he believes to be an arbitrary law, by an organisation that appears to have arbitraty powers. The only statement he could produce that is more laughable than the ones he has made so far in this thread would be for him to profess that he doesn't bother voting because there's no point.

I know the difference between visionaries, revolutionaries, and whingers very well, thanks very much.

[Ixion]

[QUOTE=Jim2]Fairness should never be the ultimate outcome of any question of societal balance.
../QUOTE]

I don't know a better one, meself

[scumdog]

Now this is where I believe the NZ police is not serving the public well. Internal audits have historically (look at Aussie for examples) been ineffective. There needs to be an independent body looking continuously at the performance of the Police department.

And of course ALL tax-payer would be pleased to pay the extra for that independent body - especially when they would notice such a BIG improvement in the 'service'. :no:

- I don't think so Tim.

[idb]

Oh, the Gubbermint can do whatever they choose. As indeed they have done in this case. However there is a long tradition in English justice , going back at least to the Great Charter, and beyond , that the law should not be arbitrary,and that wrong should never lack a remedy.

This law ignores that tradition, and has the potential for injustice. And a licence to do something can be as valuable a property in law as a physical thing .
True, however operating under a licence means that you accept that you are bound by the terms and rules put in place by the licencer, whether you think they are fair or not.
Now the fact that so many of the "offences" (quotation marks appropriate due to this discussion) have set penalties would suggest to me that they are somehow different to common law offences so that the tradition of gummint applied justice does not necessarily apply.

I don't understand how the laws are arbitrary. The conditions under how they should be applied are written down and they have appointed agents to apply them.
Everyone is treated the same way (despite the dispute about that in this thread).


Incidentally, I would dispute the theory currently in vogue that access to the Quen's Highway is a privilege not a right. There has been a right of free access (free as in free speech, not free beer) since at least Norman times - as long in fact as there has been a Queen's (or King's ) Highway. Gubbermints have only the power to administer and regulate that access for the common good. The Queen's highway is NOT private property (nor does it belong to the Gubbermint) , it is vested in the Crown, and there are Common Law rights to use it.
I've never heard the argument that access to the roads is a privilege, in fact it isn't that that is regulated. It is how you act on those roads that is subject to regulation.

[scumdog]

.. are you likely to act different if you have just had a hard time with the missus?

NO-WE-ARE-ALL-ROBOTS. WE-ARE-NOT-ALLOWED-TO-HAVE-EMOTIONS-OR-HAVE OUR-JUDGEMENT-CLOUDED-IN-ANY-WAY.
WE-MAKE-DECISIONS-FROM-PURE-LOGIC.


Just like all the public do. :whistle:

[idb]

I've never heard the argument that access to the roads is a privilege, in fact it isn't that that is regulated. It is how you act on those roads that is subject to regulation.
I shouldn't have used the word fact because in fact I could be talking out of my arse, in fact.

[idb]

NO-WE-ARE-ALL-ROBOTS. WE-ARE-NOT-ALLOWED-TO-HAVE-EMOTIONS-OR-HAVE OUR-JUDGEMENT-CLOUDED-IN-ANY-WAY.
WE-MAKE-DECISIONS-FROM-PURE-LOGIC.


Just like all the public do. :whistle:
Hey!! I'm public and I think you're taking the piss.
What's the number of that independent body to sort you out!!

[drummer]

"Mr" drummer doesn't strike me as someone arguing for a fairer or more just society. He's just pissed off because he's been busted for breaking what he believes to be an arbitrary law, by an organisation that appears to have arbitraty powers. The only statement he could produce that is more laughable than the ones he has made so far in this thread would be for him to profess that he doesn't bother voting because there's no point.

I know the difference between visionaries, revolutionaries, and whingers very well, thanks very much.Actually you have got it so wrong it's a laugh! I have never been "busted" as you put it... and since returning to NZ 3 years ago have never been booked or even warned for any offence on the road or otherwise. My concern is seeing the decreased level of trust that people have in the police.

And voting is an interesting topic.. yes I vote and am an active member in a political party. You see, I do aim to make a difference... and will NOT sit compacently when I see perceived problems.

Oh... and I admit to having poor spelling.

[drummer]

NO-WE-ARE-ALL-ROBOTS. WE-ARE-NOT-ALLOWED-TO-HAVE-EMOTIONS-OR-HAVE OUR-JUDGEMENT-CLOUDED-IN-ANY-WAY.
WE-MAKE-DECISIONS-FROM-PURE-LOGIC.


Just like all the public do. :whistle:
Thought so...

[James Deuce]

[QUOTE=Jim2]Fairness should never be the ultimate outcome of any question of societal balance.
../QUOTE]

I don't know a better one, meself

If you aim for fairness someone will always be aggrieved enough by the unfairness of the fairness that you will achieve nothing. That is precisely why we don't run a "democracy" by democratic principles. Socrates himself acknowledged that Democrates concepts were well and good, but the biggest practical consensus vote was 2500-3000 people. More than that and you'll never get all the individuals and interest groups heard in a public meeting prior to a vote.

Life isn't fair, and it never will be. The sooner people adjust to that, the less aggravating life will be.

[James Deuce]

Actually you have got it so wrong it's a laugh! I have never been "busted" as you put it... and since returning to NZ 3 years ago have never been booked or even warned for any offence on the road or otherwise. My concern is seeing the decreased level of trust that people have in the police.

And voting is an interesting topic.. yes I vote and am an active member in a political party. You see, I do aim to make a difference... and will NOT sit compacently when I see perceived problems.

Oh... and I admit to having poor spelling.

So you might want to think about establishing a terms of reference for you discussion, rather than single mindedly insulting people then? Or is that not a priority for a self confessed political activist?

Or do you just want to bag the Police because they're an easy target, just like every other glory hunter with the "right" to a public opinion?

[marty]

I have said before on this thread that an independant body should review the whole department and I believe it would also filter down to individual reviews and audits. Much along the lines of the Education Review Office does in auditing schools.


so you would like an organisation mirrored on ERO's structure to audit the police?

[drummer]

So you might want to think about establishing a terms of reference for you discussion, rather than single mindedly insulting people then? Or is that not a priority for a self confessed political activist?

Or do you just want to bag the Police because they're an easy target, just like every other glory hunter with the "right" to a public opinion?You are kidding aren't you... You say I need to establish a point of reference. It is extremely clear you are inept at reading. And as far as insulting people goes... well consider this post an insult if you must!

[drummer]

so you would like an organisation mirrored on ERO's structure to audit the police?
Mirrored... no... but based on the same auditing powers yes.

[drummer]

Or do you just want to bag the Police because they're an easy target, just like every other glory hunter with the "right" to a public opinion?I'll add to my previous answer... partly because you have pushed my button. You are by the way you talk, telling me that I am bagging the police... you also are I take it suggesting that I don't really have that right. On both accounts you prove yourself to be one of those who want to gag the public. Your world it seems would have no criticism of authority... because athority is always right. Your see through your rose tinted glasses a police force that is above criticism, above question and above reproach. You see a NZ police force that is efficient and trustworthy... but if you even cared to face the facts that you obviously don't give a sh*t about, you would see a rapidly increasing percentage of the public who are losing faith in the police. That, my dear boy is a concern to me and if you opened your tightly closed eyes and ears would be clear to you as well.

That aint "bagging" the police mate... thats just telling it like it is and being concerned enough to comment.

[marty]

considering ERO is made up of education professionals who have ALL come through the school process, who do you propose fulfils this role for the police? joe schmoe can't do it, as a deep and critical understanding of the processes within an organisation are needed in order to thoroughly appraise a person within that system. however, ERO don't appraise people, they appraise systems. i have been through both, and the ERO does not have anywhere near as wideranging powers of access and critisism that the IPCA has.

but you knew that.

[drummer]

considering ERO is made up of education professionals who have ALL come through the school process, who do you propose fulfils this role for the police? joe schmoe can't do it, as a deep and critical understanding of the processes within an organisation are needed in order to thoroughly appraise a person within that system. however, ERO don't appraise people, they appraise systems. i have been through both, and the ERO does not have anywhere near as wideranging powers of access and critisism that the IPCA has.

but you knew that.yes... I do a lot of work with music in schools and however ERO operates and whatever flaws they have, it provides a good review system. The police have NO independent audit system, hence my call for one. Incidently you keep harping onto individual appraisels, but I have consistantly called for a departmental audit.

[scumdog]

I'll add to my previous answer... partly because you have pushed my button. You are by the way you talk, telling me that I am bagging the police... you also are I take it suggesting that I don't really have that right. On both accounts you prove yourself to be one of those who want to gag the public. Your world it seems would have no criticism of authority... because athority is always right. Your see through your rose tinted glasses a police force that is above criticism, above question and above reproach. You see a NZ police force that is efficient and trustworthy... but if you even cared to face the facts that you obviously don't give a sh*t about, you would see a rapidly increasing percentage of the public who are losing faith in the police. That, my dear boy is a concern to me and if you opened your tightly closed eyes and ears would be clear to you as well.

That aint "bagging" the police mate... thats just telling it like it is and being concerned enough to comment.

Blah, blah, blah, join the queue !!!!

[dart1202]

I concerned to really hear that all, the police don't have pity compassion or mind to others..
they police ought to take care of and protect its citizen so that calm and peaceful, equal to my place here easy police once [in] bribing.
hell the police that

[idb]

I concerned to really hear that all, the police don't have pity compassion or mind to others..
they police ought to take care of and protect its citizen so that calm and peaceful, equal to my place here easy police once [in] bribing.
hell the police that
You wouldn't believe the half of it.
Most of us live in constant fear of the knock on the door.

[Kickaha]

You wouldn't believe the half of it.
Most of us live in constant fear of the knock on the door.


With Scumdog down in your neck of the woods,I'd be worried about that to,he'd probably eat and drink you out of house and home :msn-wink:

[marty]

that's because that was what we were talking about. you changed the subject. and ERO does not audit, it simply evaluates.

but you knew that too.