NZ Police public image

[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 (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 (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:

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.

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 (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