Rob Gilchrist of Christchurch - you are scum

[scumdog]

Makes you think!............Big brother undoubtedly watches KB very closely. Police officers regularly attend meetings and events and cosy up to senior KB members. I would like to think as members of the community they are doing the same as us-enjoying motorcycling and the associated camaraderie, however my own experiences coupled with the cartwright report and cases like rob gilchrist [absence of capitals intended!] leave me highly suspicious.

• The police are not to be trusted [much like any gang].
• Avoid disappointment and assume they are not acting in your best interest.
• The police would have us contained within a totalitarian regime given half the chance.
• Police corruption and 'white lies' are rife.

While it has been said before the majority of the force are genuine good buggers doing the right thing, the percentage of dodgy fuckers is high. More disturbing is the reluctance for coppers to speak up against each other. Proof that this is still a serious problem comes from the schollum-rickards case and the deafening silence from the usually vocal KB coppers club when 'dodgy coppers are discussed.

Yup, true.

I went to the KB gathering at Danseys Pass in the weekend, cosied up to all 60 people there and right now I'm writing a massive dosier on each of them.

[Mom]

There are members who feed information to cops, about things that happen or been posted on site.

Burn them I say! Come on Cajun, name and shame...

I doubt that Police monitoring of Kiwi Biker would reveal much useful intelligence.

Burst my bubble why dont you Hitcher, gee I was just shaping up to really naughty there *sigh*

[trustme]

This is the arguement for a Police State and a Police State is where its lawfull citizens are monitored by the Government. Once you begin to advocate that it is necessary to monitor an entire orgaisation or group then those who are innocent of unlawfull activity have their rights violated, and by doing so the state orgaisation be it police or security forces have violated the rights that the Government have sworn to uphold. Once this becomes the excepted practice by the citzenry, it is only a matter of time before this practice becomes lawfull and as such the purpose of government to uphold the freedoms of western traditions become invalid.


Such is the path that you advocate

Skyryder

Welcome to the brave new world, sucks doesn't it, I don't like it either but do you ignore the potential threat & pretend it isn't there, are the citizenry safer because they are ignorant of the threat.
All the warning signs & signals were there for 9/11 but went unheeded.
UK taught us that the threat is more likely to come from within.
How do you propose we defend ourselves or should we bury our heads in the sand & pretend it does not exist. You will think i'm alarmist & over the top, 3000 people in the twin towers would like the chance to disagree as would a few hundred in Bali

[Skyryder]

Welcome to the brave new world, sucks doesn't it, I don't like it either but do you ignore the potential threat & pretend it isn't there, are the citizenry safer because they are ignorant of the threat.
All the warning signs & signals were there for 9/11 but went unheeded.
UK taught us that the threat is more likely to come from within.
How do you propose we defend ourselves or should we bury our heads in the sand & pretend it does not exist. You will think i'm alarmist & over the top, 3000 people in the twin towers would like the chance to disagree as would a few hundred in Bali

This is the other type of argument that is given by advocates who believe that curbing our privacy and the freedom of association our society is going to be a safer place. The very nature of blanket surveillance of citizens where no criminal activity has been suspected defeats the purpose of the surveillance in the first place. There can be no ethical argument that allows the private lives of citizens, where there is no suspicion of criminal activity, simply on the grounds of their associations by way of conscience.

Once you act otherwise at what point do you stop and for what purpose?


Skyryder

[Slyer]

If you're going to be a spy, don't get caught.

Also, only spy on "bad" organisations and only the stuff that is actually useful.

[trustme]

This is the other type of argument that is given by advocates who believe that curbing our privacy and the freedom of association our society is going to be a safer place. The very nature of blanket surveillance of citizens where no criminal activity has been suspected defeats the purpose of the surveillance in the first place. There can be no ethical argument that allows the private lives of citizens, where there is no suspicion of criminal activity, simply on the grounds of their associations by way of conscience.

Once you act otherwise at what point do you stop and for what purpose?


Skyryder

In an ideal world I would agree with you,the trouble is ethics has become very much a one way street. We are strong on our rights but fall way short on responsibilities & consequences for our actions,
What constitutes a threat ?, at what point is it in the public interest to take a closer look at the people in some of these organisations?

[Skyryder]

In an ideal world I would agree with you,the trouble is ethics has become very much a one way street. We are strong on our rights but fall way short on responsibilities & consequences for our actions,
What constitutes a threat ?, at what point is it in the public interest to take a closer look at the people in some of these organisations?

There has 'never' been an ideal world nor will there ever be one.


What you and those that subscribe to the theory of the end justifies the means fail to aknowledge is that our society, with all it's failings is not 'one' where 'the end does justify the means

This is the reason that excuses are given for issues such as this one.


Skyryder

[Paul in NZ]

Hang on a minute…

Police are agents or agencies, usually of the executive, empowered to enforce the law and to ensure public and social order through the legitimized use of force. The term is most commonly associated with police departments of a state that are authorized to exercise the police power of that state within a defined legal or territorial area of responsibility.

All of the groups that have been ‘spy’d’ on are groups that have disrupted or want to change the social order. It is proper surely that the Police maintain a watching brief on these organizations whose aim is often to draw attention to themselves and their causes by mounting disruptive campaigns. Note that the Police are not charged with making a judgment whether these groups are good, bad, well intentioned or simply just terrorists, simply with maintaining public order. If you disrupt the public order it is the job of the Police to restore that order.

What rankles is that the thought of spies’ is abhorrent to most of us – its somehow dirty, ignoble and underhand. Yet the reality is, the majority would rat out their mates at the drop of a hat if there was something in it for them. Ie we are all potential spys. What rankles even more is that these groups are seen as ‘the good guys’ and how dare the state spy on them… erm – who says they are the good guys? It’s fair enough to protest against coal mining etc but if it was my business and I was going about my lawful business and some dropkick started costing me big bucks – guess who I’d call, yes, the Police and ask them ‘why didn’t you do something to stop this’.

Without question – some of these groups have legitimate concerns and are right to draw our attention to these issues. Morally I tend to be on their side BUT they are indulging themselves here for a bit of extra coverage. Are they saying they have never used secret info or mounted intelligence operations, taken tips from insiders? Of course they have – they just don’t like it when it’s done to them.

I believe the Police are quite correct in mounting these operations and gathering this kind of information. This IS a free society (well relatively) but some people will always take things too far because they think they are ‘right’ and often their ‘opinions’ cross the line of what is legal depriving others of their lawful rights. I'm sorry - the Police do need to be on top of these things.

[trustme]

I wonder if there would be the same outcry if it was the skin heads & white supremists that were being 'Spied ' on. The howls of indignation from the left [ I hate that term ] / civil rights advocates seem to be as selectively applied as those from the far right who see nothing but reds under the bed. Lets not forget one of those right wing arseholes has just been sentenced for 2 race hate murders, if he had been watched it might not have happened [ in an ideal world]

[Ixion]

All of the groups that have been ‘spy’d’ on are groups that have disrupted or want to change the social order. It is proper surely that the Police maintain a watching brief on these organizations whose aim is often to draw attention to themselves and their causes by mounting disruptive campaigns.

On that basis , may we take it that the police are also spying on the Business Round Table and the Employers Federation. Who also want to "change the social order" and have been known to mount "disruptive campaigns"

But, even if the spying were so nicely balanced, it would not change the fact that our constitution places limits on the power of the police. Always has done, and for very good reasons. Which seems to be the point that eludes people here. We have never granted the police an unconstrained power to spy on people , subject only to their own discretion. For instance, the police cannot open your mail. If they wish to do so , they must obtain a court order, and specify reasonable grounds for it.

In the wake of the hysteria of 9/11 the long established procedures required to validate such police spying were signifcantly relaxed on a (largely specious) pretext that "terrorists" were about to kill people in their thousands and tens of thousands. But, does anyone really believe that any of the organisations specified are in cahoots with Al Queda ?

Moreover, those who seek to justify this sort of thing also elide over the fundamental point. That Mr Gilchrist is shown to have , for many years, conducted a systemic betrayal of the trust placed in him . That in short he is a despicable person. Would anyone here really want him as a friend or aquaintance?

And finally : This spying has been going on for years. How many terrorists have been brought before the courts as a result of Mr Gilchrist's spying? Or indeed, how many people have been charged with ANY offence. I am not aware of any. And if there are none how can it be justified? If there are no charges, that would seem a very good argument that there are no offences worthy of charging. And if there are no offences how is the spying justified?

[Ixion]

I wonder if there would be the same outcry if it was the skin heads & white supremists that were being 'Spied ' on. The howls of indignation from the left seem to be as selectively applied as those from the far right who see nothing but reds under the bed. Lets not forget one of those right wing arseholes has just been sentenced for 2 race hate murders, if he had been watched it might not have happened [ in an ideal world]

Yes. There would be. And I am the red under the bed. I do not agree with any of the groups specified. And I robustly reject their aims, as well as their methods. But I will equally robustly maintain their right to say that which I find objectionable, and to the protection of long established constitutional freedoms.

Because once I (or anyone else) accept that freedom is only available to people who say and do things that I agree with, then freedom has lost its meaning.

[Skyryder]

Hang on a minute…

Police are agents or agencies, usually of the executive, empowered to enforce the law and to ensure public and social order through the legitimized use of force. The term is most commonly associated with police departments of a state that are authorized to exercise the police power of that state within a defined legal or territorial area of responsibility.

All of the groups that have been ‘spy’d’ on are groups that have disrupted or want to change the social order.

(Groups that want to change the social order are political groups. Many of the individuals that are members of either animal or eco groups may also be politically active but this in no way can be interpreted that the group that these indavidulas belong be it animal rights or of an eco nature are political. Most are if not a single issue group such as the Save Happy Valley or of a singular disposition towards a common purpose Skyryder)


It is proper surely that the Police maintain a watching brief on these organizations whose aim is often to draw attention to themselves and their causes by mounting disruptive campaigns.

[I](This is nonsense and is no more applicable applicable as it was with the woman’s suffragette movement. The purpose of protest groups is to change what they believe to be a wrong and publicize e their activities to gain support. Those that break the law in doing so can expect the full punishment and rightly so Skyryder)[/I]


Note that the Police are not charged with making a judgment whether these groups are good, bad, well intentioned or simply just terrorists, simply with maintaining public order. If you disrupt the public order it is the job of the Police to restore that order.

(Yes but what that has to do with who is sleeping with who I for one fail to see. Skyryder)


What rankles is that the thought of spies’ is abhorrent to most of us – its somehow dirty, ignoble and underhand. Yet the reality is, the majority would rat out their mates at the drop of a hat if there was something in it for them. Ie we are all potential spys.

[I](Yes we are that is providing that the cause is not in conflict with our conscience Skyryder.)[/I]


What rankles even more is that these groups are seen as ‘the good guys’ and how dare the state spy on them…

(This is a sweeping statement and fails to acknowledge that many of us have values that are not for sale. Skyryder)


erm – who says they are the good guys? It’s fair enough to protest against coal mining etc but if it was my business and I was going about my lawful business and some dropkick started costing me big bucks – guess who I’d call, yes, the Police and ask them ‘why didn’t you do something to stop this’.

(Nothing wrong with this but most of the protest groups are not in protest with single owned business but corporations and suchlike. Not that there is any difference other than one usually has shareholder as against the other who does not but point noted. Skyryder)



Without question – some of these groups have legitimate concerns and are right to draw our attention to these issues. Morally I tend to be on their side BUT they are indulging themselves here for a bit of extra coverage.

[I](I think I’d be a bit pissed off if had a relationship for eight years and it turned that this relationship was abused for spying activities. The only one indulging himself here was the spy.Skyryder)
[/I]
Are they saying they have never used secret info or mounted intelligence operations, taken tips from insiders? Of course they have – they just don’t like it when it’s done to them.

(There is a difference between info that can be used to their advantage in as much that they might have foreknowledge of a particular event or policy but to spy on the bedroom activities as this spy did and pass this information on can in no way be justified.Skyryder)

I believe the Police are quite correct in mounting these operations and gathering this kind of information. This IS a free society (well relatively) but some people will always take things too far because they think they are ‘right’ and often their ‘opinions’ cross the line of what is legal depriving others of their lawful rights. I'm sorry - the Police do need to be on top of these things.

(It seems to me that surveillance operations on individuals of a lawful organization where the police have no information of unlawful activity is not correct and I believe that most would agree if this happened to them. It would seem and not unreasonably
that those that have crossed and deprived others of their lawful rights are the police. And that’s the right to privacy in the bedroom among other places. Skyryder)

[/QUOTE]


Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Because once I (or anyone else) accept that freedom is only available to people who say and do things that I agree with, then freedom has lost its meaning.

Which is the very point I alludied to in an earlier post.

Skyryder

[trustme]

Yes. There would be. And I am the red under the bed. I do not agree with any of the groups specified. And I robustly reject their aims, as well as their methods. But I will equally robustly maintain their right to say that which I find objectionable, and to the protection of long established constitutional freedoms.

Because once I (or anyone else) accept that freedom is only available to people who say and do things that I agree with, then freedom has lost its meaning.

Clever bloke that Voltaire & again I agree with you , but there is an element within some of these organisations that does not abide by the law , who is undermining our freedom , the police or the people who seek to overthrow social order ?

[Ixion]

Clever bloke that Voltaire & again I agree with you , but there is an element within some of these organisations that does not abide by the law , who is undermining our freedom , the police or the people who seek to overthrow social order ?

And so he was. But the ideal of freedom of speech and thought is far older. Read Plato's Apology, or Republic. Or, nearer to his own time , the beautiful Cavalier poet

If I have freedom in my love
And in my soul am free
Angels alone who soar above
Enjoy such liberty

Nor, I think , do you really agree.

As to your question, you presuppose that which you assert to prove.

What proof have you (or the police ) that the people spied upon are "undermining our freedom" or "seek to overthrow social order". Let alone by illegal or terrorist methods ? If you can produce none, then your argument fails.

I extend again my previous challenge, for you to answer. How many people have been brought before the courts, as a result of these spy operations , charged with any offence that could be construed as "seeking to overthrow social order" or "undermining our freedoms" . If you can produce none, that fact speaks for itself

Moreover , I have done a little research. The police position is nastier than it seems. It appears that their spies are tasked with finding personal information about those on whom they spy which is then used by the police to lay what can only be termed harrassment charges. Which are always withdrawn once they get to court (or thrown out by judges when they are not) : or are of such a trivial nature (akin to have an expired WoF) that the purpose of the charge is manifestly a form of blackmail

Very like the behaviour of our own beloved Gingacunt in fact.

Not the least sinister aspect of all this is the slowly rising suspicion that this police activity is in fact encouraged , if not actually directed , by political influences.