Rob Gilchrist of Christchurch - you are scum

[Paul in NZ]

That's where you are wrong this thread is about you and me and the expectation of our privacy if we should exercise our right to join any lawful organization that is engaged in an activity that we disagree with. This is a fundamental expectation of freedom of association. I don’t see any moral high ground here or for that matter any other comments that I have made.......periodSkyryder

Nope - what I'm saying is that you are making assumptions from an extreme point of view - the police may have had a very good reason to do what they did. They are neither so well staffed or funded to just randomly decide to do things.

This whole report is a big PR exercise....

[Ixion]

People who do shabby and dishonourable things very often have good reason for the things they do. That does not make them any the less shabby or dishonourable.

[Paul in NZ]

People who do shabby and dishonourable things very often have good reason for the things they do. That does not make them any the less shabby or dishonourable.

Thats not only not true - I don't think the police are the only shabby ones in that group???

[Ixion]

I would be very disappointed to think that you did not believe it true.
Do you mean that people who do shabby and dishonourable things never have a good reason for them? That hardly gels with reality, they almost always do, even if it is only making money.

Or do you mean that having a good reason (being paid money for instance) makes that which is inherently shabby or dishonourable decent and honourable. If so, the shade of Judas wishes to shake yuour hand.

And we , rightly, hold the police to higher standards than those with whom they deal.

[McJim]

I would be very disappointed to think that you did not believe it true.
Do you mean that people who do shabby and dishonourable things never have a good reason for them? That hardly gels with reality, they almost always do, even if it is only making money.

Or do you mean that having a good reason (being paid money for instance) makes that which is inherently shabby or dishonourable decent and honourable. If so, the shade of Judas wishes to shake yuour hand.

And we , rightly, hold the police to higher standards than those with whom they deal.

I agree - Greenpeace are both shabby and dishonourable. Not to mention shoddy and inaccurate with many of their accusations. I pay them no heed and verbally abuse them when they ask me for funding.

They will merrily destroy lives and livelihoods by putting a decimal point in the wrong place.

Fuckem - go the coppers!

[Paul in NZ]

And we , rightly, hold the police to higher standards than those with whom they deal.

Shabby and dishonourable are descriptive words used by those on the loosing side. Whenever someone talks to me about 'honour' and 'values' I hang onto my wallet and prepare for a shafting.

This whole thing is a cynical PR exercise by some shabby people...

[Pixie]

Greenpeace Corporation and their scummy hippy collaborators who started the "save the snails" thing on the West Coast,caused tens of thousands of dollars worth of damage to contractors equipment.
Tell me that isn't a criminal act.
Fuckwits

[Pixie]

I can most definitely confirm that a cucumber has never gotten me pregnant no matter how hard I try.

What about those watermelons?
Did you get any of them pregnant?

[Pixie]

Clever bloke that Voltaire ...

It's ironic ,given the subject of the thread,that he became famous for connecting a battery to a frog's arse.

pt

[Hitcher]

What about those watermelons?
Did you get any of them pregnant?

It is a known fact that watermelon pips are incapable of making females pregnant. They are, however, a vector for hepatitis.

[Skyryder]

Greenpeace Corporation and their scummy hippy collaborators who started the "save the snails" thing on the West Coast,caused tens of thousands of dollars worth of damage to contractors equipment.
Tell me that isn't a criminal act.
Fuckwits

No one said it wasn't. And I agree such people are fuckwits. But it is not the fuckwits that we are talking about but those that respect the law having their personal lives reported to the police.

[Skyryder]

Shit............ I can not understand some of the excuses given here for the actions of the police. Has everyone forgotton the howls of outrage on here when the police were targeting speedsters from hidden locations. When underhand methods are employed and we become the targets ohh what a bitch but when underhand methods are used against those whose opinions we do not share......what a change of attitude. My opinion of the police spying on law abiding citizens......... simply on the basis that they have joined a lawfull orgaisation is consistant with my oppositon to hidden speed cameras. They are both fucking sneaky and both should be roundly condemed.

Skyryder

[Hitcher]

But it is not the fuckwits that we are talking about but those that respect the law having their personal lives reported to the police.

Nobody; apart from the terminally aggrieved, doe-eyed, butter-wouldn't-melt, annoyingly pious, vegan goths who are attracted to activist groups; has produced any evidence to suggest that the Police have paid for information about innocent people.

[Skyryder]

Nope - what I'm saying is that you are making assumptions from an extreme point of view - the police may have had a very good reason to do what they did. They are neither so well staffed or funded to just randomly decide to do things.

This whole report is a big PR exercise....

Of course this is PR. I do not deny this at all but PR does not excuse the fact that individuals of lawful groups had their private lives reported on to the police by a paid informer to the police $600 a week according to the Chch Press.

If for any reason any protest group becomes aware of these (undercover) activities then it becomes a strategy of real politick to paint these activities in the worst possible light. To criticize Reese as you have done by claiming that her actions as a big PR exercise has nothing to do with the concerns that many on here have expressed. It’s a side issue.

As for me making assumptions from an extreme point of view can you please clarify what you mean by an extreme point of view while bearing in mind that your comments and I quote the police may have had a very good reason to do what they did is in itself an assumption as you have no knowledge for the reason of their actions. It seems to me that you are as guilty of this as you claim myself to be.

Skyryder

[Ixion]

Nobody; apart from the terminally aggrieved, doe-eyed, butter-wouldn't-melt, annoyingly pious, vegan goths who are attracted to activist groups; has produced any evidence to suggest that the Police have paid for information about innocent people.

So are you saying that the erminally aggrieved, doe-eyed, butter-wouldn't-melt, annoyingly pious, vegan goths who are attracted to activist groups have produced such evidence ; but it should be ignored because said erminally aggrieved, doe-eyed, butter-wouldn't-melt, annoyingly pious, vegan goths who are attracted to activist groups are not entitled to the protection of the law ; or are you saying that the only innocent people the police have spied on are the said terminally aggrieved, doe-eyed, butter-wouldn't-melt, annoyingly pious, vegan goths who are attracted to activist groups , and that's alright because terminally aggrieved, doe-eyed, butter-wouldn't-melt, annoyingly pious, vegan goths who are attracted to activist groups are fair game.

There is certainly evidence that Mr Gilchrist spied on Rochelle Rees (his girlfriend). Have you evidence that she is a criminal (bearing in mind your own frequent strictures about the laws of libel) ?

And how are other, innocent , people to determine that they have been spied on? The only ones who know are the police and Mr Gilchrist.

A very interesting point occurs to me

Mr Gilchrist was receiving regular payment for his services , from the police. So, he was either an employee, or a private contractor.

If the former, the police should have been deducting PAYE and accounting for it . If the latter Mr Gilchrist should have been providing them with a tax invoice and accounting for GST.

And in either case Mr Gilchrist should have been paying tax on that income.

Not to mention ACC levies.


I wonder if they were ? And why not? Surely the police would not argue that they are above the law.