…and frankly the more disparate eyes that parse their data, the more chance of other patterns or conclusions that can be drawn from a jealously guarded pool of information.
This is the really bewildering thing. You'd think the Police of all people would welcome sound research informing evidence-based policy that works. OK, will it contain things that are hard to hear or politically embarrassing? Damn near certainly, but this is where you put on your blue serge grown-up pants, deal with it and get on with your job.
One other thing, I rag on the Herald a lot, and it richly deserves ever drop of bile so I'm very happy to extend well-earned kudos to them for publishing Jarrod Gilbert's column at all.
Sorry, I missed the bit where Labour has the power to instruct the Commissioner to stop censoring academics. Could you explain it to me, please?
If I ever say anything so absurd, please feel free to redeem this voucher for one free slap. But being the cynical cuss that I am, the most shocking things about Jarrod's column is that he wrote it in the first place and the Herald published it. It's naive in the extreme to think the Police don't have a profound and long-standing culture of hostility to scrutiny and a hell of a lot of enablers that didn't magically appear after the 2008 election.
Very few journos will ever say so on the record, for obvious reasons, but reality shows aren't the only place where Police co-operation comes with strings attached. Try being effective on the courts or crime rounds when you're tagged as having an "attitude problem" towards the Police, and if your calls are being answered at all its long after your more agreeable colleagues have their copy handed to them. There's a constant and real tension there, and while a certain amount of it is just part of the job (everyone's trying to game you for favorable coverage, so deal with it) I don't think it's acceptable from the Police any more than you do.
And I also have a certain degree of sympathy for any poor bastard (or bitch) who ends up with the Police portfolio, not matter what tint the government is. Just try suggesting the Police aren't flawless paragons when you've got a Greg O'Connor lurking in the wings to smear even the mildest critic as a crim-coddling cop-hater. It would take real political courage to do that with any consistency, and I'm not seeing a lot of that anywhere. (Count this as one of the few occasions I'd be happy to be proved wrong.)
As I said before, I agree with you that the Police Commissioner should be in the Minister's office getting his knuckles rapped. And not for the first time. But I don't think even beginning to wind back a toxic Police culture will be that easy.
It’s a shame the current regime is not a fan of transparency or honesty in government, as evidenced by the way the OIA is gamed by all holders of ministerial warrants. The only way shit like this stops is if the Minister says “Oi! You! NO!"
The current regime, Matthew? I’m glad you think the Police’s profoundly dysfunctional culture of hostility to scrutiny and criticism didn’t exist before 2008. Suspect there’s a long line of civilians, academics, journalists and ex-Police Ministers who’ve had Greg O’Connor go feral on them who’d beg to differ.
ETA: Not that I disagree with you, Matthew, that Michael Wioodhouse should (but probably won't) be reading Mike Bush the riot act. But I think you're underestimating how deeply entrenched this crap is, and how well trained politicians of all stripes are to roll over at the threat of being called cop-haters.
I might be wrong, but I don’t anticipate Jarrod’s employers at the University of Canterbury will die in a ditch over this.
Easy for me to say, but they really should – if the University of Canterbury won’t stand up for the integrity of their academic work and public access to public data, pardon my French but what’s the fucking point of having universities at all?
You watch, Goff will remain as MP for Roskill for several months after he becomes mayor until after April then both the major parties will agree to forgo the by-election.
But what you’re ignoring is the political embarrassment – because it’s hopelessly naive to think Goff wouldn’t be mocked as a double-dipping hypocrite every time he showed his face in the House. Whatever else I think of Goff and Andrew Little, they’re not stupid. Or at least not that kind of stupid.
And why would National do shit to avoid a by-election? Considering Mount Roskill's never been remotely close to marginal, all you really need to do is select someone who isn't a barking loon and will make a respectable showing. Sure, by-elections are never cheap but I'm not seeing any down side. Labour should welcome it too -- free media with a low fuck-up risk.
Andrew Little said on RNZ Nat yesterday that Goff has been relieved of that and it’s been given to, er, someone else.
Thank you, Grant. I expect some tech gnome will update the Labour Party website presently. :)
And the “secret” thing has been dialled down
It shouldn't be "dialed down", it should be retracted and apologized for because it's just a lie. Sorry for being a broken record, but this is a tiresome habit with The Herald and Orsman in particular and it's just not good enough. No local government ever sends individual notifications to everyone who might conceivably be affected by every decision it makes, and trying to frame that as some vast conspiracy on behalf of property developers is flat out dishonest.
The council “has to” prevent the future building of townhouses and studios?
Careful not to dig yourself a hole, Phil.
And while he's still a Member of Parliament (and, as far as I'm aware, still his party's "spokesman for Auckland issues"), he might want to think very carefully about whether it's wise to start laying down the law.
I’ve asked this question before, but if a Manhattan-style apartment was planned for Epsom, would David Seymour use the RMA that he wants watered down to block it?
I know David Seymour and Epsom is the cheap shot that never stops giving around here, but what does he actually have to do with Auckland City zoning or resource consent issues?
We’re already mixed housing suburban like most of the neighbourhood. Should I be hyperventilating with fear?
Yes, then again you’re smart enough to be a tad skeptical about anything on this topic from someone with a track record of running claims under his byline that turn out to be… somewhat economical with the easily checked fact.
I know it would take real political courage, but Goff would do everyone a solid if he started calling out the Herald (and the rest of the media) on flat out lies that are damaging a grown-up debate Auckland can’t keep dodging.
And here’s a modest proposal: Perhaps more people would know the intricacies of the of the Unitary Plan if the only local government issue The Herald has really cared about for years is slut-shaming Len Brown?
I’m not sure how far Goff’s call for efficient spending is a matter of policy, or simply useful rhetoric.
Someone better be asking Goff that if he doesn’t know himself, because today’s “useful rhetoric” has a most unfortunate tendency to come back and bite you in the arse. I sure don’t remember Len Brown (or anyone else) campaigning on cutting library hours before the last election, but it happened and could have been a LOT worse. The next time it might be.