so by that logic we should be trying to prevent aliens invading the earth.
If you don’t think Bart being right is at all likely,
I tend to believe governmental influence being used to suggest that the police intimidate journalists is significantly more likely than alien invasion.
Presenting absurd parallels does not help.
Because you can create a similar 2x2 logic equation that is absurd does not make what I presented less relevant, it is an utterly false equivalency.
The point is that suggesting this is political, or at the behest of the SIS or others, has massive implications.
That is precisely my point. You are arguing black and blue that there is nothing serious here at all, and I disagree with you.
Which is all fine and dandy.
But what you seem to be missing is the consequences, if you are right then no harm done to our freedoms, if I am right then our freedom is under serious threat.
If we do nothing and you are right then nothing happens.
If we do nothing and I am right then bad things* happen.
If we question the actions of the police and you are right no harm done
If we question the actions of the police and I am right we expose corruption and have the opportunity to prevent further damage to our society.
For me it's a fairly simple scenario, the only safe option is to treat this as a potentially serious threat to our society and question, investigate and challenge the police actions.
*for varying values of bad
It blows my mind just a little how very keen some people are to ascribe just, disinterested motives to the police.
Because the alternative is that we are not living in the open honest society we thought we were.
If you accept that this was harassment of a journalist to intimidate and dissuade him and other potential whistleblowers - by our police - at the behest of our government - then that is a truly scary proposition.
I totally get why some people react by trying to find some explanation that doesn't involve total corruption.
over your head there
Above sand level then ...
Are the newspapers, tv and radio really going to turn a blind eye to this?
As I've commented before this is a pretty good litmus test for those 4th estate entities that see themselves as genuine news organisations or are happy to be in the pay of the National Party/WO smear machine.
doesn’t make Nicky immune from investigation
The problem for most here is that the nature of the investigation of Hager appears to have been far more intimidatory than anyone would have expected.
Given the nature of the investigation it would appear that someone in the police or above has the additional intent of warning off any other investigative journalists from digging into anything that might potentially embarrass this government.
While that is speculation, it fits the observed facts. And most importantly, if true, it is and extremely dangerous attack on the freedom of New Zealanders.
If this was being reported on the news as occurring in say, Iran, we would all be shaking our heads and saying gosh aren't we lucky to live in a country where it is possible for journalists to question the government.
I’m giving they police is that they know better than we armchair critics how to manage there resources
Oh please. Are you seriously suggesting the police can do no wrong and should never be questioned?
Here in NZ we have multiple examples in the last five years where the police have chosen to ignore cases that they should have investigated.
There’s clearly no way that Rawshark (or Whaledump, or whatever) knew that he was acting in the public interest when he targeted Slater’s communications.
That is simply not true. There have been rumours going around that WO has had special access to OIAs and information that he should not have had access to for ages. There was a very high chance that records such as those that were in fact found would be on his computers.
The attack on his computers was illegal. But I strongly suspect that the person made the attack with the intention of exposing exactly what was exposed, that is the crime was commited for the public good.
even if a court may have ruled that they are not considered such for the purposes of law
If you are referring to recent case where the author of a biography was not considered a journalist and applying that to Hager then I suspect you are stretching the court's ruling beyond its intent. Certainly the case for Hager being a journalist is at the very least arguable in court if not a slam dunk.
It strikes me that you are dismissing his role as a journalist to try and make your arguments stronger whereas they have no relevance to your arguments.
To say that one police action is preventing another is silly.
And I disagree.