Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: About Arie, in reply to Bart Janssen,
There is no excuse for that public parading of an innocent.
Quite. Parade the guilty ones before the assembled media by all means, but let a court deliver a verdict first. The sentence handed down is far more of a deterrent than the threat of being placed before a crowd of cameras.
-
Hard News: About Arie, in reply to Idiot Savant,
I expect the police to investigate this properly and identify those responsible.
And if the investigation legitimately cannot determine who is responsible to a level sufficient to support prosecution, you'll scream bloody murder, cover-up, corruption, and everything else that comes to mind. We know.
-
Hard News: About Arie, in reply to James Butler,
it would be because none of the officers present were willing to identify them
Maybe. Or it was a solo officer with no others around, so none of them could testify. There are scenarios where the only officer covering would be the one responsible for the assault, and they don't all require institutional arse-covering.
-
Hard News: About Arie, in reply to Idiot Savant,
I want prosecutions. Anything less is the police covering for their own
Assuming that the officer(s) responsible can even be identified. Or do you want every officer who came into contact with Arie prosecuted, just because?
-
Hard News: About Arie, in reply to Kumara Republic,
And ironically, Mr Lhaws’ pet bylaw, the gang patch ban, appears to have been struck down as unconstitutional.
But not for the reason you think. The Court ruled that its area of coverage was too broad, and amounted to de facto prohibition which was not the intent. The intent of the law itself is fine, but it covers too wide a geographic area according to the Court. So if it's re-drafted to a smaller area, it'll be acceptable to the Court. Or the ruling may be overturned on appeal.
-
Hard News: What Now?, in reply to Martin Lindberg,
Hamilton should be in Wellington. Steve was the one saying Hamilton’s place was in Christchurch
this is too confusing
A big-enough earthquake will fix your geographic dissonance nicely :P
But I've now fixed it.
-
Hard News: What Now?, in reply to Kyle Matthews,
I’m encouraged that the 2nd worst thing to come out of this, after a death toll of 200 people, is not enough toilets to go around. No widespread disease, people not having food, water, violence, looting.
I think it's been a pretty near thing on the disease front, given the toilet situation. We're fortunate that we're a society that widely understands hygiene and sanitation, which mitigates a lot of the risk, but 10 days without toilets is getting very borderline for the continued lack of disease.
Not having had bodies piled in the streets also helps, and we were definitely fortunate to have avoided that particular horror.
As for water, I think we're going to hear in the aftermath that there were some very thirsty people in the east, saved mostly by the charity of others. We've seen articles posted in here that spoke of a serious lack of bulk water delivery in a manner that residents could actually utilise.
-
Hard News: About Arie, in reply to Che Tibby,
she’ll likely not reply.
If you addressed it to her as Minister, she doesn't have a choice.
-
Hard News: What Now?, in reply to Kyle Matthews,
His “Job” is in Christchurch, his office may be in Wellington but when communications are disrupted he should be close to the emergency, within radio range.
I’ll disagree with Matthew. There’s been a whole system designed to deal with significant disasters such as this, and it’s based around a facility under the beehive.
Uh, that’s not my comment. I was the one saying that even though he could do it from anywhere, John Hamilton should be in Wellington. Steve was the one saying John Hamilton’s place was in Christchurch, getting down and dirty with the front-line troops.
-
Hard News: About Arie, in reply to nzlemming,
The AOS is only supposed to be deployed in response to an incident involving armed offenders, hence the name (that note for Judith Collins, in case she hadn’t worked it out). They’re not supposed to do ordinary patrolling, armed with glocks and sheilds and who knows what else is in the back of the wagon.
uh, actually, they can be used however the District Commander feels is appropriate. Their rules of engagement are exactly the same as for any other officer, but there is nothing that says they're not allowed to patrol while armed. Most dog handlers carry at night, most South Auckland detectives carry at night, and it's entirely within policy.
I wondered how long it would take for that clip to generate outrage. Looks like it's the usual knee-jerk. In the circumstances, having four or six armed police (in two or three cars) readily available, is probably a wise precaution. There're a lot of raw emotions in Christchurch, with all the attendant risks of situations escalating.
Oh, and as for what they have in the boot, you do know there's exactly the same kit in the back of sergeants' wagons, right? That's why the AOS Sergeant they interviewed was standing next to a station wagon - that's the one that has the full arsenal in the boot, and does whether it's being driven by a general duties sergeant or an AOS one.