Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
To inject a bit more life into this otherwise-dead thread, I found these interesting pieces online this morning (hat tip to Cameron):
Firstly, Hollywood has had its highest-grossing year ever in 2009. Oh noes, the pirates, they will bring about the end of the world as we know it. Or maybe not.Secondly, a bit of indy film-maker loving for BitTorrent. Ink was made with a budget of USD250k, zero marketing other than viral/word-of-mouth and positioning on torrent popularity trackers and IMDB, and thanks to being downloaded like crazy it's one of the most popular movies on the planet. It's even making money for the creators, it seems.
It can be done, obviously, but there's a big change in mentality required to see downloading as a marketing mechanism rather than a competitive threat.On a different, less-positive note, big copyright are fighting against a treaty that would allow cross-border trade in books that have been digitised for use with text-to-braille and text-to-speech devices used by the blind. Their reasoning is that it would be a reversal of the trend toward ever-more-restrictive copyright with every new treaty that's passed. Best quote from the article: The treaty also creates a bad precedent by loosening copyright restrictions, instead of tightening them as every previous copyright treaty has done, said Brad Huther, a [US Chamber of Commerce] director.
Doesn't it just make you feel all warm and fuzzy that these are the people who're dictating the terms of ACTA? -
It's to an extent voluntary I think, the police had legal problems making it a requirement of the job to pass.
...
Having done it, its relationship to being Commissioner of Police is nil.It's voluntary above Inspector or whatever the rank is, yes. I know this because a good friend works in HR at Police National HQ and we both think it's a nonsense. The Fire Service were able to mandate it for all operational staff at all levels, so I don't see why the Police would've found it a problem. It's not like the NZPFU is known for its laid-back approach to bargaining, after all.
As for the relationship to being Commissioner, he has the statutory power to take command at any incident. That means that, by law, he is an operational police officer. That's the same logic employed by Mike Hall when he decreed that all operational fire fighters must pass the NZFS PCA. The law makes no distinction between rank and operational status, and neither should the PCA if it is to be seen as a necessary operational evaluation.
-
STG & the Commandos are a duplication of function and one must go. As STG are streching police capabilities and the Commandos are bridging between NZDF to the SAS, then IMO it is STG that should go.
They absolutely are not a duplication of functionality. STG is Police, CTTAG (they're not the Commandos yet) is military. CTTAG isn't "bridging between NZDF to the SAS", it's part of the SAS. Based at Papakura with the SAS, trained to SAS standards in counter-terror operations, and full of men (one assumes) drawn from the military. It's an NZDF operation from start to finish, and if they can't deal with it then there's nowhere else to go short of bringing in field artillery and taking things to an entirely new level.
STG are full-time, AOS are not. STG train with the SAS, AOS largely don't. Shutting down the STG would require that AOS become a full-time duty posting and that AOS officers be up-skilled in driving, shooting, close-protection and a bunch of other things. STG wouldn't have been wound down if the Ureweras raids hadn't happened. They're a tiny group, not a large one, with an easily-justified existence just within the boundaries of ordinary policing.
The law requires a clear line between the use of military force and the use of police force. It would never be acceptable for the step beyond the AOS as it exists at present to be intervention by special forces. If STG goes, AOS has to step up in a big way. That may happen, particularly with things such as ARUs and reduction in breadth for firearms training, but I note that even in London's Met they still have another level beyond their ARVs.
You've got a particularly twisted view of what armed policing in this country does and where it's come from. Precious little has changed in the last decade in terms of structure or function. You also don't seem to understand the legal boundaries that apply to the use of the military, or even the structure of the military tools available.
-
Did he fail it?
Fail it? He'd have to take it first. Officers above Inspector, I think it is, are not required to take the physical competency assessment. Interesting contrast to the Fire Service, where the National Commander has mandated that even he has to pass the NZFS equivalent.
-
Oh, and as for "Upskill all cops to the minimum requirement of an E class gun license", what were you saying about creating a paramilitary police force? You want all cops to have to meet the same standard as a civilian who would be legally allowed to own a Bushmaster (I think you're aiming low, if you'll pardon the pun), and you're complaining that Broad's trying to change the primarily unarmed nature of policing in NZ by decreeing that not all officers need firearms training? Contrary, much?
-
Just thinking, you really don't know the history of armed policing in NZ. The STG used to be known as the Anti-Terrorist Squad, and that unit was created in the 70's in the wake of the various high-profile incidents internationally. They've always been different to the AOS, which was created in the 60's and has always been called AOS. The AOS is about cordoning and containing, the STG is about forceful resolution. There is no "interesting development", it's been this way right from the time the ATS was originally formed. The main change is that the existence and deployment of the STG is far less of a secret. The Police openly discuss the unit's existence and focus, and when they deploy it is often mentioned in the media. They're the step between the AOS and the SAS, and always have been. Broad has changed nothing, because this situation long pre-dates his time as Commissioner.
As for CTAG, it's an intelligence group not an operational one. No guns, no glory, just lots of shuffling paper.
If you meant CTTAG (note the extra T), they're just lesser-trained SAS. No spooks, just soldiers doing things that the SAS have been tasked with for decades. You realise that the SAS were stood-by to deploy to Aramoana, right? Being military, CTTAG is still subject to exactly the same Defence Act restrictions on domestic deployment that have kept the SAS in check. No change. The law makes things no easier for CTTAG than it did for the SAS, it must still be done with political approval and be presented to the House at the earliest opportunity. That's about as far from the activities of the SIS and GCHB as it's possible to get. -
I would hope that these people are guided by those co ordinating the relief effort as to what is the best way in which they could help.
In the absence of specialist training or an explicitly-stated need, the best way to help is to donate cash. Failing cash, talk to the recipient aid organisation about what else they need. There is no shortcut around the hard-won experience of the likes of Red Cross, which is that the best donation is cash that can then be used to purchase whatever else is required.
-
A good example of what constitutes suggestion of "proceeds of crime" is found in this article:
Giving evidence against Beckham this week, Detective Stephen Peat described why he believed the $628,000 apartment was purchased with drug profits.
He said more than 30 deposits, ranging between $15,000 and $40,000, were transferred into the Westpac bank account of Beckham's de facto partner Taylor over eight days.
Mr Peat said the number of transactions suggested an attempt to hide the property purchase.
That is not the behaviour of ordinary people.
-
What does concern me is his obsfucation of events, or what seems to me to be a cynical use of Senior Constable Len Snee death at the hand of Jan Molenaar to reinforce his drive for an offensive para-military force of armed 'police'.
huh? If you're referring to "A critical response unit would be established to deal with call-outs", that's been on the cards since long before the Molenaar incident. The suggestion of having Armed Response Units, along the lines of Armed Response Vehicles in the UK, was being openly discussed in the media following the Navtel Singh shooting.
If you don't realise how many firearms the Police have at their disposal, and how readily they are available to frontline officers, that's not Broad's fault. The AOS and STG already likely qualify as your "offensive para-military force of armed 'police'". Broad's not out to arm every beat officer permanently, unless I really missed something between the lines in that article. He just wants to concentrate firearms training (which last I knew amounts to 50 rounds a year for non-specialist officers) on officers who have response duties. That is, general duties, dog squad (all of whom, I will point out, are entitled to carry when on duty and most of whom do), and CIB. To me, that is perfectly sensible. I don't necessarily agree, as I feel that it is useful for all police officers to be qualified to carry and use firearms, but in the absence of quality training for all it is better to give quality training to those most likely to require it and provide a specialist response capability that actively patrols (as is the case with the ARV concept) as opposed to drawing officers from other duties.
-
Well how about a scheme to help fly those who want to and are able to help in times of emergency back to do just that.
Who would coordinate it? Ensure the people flying back are needed? Ensure that, on their arrival, they're not going to be a burden on a society that's already been damaged and is reliant on aid?
This isn't hair splitting, either, they're real problems. One of the biggest issues for disaster relief is people who show up out of the blue offering assistance, but who have no training or experience and who have no way of feeding or housing themselves and must, instead, draw on the relief effort. That's distinctly unhelpful.