Paul I accept your point.

Cheers for your reply. Look, I'm not a regular reader of this blog in that I recently discovered it in the wake of the Len Brown scenario. I do enjoy this blog and am becoming regular. Kracklite's membership dates from 2007 while yours dates from 2006 so you have some history and I appreciate you going into bat for Kracklite. Maybe you would like to explain some of the points I have raised. Much of the overall debate has been around individuals and organisations presenting information that is not whole or timely. Kracklite has been an obvious critic of this. It is now abundantly clear by the record this member has engaged in exactly the same behaviour. It is a truism that what really pisses of the average punter is hypocrisy.

From many of your comments, this reply is to the one where you are the most disingenuous. I am sure it was a shock to get a call from a person claiming to be the police commissioner and feeling intimidated as a result.
Nevertheless, you claim "I have no idea how this person found out my phone number and address and was able to identify me". It appears you told them who you were and provided a phone number and probably more. This point is not related to whether it was proper for police to telephone you after you gave them information. Rather, just like the police, you have been found out for not providing pertinent information in a timely manner. You clearly chose to cast aspersions and allude sinisterly to them knowing how to find you, without mentioning that you told them how to find you.
The debate would better be served by examining whether it was proper to contact you following whatever information you gave to police, but you chose to suppress this and now readers of this blog have only a biased side of the story.
I am yet to see any of your comments acknowledging your submission of your personal information to the police prior to them contacting you. If this is true, then you have compromised your integrity.

Plus CNN, http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/07/world/asia/new-zealand-roast-busters-teen-rape/index.html?hpt=ias_c2

Complicated but mostly true

A lot of speculation in your comments, for example,"...a drunken rant the night before".

"The Local Electoral Act simply does not allow it. I suppose it could." This is a contradiction in terms Graeme.