The Dim-Post

March 20, 2015

Two excerpts from the IPCA report into the Roastbusters

Filed under: Uncategorized — danylmc @ 6:04 am

The full report is here:

rb1rb2

Got that? The police logic goes: ‘The complainants claim that they didn’t consent, but we can’t charge these guys with sexual assault because we can’t prove that there wasn’t consent. And we can’t change them with sex with an underage person because we assume that the sex was consensual.’

Here’s what’s amazing. The officers making these decisions were detectives in the Child Protection Unit. They’re a special team trained to ‘exclusively focus’ on child abuse and they either did not understand the law around the age of consent or deliberately misinterpreted it.

The IPCA also notes, with a weary sigh:

rb3

The processes within the police for dealing with this category of crime referred to in the IPCA report sound pretty good. The problem, as they note, is that the police didn’t bother to follow any of them. Seven different complainants came forward and named same same three attackers, which is supposed to trigger something called a ‘Mass Allegation Investigation’ to address serial abuse by the same offenders or groups of offenders. Instead the police just looked at each case on an individual basis, decided it wasn’t worth prosecuting – because they didn’t understand the damn law – and then went around assuring each other that none of the victims wanted to lay a complaint – which was false – and that officers had talked to the boys and their parents, which none of them ever actually bothered to do.

At least two of the senior detectives overseeing these cases – Officer C and Officer E – appear to be incompetent. Both of them still have their jobs. And that’s really the key issue here. Police can blandly say they accept criticisms and recommendations and apologise to victims, etc, but if they don’t sack incompetent officers specifically identified as being the cause of this debacle then none of it means anything.

59 Comments »

  1. You sre charitable to describe this as incompetence. It reeks of systemic dysfunction, and raises serious questions about how the said ‘incompetence’ was motivated and allowed to prosper. Who was being served? Certainly not our society, certainly not the victims.

    Comment by Lee Clark — March 20, 2015 @ 6:58 am

  2. And here I was thinking the police did nothing because the circumstances were murky and the evidence thin. What a fool, I should have known the real reason was yet more police incompetence. Funny though how efficient they are when it comes to protecting John Key from Nicky Hager. The police need serious reform, for to long they have not had proper political oversight and public accountability.

    Comment by Sanctuary — March 20, 2015 @ 7:02 am

  3. The problem with sacking people is that it tends to lead to less owning up to mistakes.

    In areas such as health and policing mistakes can have dramatic consequences but rectifying the causes of mistakes isn’t necessarily furthered by scaring people into not coming forward.

    On the other hand extreme recklessness or malice should lead to punitive action.

    It’s a balancing act and not knowing the individuals involved makes it almost impossible to decide if it’s appropriate or witch hunt emotionalism.

    Comment by NeilM — March 20, 2015 @ 7:33 am

  4. Agree with your comments but think you’ve misread paras 84 – 90. Think it is ‘The complainants claim that they didn’t consent, but we can’t charge these guys with sexual assault because we can’t prove that there wasn’t consent beyond reasonable doubt. And we can’t change them with sex with an underage person because to do so would have implied that the victims’ complaints were false (ie the Police didn’t believe her story that she wasn’t consenting)’. And on that basis, not in the public interest…

    Comment by nw — March 20, 2015 @ 7:54 am

  5. Wise words NeilM. Much of this fiasco has involved ‘witch hunting’ already. But the report itself is objective , comprehensive and searching. It will be interesting to witness the levels of hyperbole, points-scoring and agenda-setting (which may compound existing disregard of the victims and their families) that may result from this. It will be perhaps a test of character to consider how one may resist emotionalism and stick to the main issues that arises (imo). How does this report inform us? How might the police effectively serve and protect potential and actual victims of rape?

    Comment by Lee Clark — March 20, 2015 @ 7:58 am

  6. “…The problem with sacking people is that it tends to lead to less owning up to mistakes…”

    So much for individual responsibility, that right wing concept that appears to apply to everyone else.

    I have a friend who works as a crew chief for an airline. One day after landing one of her crew instead of disarming and opening the door somehow managed to instead deploy the slide, an expensive mistake. The airline conducted a full investigation, which uncovered a flaw in it’s training and led to changes both in training and rosters. The crew member wasn’t fired, because she was a victim of a gap in rostering and lack of training. In other words, she was guilty of incompetence – error lay higher up in the airline. This is how a well functioning organisation operates.

    By contrast, these two police officers did not make mistakes because they lacked training and followed a flawed process. They are not inexperienced constables. They are senior police officers who failed to understand the law, and flagrantly ignored their own established processes. In other words, they are guilty of incompetence. And if the police operated with the same diligent concern for public safety as my friends airline, they would be sacked.

    Comment by Sanctuary — March 20, 2015 @ 8:12 am

  7. “… she was NOT guilty of incompetence…”

    One day this site will have an edit function.

    Comment by Sanctuary — March 20, 2015 @ 8:13 am

  8. And we can’t change them with sex with an underage person because to do so would have implied that the victims’ complaints were false (ie the Police didn’t believe her story that she wasn’t consenting)’.

    It’s not that they can’t charge in these circumstances – they made a discretionary choice not to do so, even though the elements of the offence were present. Which the Authority makes clear was a bad and inappropriate call.

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — March 20, 2015 @ 8:15 am

  9. @Andrew: So, it’s not that they misread the law, as they appear to have made poor use of a discretion that they were legally entitled to? Because that was my understanding too, but it’s hard to reconcile that with Danyl stating that they “they didn’t understand the damn law”.

    Comment by kalvarnsen — March 20, 2015 @ 8:26 am

  10. @kalvarnsen,

    Well – if you say “I’m not going to use my legal powers to bring these people before the courts even though I could do so because I don’t think that this situation is what the legal power is for” and you are wrong about your understanding of what the legal power is for, then yeah … it’s probably fair to say you don’t understand the damn law. It’s not just what the underlying “rules” are, but also what those rules are there for and what your role is in ensuring they are followed.

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — March 20, 2015 @ 8:37 am

  11. @Andrew

    If the law in general was always clear and unambiguous then there would be no need for lawyers who after all argue about what the law means.

    Comment by NeilM — March 20, 2015 @ 8:42 am

  12. @NeilM

    In this specific case the law is perfectly clear. These police are incompetent.

    Comment by RJL — March 20, 2015 @ 8:59 am

  13. It’s not discretionary. The report makes clear consent is simply not a relevant factor for that charge. That officers working in a specialist Child Protection Team either did not know or did not apply that knowledge should certainly result in action now against them or those who managed them.

    And note that it took a second investigation to get even this far. The Police and their staff union are more than capable of protecting their own interests without handwringing from Neil and chums.

    Comment by Sacha — March 20, 2015 @ 9:26 am

  14. These police are incompetent.

    They made errors of judgement. Three of the five have been shifted to other duties which suggests they have a degree of personal responsibility. But having not met my of them I don’t think I’m in a position to make heads should roll judgment calls.

    Comment by NeilM — March 20, 2015 @ 9:33 am

  15. I would welcome a separate Prosecution service staffed by lawyers that the Police must take instruction from and work alongside on investigations.

    Comment by Sacha — March 20, 2015 @ 9:35 am

  16. “They made errors of judgement.” <—- how to tell if people are 'incompetent'.

    Comment by Pascal's bookie — March 20, 2015 @ 9:56 am

  17. >They made errors of judgement.

    Serious errors that could well have enabled ongoing assaults on children. I don’t have to meet them to know that’s not good enough.

    Comment by Ben Wilson — March 20, 2015 @ 10:00 am

  18. @Andrew: I guess it’s a difference between understanding what the law forbids and permits, and understanding what its intent is.

    It seems, in common with the relevant British law (not sure which came first), that the law was written with the expectation that the vast majority of minor-on-minor sex would not be prosecuted, even though the law unambiguously defines it as rape. While this is a tricky area, situations like this seem to indicate that it might be better to try and write some kind of exception for consensual minor-on-minor sex into the law itself, rather than to rely on police ‘public interest’ judgements.

    Comment by kalvarnsen — March 20, 2015 @ 10:04 am

  19. how many errors of judgment, or procedural mistakes – or whatever – does it require to move from cock up over to corruption?

    To my mind theres just way to many errors, one after the other, made by experienced police officers, that no one spotted until the media turned up, for this to be explained away quite so easily by top brass

    The bit about how they used officers who werent up to speed on the case for interviews and the reptitive mis-spelling and cocking up of names and other data is quite disturbing – to the point where my inner cynic says it was deliberate

    Isnt one of the perps the son of a cop? – a cop working in the same district even?

    Comment by framu — March 20, 2015 @ 10:29 am

  20. ” Three of the five have been shifted to other duties which suggests they have a degree of personal responsibility.”

    or it suggests that the police structure is trying to shift the problem to appear to be doing something – while actually doing SFA?

    Comment by framu — March 20, 2015 @ 10:31 am

  21. There’s obviously the fuzzy area of consenting sex between minors where the parents of one party go ape and one of the minors is charged, which the police might have a general guideline of not prosecuting (and that’s fair enough IMHO). But here we have the minors themselves complaining, claiming lack of consent. It’s quite a different matter, and I’d expect a police officer to see that. I know that prosecuting rape is hard without a witness coming forward to testify, but a strong suspicion of rape (because of the number of incidents involving the same perpetrators) should signal that the underage sex should be followed up on.

    Of course we all want these guys for rape, because they’re probably fucking rapists. But settling for them facing charges for underage sex is the *least* the police could do here, and it would have been something.

    Comment by Ben Wilson — March 20, 2015 @ 10:44 am

  22. The Blue code of silence in force yet again, time to wipe out the IPCA and form a truely independent authority that can investigate and charge incompetency as they have in Australia and the UK.

    Comment by Woz — March 20, 2015 @ 10:51 am

  23. My experience in the health system is that threatening individuals with punitive action for systemic failure doesn’t lead to less systemic failure.

    Comment by NeilM — March 20, 2015 @ 11:09 am

  24. Didnt the Auckland Crown Prosecutor back up the decision not to prosecute…which Judge Carruthers has broadly said is based on misconceptions by the police.

    Is there a hidden agenda here from the Crown Prosecutors ( and by extension the separate police prosecutors) that is at odds with the plain intenet of the law

    Comment by ghostwhowalksnz — March 20, 2015 @ 11:15 am

  25. “didnt the Auckland Crown Prosecutor back up the decision not to prosecute” –

    just on that point – the reason they couldnt prosecute wasnt do to a lack of evidence per se – but a lack of the police doing the work required to find the evidence in the first place and ignoring the issue till it blew up in the media.

    Comment by framu — March 20, 2015 @ 12:53 pm

  26. @kalvarnsen – re the minor-on-minor issue, that only applied IIRC to 3 of the 5 alleged offenders. What about the other 2?

    The whole thing smacks of being put in the two hard basket by lazy cops who really should be drummed out of the force. The Police must be held to higher standards than regular individuals when it comes to questions of competence, simply because of the powers invested in their office.

    Comment by Gregor W — March 20, 2015 @ 12:56 pm

  27. *too hard basket

    Comment by Gregor W — March 20, 2015 @ 12:57 pm

  28. My experience in the health system is that threatening individuals with punitive action for systemic failure doesn’t lead to less systemic failure.

    How about threatening individuals with punitive action for individual failure? Because that’s what we’re talking about here. The system had appropriate procedures in place, and these fucks were ignoring them.

    Comment by Psycho Milt — March 20, 2015 @ 1:24 pm

  29. “At least two of the senior detectives overseeing these cases – Officer C and Officer E – appear to be incompetent.”
    “Isnt one of the perps the son of a cop?”

    Perhaps men have a blind spot when it comes to near-age minor sex? Perhaps this sort of investigation should be left to women? I wonder if there is any parallels with the failures to follow up on allegations or suspicions around Jimmy Saville? The Rotherham scandal?

    Comment by Clunking Fist — March 20, 2015 @ 1:59 pm

  30. I wonder if the solution is to take away discretion to charge. Complaints of this nature always go to court unless the crown prosecutor finds an overwhelming reason not to.

    Comment by danylmc — March 20, 2015 @ 2:10 pm

  31. How about threatening individuals with punitive action for individual failure?

    Mistakes are often made within a context that allows the mistakes to occur and for them to be compounded.

    Accusing individuals of incompetence is often any easy out for management.

    I’ve seen the results of gong after individuals and it doesn’t lead to improved outcomes.

    Comment by NeilM — March 20, 2015 @ 2:15 pm

  32. The discretion in these types of cases has a lot do with what the complainant faces in court from defence lawyers.

    Comment by NeilM — March 20, 2015 @ 2:16 pm

  33. 32.The discretion in these types of cases has a lot do with what the complainant faces in court from defence lawyers.

    Bullshit NeilM. It’s not the Police’s job to determine that.
    The discretion is purely about the evidential threshold.

    Comment by Gregor W — March 20, 2015 @ 2:24 pm

  34. @ NeilM Accusing individuals of incompetence is often any easy out for management.

    Sure, police management is obviously incompetent too. The responsible management should also resign.

    Comment by RJL — March 20, 2015 @ 2:42 pm

  35. It’s not that they can’t charge in these circumstances – they made a discretionary choice not to do so

    But Andrew, as far as I’m aware there is no statute of limitations regarding these alleged offences. Are you suggesting police should now lay charges?

    As for discretion, police make discretionary decisions all the time.

    Comment by Ross — March 20, 2015 @ 3:01 pm

  36. “Of course we all want these guys for rape, because they’re probably fucking rapists. But settling for them facing charges for underage sex is the *least* the police could do here, and it would have been something.”

    The roast-busters were two teenagers within a sexually active social group of 14 – 17 year olds. It would be difficult for them alone (of the group) to be prosecuted for underage sex and get a conviction, when other members of the same group (who engage in consensual type sex) are equally as guilty.

    There has to be a rape/sexual assault charge or nothing.

    Comment by unaha-closp — March 20, 2015 @ 3:01 pm

  37. Last year it was reported that the woman heading the investigation into ‘Roastbusters’ said there wasn’t a reasonable chance of getting a conviction…

    “Police acknowledge that the basis for interviews of the majority was hearsay and rumour and wish to make it clear… that there is little evidence in existence to accuse the majority of persons of interest of being engaged in criminal sexual offending.”

    Malthus said she was satisfied “every investigative avenue” was pursued, though she left the door open to further action saying there was no time limit on reporting sexual offending and any future disclosures would be assessed and investigated

    That is quite different to what Danyl and others are saying.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/10674764/Roast-Busters-case-No-charges-to-be-laid

    Comment by Ross — March 20, 2015 @ 3:11 pm

  38. What is most concerning here is the damn poor quality of the police work and the whiff of not trying to hard to get quality evidence because one of the alleged assailants was related to policeman in the district….

    Potentially rapists have got away with it due an old boys club once over lightly investigation when the complaints were first received.

    A deep dive in to methods and practises of NZ police arre, once again, required…

    Comment by dave1924 — March 20, 2015 @ 3:28 pm

  39. @unaha-closp: …It would be difficult for them alone (of the group) to be prosecuted for underage sex…

    Don’t be ridiculous. If the police don’t want to prosecute/investigate some people for statutory rape because it would be unjust, it doesn’t prevent them from prosecuting/investigating some other people for statutory rape.

    Of course, the defence could argue that it was “all just fun and games, everyone else was doing it, and things just got out of hand”. I’m not sure that would really seem a very reasonable defence to a jury, but maybe it would. However, that’s the defence’s job not the police’s job.

    Comment by RJL — March 20, 2015 @ 4:20 pm

  40. @Ross: That is quite different to what Danyl and others are saying…

    Yes. What the police said last year is quite different to what the IPCA has now said.

    The police are incompetent and/or fuckwits covering for each other.

    Comment by RJL — March 20, 2015 @ 4:24 pm

  41. framu & CF: yes, one of the Roastbusters is a plod’s son, and another is the son of a Hollywood celeb. If connections were a factor in the non-investigation, then this has echoes of the Maryville rape trial which was tainted by conflicts of interest. Namely the fact that the perp’s grandfather was on the local judiciary.

    Comment by Kumara Republic (@kumararepublic) — March 20, 2015 @ 4:47 pm

  42. And the fact that many of the victims and witnesses were too intimidated to come forward is perverting the course of justice by another name.

    Comment by Kumara Republic (@kumararepublic) — March 20, 2015 @ 4:50 pm

  43. @ RJL: Of course, the defence could argue that it was “all just fun and games, everyone else was doing it, and things just got out of hand”.

    If this was two teenagers being prosecuted for underage sex and underage sex alone, we wouldn’t know and the jury certainly wouldn’t be finding out about the rape allegations during the trial.

    Would a jury convict two teenagers for having sex with other teenagers? What if the defence were able to parade a dozen or so of their friends, male and female, who were doing also having underage sex?

    Comment by unaha-closp — March 20, 2015 @ 5:00 pm

  44. @Gregor: I know that, but the minor-on-minor issue is why the police’s discretion exists, and it’s the existence of that discretion that prevented these cases from being pursued. So addressing the minor-on-minor issue a different way that didn’t involve granting the police such wide discretion to not prosecute might solve this kind of problem.

    Comment by kalvarnsen — March 20, 2015 @ 9:07 pm

  45. I recall at the time there were on Facebook statements supporting these guys from other young women in the same social circle. Which is pretty grim and would have made prosecution more problematic.

    @Sanc

    I’m familiar with how airline pilot safety training techniques have been applied to improving safety in operating theatres. There’s a few important points. One is that catastrophic mistakes aren’t often the result of “incompetence”. Most often it’s to do with communication and the focusing on the wrong problem.

    From the outside it’s easy to say “incompetence” if a cockpit full of pilots don’t notice the plane is heading into the ground or if an operating theatre full of specialists don’t do the most obvious thing to prevent a death.

    Those involed weren’t incompetent but to understand the dynamics leading to the failure is a bit harder than just saying sack them all.

    Comment by NeilM — March 21, 2015 @ 7:35 am

  46. Accountability and improvement are not black/white. Even in the health sector, quality management and root cause analysis starts with a presumption of systemic rather than individual failure but it does not end there. Otherwise we would not see any cases of the Health & Disability Commission finding against individual practitioners, nor them being struck off.

    An underling can also be acted against if they breach their profession’s standards and ethics even if their managers are where the enabling culture or policies or lack of adequate training came from. Acting against those managers, all the way up, is what the police have always lacked the courage to do. Commissioner Mike Bush blaming this latest disgrace on a few bad apples shows he is not going to break that pattern unless his political masters force him to. And unless we force them to take this seriously.

    Comment by Sacha — March 21, 2015 @ 8:49 am

  47. >It would be difficult for them alone (of the group) to be prosecuted for underage sex and get a conviction, when other members of the same group (who engage in consensual type sex) are equally as guilty.

    I don’t reckon it would be difficult at all. Any jury considering whether underage sex had occurred would probably consider the aspect of consent when decided whether it was normal 14-17 year old teen sexual behaviour. I certainly would. If it was happy consenting sex I’d be the last person to convict anyone for that. But *that wasn’t what happened*. Under the circumstances I’d think “those guys raped a minor, so they can go down for underage sex, and the rape charges can sort themselves out.”.

    Let’s be clear about what I’m saying here. I think underage sex between children of similar age is not a crime I’d hold anyone to if the participants were consenting. But there’s a kind of underage sex I’m NOT OK with, and that’s the kind that involves a lack of consent occasioned by getting them so pissed they were non-cognisant.

    Now if someone wanted to be strictly legalistic in court about it, and say “hey, consent is not an important factor in underage sex” then I guess we’d stick to the legally important factor – that the sex *even happened at all*, which is all that the law requires. But I don’t think that would happen, because the defense, if there is any at all, is that it’s normal to have sex for quite a few kids of that age. At which point the question of how normal the sex actually was is relevant. And rape is not normal sex. I’m sorry, it’s just not. It’s a perverted thing to do, which is what the underage sex laws are about, catching out perverts and protecting minors from them.

    If there are other people equally as guilty *of that* then they should also face charges, if anyone has any evidence of that.

    >I recall at the time there were on Facebook statements supporting these guys from other young women in the same social circle

    I doubt they’d be relevant unless they were there at the time of the alleged crimes.

    Comment by Ben Wilson — March 21, 2015 @ 10:19 am

  48. Would a jury convict two teenagers for having sex with other teenagers? What if the defence were able to parade a dozen or so of their friends, male and female, who were doing also having underage sex?

    Their Facebook posts would be produced as evidence, and at that point the jury wouldn’t have any problem figuring out why these particular individuals, rather than the thousands of teenage sex participants out there, were in the dock.

    Comment by Psycho Milt — March 21, 2015 @ 11:04 am

  49. 112. As a result of the matter being brought to the attention of the public by the media in November 2013, Police launched Operation Clover to fully investigate the activities of the young men involved in ‘Roastbusters’. The operation was concluded and findings publicly reported in October 2014. As a result of the Police investigation and a subsequent case review by the Auckland Crown Solicitor, Police determined that no charges would be laid. It was not part of the Authority’s remit to assess the adequacy of Operation Clover

    So, the IPCA had no criticism of the subsequent investigation into ‘Roastbusters.’ Despite this apparently thorough investigation, no charges were laid partly because it was unlikely to lead to any convictions.

    Comment by Ross — March 21, 2015 @ 9:35 pm

  50. Justice Carruthers has published his report into the police handling of the Roast Buster gang. Key outcomes are:
    – No prosecutions of the Roast Buster gang
    – No investigation into whether authorities actively encouraged victims not to pursue their complaints
    – No meaningful consequences for any policemen for inexcusably poor work
    – No accountability for anyone in authority
    – No change in the status quo

    No surprises here. Carruthers’ report is the final act in what is the classic New Zealand script for ensuring no accountability for those who commit child sex crimes and those in authority who cover up child sex crimes. The same formula is used time and again to ensure no consequences for child sex crimes.

    New Zealand continues to be the paedophile capital of the world and another generation of innocent children and decent families are at risk.

    Unfortunately, we have experience in this area. Our 14-year old child was victim of sex crimes committed by the St John ambulance gang including [redacted – defamatory]. NZ authorities determined that the group sex was “love and romance” and prevented our family from pursuing justice by gagging us. We were threatened with imprisonment if we spoke of the sex crimes, and threatened with bankruptcy if we dared challenge the gagging orders.

    NZ authorities actively encouraged our under age child not to pursue her police complaint (after she had made a written statement to police). 3 of the 6 victims of the Roast Buster gang, also made written statements to police, and then subsequently decided not to pursue their complaint. Hello? Carruthers’ “investigation” did not examine why these Roast Buster victims decided not to pursue their complaints. This is a glaring and telling omission, especially in the light of the massive evidence of poor policing already in front of Carruthers’ enquiry. If Carruthers had conducted a proper investigation, he would likely have uncovered the reason for all these sudden complaint withdrawals by victims, and revealed a key reason why NZ paedophiles are able to act with impunity.

    [removed link]

    The Carruthers report can be found here: http://ipca.govt.nz/Site/publications/Default.aspx

    We look forward to the day when there will be meaningful consequences for those who commit child sex crimes and those in authority who cover up for them.

    Comment by Frank Jackson — March 21, 2015 @ 10:06 pm

  51. The problem with sacking people is that it tends to lead to less owning up to mistakes.

    How could there be any less owning up to mistakes than there is at the moment, i.e. none?

    Also of interest are Greg O’Connor’s statements defending the police officers… i.e. they were being scapegoated, and unfairly saddled with the expectation that they should do their feckin’ job, and that they had more important things to be doing than investigating mere allegations of rape.

    Comment by herr doktor bimler — March 22, 2015 @ 2:12 pm

  52. >How could there be any less owning up to mistakes than there is at the moment, i.e. none?

    They could double down and blame the victims….oh, that’s what they’re doing. It’s still, to this day, the girls’ faults for not wanting to either go through a rape trial or even to charge these kids with rape (some of them said to the police they were only reporting the events so that the police could prevent it happening again, NOT because they wanted to drag the boys through court), that absolutely no consequences of any official kind at all have found their way to the Roastbusters. It fell on an angry public to threaten them with mob justice for them to move away in fear. Probably just as well, because I know what they look like and they lived near me. That’s how you can do less than nothing. You take 7 complaints of rape by the same group of men and squash them, and blame it on the victims.

    Comment by Ben Wilson — March 22, 2015 @ 3:10 pm

  53. @ Framu: “” Three of the five have been shifted to other duties which suggests they have a degree of personal responsibility.”

    or it suggests that the police structure is trying to shift the problem to appear to be doing something – while actually doing SFA?”

    This is exactly the tactic that was used in the past by the Catholic church, when members of the clergy were accused of child sexual abuse. Either the police have taken lessons from the mickey-drips, or else all large institutions with a reputation to protect, and the capacity to redeploy errant staff have hit on the same means to deal with such situations.

    Comment by Merrial — March 22, 2015 @ 11:37 pm

  54. or it suggests that the police structure is trying to shift the problem to appear to be doing something – while actually doing SFA?”

    Possibly. But also possibly they have moved people unsuitable to that particular role to another role. There are other units that do this sort of work which function well.

    I doubt there are many people who could do this sort of work well. It’s easy to get all high and mighty from a distance and my impression is that the heads should roll crowd would be the least likely to do it well.

    Comment by NeilM — March 23, 2015 @ 12:21 am

  55. “…It fell on an angry public to threaten them with mob justice for them to move away in fear…”

    When the public lose faith in the police to do their job, this is the real world consequences. Smugly complacent apologists like NeilM take note.

    Comment by Sanctuary — March 23, 2015 @ 7:41 am

  56. “But also possibly they have moved people unsuitable to that particular role to another role.”

    when thats accompanied by robust process, a lack of blaming the victims, admissions of massive structural failings etc etc – sure – but when it a “we didnt discipline them – we just moved them out of the way” – then nope

    Comment by framu — March 24, 2015 @ 11:30 am

  57. oops – forgot to add – why were they unsuitable neil M? – was it that they didnt do any feckin police work? – kinda makes them unsuitable full stop doesnt it?

    Comment by framu — March 24, 2015 @ 11:31 am

  58. There is a good letter to the editor in the DomPost today, discussing how the second inquiry, apparently very thorough, produced exactly the same outcome as the first. There has been no criticism of the second inquiry.

    Comment by Ross — March 24, 2015 @ 5:19 pm

  59. I tend to think both ross & neilM would be saying totally different things if it were their daughters who were incapacitated with alcohol and then gang-banged/raped………

    The police have had form for a long time in low prioritizing and under resourcing of sexual crimes.

    National pay lip service to being outraged by the roastbusters ………… but legislates in favor of the booze pushers and the abuse of their drug.

    The roastbusters crimes ( or non crimes according to ross ) could not have been committed in the manner they were without the drug alcohol…….

    The nats are accessories by maintaining the roastbuster piss soaked environment ……

    Comment by reason — March 24, 2015 @ 6:26 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: