Why does it take so long to get an inquiry underway? Is something this far down the track from the event able to give the answers people want?
One of the stories yesterday suggested the great hope was this inquiry would lead to something like this never happening again.
I'm not sure how this is possible.
A mass shooting has not been part of New Zealand history so there is not really a pattern to be studied. The outworkings of an errant, crazy man is not something that an inquiry can prevent.
It can potentially delve into some of the other issues like the emergency response, they are looking at an exit door and whether it failed to function.
Some are looking for closure. I hope for those who are looking for closure they get it, but for that to happen surely it must be based on the mere functionality of the inquiry, not the specifics and outworkings because an inquiry is not a miracle.
It’s a series of questions and probes and recollections. I can't see how we are going to conclude mass, catastrophic, systematic failure, whereby a large series of recommendations are put forward and the fabric of society is changed as we implement them and go about our business in a completely different way.
This was a tragic day, as a result of a crazed man with a gun, bent on madness and destruction.
I may be proved wrong, but the emergency response appeared astonishing and the bravery involved was extraordinary.
The things we have done already, the gun amnesty and register, seem as political as a response as they are practical. The Christchurch call that was set up has not stopped online hate.
If an entire Government and its contribution is limited to that, what is a coronial inquiry going to achieve?
Call me cynical, but this seems as much procedural as anything.
It's four and a half years later, with findings not until at least five and a half years later, it's not what you would call urgent, is it?
Mike Hosking is a New Zealand television and radio broadcaster. He currently hosts The Mike Hosking Breakfast show on NewstalkZB on weekday mornings - where this article was sourced.
It can potentially delve into some of the other issues like the emergency response, they are looking at an exit door and whether it failed to function.
Some are looking for closure. I hope for those who are looking for closure they get it, but for that to happen surely it must be based on the mere functionality of the inquiry, not the specifics and outworkings because an inquiry is not a miracle.
It’s a series of questions and probes and recollections. I can't see how we are going to conclude mass, catastrophic, systematic failure, whereby a large series of recommendations are put forward and the fabric of society is changed as we implement them and go about our business in a completely different way.
This was a tragic day, as a result of a crazed man with a gun, bent on madness and destruction.
I may be proved wrong, but the emergency response appeared astonishing and the bravery involved was extraordinary.
The things we have done already, the gun amnesty and register, seem as political as a response as they are practical. The Christchurch call that was set up has not stopped online hate.
If an entire Government and its contribution is limited to that, what is a coronial inquiry going to achieve?
Call me cynical, but this seems as much procedural as anything.
It's four and a half years later, with findings not until at least five and a half years later, it's not what you would call urgent, is it?
Mike Hosking is a New Zealand television and radio broadcaster. He currently hosts The Mike Hosking Breakfast show on NewstalkZB on weekday mornings - where this article was sourced.
10 comments:
It is a 50/50 whether it is needed or not.
That said if we are to endure one maybe it should be focussed on a couple of things.
Those things should be divided into two categories both ignoring the fact it happened because we cannot now change that part of the 'event'.
The first one is of course after this occurred how, what where and who could have operated in better more effective efficient ways to close it down, save the wounded, triage better, identify threats and all those other logistically modus operandi minutiae that when collectively better understood make the response to an event where tragedy occurs have a (for want of a better word) better outcome - or as good as one can achieve.
The second one is the most important to avoid such an 'event' occurring again. That is the who, what, where and how of the entirety of the perpetrators own modus operandi sould have or could have been noticed and or notified.
A lone Australian with a manifesto allowed into the country, joins a gun club, is suspicious by his difference at the club, is able to attain his weapons legally with assistance from both government policy and police operational inadequacies. So much of this was under the radar legal, until it wasn't.
This is the other question that needs to be addressed because we cannot forget the simple fact that the 'event' occurred because he was able to make it occur and the poor souls died only because of him at his hand.
We need to better understand category 2 so that category 1 becomes more avoidable.
Sadly in our modern world I doubt we can ever model or operate or control our way out of nut bars on the loose with guns.
The gun crime today in NZ by itself speaks that we have not the capacity within our policy or policing.
Something has to 'change' and if this inquest can find some answerable issues that can impact some change then it is worth listening.
No.
Unless you have a practical way of stopping an unhinged lone gunman from obtaining a gun, by whatever means, then it's a complete waste of time and money.
Just as the whole gun register was. Going after licensed, law-abiding gun-owners doesn't stop incidents like this.
I don't know of any country in the world that has figured out this problem and I see no reason why we're going to be any different. If it's like all the other recent enquiries we've had the outcomes are hardly world shaking. Most people could have come up with them in an hour or so down the pub.
I'm over it already. If police systems and national security organisations were doing their jobs maybe they could have prevented it.
Whatever happens now is absolutely immaterial to past or future outcomes. The coroner says blah blah and we all go back to sleep. The victims have been recognised and supported and will continue to be, but do they need endless post-mortems?
MC
Let's apply the same degree of focus on a wide covid enquiry. Peters made noises/promises pre-election...
The on-going negative outcomes are well deserving.
I'm interested in the inquest only because the feeling on the streets at the time was that Christchurch police did nothing (it was the work of two out-of-town policemen that saw Tarrant arrested although the days after the whole lot of them thought they were a cross between Clint Eastwood and Arnie.
Tarrant drove across Christchurch after attacking the Hagley Mosque, attacked another in Linwood Ave (8Km away) and then drove across the East of the city at least 5KM before being stopped by those (Mid-Canty from memory) men who were attending a course in Christchurch that day.
The big, brave policemen (and women) did patrol the city exhaustively for the next week or two after the event.
For the record I was a businessman working the streets of Christchurch that day.
Phil Blackwell
It goes without saying that murder is wrong, particularly 51 in a matter of minutes.
However, the biggest question and the one that underpins the Mosque Shootings doesn't concern automatic weapons or mentally disturbed people, and it's one we are discouraged from ever asking, is this: why is the Western world, and only the Western world, having a policy of mass third world immigration imposed upon it, despite polling in most of the affected countries rejecting the policy, and why is it considered out of the question that we can ever question the policy let alone do anything to stop it?
It's taken Muslims protesting against Jews and Israel in the last few weeks for authorities to seriously propose and to act upon deportation and immigration restriction policies, which, on its own, is a development that tells us a great deal and from which we can infer a lot about where power resides and whose interests are being served.
The main counter violence problem facing police will not be the very rare anti Islamic nutter but the myriad counter colonisation nutters who who will be incited to violent revolt whem parliament meddles with the current treaty re interpretations, te reo saturation, co governance etc.
Ask Hamas and Israel.
Yes it is needed.
It must be wide ranging including;
how the killer got his license which allowed him to buy guns, actions taken that will prevent a re-occurrence, including reviewing if govt actions taken actually reduce the risk.
Actions taken on the day which were heroic.
Post a Comment