More Police.
A typical
hackneyed political promise which has never produced the results proponents
promised, be they Police Association advocates or Paragons of Parliament.
Strategic redeployment of existing police resources to deal with ever changing manifestations of crime (currently ram raids and always, dope trafficking), is the appropriate tactic that the current Police Commissioner should be applying.
Example: Downsize the current traffic infringement battalion,
always highly visible in the more affluent suburbs such as Fendalton, Karori,
Remuera, where denizens always pay the fines and never get out of their cars to
smash a cop.
Re-deploy
these personnel in mufti vehicles (rentals for the duration of the campaign) to
maintain surveillance on highly probably targets e.g. Micheal Hill or a grog
shop or petrol station, 24/7 with AOS also 24/7 (not call out) ready to
immediately respond to any sighting of a bandit pre-strike drive-by
reconnaissance, reported by the surveillance officer.
Rearranging existing
personnel to deal with the current crime wave, is the sensible solution. It might take a month or more and night shift
for TOs who otherwise rampage during 7am – 7pm working hours, but definitely a
better strategy than hiring and training more cops which is banal posturing at
its worst.
Ban Gang
patches and the Gangs.
If ever there
was an example needed to validate, Stupid Strategy, this would be it.
What is a
gang patch? A military unit coat of
arms? A rugby club crest proudly worn on a jacket breast? A replica of a Maori carving, worn by some to
reinforce their self-perceptions? Where,
does one draw the line? Would my family
Coat of Arms (below) be banned?
As a rugby
club imposes a code of conduct on its young men (some of whom tend to get
pissed and make fools of themselves and/or punch holes in the toilet wall), to
behave or be banned and thereby denied interaction with their mates, Gangs have
similar codes.
Sports clubs and
Gang HQs, provide a haven for young people to enjoy their peers.
If clubs and
Gang HQs did not exist, the streets and public bars/clubs would in all
probability have a much bigger problem on their doorsteps than currently they
endure. And, passing public would also
be more vulnerable to misbehaving young men.
In my view,
banning gang patches or gangs, would not be achievable.
In my view,
Gang HQs play as important a role as do sports club HQs.
Banning
Gangs? Dumb. Very Dumb.
‘Cause it aint gonna work mate.
As I have
previously penned; banning things conservatives don’t like, does not work.
Demand for
banned abortions or drugs, drives supply underground.
Akin to
prohibition of liquor in the America 1920s, make something illegal, it goes
underground. Abortion and drugs are two
standout examples. (1)
Underground
criminal activity can produce powerful cabals; cabals which ultimately can ruin
if not rule a country. Take a peek at
Ecuador and Haiti at the moment for two examples.
Addendum:
Only a fool would not be concerned that sooner or later the power of
international drug cartels will not (a) intrude into our Police and Customs via
money or threats to personnel’s families and (b) same thing in Parliament.
In the case
of drugs, - well – I have a Facts not Fiction book pending: The Elite
Brigade NZ Police, in which I do address matters appurtenant.
Put them
in the Army.
Rt Hon Sir
Rob Muldoon solution. It did not happen.
But, how
would Piggy have applied that policy?
Like, who would have been deemed by law, to be conscripted?
Furthermore,
in my view, its not job of the Army to sort out the problems, which are largely
an outcome of Courts failing to apply the sanctions Parliament have provided in
existing legislation.
Three
Stikes and Your Gone?
Utterly
unnecessary. Existing statutory law
provides (a) all the powers the police need and (b) penalties which if applied,
would rid the streets of repeat offenders. Currently the Crimes Act alone,
provides 14 Year imprisonment penalties for assaults, robbery and sex crimes.
It seems to
me that the Three Strikes and you’re gone mate, is more aimed at the
Judiciary, than it is the offenders.
The
Judiciary.
The solution
to the crime rate, lies at the doorstep of the Courts.
Equality
before the Law, irrespective of race, creed, colour, religion or beliefs
(standard NZ Police code when I was a cop).
In my view,
too many Court outcomes appear to fail to apply penalties Parliament deemed
proper for specified crimes, and this is increasingly obvious when dealing with
Māori.
With Maori
having the highest ratio of criminal offending per head of population in NZ,
this Judicial trend, definitely contributes to an ongoing hight crime rate.
This Court
Room penchant manifests not only in criminal courts but also impacts on
constitutional law.
For example,
the Court of Appeal, which ultimately reviewed the Marine and Coastal Area Act
(MACA), which was introduced by John Key’s National Government back in
2011 after it repealed the protection for State ownership as afforded by
Rt Hon Helen Clark’s 2004 Foreshore & Seabed Act, came out with a decision
in favour of Maori, acknowledging application of the MACA be “difficult to
reconcile the text of s 58(1)(b) with the purpose of MACA”.
As Dr Muriel
Newman previous concluded: “In other words, since the Judges reasoned that
doing what Parliament intended would be perceived as unjust and contrary to
MACA’s purpose, they interpreted the law in a way that will ensure virtually
all of the tribal claims succeed.” (2)
Parliament
is Supreme.
Case Law are
interpretations of State Law, that has been approved by a majority in
Parliament (it’s called Democracy), which endure until Parliament decides that
the Court interpretations are too far from what Parliament intended or
wants.
Because
Parliament is the supreme power in New Zealand, it can fix any of the problems
the Courts make and/or which emerge from out of nowhere.
The Minister of Police cannot interfere in Police Operations – but the Minister of Police (with consent of the Cabinet – Backbenchers are irrelevant) can produce policy which sets the course that the current Commissioner of Police must follow - or its DCM. (3)
Ross
Meurant BA MPP
Former Police Inspector. Former Member
of Parliament. Former Diplomatic
Representative. Company director. Author
(1) https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/ross-meurant-the-case-for-decriminalisation/DO3J7EI6CYH5A3GILOD4PZB52Y/
(2) https://www.nzcpr.com/court-of-appeal-opens-coast-to-maori-ownership/
6 comments:
Amending the 2011 MACA Law:
this would demonstrate that Parliament is the supreme legislative body and overrides the pro-Maori interpretations and decisions made by an activist judiciary.
This amendment should be easy as the 3 Coalition parties have the majority numbers all together .
But it is not happening. Why not?
Could National be the problem by not supporting the amendment? Could Minister Potaka be pressuring Mr Luxon on this issue? Could Iwi be pressuring Mr Potaka to prevent amending this outrageous law which strips the 83% of citizens of their birthright?
Join the dots.......
"Because Parliament is the supreme power in New Zealand, it can fix any of the problems the Courts make and/or which emerge from out of nowhere".
You would think, but it's gone AWOL.
Regrettably, the Coalition seems not to understand its power - perhaps with the exception of Seymour, yes, gone AWOL.
PS Re. first comment by Anon.
Crime is not only gangs, violence, 3 strikes etc....
It is also activism against the NZ people by the woke judiciary and MPs who have a political agenda to support ultimate control by a minority of NZers. These actions are also criminal.
Three strikes is necessary because we don't trust our judges.
I like the idea of letting gangsters eat each other in their club fortresses.
Alan Davidson
In the USA it is common to see bumper stickers reading " ONLY FREE MEN HAVE GUNS".
Post a Comment