This is the news today. And the police are having to defend this.
Now, the charges don't relate to messages that she sent about McSkimming. Those charges have been dropped. They relate to messages that she allegedly sent to another policeman - the officer who originally arrested her - and the emails she allegedly sent to his wife.
Now, this is undoubtedly going to look bad for police because it will look like they are still persecuting a victim. But how about we take the emotion out of it and look at it again?
Just because Jevon McSkimming is a creep and clearly the villain of the story doesn't mean that she is necessarily innocent. I mean, look at the allegations. Allegedly emailing a police officer is one thing. Allegedly emailing his wife is something else.
And this is after some pretty bunny-boiler behaviour, including sending 300 emails to McSkimming and others over a series of years.
Now, there will be some people who have complete sympathy for her in this, who will say that the allegations show that she is a woman driven mad by being ignored and gaslit by the very people that she was asking for help.
And that may well be true, and I suspect that it is, and I feel sorry for her, and I feel sorry for the horrible situation that Jevon McSkimming, the absolute creep, has put her in.
But I still don't think it justifies alleged lawbreaking as a response, because that logic is the very same logic that is used by the soft judges who read cultural reports about offenders' childhoods and then excuse them for what they did because of what was originally done to them when they were kids. Do you follow what I'm saying?
Now, having said all of that, if you're of the view that she only sent a bunch of emails, so who really cares? Then why do we have the law?
Now, that's a fair debate. We can have a debate about that law because not everyone loves the Harmful Digital Communications Act.
But if the law exists, and if you allegedly break that law and the police, despite realizing how bad it will look for them to charge you, still choose to charge you, then isn't there a case to answer?
Heather du Plessis-Allan is a journalist and commentator who hosts Newstalk ZB's Drive show HERE - where this article was sourced.
13 comments:
The hdca is not fit for purpose- has been repeatedly abused by the people we’re trying to protect ourselves from - and is just another example of ardern era communist grab for control by implementing laws that would make Orwell blush.
The hdca should be revoked entirely
And yes - you’re right heather, ms z is entirely the victim. And you’re now blaming her for her reactions to being gaslit, abused, arrested, charged with crimes ….while the perpetrator/s of actual crimes (I use the plural because it is clear that kura and coster are both guilty of crimes as well as the abhorrent crimes of jevon) were sitting in their ivory tower protecting a man who should be locked up in the kiddie fiddler wing.
Read ani obriens parts 1&2 of the saga and you’ll see that every law ms z broke was entirely justifiable.
And thank god she did break those laws - because if she hadn’t jevon mcskimming would be our head of police!
Yet more utterly facile commentary from HDPA. Does it not occur to her that if Ms Z had been treated half-way decently from the get go a lot of her actions would not have occurred?
The government spin doctor butt covering stench is thick in the air.
Sir Brian Roche comes out swinging at McSwimming, but doesn't once question how the organization Roche is responsible for continued to hire a top level management cop whilst police were fielding serous sexual misconduct allegations against him.
Also Mr Roche, how are your management systems systems so poor that your staff can repeatedly use their police phones to view child porn without anyone knowing, or did the boffins know and Coster covered it up?.
And why did Willis move Coster to a ceo position he obviously lacked the skill to perform, especially after such an abysmal tenure as police commissioner, and with the sexual misconduct coverup cloud hanging about him?
How many more times will Willis' dishonest actions be caught out, before Luxon replaces her?
Hasn't Willis cost Kiwis enough already?
I'm with you that Z is hardly an innocent party in her affair with a man she knew well to be married, and likely knew to be a scumbag. Good for her in not giving up thereafter.
Spoken like a true troll Anon 8.05. Who needs guard-rails when free speech is at stake?
If police and those in power gaslight victims and cover up corruption at the highest levels, it’s wrong to just blame her for breaking rules. But no one is saying she has a blank cheque to act without consequences. Far from it. The original argument distracts by defending culprits and setting up a strawman about excusing criminals, which misses the real issue: systemic corruption and failure in the justice system that left her with no real options.
Many women regard men as maori regard colonists; to be exploited wherever possible and to be blamed for all problems..
The woman in the mid is a private person - moving the debate to whether she is entitled nicely or not is a distraction from a really serious matter: the police senior management has gone out of their way to prevent the investigation of guy because he was one of them. Is this because they were all gullible or because they knew what was the investigation going to unearth?
I’m sure we could take a look at her charges just as soon as we lock McSkimming up for being a gross paedo and suitably dealing to Coster et al. by stripping them of any accolades, trinkets or baubles given by the public service, dismissing and black listing them from any public service role or advisory support and cutting off any private company that they own from being eligible for government work.
Then we need a complete clean up of the police - beginning at the top (obviously) and working down the ranks to expose any fraud, poor character, dodgy decisions, bogus charges bought for revenge, misuses of law and outright criminals.
Once that’s all done, phew, I’d be happy to take a look at Ms X’s behaviour and turn on the hose to begin wetting the bus ticket.
I expected this from our usual mouthpiece. The powerful have a platform, they have loads of people to yell their support. Those at the other end of the scale don’t. As a satirist succinctly put it: “Newstalk ZB: Sticking up for those who can already stick up for themselves.”
In an earlier comment I remarked that HDPAs article was "utterly facile". Having read part 1 of Ani O'Briens superb contribution on the subject I now know that I was being far too kind.
Definition of "whitewash"
a deliberate attempt to conceal unpleasant or incriminating facts about a person or organization in order to protect their reputation.
Post a Comment