Thursday, 1 March 2007

"Downright predatory"

Seems to me that this point from Idiot/Savant is pretty much unarguable:
The jury is out in the latest police rape trial. But regardless of what their verdict ultimately is, it has painted an ugly picture of our (former) police.
Any argument with that?

Whatever the decision today, in each of the cases prior to this one a jury has found them not guilty of the charges laid, but the evidence adduced in all cases (much of which was conceded under oath) has shown them thoroughly guilty of being complete and utter assholes -- of being, as I/S says, "downright predatory," and thoroughly disgusting human beings. And these men were policemen; and one achieved the rank of Assistant Police Commissioner.

That paints an awfully ugly picture indeed about the make-up of NZ's police force.

UPDATE 1: All three men have just been found not guilty of the legal charges of indecent assault and kidnapping. That verdict doesn't alter the point made above in any way.

UPDATE 2: Now that the verdict is out, so too is the suppressed information. Former policemen Bob Schollum and Brad Shipton have been visiting the courthouse every day from their home in jail, after having been found guilty in 2005 of a historic rape charge, and being sentenced to eight and eight-and-a-half year sentences respectively on that charge.

UPDATE 3: Answering one of the many further questions surrounding this case, that is, the future status of suspended Assistant Police Commissioner Clint Rickards, Deputy Police Commissioner Rob Pope has just confirmed that "Police will now move to address employment issues... Mr Rickards will remain under suspension during this process." Stuff story here.

You'd have to feel shat upon if you'd been one of the police team putting together this and related prosecutions, only to find that Mr Rickards employment has been "addressed," he's been reinstated, and he's your new boss.

Does he seem like a forgiving chap to you?

LINKS: An ugly picture - Idiot/Savant, No Right Turn
Police sex trial jury retires for night - NZ Herald

RELATED POSTS ON: New Zealand, Law


  1. As one person's message at I/S said, you're innocent until proven guilty. So, this is how we should treat all of the accused. Whether the jury returns a guilty verdict or not, we should respect that decision. If we don't then perhaps , a better way is to have a system where a verdict could be reached by probability, and that is have 5 trials for every case in the country and the majority verdicts out of the 5 will be the final outcome.

  2. FF, you said, "As one person's message at I/S said, you're innocent until proven guilty."

    Absolutely. I don't challenge that for a minute. And whatever the jury decides today on the charges of kidnap and indecent assault (which verdict is being delivered as I type this), will also be unchallenged, by me at least.

    If the jury decides that they're not guilty of kidnap and indecent assault, then so be it: so they are.

    Of the charges that have been laid at their door, they will be not guilty.

    But that's not the whole point that was being made. My point is that during each of the trials, evidence was adduced and admissions made (under oath) that show that even if these gentlemen were found not guilty of rape, indecent assault or kidnapping, they either admitted to or were established as being guilty enough of being predators. Sexual predators. Thugs. Animals.

    That's my point, and I suspect it's I/S's point as well.

    PS: Happy Birthday FF. :-)

  3. PC said...
    PS: Happy Birthday FF

    Thanks, for reminding. I forgot that it is today. Perhaps that the reason I forgot it, is that a lager or a lion red tray of beers weekly is a birthday to me.

  4. You'd have to feel shat upon if you'd been one of the police team putting together this and related prosecutions, only to find that Mr Rickards employment has been "addressed," he's been reinstated, and he's your new boss.

    Well, that's an accurate - and very polite - paraphrase of what my acquaintances in the force (male and female) have said. To be crude about it, being a sleazy prick isn't a crime - but I sure as shit don't think he's someone I want being the public face of the NZPF in 2007.

    OTOH, they seems to talk about senior police management with barely contained contempt so it may well be business as usual...

  5. Robert Winefield1 Mar 2007, 13:42:00

    Is there no provision in their contract that allows them to be dismissed for bring the NZP into disrepute?

  6. Two of them are already in prison for rape. (The supression order has just been lifted on that tasty little tidbit that wasn't known to the jury.)

  7. Robert:

    I don't know, but I hope the Police have an employment law specialist finding out as we speak. And to be quite honest, I'd be the first to put $20 in a Rickards Offence Fund if he was sacked and sued for unjustified dismissal. It's 2007 in New Zealand not 1957 in Mississippi, and I'd like the Police to get their heads around that notion sooner rather than later. It's not as if the Police really have credibility to burn right now...

  8. Robert Winefield1 Mar 2007, 18:55:00

    >And to be quite honest, I'd be the >first to put $20 in a Rickards >Offence Fund if he was sacked and >sued for unjustified dismissal.


    But I'm uncomfortable that someone with Rickard's unsavory past was promoted to such high office without anyone digging up this dirt as part of a check to see if the man was corruptable or vulnerable to blackmail.

    And I agree with PC that the underlying thuggishness displayed by these cops - Rickards especially as one slated for higher office.

    And last, how in the hell do you protect the officers that investigated the case? Where is the NZP's independent internal investigation unit?

    Honest coppers have to know that they will not suffer if they blow the whistle or take part in an invesitgation of this sort. Otherwise how do you expect such investigations to be done honestly, especially when the accused is a senior officer?

    It might be best for all concerned if Rickards were offered the golden handshake.

  9. robert winefield wrote:
    It might be best for all concerned if Rickards were offered the golden handshake.

    I reluctantly have to agree. Being the cynic I am, it's hard to escape the conclusion that Rickards' post-verdict attacks on the courts, fellow officers and Police management was adroit positioning for a big fat 'fuck off' pay-out. (That's never happened before...) Or the man seriously want to be reinstated and is not only a sleaze but a vindictive little man who's thick as a brick and twice as dangerous.

    In the end, the only unacceptable option for me is that he's ever allowed to put on a Police uniform again. If a solid golden parachute is the absolute last resort, I guess that's the price of taking out the trash.


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.