Thursday, May 21, 2009

Non-investigation files still Brashly unreleased [update 2]

Whale Oil is right. Why are the police releasing unedited in all its glory the Tony Veitch file, but not the full unedited file of their non-investigation into who illegally stole the Leader of the Opposition's emails?

What's going on here? As a commenter at Whale's blog suggested, does someone have to kick Nicky Hager in the spine to see some action? This was a serious security breach at the very highest level of state . . . and it's treated with all the importance of a theft at a school tuck shop.

Who exactly are the police protecting? And what does this say about their partiality? Fran O'Sullivan's conclusion is unchallengable:

This is [all] frankly unacceptable in a democratic system where authorities like the police should be expected to get to the bottom of what was obviously a politically motivated burglary.

UPDATE 1: Brash has called for a formal inquiry into the email theft.

Phil Goff agrees with him. Bill English apparently doesn't.

Is this a clue?

UPDATE 2:  Police Commissioner Howard Broad has appointed an "independent commissioner" to look at the whole issue -- so independent he  just happens to be Broad's Assistant Commissioner.  Reports The Herald [hat tip DPF]:
    Commissioner Broad said continued questioning of the police role could undermine public trust and confidence in the force.
    He ordered a full review of the case, including the recent release of the highly edited file, to be conducted by Assistant Commissioner Steve Shortland of Auckland, with an independent adviser working alongside him. …
    Dr Brash said he was happy with the steps being taken.

Labels:

2 Comments:

Anonymous Sus said...

"Labour wants openness and transparency" said Phil Goff. Well, on some things, maybe. There wasn't a lot of transparency going on re that 2005 election mis-expenditure ..

And Billy Boy English saying that Howard Broad should investigate the police enquiry is much like leaving it to Heather Simpson to have investigated Clark's expenditure.

Bit rich, too, to suggest that the taxpayers wouldn't like it. Memo to Bill: there's a hell of a lot you spend that I don't like, but that doesn't seem to stop you. Lame excuse, matey-boy.

5/21/2009 04:16:00 pm  
Blogger Clunking Fist said...

Like $36 million for "bio"diesel.

Is is bio cos its a hazard? I wanted to leave a shitty comment about this on Key's "Notes" but the feature seemed to have been disabled.

5/21/2009 06:29:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Respond with a polite and intelligent comment. (Both will be applauded.)

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. (Do others the courtesy of being honest.)

Please put a name to your comments. (If you're prepared to give voice, then back it up with a name.)

And don't troll. Please. (Contemplate doing something more productive with your time, and ours.)

<< Home