tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post117304267273063816..comments2024-03-30T00:09:27.602+13:00Comments on Not PC: Shipton, Schollum and Rickards - the incorruptibles?Peter Cresswellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-1173057654420887762007-03-05T14:20:00.000+13:002007-03-05T14:20:00.000+13:00Hamish: 'Frankly, if the police and the judiciary...Hamish: 'Frankly, if the police and the judiciary feel a case is serious enough to invoke the proposed law then I hesitate to say it isn't deserved'. <BR/><BR/>Arthur Thomas & the Berrymans might have a problem with that rationale.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-1173052230543624062007-03-05T12:50:00.000+13:002007-03-05T12:50:00.000+13:00That's disingenious. Discretionary enforcement of ...That's disingenious. Discretionary enforcement of the law is not exactly unheard of - the 'assault' by a pub bouncer removing a roudy patron, for example - and is a <I>normal</I> facet of law enforcement. Likewise the judiciary maintains the power to interpret the law as it sees fit. Frankly, if the police and the judiciary feel a case is serious enough to invoke the proposed law then I hesitate to say it isn't deserved.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-1173043016046515882007-03-05T10:16:00.000+13:002007-03-05T10:16:00.000+13:00Michael Laws has expressed a different view here ...Michael Laws has expressed a different <A HREF="http://www.stuff.co.nz/sundaystartimes/3981015a6442.html" REL="nofollow">view here</A> regarding the recent trial of Mr. Rickards. The only other person I know who agrees with Mr. Laws is Willie Jackson.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com