After sitting on my Freedom of Information request for three weeks of the 30 days supposedly required to meet my request, noting that the AFP refused to even tell me what I was supposed to have made a complaint about against another individual that was used to arrest him but told me I had to request that information under FoI, the AFP have now decided that they need another month. I have no choice other than to agree to the extension. When supplying my request, I even forwarded the email advice that I had to go through FoI, so it should hardly have been a surprise that they would need to go to those required areas.
So now, in addition to one or more officers of the AFP telling blatant lies in response to my formal complaint against them, all of a sudden the documentation relating to the matter is not even available for an extended period. It still beggars belief that one or more officers have not only point blank denied something happening that most certainly did, but then decided to fabricate an entire conversation that under no circumstances ever occurred.
What a load of crap.
Should the Intrepid Investigator still be looking at my blog, please be assured that this bullshit is going to be added to my case being forwarded to the Ombudsman in due course.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Free speech? Oh give me a break
Andrew Bolt wasted little time in decrying today's Federal Court ruling as being anti-free speech.
What a load of crap.
There are already limitations of so-called free speech. For example, you cannot go around willingly defaming someone and expect to get away with it. Try inciting a race riot and you'll be in strife (Alan Jones skated perilously close to that). There are plenty of examples if you want to go looking for them.
Despite Bolt's protestations of innocence, the articles in question quite clearly accused specific individuals of pursuing their aboriginality for reasons of politics or financial gain which were not found to be appropriate or even necessarily accurate. He made significant errors of fact in his statements. And as rather clearly indicated in the blog of Dr Anita Heiss that I referred to in an earlier post, Blot was not above trying to pull a fast one in front of the court.
These were quite distinct, personal attacks on specific individuals. It was in no way a matter of making comment in 'public interest' as Bolt and his legal team tried to claim in court. And it sure as shit wasn't trying to discuss matters of multiculturalism as also subsequently claimed.
Significantly, the Australian Press Council has come out and disputed Bolt's claims, noting that the finding "says the media is still allowed to discuss racial identification issues, and even challenge the genuineness of the identification of a group of people, but only if it is done responsibly and with due care and attention to facts."
All you had to do was read the reported Court findings to realise that. But far be it for the Bolter to let facts get in the way of a good story.
There is a right way and a wrong way to go about things. In his usual, rightwing nutbag manner, Bolt chose a quite wrong and thoroughly despicable way of shooting his mouth off. Given the quite incorrect and warped things Bolt stated in the articles, such as claiming Dr Heiss's aboriginality got her a position in radio, while conveniently failing to reveal that this was a voluntary and unpaid position, I think Bolt is quite fortunate so far to have avoided defamation proceedings. If it were me, I would have been hitting the pig where it really hurt - right in his fat wallet.
What a load of crap.
There are already limitations of so-called free speech. For example, you cannot go around willingly defaming someone and expect to get away with it. Try inciting a race riot and you'll be in strife (Alan Jones skated perilously close to that). There are plenty of examples if you want to go looking for them.
Despite Bolt's protestations of innocence, the articles in question quite clearly accused specific individuals of pursuing their aboriginality for reasons of politics or financial gain which were not found to be appropriate or even necessarily accurate. He made significant errors of fact in his statements. And as rather clearly indicated in the blog of Dr Anita Heiss that I referred to in an earlier post, Blot was not above trying to pull a fast one in front of the court.
These were quite distinct, personal attacks on specific individuals. It was in no way a matter of making comment in 'public interest' as Bolt and his legal team tried to claim in court. And it sure as shit wasn't trying to discuss matters of multiculturalism as also subsequently claimed.
Significantly, the Australian Press Council has come out and disputed Bolt's claims, noting that the finding "says the media is still allowed to discuss racial identification issues, and even challenge the genuineness of the identification of a group of people, but only if it is done responsibly and with due care and attention to facts."
All you had to do was read the reported Court findings to realise that. But far be it for the Bolter to let facts get in the way of a good story.
There is a right way and a wrong way to go about things. In his usual, rightwing nutbag manner, Bolt chose a quite wrong and thoroughly despicable way of shooting his mouth off. Given the quite incorrect and warped things Bolt stated in the articles, such as claiming Dr Heiss's aboriginality got her a position in radio, while conveniently failing to reveal that this was a voluntary and unpaid position, I think Bolt is quite fortunate so far to have avoided defamation proceedings. If it were me, I would have been hitting the pig where it really hurt - right in his fat wallet.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
The Bolter gets a bolt up the butt
Andrew Bolt is a well-known, rightwing nutbag who masquerades as being a journalist. He comes out with the most outrageous claims. For example, in the immediate wake of the nuclear disasters in Japan, he openly stated that not only was nuclear power entirely safe, that this was nowhere near as big a disaster as people were claiming. It is noticeable that he went quiet on that subject after it was conclusively shown to be a serious ecological, economic and social disaster.
Where the Bolter really crossed the line however was some two years ago when he wrote a series of columns against indigenous Australians that were nasty, spiteful and more akin to extreme rightwing Nazi propaganda than anything like responsible journalism.
It is with considerable satisfaction that I read that the Bolter has been given a serious bolt up his arse by the Australian Federal Court, who found the articles "were not written in good faith and contained factual errors."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-28/bolt-found-guilty-of-breaching-discrimination-act/3025918
You didn't have to be a genius to work out that Bolt was acting in a deliberately nasty manner, representing his own spiteful predjudices rather than anything remotely like acting in good faith.
The stunts that Bolt is prepared to pull were amply demonstrated earlier this morning on the blog of Dr Anita Heiss, one of the group sueing his fat arse:
"In his witness statement to the court Mr Bolt claimed to have used a photo of my mother on her wedding day as evidence to determine she, therefore I was of mixed-heritage and could not or should not identify as Aboriginal. The photo Bolt submitted was taken directly from my blog and a post I made on February 7, 2011, almost two years after he wrote his article, so his misrepresentations about me continued."
In other words, this supposed 'evidence' was not even available to him at the time he claimed to have used it ie he's a bloody liar!
I have said it before - live by the sword, die by the sword; write journalist crap and expect to get a bucketing.
Andrew Bolt, you are a despicable and hateful human being and the sooner the media can your arse the better for all.
Where the Bolter really crossed the line however was some two years ago when he wrote a series of columns against indigenous Australians that were nasty, spiteful and more akin to extreme rightwing Nazi propaganda than anything like responsible journalism.
It is with considerable satisfaction that I read that the Bolter has been given a serious bolt up his arse by the Australian Federal Court, who found the articles "were not written in good faith and contained factual errors."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-28/bolt-found-guilty-of-breaching-discrimination-act/3025918
You didn't have to be a genius to work out that Bolt was acting in a deliberately nasty manner, representing his own spiteful predjudices rather than anything remotely like acting in good faith.
The stunts that Bolt is prepared to pull were amply demonstrated earlier this morning on the blog of Dr Anita Heiss, one of the group sueing his fat arse:
"In his witness statement to the court Mr Bolt claimed to have used a photo of my mother on her wedding day as evidence to determine she, therefore I was of mixed-heritage and could not or should not identify as Aboriginal. The photo Bolt submitted was taken directly from my blog and a post I made on February 7, 2011, almost two years after he wrote his article, so his misrepresentations about me continued."
In other words, this supposed 'evidence' was not even available to him at the time he claimed to have used it ie he's a bloody liar!
I have said it before - live by the sword, die by the sword; write journalist crap and expect to get a bucketing.
Andrew Bolt, you are a despicable and hateful human being and the sooner the media can your arse the better for all.
Monday, September 12, 2011
How about a little humility?
Is it just me or is Julia Gillard's response to the High Court decision to essentially disallow Australia's attempt to bypass international treaty obligations with respect to refugees, a case of do it my way or I take my ball and go home. A quick caucus meeting yesterday to to enable the Prime Minister vow to fight on against this decision, making necessary changes to the law.
What a good idea.
Let's start applying that more widely across the board. Come the NRL grand final, if someone dislikes a call by the ref, let's hold things up, have a vote and change the rules according to whatever the team in the lead wants them to be. Same thing with tennis. Don't like the linesperson's call, then lets have a quick meeting to change the rules to move the line according to whatever the person holding serve at the time wants it to be. It's about that silly.
At the end of the day, the Australian government is trying to take a position that we should not have to abide by our international treaty obligations at all, at the same time that we expect others to. Sorry Julia, sweetheart - we can't have our cake and eat it too! Talk about colossal arrogance.
The response from officials was to fine Williams a paltry $2,000 US. Big deal. That makes a huge dent into her total winnings of $1.4 million from the tournament, doesn't it. Back in 2009, Williams was fined some $80,000 for abusive outbursts and placed on probation. Remembering that she hardly plays any tournaments now, deeming anything less than a grand slam tournament as beneath her these days, that probation should have hardly taken hold. But in reality, officialdom has shied away from daring to take the next and quite appropriate step - that of acting on her breach of probation and giving her a ban for a while. Not for a period of time, but for a set number of major tournaments. Make it hurt. Make her realise that the rest of the tennis world is not subservient to her wishes. Nope, officialdom wimps out with not even a slap on the wrist.
Making things even worse was the crowd reaction. On the anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks against the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon (how easily people forget the latter), the crowd was always going to be behind the hometown 'hero'. But after Williams's pathetic display, the crowd got on her side even more, hooting and shouting at Stoser. What an equally pathetic response by the crowd.
Stoser won, as it happens, conducting herself with dignity throughout despite the obvious provocation and I think it clear that not just the better player on the day won, but also the better person.
What a pity that when coaching her at tennis, Serena's father didn't coach her in a little humility and humanity at the same time. Perhaps he could have coached Julie Gillard in a little of it at the same time.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Quick addition re porkie's porkies
Just a quick further update. The other resident of the house that the police have claimed to have made certain statements ain't happy. Ploddy and his mates can expect a sworn statement from him now as well as me.
The most outrageous aspect of that part of their statement is that not only did no such conversation even occur, no member of the police in attendance so much as stepped foot in the kitchen/common area of the house as claimed.
What is this? The bad old days where the coppers are allowed to make it all up as they go along? If this were anyone else, we would be seeing them in court for defamation!
As I said in my last post, it's little wonder some call them 'filth'.
The most outrageous aspect of that part of their statement is that not only did no such conversation even occur, no member of the police in attendance so much as stepped foot in the kitchen/common area of the house as claimed.
What is this? The bad old days where the coppers are allowed to make it all up as they go along? If this were anyone else, we would be seeing them in court for defamation!
As I said in my last post, it's little wonder some call them 'filth'.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Complete and utter bollocks!
Well, well, well.
Constable Plod is becoming very inventive. I have just received a report into the 'investigation' of my complaint. According to Ploddly and his pals:
I told the police over and over that I wanted them to leave, that I did not want them there or entering the building. To claim otherwise is a 100% proof lie!
I never even spoke to police inside the house prior to or during the arrest, in the kitchen or anywhere else for that matter, other than to say 'that's his room there,' and that was uttered while standing in the hallway. I never even had police stand in the kitchen or common area with me until after the arrest and after the time that police supposedly overhead that statement telling me to be quiet.
Another resident did indeed leave his room to find his doorway swamped with Blue Bottles and demanded to know what they were doing there. I then called him out to the common area which was completely free of the wallopers. There was most certainly no discussion as claimed by the police whatsoever and I would like to know who the hell said it did! It was not until after the arrest that I finally screwed my courage back up again to demand to know why all six of them had all entered the building contrary to my express wishes. I was rudely blown off with some crap about operational procedure. They then had the hide to return and ask me to give a statement against the arrested party - which I flatly refused to do. How much more of their dirty work did they expect me to do?
I have challenged all police involved in this affair to individually stand before a judge and give evidence on oath about this affair, in particular those statements that are complete bullshit fabrications. I'm quite happy to do so and my conscience would be clear. Which is a damned sight more than any of that lot would be if they continued to make those statements under oath.
Here's a little warning to you all. If you ever speak to the Australian Federal Police about anything, according to the information provided to me today by the Intrepid Investigator, you 'may' be called a 'complainant' thereafter, regardless of what you spoke to them about. You could be doing a Good Samaritan act, picking the wounded chap up and letting the police know you had found him. And that is enough to qualify you as being a 'complainant.' Of course, the Intrepid Investigator did say 'may' be called complainant ie you also 'may not' be called complainant. That does beg the question why they did so in this particular instance? Are they really so simple as to not realise that to do so would be causing trouble to be both identifying me and calling me a 'complainaint'? Of course at this point, I only have their word for how I have been described as so far I have been refused access to any actual information on the actual event itself. It's apparently fine and dandy to go naming people left, right and centre but how dare they ask exactly what it is that Ploddly and his mates are alleging you to have said or done.
So far the 'investigator' has successfully managed to 100% avoid any discussion about the officer who originally took my details and stated 'he [the ultimately arrested party] will not know it was you who made the complaint.' FACT: that statement alone makes it abundantly clear that the police were treating this as a 'complaint' from the outset. Never mind the fact that I repeatedly stated that I was NOT making a complaint. So then, just how does my name appear on AFP documents identified as a 'complainant' when there wasn't apparently even any need to refer to me as a complainaint? Doesn't really add up, does it? FACT: I had just been told by the police that I wouldn't be indentified anyway - and I was.
Just what the hell is actually going on here?
The police are also sticking to the story that they originally presented to the court that they had no knowledge that alcohol was involved until during or after (that's their words, not mine) the alleged 'welfare check.' This
investigator's report insists that is correct but also quite happily makes reference to discussions about the consumption of alcohol that occurred before they talked their way into the house for other purposes. Yet the arrest has been justified on the basis that they had no knowledge prior to entry of that existence of alcohol.
Talk about having your cake and eating it too!
Now back to the alleged 'welfare check'. The investigation has successfully managed to avoid any single reference to my complaint about the way this was undertaken - six armed officers, clustered over one individual, interrogating in a hostile manner and even loudly accusing him of spitting on them - I had a clear view of that incident and no deliberate spitting occurred at all. Oh no, this was all just fine and dandy, just another day of sunshine and daisies. Nothing to be worried about at all. As I have stated before - if this is how ACT Policing deal with 'welfare checks' then should not be allowed within a bull's roar of anyone needing one! The investigation has just breezily claimed in so many words that is none of my business.
The reality is that everyone there in that location is simply being lumped together as a collective of undesirables and thus it is apparently quite permissible to treat us all like some sort of filth on the sole of the shoe.
Now did I ever want to live at Ainslie Village community housing? No bloody fear. But I had nowhere else to go. I still don't. I am not allowed access to public housing and thus am one of those who continue to fall through the cracks. Attempts to resume working even part-time have failed and so I am reliant on my small pension - just enough over the general invalid pension to make me ineligible for any assistance whatsoever, my multiple health conditions apparently not worth considering, but sure as shit nowhere near enough to be able to live by myself anywhere. I have already gone over the reasons why I ended up there often enough - all thanks to the lies and machinations of my former employer, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in their desperate bid to avoid ever being found liable for any workers compensation cases at a time when they had openly confessed to staff that reducing the size of the annual premium was considered essential for future financial well-being. I still have all of these well-documented lies if anyone is every interested, not that anyone in authority gave a shit.
I used to think the idea of police treating those lower on the socio-economic ladder was a bit of a beat up. But now I have experienced it for myself. And I am not just talking about this latest mess.
Take for example the fun and games about twelves months when an evicted resident at Ainslie Village was found to have left a bomb and bomb-making equipment behind. The place was put in 'lock down' at mid-morning, with a civilian used to monitor traffic - not a member of the constabulary, not even an employee of the management company, but another resident at Ainslie Village. When I arrived home from my then-work at around 7pm, I was turned away from the entrance but had no difficulty penetrating the perimeter by foot over a footbridge. The police weren't even aware I was there until I approached them. Pretty good 'locking down' work there, boys. At that point I was still wearing my suit from work, and it was all 'yes sir, no sir, can we be even more obsequious sir.' However when a group of us, previously determined to have been safe, were kicked out at midnight, assured to be for only an hour or two, I was in a comfortable albeit tatty pair of trackpants and windcheater that wasn't much better. No more calling me sir! From then on I was lucky to get a 'hey you' for the rest of the night. And rest of the night it was - forced from one building into a supposedly safer location that was actually nearer the potential blast site, in direct line of site, with one side of the building facing open water and thus in even greater risk of ricochet and with the end of the building directly facing the blast, being all glass windows and doors. In reality we were much safer where we originally were. And from the moment we were summarily booted out, we were treated like absolute pariahs. The comparison in attitude to when I looked like just another 'suit' was very marked and not in any positive way!
Interestingly, the best way to become left alone by the police at Ainslie Village, seems to be by becoming a drug dealer. Little enough is ever done about it. Could it be possibly be that they have simply decided that 'all the scum are in one place so we know where they are?' So ignore all that, but by all means ginger up a story in order to make Ploddly and co look better!
The bottom line is that the police behaviour on the night in question was a bloody mess. They have now seen fit to ginger the story up by denying I ever even objected to their presence, not mention inventing farcical conversations as taking place. I shall challenge Plod and his mates again - I dare you all to individually go before a judge, in my presence, and make those same statements on oath. I wonder if they all will decide to continue telling porkies before His or Her Honour?
Pathetic, Constable Plod, absolutely pathetic.
Honestly, is it any wonder that some call them 'filth?
Constable Plod is becoming very inventive. I have just received a report into the 'investigation' of my complaint. According to Ploddly and his pals:
- I never disputed access to the police
- I was having a jolly discussion with police in the kitchen area until another member of the residence left his room and instructed me to cease speaking about the gentleman they had come to arrest.
I told the police over and over that I wanted them to leave, that I did not want them there or entering the building. To claim otherwise is a 100% proof lie!
I never even spoke to police inside the house prior to or during the arrest, in the kitchen or anywhere else for that matter, other than to say 'that's his room there,' and that was uttered while standing in the hallway. I never even had police stand in the kitchen or common area with me until after the arrest and after the time that police supposedly overhead that statement telling me to be quiet.
Another resident did indeed leave his room to find his doorway swamped with Blue Bottles and demanded to know what they were doing there. I then called him out to the common area which was completely free of the wallopers. There was most certainly no discussion as claimed by the police whatsoever and I would like to know who the hell said it did! It was not until after the arrest that I finally screwed my courage back up again to demand to know why all six of them had all entered the building contrary to my express wishes. I was rudely blown off with some crap about operational procedure. They then had the hide to return and ask me to give a statement against the arrested party - which I flatly refused to do. How much more of their dirty work did they expect me to do?
I have challenged all police involved in this affair to individually stand before a judge and give evidence on oath about this affair, in particular those statements that are complete bullshit fabrications. I'm quite happy to do so and my conscience would be clear. Which is a damned sight more than any of that lot would be if they continued to make those statements under oath.
Here's a little warning to you all. If you ever speak to the Australian Federal Police about anything, according to the information provided to me today by the Intrepid Investigator, you 'may' be called a 'complainant' thereafter, regardless of what you spoke to them about. You could be doing a Good Samaritan act, picking the wounded chap up and letting the police know you had found him. And that is enough to qualify you as being a 'complainant.' Of course, the Intrepid Investigator did say 'may' be called complainant ie you also 'may not' be called complainant. That does beg the question why they did so in this particular instance? Are they really so simple as to not realise that to do so would be causing trouble to be both identifying me and calling me a 'complainaint'? Of course at this point, I only have their word for how I have been described as so far I have been refused access to any actual information on the actual event itself. It's apparently fine and dandy to go naming people left, right and centre but how dare they ask exactly what it is that Ploddly and his mates are alleging you to have said or done.
So far the 'investigator' has successfully managed to 100% avoid any discussion about the officer who originally took my details and stated 'he [the ultimately arrested party] will not know it was you who made the complaint.' FACT: that statement alone makes it abundantly clear that the police were treating this as a 'complaint' from the outset. Never mind the fact that I repeatedly stated that I was NOT making a complaint. So then, just how does my name appear on AFP documents identified as a 'complainant' when there wasn't apparently even any need to refer to me as a complainaint? Doesn't really add up, does it? FACT: I had just been told by the police that I wouldn't be indentified anyway - and I was.
Just what the hell is actually going on here?
The police are also sticking to the story that they originally presented to the court that they had no knowledge that alcohol was involved until during or after (that's their words, not mine) the alleged 'welfare check.' This
investigator's report insists that is correct but also quite happily makes reference to discussions about the consumption of alcohol that occurred before they talked their way into the house for other purposes. Yet the arrest has been justified on the basis that they had no knowledge prior to entry of that existence of alcohol.
Talk about having your cake and eating it too!
Now back to the alleged 'welfare check'. The investigation has successfully managed to avoid any single reference to my complaint about the way this was undertaken - six armed officers, clustered over one individual, interrogating in a hostile manner and even loudly accusing him of spitting on them - I had a clear view of that incident and no deliberate spitting occurred at all. Oh no, this was all just fine and dandy, just another day of sunshine and daisies. Nothing to be worried about at all. As I have stated before - if this is how ACT Policing deal with 'welfare checks' then should not be allowed within a bull's roar of anyone needing one! The investigation has just breezily claimed in so many words that is none of my business.
The reality is that everyone there in that location is simply being lumped together as a collective of undesirables and thus it is apparently quite permissible to treat us all like some sort of filth on the sole of the shoe.
Now did I ever want to live at Ainslie Village community housing? No bloody fear. But I had nowhere else to go. I still don't. I am not allowed access to public housing and thus am one of those who continue to fall through the cracks. Attempts to resume working even part-time have failed and so I am reliant on my small pension - just enough over the general invalid pension to make me ineligible for any assistance whatsoever, my multiple health conditions apparently not worth considering, but sure as shit nowhere near enough to be able to live by myself anywhere. I have already gone over the reasons why I ended up there often enough - all thanks to the lies and machinations of my former employer, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in their desperate bid to avoid ever being found liable for any workers compensation cases at a time when they had openly confessed to staff that reducing the size of the annual premium was considered essential for future financial well-being. I still have all of these well-documented lies if anyone is every interested, not that anyone in authority gave a shit.
I used to think the idea of police treating those lower on the socio-economic ladder was a bit of a beat up. But now I have experienced it for myself. And I am not just talking about this latest mess.
Take for example the fun and games about twelves months when an evicted resident at Ainslie Village was found to have left a bomb and bomb-making equipment behind. The place was put in 'lock down' at mid-morning, with a civilian used to monitor traffic - not a member of the constabulary, not even an employee of the management company, but another resident at Ainslie Village. When I arrived home from my then-work at around 7pm, I was turned away from the entrance but had no difficulty penetrating the perimeter by foot over a footbridge. The police weren't even aware I was there until I approached them. Pretty good 'locking down' work there, boys. At that point I was still wearing my suit from work, and it was all 'yes sir, no sir, can we be even more obsequious sir.' However when a group of us, previously determined to have been safe, were kicked out at midnight, assured to be for only an hour or two, I was in a comfortable albeit tatty pair of trackpants and windcheater that wasn't much better. No more calling me sir! From then on I was lucky to get a 'hey you' for the rest of the night. And rest of the night it was - forced from one building into a supposedly safer location that was actually nearer the potential blast site, in direct line of site, with one side of the building facing open water and thus in even greater risk of ricochet and with the end of the building directly facing the blast, being all glass windows and doors. In reality we were much safer where we originally were. And from the moment we were summarily booted out, we were treated like absolute pariahs. The comparison in attitude to when I looked like just another 'suit' was very marked and not in any positive way!
Interestingly, the best way to become left alone by the police at Ainslie Village, seems to be by becoming a drug dealer. Little enough is ever done about it. Could it be possibly be that they have simply decided that 'all the scum are in one place so we know where they are?' So ignore all that, but by all means ginger up a story in order to make Ploddly and co look better!
The bottom line is that the police behaviour on the night in question was a bloody mess. They have now seen fit to ginger the story up by denying I ever even objected to their presence, not mention inventing farcical conversations as taking place. I shall challenge Plod and his mates again - I dare you all to individually go before a judge, in my presence, and make those same statements on oath. I wonder if they all will decide to continue telling porkies before His or Her Honour?
Pathetic, Constable Plod, absolutely pathetic.
Honestly, is it any wonder that some call them 'filth?
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Request lodged
I have now lodged a request for Freedom of Information access to try and find out exactly what this complaint is that I am supposed to have made against another individual that the Australian Federal Police used as justification to arrest that individual.
I still believe that it beggars belief that police are allowed to claim such information exists but despite it allegedly coming from me, I am not allowed to know what it actually is, let alone sight a copy of it.
Again I ask, why is it that an arrested party can be given that information but the person it is alleged to come from in the first place is not allowed to know anything about it?
As this is a simply outrageous position, I have also brought matters to the attention of the ACT Attorney General and the media.
Anyone prepared to wager that the AFP will be less-than cooperative in providing this information? If it even exists.
I still believe that it beggars belief that police are allowed to claim such information exists but despite it allegedly coming from me, I am not allowed to know what it actually is, let alone sight a copy of it.
Again I ask, why is it that an arrested party can be given that information but the person it is alleged to come from in the first place is not allowed to know anything about it?
As this is a simply outrageous position, I have also brought matters to the attention of the ACT Attorney General and the media.
Anyone prepared to wager that the AFP will be less-than cooperative in providing this information? If it even exists.
Exactly when did we become a police state?
Since posting my last entry, I have already had a couple of people querying this need to go through FOI systems at the AFP in order to find exactly what it is I am supposed to have made in a complaint against another person.
So in direct response to my express request for that information, I received the following by return email from the Professional Standards area of the AFP:
"Should you wish to obtain information in relation to any information held about you on AFP systems you may do so by placing a request under the Freedom of Information Act 1982."
Later in the day this was endorsed by the officer assigned to investigate my complaint against the AFP:
"As pointed out by XXXXXXX below, the Freedom of Information process is the most appropriate way to request documentation or information held by the AFP about you"
Their justification? That they are not permitted to release anything to me about another person. Excuse me? Exactly when did I ask them to reveal jack shit about anyone else? I didn't. The immediate matters of particular relevance I have asked for:
So it seems that we have indeed descended to the level of police state, without any of us actually realising, that the police are apparently within their rights (at least in their collective minds) to refuse to tell anyone what they are alleging a person has said in an alleged complaint against another party. With that logic, they could make up any crap they like as justification for pinning anything on anyone. And then refuse to release it.
This matter has already escalated to such ridiculous levels that, as well as delivering my FoI request in the morning, I shall also be sending a complaint to the Minister in charge of ACT Policing and commencing a complaint with the Ombudsman.
The really sad thing about all of this is that I come from that lovely, safe middle-class sort of background that is taught to respect the police, that the police can be relied etc etc. Yet the events of the last eleven days will make it very hard for me to ever trust a copper again.
As for Constable Plod that the AFP tell me is now monitoring my blog, happy reading!
So in direct response to my express request for that information, I received the following by return email from the Professional Standards area of the AFP:
"Should you wish to obtain information in relation to any information held about you on AFP systems you may do so by placing a request under the Freedom of Information Act 1982."
Later in the day this was endorsed by the officer assigned to investigate my complaint against the AFP:
"As pointed out by XXXXXXX below, the Freedom of Information process is the most appropriate way to request documentation or information held by the AFP about you"
Their justification? That they are not permitted to release anything to me about another person. Excuse me? Exactly when did I ask them to reveal jack shit about anyone else? I didn't. The immediate matters of particular relevance I have asked for:
- for details of what the complaint is that I am supposed to have made
- a copy of the documentation being handed to others that claims I made such a complaint against another person but so far has been denied to me
- for any other information or documentation regarding me and this alleged complaint that is being held which may shed some light on the matter.
So it seems that we have indeed descended to the level of police state, without any of us actually realising, that the police are apparently within their rights (at least in their collective minds) to refuse to tell anyone what they are alleging a person has said in an alleged complaint against another party. With that logic, they could make up any crap they like as justification for pinning anything on anyone. And then refuse to release it.
This matter has already escalated to such ridiculous levels that, as well as delivering my FoI request in the morning, I shall also be sending a complaint to the Minister in charge of ACT Policing and commencing a complaint with the Ombudsman.
The really sad thing about all of this is that I come from that lovely, safe middle-class sort of background that is taught to respect the police, that the police can be relied etc etc. Yet the events of the last eleven days will make it very hard for me to ever trust a copper again.
As for Constable Plod that the AFP tell me is now monitoring my blog, happy reading!
Monday, September 5, 2011
Q: When is a 'complaint' a 'complaint'?
A: Apparently whenever the Australian Federal Police feel like saying so, not letting the little manner of nobody actually making a complaint getting in the way of things.
For reasons of discretion, I have elected until now not make any further comment on my blog about the dramas with the police. However I have just been informed by the AFP that they are in fact reading my blog. All I can do is congratulate them on their taste! For the record, no, I did not expressly provide the link as an additional information, but merely it appeared as part of my signature block.
So here is an interesting little development. Quite a major one actually.
The other chap in this affair has apparently received formal documentation from the AFP, advising him that I both made a formal complaint against him and expressly requested police attendance against him. I say 'apparently' because I haven't seen it although a highly credible witness was shown it on Saturday and reported the contents to me on Monday. Since the emergence of that documentation. Mark has told me in no uncertain terms to get out of his sight and stay that way, so I am hardly going to be able to waltz up to him and ask to see it.
Now as a direct result of this stunt, to the vigelante-minded attitude of people in the immediate area I am a police informant and have had threats made against me- no, not by the other chap. The ever-so helpful attitude of the police to that was 'tell them it isn't true.' Oh yeah, while I'm on the ground, getting the shit literally kicked out of me, all I have to do is squeal 'it isn't true' and that magical mantra will make all the bad things go away back under the bed once more. That advice has now been updated to advise me to report any further instances of such threats. Hmmm let's see now. Police apparently making up a crock, gets me 'outed' as a police informant and cooperative. So that gets me in deep shit with some of the locals. And somehow, running back to the wallopers again is supposedly going to make it all better? Do these people even listen to what they are saying?
In discussion with someone from the AFP today, allegedly managing the complaints purpose, he could neither confirm nor deny the existence of any such documentation.
This has really put me in a most awkward spot. I have been protesting my innocence for days, claiming I did not make any complaint etc etc. And it turns out that the AFP have gone and handed out documentation informing people otherwise.
So I have been screaming at the police that I want to see a copy of this document, seeing as it makes such free use of my name. I want to see a copy of this complaint that I supposedly made. What about a copy of a statement perhaps? Of course they can't provide these because I did not make any complaint and flatly refused to give the requested statement against Mark. Or has the mere act of speaking to a police officer now sufficient to claim a 'complaint' has been made?
Now we come to the really lovely part. Despite the AFP openly describing me as having been a complainant etc, I am only allowed to see such alleged documents if I lodge a formal request under the Freedom of Information legislation. The ever-so-generous AFP, if they agree to provide me with the documents, will do so - at a charge of $15 per hour to find any such documents, plus photocopying costs, plus postage, plus fees for the time spent deliberating on the decision. Going by that scale of charges, why not also charge me for the cost of dunny paper from toilet breaks, plus an allowance for the biccies and coffee? To get out of those, I have to be able to demonstrate 'financial hardship' or that "the giving of access to documents is in the general public interest or in the interest of a substantial section of the public." And no, this allegedly making a complaint apparently does not fall within the list of things that may be released without resorting to formal FoI processes.
This is beyond ridiculous. It is quite alright to formally advise someone else that I made a complaint against them but I'm not allowed to know anything about it or even get access to the alleged information without invoking external legislation. So one man was thrown in gaol as a direct result of police deliberately conning me and abusing my trust, and now it also seems that they have decided to ginger the story up by making outrageous claims of me being a complainant against the other, making matters still worse by doing everything they seemingly can to block me from getting at any of the actual information. I do hope they are not thinking I will just go away if they stall long enough.
As Agent Muller used to say, 'the truth is out there' even if our alleged custodians of law and order seem intent on placing as many barriers to that truth emerging as possible.
For reasons of discretion, I have elected until now not make any further comment on my blog about the dramas with the police. However I have just been informed by the AFP that they are in fact reading my blog. All I can do is congratulate them on their taste! For the record, no, I did not expressly provide the link as an additional information, but merely it appeared as part of my signature block.
So here is an interesting little development. Quite a major one actually.
The other chap in this affair has apparently received formal documentation from the AFP, advising him that I both made a formal complaint against him and expressly requested police attendance against him. I say 'apparently' because I haven't seen it although a highly credible witness was shown it on Saturday and reported the contents to me on Monday. Since the emergence of that documentation. Mark has told me in no uncertain terms to get out of his sight and stay that way, so I am hardly going to be able to waltz up to him and ask to see it.
Now as a direct result of this stunt, to the vigelante-minded attitude of people in the immediate area I am a police informant and have had threats made against me- no, not by the other chap. The ever-so helpful attitude of the police to that was 'tell them it isn't true.' Oh yeah, while I'm on the ground, getting the shit literally kicked out of me, all I have to do is squeal 'it isn't true' and that magical mantra will make all the bad things go away back under the bed once more. That advice has now been updated to advise me to report any further instances of such threats. Hmmm let's see now. Police apparently making up a crock, gets me 'outed' as a police informant and cooperative. So that gets me in deep shit with some of the locals. And somehow, running back to the wallopers again is supposedly going to make it all better? Do these people even listen to what they are saying?
In discussion with someone from the AFP today, allegedly managing the complaints purpose, he could neither confirm nor deny the existence of any such documentation.
This has really put me in a most awkward spot. I have been protesting my innocence for days, claiming I did not make any complaint etc etc. And it turns out that the AFP have gone and handed out documentation informing people otherwise.
So I have been screaming at the police that I want to see a copy of this document, seeing as it makes such free use of my name. I want to see a copy of this complaint that I supposedly made. What about a copy of a statement perhaps? Of course they can't provide these because I did not make any complaint and flatly refused to give the requested statement against Mark. Or has the mere act of speaking to a police officer now sufficient to claim a 'complaint' has been made?
Now we come to the really lovely part. Despite the AFP openly describing me as having been a complainant etc, I am only allowed to see such alleged documents if I lodge a formal request under the Freedom of Information legislation. The ever-so-generous AFP, if they agree to provide me with the documents, will do so - at a charge of $15 per hour to find any such documents, plus photocopying costs, plus postage, plus fees for the time spent deliberating on the decision. Going by that scale of charges, why not also charge me for the cost of dunny paper from toilet breaks, plus an allowance for the biccies and coffee? To get out of those, I have to be able to demonstrate 'financial hardship' or that "the giving of access to documents is in the general public interest or in the interest of a substantial section of the public." And no, this allegedly making a complaint apparently does not fall within the list of things that may be released without resorting to formal FoI processes.
This is beyond ridiculous. It is quite alright to formally advise someone else that I made a complaint against them but I'm not allowed to know anything about it or even get access to the alleged information without invoking external legislation. So one man was thrown in gaol as a direct result of police deliberately conning me and abusing my trust, and now it also seems that they have decided to ginger the story up by making outrageous claims of me being a complainant against the other, making matters still worse by doing everything they seemingly can to block me from getting at any of the actual information. I do hope they are not thinking I will just go away if they stall long enough.
As Agent Muller used to say, 'the truth is out there' even if our alleged custodians of law and order seem intent on placing as many barriers to that truth emerging as possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
