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.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
