Auckland mayor Dick Hubbard tells it like it is on Clint Rickard's future employment, declaring that Rickards is not fit to protect Auckland's women:
"I don't see how any policeman could say, 'Two of my best friends are in jail for rape, and by the way I want to be head policeman in Auckland so I can protect the women folk of Auckland'," Mr Hubbard said.
Except its worse than that, because he's said he thinks his friends are innocent, and their victim (along with all the others) is a liar. And we're supposed to believe that this man can fairly direct future rape investigations? That he'll encourage officers under his command to thoroughly investigate such cases, rather than dismissing them out of hand and encouraging them not to make statements, like his mate John Dewar did with Louise Nicholas?
Unfortunately, being a misogynist who supports rape isn't ruled out by the police employment contract. If it was, we'd clearly have a few less police officers.
41 comments:
How strange to see a self-proclaimed liberal like yourself whipping up a hate campaign against somebody found not gulity by a jury of his peers. Isn't this precisely what you pretend to oppose? Or is it just that he's a policeman, which makes it ok??
Posted by Anonymous : 3/05/2007 01:02:00 PM
123: Rickards has been acquitted (and rightly, in this case, given the evidence). But whether he's fit to be an assistant commissioner of police is another question. And both the behaviour he has admitted to - abusing his uniform to engage in sexual predation of vulnerable young girls - and his comments after the trial show that he is not.
As enforcers of the law, the police must be held to high standards. They must not only be squeeky clean - they must be seen to be so. Rickards isn't. And so he has to go. It may be difficult to get rid of him, but he should never be allowed to hold an operational position in the police ever again.
Posted by Idiot/Savant : 3/05/2007 01:14:00 PM
Fuck you 123. Our justice system failed these woman and a not guilty verdict in this case doesn't mean they weren't guilty as hell.
I am still feeling too gutted to voice a coherent opinion on these trials, but Maia and Span have summed things up fairly well from my perspective...
http://spanblather.blogspot.com/2007/03/powerlessness.html
http://capitalismbad.blogspot.com/2007/03/vileness-of-brad-shipton.html
http://capitalismbad.blogspot.com/2007/03/some-legal-issues.html
http://capitalismbad.blogspot.com/2007/03/aaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrggggggggghhhhhhhhhh.html
http://capitalismbad.blogspot.com/2007/03/louise-nicholas-is-hero.html
http://capitalismbad.blogspot.com/2007/03/clint-rickards-brad-shipton-and-bob.html
Posted by zANavAShi : 3/05/2007 01:28:00 PM
Again, moralising about whether his sex life fits your particular norms of what constitutes 'good' behaviour seems very non-liberal. Either he is guilty of a crime and punished, or he is not guilty of said crime and hence free from further vendettas. I don't really see why his lawful sex life is any of your business. As for terms like 'sexual predation', and 'vulnerable young girls', this is an emotive attempt to turn facts into values. The women either consented to sex lawfully, or didn't. And if they did, what right do you have - as a liberal - to pass judgement? Hypocrite.
As for you, Zanavashi - people used to demand that homosexuals were purged from schools etc -similar to what Idiot is doing here - becuase they found homosexual sex practices 'disgusting' and 'abnormal'. It is not your business what this man does with his sex life if it is legal. And that is that.
Posted by Anonymous : 3/05/2007 01:39:00 PM
This is not a court trial. It is a job interview. And it shouldn't take long:-
Question: "You will be responsible for protecting the public. Who represents the greater threat to the community you serve, Louise Nicholas or Brad Shipton?"
"She is a liar, he is my good friend." (his words)
"Thank you Mr Rickards, the interview is over."
Posted by Anonymous : 3/05/2007 01:41:00 PM
The irony is that Rickard is studying full time at university to become a lawyer while on $120,000 per year on leave. If the police takes the next complainant seriously he will still be on full pay for another year. It is almost like as one case is closed another complainant comes along.
The cost of justice is high, not just in human terms.
Removing him from office using the "bringing the police into disrepute" excuse will be an interesting legal case. Especially if the police are to lay more historical charges.
Posted by Anonymous : 3/05/2007 01:47:00 PM
123: I don't care about his sex life. It's his professional ethics that concern me.
The Herald this morning has a story about a teacher who ran off with one of his students. It's not illegal - she was 16 - but it can only be regarded as a gross violation of professional ethics. Rickard's admitted behaviour in expoliting young and vulnerable women through his uniform is in the same category. Legal - but a police officer who does it (or uses their uniform to get freebies and kickbacks of any description from anyone) should not be allowed to remain in the force.
(And that's quite apart from the issue of whether he can properly deal with future rape cases - which I note you completely ignore).
Posted by Idiot/Savant : 3/05/2007 01:49:00 PM
123:
I'd point your attention to another story that appeared on page 3 of the Herald on Sunday this week, concerning a 24 year-old teacher who is facing an investigation and (possible) de-registration over a sexual relationship with a 16 year-old student. I guess that's a 'witch hunt" because, after all, she was over the age of consent, he can't be charged (let alone prosecuted) for it, and ethical/professional standards be damned. Where's your sympathy for Luke McIndoe?
And while my taxes are paying for the New Zealand Police Force, and they enjoy enormous power over their fellow citizens, Rickards works for ME - and I'll pass whatever comment I wish about his fitness or otherwise to be a civil servant, within the bounds of good taste, defamation and applicable suppression orders. You don't like that? Tell someone who cares.
Posted by Craig Ranapia : 3/05/2007 01:58:00 PM
You are not very consistent with your application of natural justice are you I/S.
If he were not a cop you would be singing a different tune.
He has been found innocent, twice. Louise Nicholas and this other woman have been proven to be liars.
I don't care what he does with his sex life (though I do find it distasteful) the question should be is he the best person for the job?
Everybody uses their uniform to impress the women. If you applied your rule you would have to get rid of most of the cops and all of the army!.
"They must not only be squeeky clean - they must be seen to be so." sometimes I think you live in a different universe than the rest of us - News Flash!!! - cops are human!
Which do you want - somebody who can do the nasty job or somebody who just looks like they can do the job? Appearances are so important right!
Sb
Posted by Sb : 3/05/2007 02:02:00 PM
Craig: snap!
SB: to point out the obvious, the requirement that a criminal charge be proved beyond a reasonable doubt means that you cannot make the easy equation of an acquittal with "the victims are liars".
I'm applying exactly the same standard here that I have over Taito Phillip Field. Even if he isn't found to have done anything illegal, what has been exposed of his dealings is sufficiently dubious as to make him unfit for his job. In Rickards' case, we've got that not just from what he admitted in court, but also from his post-trial statements, which absolutel undermine any confidence the public might have that he would do his job properly in rape cases.
"They must not only be squeeky clean - they must be seen to be so." sometimes I think you live in a different universe than the rest of us - News Flash!!! - cops are human!
Yes, they are. But they are also people the public are entitled to have confidence in, and this requires that they be held to high standards in their professional conduct. If they are not capable of meeting those standards, then they have no place in the police force. That ought to be absolutely non-negotiable in any civilised society.
Posted by Idiot/Savant : 3/05/2007 02:17:00 PM
Craig my dear,
Teachers are told before they enter the job that having sexual relations with students will lead to their instant dismisal. This is clear and explicit before they enter the classroom. I'm not aware of policeman being told that they are forbidden to engage in threesomes or the like. Big difference. And idiot, again - you haven't told us why he should not be treated like any other citizen acquitted of an offence - left to get on with his personal and professional life.
And as for the 'future rape cases' - this is almost Orwellian in its implications. If and when anything comes to trial he has the right to enter and plea and the right to defend himself. You - the so-called bastion of fair trials for the likes of Zaoui seem here to be assuming his future guilt. How hypocritical, but also how unsurprising.
Posted by Anonymous : 3/05/2007 02:28:00 PM
He has been found innocent, twice. Louise Nicholas and this other woman have been proven to be liars.
Wrong-o, unless Rickards was "proven to be a liar" every time a case he was a prosecution witness in didn't result in a conviction? I was on a jury in a case I don't intend to discuss, but I'll say beyond reasonable doubt isn't an easy standard to meet, and it shouldn't be when (quite literally) someone's freedom is at stake. The case I was on returned a verdict of not guilty, but that doesn't mean I (or anyone else) thought any of the prosecution witnesses were perjuring themselves.
And, I/S, great minds think alike and all that. :)yi
Posted by Craig Ranapia : 3/05/2007 02:30:00 PM
123:
Jesus, Mary and Joseph... I'll run that by my foster brother and his wife, who were both police recruits in the early 80's and were told ad nauseum that a cop's greatest asset is their standing in the communities they're sworn to serve. I know reading seems to be a bit of a problem, but there are professions whose ethical standards go beyond a legalistic minimum. (Someone on PA pointed out the recent case where a female officer was told that moonlighting as a hooker - which is not illegal - was grossly improper, and she had to make a choice about what she wanted to do for a living. I guess Police management never made it explicit before because they thought it was a no-brainer for anyone with a grain of common sense.) If you seriously think law enforcement isn't one of them, then I despair.
Posted by Craig Ranapia : 3/05/2007 02:44:00 PM
craig: Louise N has admitted that she made up the story about a pack rape b y riders on horse back wearing skimasks.
She has made how many accusations of pack rape so far 12 is it 14 now - hard to keep up with her.
Sb
Posted by Sb : 3/05/2007 02:45:00 PM
I/S: "But they are also people the public are entitled to have confidence in, and this requires that they be held to high standards in their professional conduct"
so no consensual group sex then? Because that and pissing of LN seem to be the only things Rickards has done.....
And why does private sex life and professional conduct coincide here?
Sb
Posted by Sb : 3/05/2007 02:59:00 PM
123: the concerns about future rape cases aren't about what he said in court - but what he has said repeatedly outside of it since his acquittal. He's praised convicted rapists, said complaints against them were made up (despite a jury deciding that they met the high bar of being proved beyond reasonable doubt), and explicitly threatened a police team for investigating a rape complaint. If you were a woman who had been raped, is this the person you would want to turn to for justice? Is this the person you would want allocating resources between different cases and different types of cases?
One of the core problems revealed by these cases has been a consistent pattern of police refusing to believe rape victims, and telling them to go away before conducting any sort of investigation. By his post-trial comments, Rickards has proven himself to be part of that problem. I expect better from the police - and you should too.
Posted by Idiot/Savant : 3/05/2007 03:02:00 PM
SB: How many times do I have to say this? I'm not interested in what Rickards does in the bedroom - provided everyone there is a consenting adult, its NOMFB.
Rickard's failure of professional ethics is in how he got people into his bedroom: using the power of his uniform to exploit vulnerable young girls (something he admitted on the stand in his first trial). This doesn't just undermine the integrity of the police, it also violates the general duty of care they owe to the public, and it should not be tolerated.
Posted by Idiot/Savant : 3/05/2007 03:16:00 PM
How exactly are teachers told that they shouldn't have sexual relatios with their students? My experience is that they are told by their union officials, when those union officials get access to them which is sometimes patchy. It's such a no-brainer that I doubt it's mentioned in the training, and in fact I doubt many union officials have it in their routine patter either. It's one of those things you surely don't need telling.
Another thing that you would think people didn't need telling is that if you are going to be involved in the investigation of rape cases it's a good idea not to accuse complainants in particular rape cases of being liars and the like. It's also not a good idea to threaten those investigating such cases. It's further not a good look to have an admitted history of using your position of authority to procure sex in situations of dubious consent.
123: If Louise Nicholas must always be a liar because she made something up once, then mustn't Shipton and Schollum always be rapists as they have been convicted once?
Posted by Span : 3/05/2007 03:17:00 PM
Urgh I apologise for my manging of the english language in my last comment. Hopefully y'all got the gist.
And thanks to zanavashi for the link - electronic hugs to you e hoa.
Posted by Span : 3/05/2007 03:18:00 PM
Even ignoring the issues surrounding his comments and his suitabilitiy to lead rape investigations there are also his comments about the need to hold the people investigating the complaints to account.
If he has a problem with the Police investigation either complain to the Police Complaints Authority or take civil proceedings.
Regardless of the outcomes of any of those proceedings I doubt anyone involved in the investigation of the complaints will have confidence in an impartial hearing in front of Rickards in light of those comments.
Posted by Anonymous : 3/05/2007 03:28:00 PM
123: If Louise Nicholas must always be a liar because she made something up once, then mustn't Shipton and Schollum always be rapists as they have been convicted once?
Span are you being serious!
Don't you think that the fact that she has admitted making up some of her complaints is important with regards her credibility in the matter of her other complaints?
The romans had a very good saying 'False in one - False in all"
Sb
Posted by Sb : 3/05/2007 03:40:00 PM
I certainly don't recall saying anything about Louise Nichols, Span. I'll wait for your retraction.
Idiot: Your concern for these 'vulnerable' young women would be laudable if it didn't explicitly contradict your claim that you are not interested in Rickards' private life. A 'vulnerable young girl' of 16 or over is still a consenting adult - despite your best attempts to use emotive prose indicating otherwise - and hence, has freely decided to go to bed with Mr Rickards. She is the only judge of her 'vulnerability' or otherwise. Now - again - what is your concern with such a union? And why is it your business?
And Craig - please don't get too pent up, old thing - your blood pressure is already far too high, as indeed you know.
Posted by Anonymous : 3/05/2007 04:00:00 PM
One thing that a lot of people seems to be getting confused with is that he was what? 25? at the time. Sure its a large gap but not a obscene gap. People are reacting as if he was having sex with a 16 year old now at his current age.
16 year olds can consent to sex, they can consent to have sex with cops, they can consent to have sex with people who normally wear uniform. Many of them do it all the time and always have, so why is it wrong in this case?
Why is this 16 year old any more vulnerable than any other 16 year old.
Despite your claims to not be interested in his sex life this seems to be all about his sex life!
Sb
Posted by Sb : 3/05/2007 04:14:00 PM
123 you are correct on one thing - it was Sb who was attacking the credibility of Nicholas not you. My point still stands.
Posted by Span : 3/05/2007 04:42:00 PM
For me to attack Louise Nicholas credibility she would have had to have some left in the first place.
And no Span your point does not stand as it does not make sense! There is no logical linkage between the two. She is either telling the truth or she is not, whether other people are or not does not effect that.
Sb
Posted by Sb : 3/05/2007 04:52:00 PM
various PPL,
There is a degree of entrapment here. If I accused you and all your friends of rape (and lets say I was lying about you), and destroyed your career and finances etc then you would be a very unusual person if you believed me about the other people. Or could control you over a number of years to not say so in public.
And as 123 was starting to point out - even if he did do something embarrassing you can’t make the rules after the game. You would need to show that he knew several decades ago that that behavior was something he would be sacked for. You have a massive uphill battle there.
> Fuck you 123. Our justice system failed these woman and a not guilty verdict in this case doesn't mean they weren't guilty as hell.
I like to see people see eat the fruit that they grew. I agree they are probably guilty but our system says we cannot assume that. Either be happy with the result or tell us how you will live with the crippling of defendants, the removal of the assumption of innocence and the strengthening of prosecution powers.
> How exactly are teachers told that they shouldn't have sexual relations with their students?
If push comes to shove I'd say if they are NOT aware of that then it is the mistake of the employer to not have made them aware. - Of course they are almost all aware of it.
> It's further not a good look to have an admitted history of using your position of authority to procure sex in situations of dubious consent.
"Admitted" being the key phrase here not "history"
GNZ
Posted by Anonymous : 3/05/2007 06:33:00 PM
As a woman, I do not trust Rickards as a police officer.
Not because he had group sex with many different women, some of whom were teenage girls.
But because he thinks his pack rapist mates are innocent.
If I were raped, there is NO way I'd go near police that he was in charge of to help me get justice. No way.
Posted by Muerk : 3/05/2007 09:01:00 PM
Let's look at this from another angle.
Suppose Auckland police district has a new Commander, a saintly man called John Doe who has only ever slept with his loving wife. On being appointed, Mr Doe tells the public of New Zealand that he believes two convicted rapists are innocent.
What happens next?
Posted by Anonymous : 3/05/2007 09:05:00 PM
Anne Else's column, "Some Call It Rape: The Sex Kitten & The Tomcat", is worth a read:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0703/S00075.htm
On the attitudes of the accused to the young women, she notes:
'There’s a mistake in the [Rickards] interview, by the way. Police did not discover “her name and telephone number in a police notebook belonging to Shipton”. The Dominion Post reported that what they found were the words “milk bottle” and her number. (If you don’t know why that aroused their suspicion, read the trial transcripts.) She was nameless then, too.'
Posted by Anonymous : 3/05/2007 09:13:00 PM
Sb, my point was to show the ridiculousness of your argument about Nicholas but obviously that has wooshed above your head at light speed.
You claim that Nicholas lied once so she must have always lied. I disagree, and point out that by that by your logic then you ought to hold the position that, having been convicted of rape once, Shipton and Schollum must be guilty of all the rape complaints.
Is that a bit clearer?
Posted by Span : 3/05/2007 11:00:00 PM
muerk, I agree with you, I would certainly think several times about reporting a rape or sexual assault to a police force which has Rickards in a senior position.
I am additionally concerned about the position of authority he (and the other officers involved) were in over these young women.
Frankly I don't much care whether it was group sex or not. I do think though that a group of police officers are potentially a very intimidating bunch to deal with, particularly when you met them via drinking under age in a bar and being caught...
Posted by Span : 3/05/2007 11:06:00 PM
123
"Your concern for these 'vulnerable' young women would be laudable if it didn't explicitly contradict your claim that you are not interested in Rickards' private life"
When he is interacting with those vulnerable young women AND in his uniform, it is outside his private life. In those cases he as doing these things while in the pay of the people.
Do you get this yet?
Posted by Anonymous : 3/05/2007 11:18:00 PM
OK Span lets start from first principles eh?
I have zero tolerance for men who use violence against women. I deeply despise them. However I also have zero tolerance for women that make up rape allegations. Why? because they make it so much harder to get justice for women who actually have been raped.
Most people regard cerdibility the same way as they regard virginity. With virginity one fuck and its gone for ever, with credibility one lie and its also gone forever.
LN has admitted to lying about rape. She has admitted to making up at least one rape allegation. She has been manufacturing rape allegations since she was 13. Most (all?) have been investigated with at least one other having been to trial. No convictions have resulted as juries do not believe her.
She has played you and your kind span as if you were violins. Your unwavering unquestioning blind belief in her has meant that rather than being part of the solution you have become part of the problem. Remember the problem - justice for raped women.
LN has made it harder to get justice for these women.
get it now? no I did not think so......
Sb
Posted by Anonymous : 3/06/2007 09:09:00 AM
...with credibility one lie and its also gone forever.
With stupidity, one statement and it sticks forever...
Posted by Anonymous : 3/06/2007 09:14:00 AM
"Remember the problem - justice for raped women."
Which Rickards has forgotten, in his defence of his mates. So he is demonstrably unfit for the job. Yes?
As for Louise Nicholas: if she has credibility problems, these must be taken into account if she ever applies to be Assistsant Commissioner of Police. Until then, shouldn't we worry more about the one with the power?
How do you not GET this?
Posted by Anonymous : 3/06/2007 09:42:00 AM
Perhaps by "you and your kind" you mean women who have first hand experienced the lengths some men go to to make themselves feel powerful - sexual harassment, emotional and physical batterings, assaults, rapes.
Far from playing me like a violin, Louise Nicholas has spoken to my own experiences and those of many other women I know. She has stood up to power, at not inconsiderable personal risk.
She is no angel and has never pretended to be so. As far as I'm aware she has never championed convicted rapists. That puts her several steps above Rickards imho.
And Sb you still do not see the contradiction in your argument:
You have said that because Nicholas lied once she must always be a liar, that credibility is lost for ever through one action.
And yet you cannot see that if you applied that same logic to Schollum and Shipton you would have to come to the conclusion that they also had no credibility (after all they continue to deny the Mt Maunganui rape even after conviction, so by your logic they must be lying) and could never regain it. And therefore they must also be guilty of these rapes.
I am only using your own argument to point out your inconsistency. I suspect it is a waste of my finger muscles.
Posted by Span : 3/06/2007 10:32:00 AM
Span: whether LN is or is not a lier has nothing what ever to do with what did or did not happen at Mt.Maunganui .
Why do you try to link the two together? She either lied or she did not.
"Louise Nicholas has spoken to my own experiences and those of many other women I know" that could be true but it still does not mean that she is not lying about what happened to her.
"You have said that because Nicholas lied once she must always be a liar, that credibility is lost for ever through one action." correct.
And if Schollum and Shipton have been proved that they are lying then yes they have no credibility either.
"And therefore they must also be guilty of these rapes" no that's up to the jury to decide based on the evidence they hear.
The juries have chose to not believe her case.
Sb
Posted by Sb : 3/06/2007 11:00:00 AM
GNZ said "You would need to show that he knew several decades ago that that behavior was something he would be sacked for. You have a massive uphill battle there."
Perhaps this is why theres such a concentration, in at least some circles, not on the disputed and un-disputed facts of the case, but on his comments in public after the court-case.
Do you think a district commander might be aware of his obligation not to bring the police or the court system into dis-repute?
Do you think any of his comments, which:
a)questioned the validity of past convictions
b)called investigation teams a disgrace
might have been counter to specific terms in his employment contract? Or at least, general rules for police behaviour?
Posted by Anonymous : 3/06/2007 11:49:00 AM
Sb:
I would argue that it is reasonable, given Rickards comments outside the Court, NOT to trust him as a commanding officer of the police.
People must have police officers that theycan reasonably trust, especially in sensitive cases such as rape. Aside from his own questionable behavior, his public comments have IMO destroyed the possibility of reasonably being able to trust him.
Thus, he isn't fit for the job. End of story. He put his own foot in his own mouth, LN's credibility is irrelevant.
Posted by Muerk : 3/06/2007 01:29:00 PM
muerk: yes I agree with you - all your points infact.
He is now to compromised to continue - I suspect that he is now manuvering for a big pay out.
I suspect that some of his comments outside were to try and goad people into making remarks that would allow him to make a case to get an even larger payout than he will already be getting. He was gone even before the end of the case.
I suspect that every time Helen opens her mouth he gets another 100K of my tax money!
Sb
Posted by Sb : 3/06/2007 01:58:00 PM
FB,
> Do you think a district commander might be aware of his obligation
His trial brought them into direpute - his statement was trivial except in as far as it provides a stick to beat him. If in law it is sufficient stick to get him out of office then fair enough.
I think if it is sufficient then it is quite a strict test. can a police officer be fired for ever sheding doubt on the verdict of a court? even where the key witness has also accused him of a crime? thats is a strict criteria.
And if that is the case surely defendants deserve equal protection so police could not shed doubt on non convictions (ie if you find a police officer who says LN was right, or that rickards is guilty then he should be fired).
It seems like a can of worms.
> called investigation teams a disgrace
employers say that all the time. If you fired them for that then they would all be fired. Having said that it did imply to me a prudent employer would not put him in charge of that team.
> People must have police officers that theycan reasonably trust
in our society individual rights trump what "people must have" every time.
Sb,
that thought crossed my mind also.
I think HC has a strategy too - she will probably do well from it.
Posted by Anonymous : 3/06/2007 07:32:00 PM
Post a Comment
(Anonymous comments are enabled).