From today’s Crikey:
If it was any other union, the Queensland Police Union would be being denounced from the rooftops by John Howard and Joe Hockey, no matter how âavuncularâ? and cuddly the world of workplace relations is now meant to be.
Part of the problem with the âdonât go back to a union dominated workplaceâ? line from the government is that union militancy is very thin on the ground these days. Except, it would seem, when it comes to Queensland police.
The latest twist in the Mulrinji/Police Union saga has seen the Police Union take to the airwaves as well as threatening to take to the streets.
Two radio commercials are receiving heavy airplay in Queensland, and are now available for download from the Police Unionâs website, which trumpets:
We look forward to being able to get our message direct to you without editorial manipulation by some of the major media outlets in this state who monopolise particular mediums.
The message in question is delivered through some very slick ads, which cleverly pick up on community concerns about industrial relations and job security. But they also play on the fear of crime.
The latest ad asks citizens whether they want their âlocal police officers feeling paralysed to respond because of the fear of unjust claims against themâ??
The Police Union, after apparently looking at importing reinforcements from interstate for its planned march on Parliament, has âsuspendedâ? its protest as Beattie scrambled yesterday to meet its demands.
The Union is spending some serious money on its campaign. Itâs obviously as much targeted to police who are concerned about their salaries and working conditions as to the public. And itâs targeted to signing up new members for the Union, which quite a large minority of police feel has been more concerned with politics than basic industrial aims.
Peter Beattie is right to think that the Unionâs actions have a lot to do with upcoming enterprise bargaining negotiations. The latest spin in the Unionâs PR campaign has shifted the issue from justice to conditions of employment. The real target of the march might be the Treasury coffers.
The Queensland Police Union has a track record of political activity in pursuit of its industrial goals, and this quite appropriate. It is just that one of its industrial goals is to give its members as wide a scope as possible to do what they like, when they like and how they like, as a sort of ‘industrial right’, much like consultation over change of rosters for example. However the union’s members have power over other citizens which is quite unlike that of any other industrial organisation, and its understandable desire to further the interests of its members has a real impact on the quality of life and general freedom and security enjoyed by the rest of the citizenry. This union has a spotty record, to say the least, on issues of probity and the need for accountability of its members for their actions over the public. I am underwhelmed by their campaign to link their political campaigns to industrial demands. The truth is that they are not like other workers. They are sworn servants of the Crown who deserve decent pay and conditions, but should leave the making of public policy concerning policing to elected governments, and cease trying to abrogate to itself, the power and responsibility to determine the rights and freedoms appropriate to the citizenry.
Well said!
Pretty hard to argue with that, amused.
Consequently, I’ll risk moderation by going OT and asking Mark if there’s any hope for a “remember my details” cookie on this blog. I’m far too lazy to type in my email address every time I want to post….
See what I can do, Captain.
THe WA Police Union here pulled the same stunt during their campaign over a new Enterprise Bargaining Agreement culminating with a Protest on Parliament, refusing to fine drivers etc, and even holding a 2 hour “Strike”.
Plus they had their “10 10″ catchcry as well, with press ads showing injured officers, and police officers protesting at events attended by the Minister.
If the CFMEU pulled that kind of stunt, they’d be hauled before the courts in a flash, but the Police can garner “Public Sympathy” to support them.
Reeks of Double Standards to me.
That should read “10 10″ (as they were seeking 20% over 3 years and had bumper stickers etc.
hmm, the Plus sign doesn’t get included when I type 10 PLUS 10.
Can you fix this please ??
I’m sure we’ll hear and see more interesting thing on tonight’s Four Corners which is going to be about the police unions I’m told.
One of the most distressing aspects of the Queensland Police Union’s actions is their conviction that this is the issue on which they can piggyback their campaign for improved salaries and working conditions. I am all for unions. But what alarms me in this instance is their conviction that protesting the laying of charges against Chris Hurley for the manslaughter of an Aboriginal man will garner them public support for their broader campaign.
I don’t think this is the case that the Union executive should be exploiting: if they are getting the supportive emails, letters and phone calls that Denis Fitzgerald boasts of, I wonder if it isn’t simply that the Union hasn’t tapped into the endemic racism in Australian society. Surely the people of Queensland and Australia aren’t supporting the Queensland Police Service’s right to get away with manslaughter?
The police and their representatives’ actions in their response to this whole tragic series of events has been ill-conceived and irresponsible. From the initial arrest of Mulrunji for swearing; his death in custody by Chris Hurley’s well-known intemperate hand; the Union President’s personal attack on the DPP, the Union Vice-President’s threats to withdraw policing from Aboriginal communities (!!) ;and the rank, file and management’s vote to march on the Queensland parliament; in all this the police have been nothing but unneccesarily inflammatory.
Hurley was well known for his quick temper. This is not a quality any police officer should possess; he should have been experienced enough to know how to respond to Mulrunji’s provocation, and been equipped, through training, to diffuse the situation. If there’s a problem with training, that should be addressed.
Denis Fitzgerald’s threat to withdraw policing from Aboriginal communities is akin to a child picking up his bat and ball and going home because he didn’t win the game; it is not befitting a Union representative. His and Gary Wilkinson’s reactions have been nothing short of puzzling. I think the police of Queensland could be served far better by more temperate, level-headed representatives.
As the situation stands, I, personally, as a citizen of Queensland, don’t feel confident in the police force of this state because of their conduct in this whole affair. Their suggestion that these charges are unjust, and their attempt to play on fears about crime are reprehensible.
I would feel safer if they took responsibility for a devastating record of black deaths in custody in this state, and worked with the government and Aboriginal leaders to prevent further deaths, both in custody and those of young Aboriginal men that often occur, needlessly, afterwards, in response to the utter despair felt in the aftermath of such events.
Given that Hurley has now been charged, it would be wise to avoid statements that might prejudice the case.
Jeff Seeney is already running a “fair trial is impossible” line.
The threat to withdraw members from aboriginal reserves is one the police union should give more consideration to.
It is far from “picking up their bat & ball & going home”.
Kirsty, if you were an officer charged with with upholding the law (ALL law, your agreement or otherwise with a law is regardless, you must physically arrest & subdue at ANY time ANY person breaking ANY of Queensland’s laws) ..under what conditions would you be then prepared to live in an aboriginal community on a reservation?
Installation of cameras in watchhouses is the minimum I would want. Also I would prefer more fellow police, as the more on my side in a roughouse the better.
If the Police Union was expecting any help from the Queensland opposition for their industrial campaign they will be sorely disappointed. Seeney was turfed out of the parliament today for being a mug twice. The Opposition lost the argument and were outvoted on four attempts to claim dissent from the Speakers ruling and to round out an unhappy day for these incompetents, they moved a no confidence motion in the Attorney General which was lost.
It did however give the Government a chance to bring up the Denver Beanland fiasco, the Liberal member for Indooroopilly who sat in the parliament for 311 days after a successful no confidence motion was successfully moved against him as attorney -General.
Flegg was pilloried for being the recipient of a no confidence vote by the people of Queensland and McArdle is still dogged by the Mortage scandal in the firm where he was previously employed.
The Nats were reminded of the Baton over the Head case where during a student protest a student was battoned on the head by police in full view of TV cameras. The police Minister Max Hodges from Gympie announced there would be an inquiry, Joh decided that political interference was the best option and in the end there was no ivestigation and both Commissioner Whitrod and Hodges paid the price of clashing with Joh by losing their jobs.
The Nats have been sooking,whining,moaning and snarling all week about being gagged but the clowns can not understand the principle of subjudice and how it applies in practice which is what David Jackmanson was saying. If Seeney doesn’t lift his game he runs a real risk of a supreme court charge of Contempt. The Speaker has tried his best to explain the situation but the opposition just do not get it.
“The threat to withdraw members from aboriginal reserves is one the police union should give more consideration to.”
I, for one, would cheer such a move – as would most of the inhabitants of said “reserves”. BTW, it says something about this country that there are still “reserves: in which Aboriginal people are housed, all the better for bashing them I suppose.
Rober Bollard: Such a move is not something to cheer. The rule of law being withdrawn is a very serious matter.
I am prepared to be corrected, but believe from your comment that you have never lived on a reserve, nor do you have ANY idea of some of the things which can happen on one.
Those things are the same which will happen to the weak and defenceless anywhere there is not a powerful force (ie, the law) to keep people in line.
Would you be prepared to have every house for 2 blocks around your place taken over by motorcycle gangs, then the police “move out” & announce that area is a “free fire zone”, that citizens within that area are not worth protecting?
Do you have young daughters? Do you have goods worth burgling in your house? Can you fight like Chuck Norris or even shoot like Kid Colt?
The Police Union probably don’t even know you exist SATP – I doubt whether they are paying you to be their mothpiece. So why bother? What’s in it for you?
Research Wizard you ain’t Steve!
I am many things, but unlikely to ever be seriously taken as being pro-police union.
And your comment was trite.
I find it difficult to understand then why a research wizard like yourself would bother to do the Police union work of developing fear of crime as a tactic.
“Would you be prepared to have every house for 2 blocks around your place taken over by motorcycle gangs, then the police âmove outâ? & announce that area is a âfree fire zoneâ?, that citizens within that area are not worth protecting?”
Well I’d be cool about that if I had a .308 and heaps of ammo.
But really a .308? Yer talking about semi-auto AR-15 derivatives like Bushmaster here aren’t you? Fine for plinking rabbits but lousy for blowing a slavering junky bikie out of your baby daughter’s nursery as he’s about to insert the crack pipe into her. For that scenario, a good snake pistol is far better.
Y’know SATP, the more butch you talk, the more I’m suspecting you really do run a fern bar in Cairns. Near the waterfront too.
Nabakov, you shouldn’t drink & type. I am in the pub trade, I don’t have anything to do with nurseries, never even set foot in one.
a .308 & heaps of ammo would keep you & yours protectd from motor cycle gangs? Hmm, never been real close to the action when motor cycle gangs get stuck into each other have you?
If an AR-15 is your preferred rabbit plinker I take my hat off to you. I could never manage to hit anything with an AR-15, or with anything remotely derived from one. I do point out that those things are not designed with accuracy in mind. I believe there is more chance of hitting ducks in a fairground shooting gallery.
Howevr you all seem to be getting away from the point.
Is it the conventional wisdom in here that a community without police protection is a GOOD THING for that community?
Is this place full of social scientists or somesuch? Talking through the hat is quite common in here, particularly in threads on water & anything involving practical application of manual labour, but
Nabakov, you haven’t ever lived anywhere without reliable police protection have you? Scares the crepe outta me to think of being hundreds of miles from anywhere, with no police & no law, and no effective control over the able bodied males.
“If it was any other union, the Queensland Police Union would be being denounced from the rooftops by John Howard and Joe Hockey..”
Howard and Hockey’s view on unions are pretty clear and widely understood. They view them as an anachronistic, vested interest group, and hence their general IR stance. The above statement is rubbish, to try and hide the fact that the Qld Police Union is hereby demonstrating the veracity of Howard and Hockey’s stance.
“I am underwhelmed by their campaign to link their political campaigns to industrial demands.”
Sweet Jesus, unions have been doing that for as long as most here can remember and as for public service unions, serving the people and keeping their nose out of politics, they are usually the worst offenders. However don’t let that deter you from thinking the Qld Police Union is the exception to the rule here.
As for advocating the police leave aboriginal kids alone on reserves to be the playthings of adults for some petrol to sniff, all I can add is welcome to the lost generation too.
Anyway none of this would have happened if we all took a leaf out of SA Labor’s book and left it to the Monsignors.
“a .308 & heaps of ammo would keep you & yours protectd from motor cycle gangs?
Either you’re not that bright or you’re carefully misreading my second last comment to score another jock stiffening point. And you really have no idea what a snake gun is do you?
“Hmm, never been real close to the action when motor cycle gangs get stuck into each other have you?”
Why yes I have. Not to mention armed punch ups between the USN Shore Patrol, the RFMF, local gangs with cane knives and crazy drunk Korean fishermen with sawn off sharkshooters.
“Nabakov, you haven’t ever lived anywhere without reliable police protection have you?”
Yes I have.
You really do run a fern bar in Cairns don’t you?
“and no effective control over the able bodied males.”
You could offer them another Brandy Alexander on the house if they’d just tone down the bad language a smidgen.
So Nabs, describe these fern bars for me, if you’d be so arsed. Where our Steven’s ensconced.
Well wbb, once upon a time SATP proclaimed on some thread (I seem recall it was over at Cap’n Quiggin’s place) that there was no room for bad language at his watering hole, ken oath there wasn’t.
I merrily pointed out that it sounded like a right fern bar. Apparently horrified at the thought his establishment could be seen as anything less than 100% macho, SATP responded with a bizzare diatribe about how the “bucks” at his venue could beat me to a bloody pulp. But without bad language apparently.
As we’ve all seen here, the guy is hypersensitive about any implication he’s less than totally all red-blooded, all outback, all male, all Aussie, all the time.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
The Queensland/NSW/Vic Firearms acts specifically forbid AR-15 (as a military-style weapon) to ordinary licence holders irrespective of whether its auto function has been disabled. The .308 is a Winchester calibre version of a military cartridge (7.62 × 51 mm NATO) and you can only own and use one on your licence if you have reasonable grounds for its use, i.e. as a primary producer with large beasts to put down (buff) or as a target shooter. But it has to be a manual bolt action or pump action – SLRs are not allowed. Firing at 5-gallon tins in your backyard is strictly illegal, even with a .22 short. A snake gun is a .410 single-barrel shotgun. You sound like a wanker, Steve, who gets his jollies fantasising about shooting off powerful weapons. Stick to video gun games is my advice before someone traces your IP number, son.
Sir Henry: Your nearest wanker can be found in the mirror.
What you don’t know would fill libraries.
Steve at the pub, does your establishment have any indoor plastic ferns to soften the testosterone charged ambience that a publican like your good self, sir, so obviously fosters?
Also, I know where you can get a terrific deal on back copies of Guns & Ammo.
And do keep as civil a tongue in your head as you demand of your patrons, should you deign to reply. Don’t mind a good pseudo redneck actually, as long as he is consistent.
Steve at the Pub’s original point is a very good one.
When the issue of police being removed from Aboriginal communities was first raised a couple of weeks ago, I mentioned it to a friend of mine, stating my gut reaction that it sounded like a fine idea.
Her reaction, which was a bit more grounded in common sense than mine, was ‘what about the women and children in those communities?’.
I hope I’ve said enough about this case to not be thought of as a spokesperson for the Police Union, but we should remember just what job S/Sgt Hurley was attending when he arrested Mulrunji – he was intervening in a domestic violence case. This isn’t to justify his alleged actions, nor to buy into the ‘what a great guy he is’ line, but it is a reminder that this sort of difficult, dangerous work still needs to be done.
I think it’s important to remember that a great deal of the toxic behaviour in Aboriginal communities is a direct result of racist oppression. However, that isn’t much comfort to a woman who is being bashed.
At the rallies I have been to recently, I see that Aboriginal leaders are willing to admit and discuss the toxic behaviour that happens, and I think they want solutions.
Like it or not, the police force is still the only organisation capable of providing any sort of order in remote communities. I imagine that many black leaders would like to see the day when mostly black officers police black communities, but even if a plan to make that happen were to start today, it would take years to see the fruit.
While I think the public statements of the police union are hypocritical (what about the other 200-odd recommendations of the Aboriginal Deaths in Custody Royal Commission, what about the fact that there was a camera at Palm Island, and why are they only marching now?), the issue of just how remote Aboriginal communities are to be policed is a tricky one.
There should be no backdown at all on the issue of charging S/Sgt Hurley, but people who support Aboriginal rights need to think hard about the best way to ensure justice and order for everyone in Aboriginal communities, even the weakest.
I wonder if there is a a stack of well-thumbed Soldier of Fortune magazines in the toilet? (The mag is described as “a magazine for for mercenaries and professional soldiers as well as for armchair dreamers and wannabes.” That’d be right.)
Over the past few weeks a detectable tension has been obvious in the police here. They are quite obviously apprehensive about the possibility of a situation which calls for the violent arrest of an indigenous person, (a matter of when, not if)
There has been an equally detectable (and alarming) escalation of criminal/violent mood by young indigenous men. These fellows understand that the police are reluctant to crack down hard on them. They understand (like all young men) only one language: superior force. A crack in the resolve of the police is something they obviously intend to exploit. They see nothing wrong with belting hell out of the weak, stealing anything, demanding money/tobacco by use of menace (usually from their own relatives) wanton destruction of property, including facilities built for their own use/advancement.
The only thing ever keeping this behaviour in check is the guarantee that the police will immediately come & lock them up.
Flawed policing is better than no policing at all.
A withdrawal of police from aboriginal communities is likely to spur the immediate political reconstruction of the way policing is handled in these communities, almost certainly for the better of police and citizens.
SatP, I think an actual withdrawal is unlikely – open defiance of government policy and direct orders would leave officers open to punishment. Of course, there are a hundred ways of whiteanting a policy you dislike, without expressing open disagreement.
A “political reconstruction of the way policing is handled in these communities” would, in my opinion, be a good thing, but I imagine it cannot be achieved immediately. Asking indigenous community leaders “How would you police your community?” would be a good place to start.
Long-term change would need to be the goal. You can’t stop young men acting in violently abusive ways unless they think the world has something for them. The pressure of racism needs to be looked at very closely indeed, although it shouldn’t be used as an excuse to duck the problem of what is to be done, today, to protect weaker members of the community.
I think I need to set the record straight on a few things.
1. The police union did not ever threaten to strike. Never have …never would.
2. We did not threaten to pull police out of indigenous communities. We said that if the community itself requested that police leave that the Police Commisioner should consider agreeing to their request and posting those police in those communities where they are welcome.
3. Marching to the parliament is a right for any Queenslander and one that has never been used by police before. We would only do it after we have exausted every other option.
4. There was no camera at the entrance to the Palm Island watchhouse.
5. There is absolutely no link between this dispute and police pay negotiations which haven’t even started yet. It is disgraceful for anyone to suggest this. Getting appropriate staff and video surveillance in indigenous communities is not something that can be addressed in enterprise bargaining.
6. We have all the members we are ever going to get Mark. We dont need to pitch to new members. We have the highest union membership ratio of any union in the country…over 99%.
6. It is amazing that Mark can be such an authority on the subject, yet fail to seek the view of one side of the argument. Mark, before you publish anymore ill-informed comment, please feel free to contact me at the police union.
Ross Musgrove
Media and Government Relations Officer
Apart from this veiled threat by Dennis Fitzpatrick:
Since 1989 it has been. Glad that the police are now committed to a right to march – not that long ago, members of your union used to co-operate in crushing dissent, didn’t they?
The right to march is also hemmed in by the fact that your photograph will end up on a police file.
So are you going to go on the record demanding that no action inside a police station or watchhouse can go unrecorded? I hope so.
Perhaps you can point me to your organisation’s no doubt many public statements BEFORE the charging of S/Sgt Hurley, where the police called for such a camera?
Also, when will the police union demand the other 200-odd recommendations of the Black Deaths in Custody Royal Commission be implented?
The right to march or otherwise is determined by governments and legislation – not police. Police dont make laws…politicians do. Its a quirky separation of powers thing, you know.
Yes we said, when asked, that strike action had been discussed by our membership, however we ruled it out from day one and repeatedly insisted that we would continue to serve and protect the people of Queensland no matter what. We never threatened strike action.
Actually, we have ad nauseum been talking about bringing watchhouses up to standard and the need for diversion centres etc. But it is only now that the issue is prominent in the media that anyone cares.
We have demanded that all elements of a persons time in custody be automatically recorded – we have nothing to hide.
Marching on parliament is not a strike, however equally it is not something we would ever do lightly. We need more police in indigenous communities so that people in police custody and our members are safe….hopefully this can be acheived without any other action on our part as surely it’s common sense.
By the way, our union is one of the few that are politically independant. In fact it is illegal in our rules to contribute financially to any side of politics. From time to time various political parties and candidates receive our brickbats or bouquets, depending on what is a best for our members.
We really don’t fit with either side of politics too well. Conservatives dont like our industrial views and the left are’nt thrilled with our social perspective.
But, we’re not here to conform to any party platform – just to represent our members as best we can.
You may disagree with us, but we dont pretend to represent anyone other than our members and unlike politicians we’re not after your vote.
Where and when?
So, as long as it was all nice and legal, your members would be willing to help crack marchers’ heads again? Even if its the result of an unfair electoral system like the one that some of your members helped to prop up before 1989??
I feel much safer now.
Ross you make a good joke with your view of history but the facts are
different from what you would have us believe.
Is it not the case that the change to the change to the right to march was merely taking thr issuing of the permit to march out of the hands of a magistrate and giving a corrupt Police Commissioner the right to decide who would be given a permit?
In other words your members had the right to decide who could march and they made the political decision to basically only allow Anzac Day marches.
For the record on what date did the Police Union revert to a Democratic Institution after all these years of prohibiting democracy?
Have the Police Union ever formally apologised for their behaviour during the years they stifled democracy in Queensland and were unable to detect or act against corruption inn their ranks?
I suppose this explains your memorandum of Understanding with the Queensland National Party during the Mundingburra by election does it?
As Tony Fitzgerald found the Police Union has always liked a good Joke!
And just where was your quirky separation of powers thing during the Mundingburra by-election?
Actually Steve, the Police Commissioner pretty much still has the power to decide who marches, where and when, but the act has changed so that you can appeal to a magistrate and you basically have the right. The act was changed because of a change of government. Democracy in action my friend.
Police dont get to change acts of parliament…politicians do…are you really suggesting that police should ignore legislation and its intent as passed by parliament.
There are places where that happens of course but nowhere I would rather live …Solomons…Fiji…Iraq just to name a few.
If you dont like the legislation you get to cast a vote against the government…and if you can get enough of your mates to do it maybe change it. But police cannot override the legislative wishes of the parliament.
I dont know where you were in the days of Mundingburra but I know where I was and exactly what happened.
Yes, the police union had a MOU with the National Party in the best interests of its members. In fact its main plank was the police staffing plan which eventaully became a bipartisan policy that has served QLD well. The MOU was investigated by everyman and his dog and found to be completely legal. Not corrupt…perfectly legal.
Unions and other interested parties are entitled to reach agreements on policy with governments or oppositions and do so regularly…its called democracy.
Secondly, the police union did not advocate a vote for any party in the Mundingbura re-election. We simply raised issues of concern to our members and the public. No how to vote cards and no ads saying vote for one side or another.
Lastly, the labor party lost the re-election because it dis-endorsed its candidate Ken Davies, who was a minister at the time, and endorsed the Townsville Mayor Tony Mooney.
Davies ran as an independant and split the vote. Labor didn’t stand a chance given it had only won the first election by a handful of votes and QLD has an optional preferential system. A dufous called Tanti was elected and government changed hands.
But the changing of the government had little or nothing to do with the police union campaign or any other union who was campaigning in Townsville at the time.
Sorry to be pedantic Steve, but I lived it…I know what happened and your version is poppycock.
Democracy is a bigger force than you think and not just the provence of the earnest but ill-informed left.
Ah, a lecture on democracy from a police union operative. This is great.
So what do you have to say, Mr Musgrove, about the fact that throughout the 70s and 80s the National Government was only kept in power by rigging the electoral system:
1977 – 82 seats
party vote seats
ALP 42.8 28%
Libs 25.2 29%
Nats 27.1 42%
1980 – 82 seats
ALP 41.5 30%
Libs 26.9 26%
Nats 27.9 42%
1983 – 82 seats
ALP 44.0 39%
Libs 14.9 9%
Nats 38.9 50%
1986 – 89 seats
ALP 41.3 33%
Libs 16.5 11%
Nats 39.6 55%
1989 – 89 seats
ALP 50.3 60%
Libs 21.1 10%
Nats 24.1 29%
Even in the tidal wave of 1989 the Nats were STILL over-represented.
It was this malapportionment of votes (often called a gerrymander) that helped to keep the National Party in power – the National Party who was responsible for the laws that allowed your union members to harrass and beat up dissenters, and to forbid street marchers.
It’s all well and good for you to piously assert:
but when police use state violence against people because of their politics, and the government that uses the police is kept in power by an undemocratic voting system, don’t you think that police, as citizens, have a responsibility to do something about it?
Or do you just want to make sure that police have signed, written orders to cover themselves?
And what about references to back up your assertion that:
When and where has the police union done this?
Okay, last go at this…So all of your arguments are dust apart from the last missive.
I agree with the assertions regarding the gerrymander…excpt you forget to mention that both sides of politics benefitted from it at diferent times. Bad form though in anycase. Still, I cant see how the police are at fault for that.
Yes, policing these days is more gentile than it was in the 60′s and seventies…but most things are.
We are all more accountable these days. even your average tradesman has licenses galore and inspectors checking everything. The only ones who seem to have miraculously escaped the accountability boom are the politicians and the journalists.
We have been banging on about watchouse safety at our annual conferences, which are attended by the Minister of the day for many years. And we have done some hidden camera tv stories about the attrocious conditions.
The last one we did was Cloncurry about 4 years ago after a black death in custody in that watchhouse and the media werent that interested. A new station is only now being built despite that.
We have done numerous media interviews over the past two weeks calling for every minute of a persons time in custody to be recorded, and if you havent seen, or heard one you must have been living on Mars.
Okay, enough. I’ve got other mad lefties on other blogs to tend to.
Feel free to chat amongst yourselves…
“If you dont like the legislation you get to cast a vote against the government…and if you can get enough of your mates to do it maybe change it. But police cannot override the legislative wishes of the parliament.”
I sometimes sit and have to contemplate for hours the bullshit that passes off as sincere commentary here.I suggest Mr Musgrove read the good Dr Fitzgerald, but of course he was suffering with dementia or some other illness,at the time of writing his report.
I remember it well, e.g.the Police weren’t actually running or using Queensland brothel services, they were there picking up the brown paper bags for the owners, contents of which, promptly deposited in the banks of the Polices fav charity..etc, etc, etc.
What an insult,the Germans had fair elections in 1933 to confirm Hitler ,oh dear not the dreaded Nurembergh defence again.
You justifed the previous anti-marching laws by referring to elections and democracy. My argument pointed out that the elections that led to those laws was deeply flawed.
I did not say the police were at fault for the laws. What I did was say that any argument that pretends that what police did in the 80′s was justified, just because there was a (rigged) election, is a poor one.
I’m no friend of the ALP, and I’m well aware that they started the malapportionment to take advantage of the strength of the AWU in the bush, but we were discussing the National Party government of the 70s and 80′s, not the Hanlon government of the 50s.
My point was that the police union has only been treating this issue as an urgent and important one since the very new precedent of charging a police officer for allegedly violent acts against an Aboriginal person was set a few weeks ago.
From what you say, the police union has discussed watchhouse safety once a year at annual conference, and your only other example is a case 4 years ago.
Doesn’t sound like it’s had a very high priority at all.
Is anyone who argues against your point of view a ‘mad leftie’? Nice to know that the old political nuance that the Special Branch used to show lives on.
Perhaps you should read my comment in this thread where I discuss the very serious issue of policing Aboriginal communities, and point out that by no means all violent behaviour comes from the police. Unless of course that would make it too hard for you to write me off as a ‘mad leftie’.
Followed the link David. Point taken…you are at least giving it some thought.I’d love to argue those points more…but then I’d hate to be the second police union official to be charged with contempt by the Attorney General….maybe another day.
I’d be keen to debate more…I understand the contempt issue but perhaps after the trial.
“I will forever continue to work to ensure your rights and freedoms to freely voice your opinion are maintained. The mere fact we can sit here and do this is testament to that.”
Hey Ben,I drops to my knees in admiration for you,your a star. My freedom to say as I please,anything that can be contstrued as fair or otherwise, without fear of malicious prosecution,has nothing to do with you.It is in spite of the Police.
Every state in Australia has files on people that they believe may be a threat to the state,however it is just coincidental that most of them hold left wing views.
“I read with amusement many forums whereby people continue to suggest the police service is full of corrupt, head bashing, right wing buffoons.”
I am glad you find it funny! But not as funy as I find it you thinking it’s funny.If you believe the public are happy with the Police service across Australia you must do all your polling in the “Womens Country Service Associations” Most people recognise the police as a necessary evil, and if they were honest, wouldn’t piss on one if they were on fire.
Oh by the way Ben,before you start to insult my intelligence I am an x serving officer.who resigned because of the blatant racism and for being sent to Coventry for dobbing in a shit bag.