Thread: TV3 & Guncity mistake

Originally Posted by Jexla

I done that yesterday, he never emailed back. I told him if I was as bad at my job as he is his, I'd be fired.

Who did you e-mail Jexla?

just remember the public good excuse the next time your impersonating a cop or falsifying a document
cant help with having a tame cop union president on hand tho.
greggy boy was up to his atse cheeks in this story.

Originally Posted by 10-Ring

Who did you e-mail Jexla?

Nicholas Jones, a journalist.

Originally Posted by gsp follower

just remember the public good excuse the next time your impersonating a cop or falsifying a document
cant help with having a tame cop union president on hand tho.
greggy boy was up to his atse cheeks in this story.

You think the Police, after investigating and seeking separate legal opinion, decided to not press charges because Greg O'Conner said so ???

Originally Posted by Kscott

You think the Police, after investigating and seeking separate legal opinion, decided to not press charges because Greg O'Conner said so ???

no but i bet the because of the look to the rest of the cops of thier union prezy bieng a nob.[ie saving face] plus if it did go further we,d have to know how it came about that he knew so much and whose cop number and or licence number was used??
why were those numbers so realistic because they had a knowledgable source ????
theres no doubt they coluded on this story

You think the Police, after investigating and seeking separate legal opinion,

why was a seperate legal opinion needed??
did someone impersonate a cop YEPdid someone falsify a legal document to procur a gun YEP
if it was you or i would they have waited till the dust settled and let us slide NOPE
CAN ANYONE TELL ME IS DUNCAN GARNER A LICENCED FIREAM OWNER /USER

There's no doubt in my mine she escaped conviction due to her connections to the govt, someone told the cops NO

I don't think there's any chance of convincing you the NZ Police aren't that corrupt, especially for such a high profile case. Secrets are difficult to keep.

Originally Posted by Kscott

I don't think there's any chance of convincing you the NZ Police aren't that corrupt, especially for such a high profile case. Secrets are difficult to keep.

You can add me to that list.................... our coppers just like the rest of NZ population are not squeeky clean BUT they should be squeeky cleaner than the rest of us and be seen to be so if they expect the general public to respect and trust them.


and you can bet your bottom dollar if it was a licensed firearms owner who "impersonated' a police officer on that form they would have had the whole "library" thrown at them

Let's not kid ourselves here, it was wrong to not convict her, the fact it may have came from the police directly is probably more worrying than the chance it didn't....

As much as i hate to say it, she would not have been found guilty at court. Even though she broke the law her intent was not criminal. And that is what the defence would have focussed on. I think though that should Tipple go ahead with his civil case he would win as the bar is lower for a civil conviction.

Originally Posted by stug

As much as i hate to say it, she would not have been found guilty at court. Even though she broke the law her intent was not criminal. And that is what the defence would have focussed on. I think though that should Tipple go ahead with his civil case he would win as the bar is lower for a civil conviction.

is intent knowlingly breaking the law for some spurious supposed public good/ratings?? i think yes?did she talk to her boss about doing this i imagine she had to clear it in this litigious scratch my back era??
would she have got a legal opinion in this day of arse covering?probably

Originally Posted by stug

As much as i hate to say it, she would not have been found guilty at court. Even though she broke the law her intent was not criminal. And that is what the defence would have focussed on. I think though that should Tipple go ahead with his civil case he would win as the bar is lower for a civil conviction.

Her intent was definitely criminal as that is what she was tying to show, if not then she wouldn't have had a story. It would be exactly the same as driving a car at 160km/h though downtown Wellington to show it can be done even though knowing that it is illegal.

Originally Posted by gadgetman

It would be exactly the same as driving a car at 160km/h though downtown Wellington to show it can be done even though knowing that it is illegal.

And the police response is the equivalent of using that as justification to lower the speed limit from 50 to 30km/h.

Originally Posted by gsp follower

is intent knowlingly breaking the law for some spurious supposed public good/ratings?? i think yes?did she talk to her boss about doing this i imagine she had to clear it in this litigious scratch my back era??
would she have got a legal opinion in this day of arse covering?probably

Mark Weldon was the CEO of Media Works at the time & according the NZ Herald clip that I have he gave the go ahead for the team to proceed with their scam.

When Nic Taylor finishes tearing the whole lot of the scheming bathplugs to pieces in court, they won't know if they've been punched,drilled or countersunk!!!! The sooner & more publicly done the better.

Originally Posted by GravelBen

And the police response is the equivalent of using that as justification to lower the speed limit from 50 to 30km/h.

Also it means we should ban Nissan Skylines, it doesn't matter if it was actually done with a rental Corolla because *everybody knows* that psycho drivers are attracted to Skylines.