Wednesday, August 28, 2013

CRIMINAL OR TASTELESS OR STUPID OR ALL THREE .....

Doesn't overly matter.   He should lose his job.    For those of you who haven't picked up on what I am on about go here for the full story.

In short, it involvers the actions of 'Public Servant' Andrew Gull tweeting Kim Dotcom volunteering his services to f**k John Key's daughter, video it and send a copy to the Prime Minister.

As I read it such action may constitute an offence under Section 66 of the Crimes Act 1961.   It certainly transgresses the State Services Code of Conduct for Public Servants.

I have raised the matter with the Director General of Conservation.    I will let you know his response. 

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

I have raised the matter with the Director General of Conservation. I will let you know his response.


Excellent. About time personal responsibility was sheeted home to those troughing bludgers who call themselves "our servants" but think of themselves our masters.

If I had my way, instant dismissal, lifetime ban from any government employment whatsoever, lifetime ban on him or his family receiving any government services whatsoever.

Let 'em starve in the gutter.

The Veteran said...

Anon 3.41 ... a bit harsh. I'm sure the Labour Party Research Unit will welcome him with open arms if/when he is dismissed from DoC.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

All three, plus perverted. Just think. One day this feller might be a registered teacher.

Psycho Milt said...

There's nothing at that linked page that involves him "volunteering his services" for it.

Fortunately, writing something unpleasant and disrespectful about family members of authority figures isn't yet a crime in NZ, nor does it get you fired (assuming he wasn't stupid enough to use DoC IT to post it).

The Veteran said...

PM ... I take the tweet to mean just that but, notwithstanding your take, what about Section 66(1)(d) of the Crimes Act ... "incites, counsels, or procures any person to commit the offence."

If I were Mr Gull I would be very worried, very worried indeed.

Psycho Milt said...

It's not my take on it, it's the English language's take on it.

Re the Crimes Act, I guess there'd be a crime if she didn't know it was being video'd, but it would be drawing a long bow to say the tweet incites that. To date, fucking isn't a crime. The only real potential for trouble for him there is that he probably did it in work time on work gear (in which case he's a moron), and of course that John Key has form when it comes to using his position to waste Police time on his trivial personal matters.

Judge Holden said...

What I find interesting is how right wingers like Slater and Vet are adding to the PM's obvious deep personal offence by smearing this all over the Internet, and trying to make a criminal issue of it for some vague political advantage. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. If you're that upset, Vet complain to the Police. You won't though will you?

Anonymous said...

That's a fair question.
If you believe an offense has been committed first port of call the police.

That who you call before your insurance guy.

The Veteran said...

PM/Judge/Anon ... in the context of the e-mail f*****g means rape.
But if you all want to trivialise that then I can't help but feel sorry for you.

For Judge (1) would have thought that Gull should be 'ashamed' of himself but clearly the norms of civilized behaviour don't apply to him. Sez a lot about you going into bat for him and (2) don't hold your breath that I won't.

Andrei said...

in the context of the e-mail f*****g means rape.

No it doesn't - that is a thoroughly unpleasant comment made by an individual who has no taste but it isn't a crime yet to say unpleasant things - though we are rapidly working towards that sorry state of affairs where it will be.

Are you seeking a position as a thought crime policeman?

The Veteran said...

Andrei ... read Section 66(1)(4) of the Crimes Act 1961 and you may come to a different view.

Thought Police nothing. The Act has been in place for 52 years.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Vet, I'd say you have it pretty much right. You are getting smacked about by the left AND the right.

The Veteran said...

Adolf ... no matter, its the 'thought' that counts although being dished by Holden is akin to a slap on the face with a wet bus ticket.

His mantra of National bad/Labour good is somewhat tiresome. There are good people on all sides of the political fence who can debate with passion and style. He's not one of them.

Judge Holden said...

Gone to the Police yet? You think a serious threat has been made. You said so yourself. Why are you so soft on crime all of a sudden?

The Veteran said...

Judge ... you do your thing like sticking up for 'your' people and I'll do mine and watch and weep.

As I said. Serious debate like from my co-blogger PM I can enjoy and relish. You fall much short of that mark.

p.s. why do you call yourself 'Judge' ... that implies some knowledge of the law which clearly you struggle with.

Judge Holden said...

But this isn't serious debate, it's just you playing offensive little games. If you were serious you would go to the police over this crime you seriously consider may have been committed.

The Veteran said...

Holden ... as I said, watch and weep. It's not an "offensive game" to take a stand up against a person threatening rape and if you want to support Gull in all of this then your moral compass is all to hell.

But then that supposes you have a moral compass.

Judge Holden said...

But you're not taking a stand are you? If you were you'd be taking the matter to the appropriate authorities. You're playing silly games. And not winning.

The Veteran said...

Holden ... If you are so thick as to not to be able to translate 'watch and weep' into the fact that I have taken the matter to the appropriate authorities when I had already said I will keep you posted on developments, then you are a bigger fool than I think you are already.