The Contrarian vs The Jackal | The Jackal

17 May 2012

The Contrarian vs The Jackal

I've had a rather turgid response by a new blogger calling himself The Contrarian in which he claims The Jackal's article about Police protecting their own is gibberish, made up and promotes falsehoods that shore up other people's preconceived biases... Really!

The Contrarian also claims that it "sounds fairly standard," that the fingerprints recorded for elimination purposes are inadmissible in a court of law. However this observation is based on sheer ignorance and misinformation...

Last night, One News correspondent Joy Reid reported (a year after the fact) a story about a police officer who had been caught out stealing sunglasses. She also reported into the police investigation stating that the police had gained legal advice that the constables fingerprints were inadmissible in a court of law because of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (PDF).

To anybody who has actually read and understood that document, this claim is farcical!

There is no such clause within the Bill of Rights Act that stipulates such a condition... Therefore a huge discrepancy exists between what the law actually states and the reason the Police have provided as an excuse to not lay charges, which unfortunately has been all too readily accepted by idiots like The Contrarian.