Today, the NZ Herald reported:
That's a pretty big claim to make.
Only somebody with questionable morals would plant evidence to ensure a wrongful conviction of Arthur Allan Thomas for the murders of Harvey and Jeannette Crewe.
With knowledge of this gross injustice, Bush claiming that Hutton had "integrity beyond reproach" is simply delusional! In my opinion, anybody that deluded who makes such clearly false statements shouldn't be in a position of power.
Basically Peter Marshall is saying it's OK to lie as long as the people where you make that false statement will accept it. Unfortunately for them the lie has been exposed to the public, and more importantly to Arthur Allan Thomas' family.
Clearly anybody who plants false evidence to convict an innocent person has no integrity, and Bush saying otherwise looks like the Police are accepting of that kind of corruption.
The fact that Hutton was never convicted for planting false evidence also shows that the Police are accepting of this kind of corrupt practice.
I note that Marshall and Tolley have both defended Bush's statement, which implies that they also support Hutton's despicable actions and think that he has integrity.
What does it say about their morals when a senior officer who plants false evidence isn't criticized, those who praise such an obviously corrupt officer are defended and those that question such positions are chastised?
Well they have caused offence, and for that a formal apology should be offered to Arthur Allan Thomas' family as well as the general public. The Police need to accept that praising an officer who has been found to falsify evidence is unacceptable no matter the circumstances.
I don't think Trevor was being a bully in this instance... He simply appears to be standing up against police corruption and saying that those who promote it should not be in the force.
Of course the manner in which Mallard went about making his point could probably have been a bit more diplomatic, but a lack of diplomacy isn't the making of a bully. If that was the case, then the bully label could be widely applied, especially across the current governments benches.
Police Minister Anne Tolley said Labour MP Trevor Mallard was attempting to destroy the career of deputy commissioner Mike Bush, who she described as one of New Zealand's top-performing policemen.
That's a pretty big claim to make.
At a parliamentary select committee yesterday, Mr Mallard asked Police Commissioner Peter Marshall whether he supported Mr Bush's eulogy at the funeral of former detective inspector Bruce Hutton in April.
Mr Bush told mourners that Mr Hutton - who was found to have planted evidence in a murder inquiry - had "integrity beyond reproach".
Only somebody with questionable morals would plant evidence to ensure a wrongful conviction of Arthur Allan Thomas for the murders of Harvey and Jeannette Crewe.
With knowledge of this gross injustice, Bush claiming that Hutton had "integrity beyond reproach" is simply delusional! In my opinion, anybody that deluded who makes such clearly false statements shouldn't be in a position of power.
Mr Marshall said he "absolutely" supported Mr Bush's attendance at the funeral.
He also defended the eulogy.
"You have to remember this was a funeral service attended by grieving family, by grieving friends and associates of the deceased and he made those comments in the context of that particular set of circumstances."
Mr Mallard then accused the Police Minister of lying in the House with regard to Mike Bush's eulogy.
Basically Peter Marshall is saying it's OK to lie as long as the people where you make that false statement will accept it. Unfortunately for them the lie has been exposed to the public, and more importantly to Arthur Allan Thomas' family.Clearly anybody who plants false evidence to convict an innocent person has no integrity, and Bush saying otherwise looks like the Police are accepting of that kind of corruption.
The fact that Hutton was never convicted for planting false evidence also shows that the Police are accepting of this kind of corrupt practice.
I note that Marshall and Tolley have both defended Bush's statement, which implies that they also support Hutton's despicable actions and think that he has integrity.
What does it say about their morals when a senior officer who plants false evidence isn't criticized, those who praise such an obviously corrupt officer are defended and those that question such positions are chastised?
After the meeting, Mr Bush said his comments had been directed at Mr Hutton's family.
"They weren't meant to be taken by any wider audience and they weren't meant to cause offence to anyone."
Well they have caused offence, and for that a formal apology should be offered to Arthur Allan Thomas' family as well as the general public. The Police need to accept that praising an officer who has been found to falsify evidence is unacceptable no matter the circumstances.
Mrs Tolley said she would not tolerate senior police officers being harassed.
"Trevor's just a bully. And I'm not going to allow the police to be bullied."
I don't think Trevor was being a bully in this instance... He simply appears to be standing up against police corruption and saying that those who promote it should not be in the force.
Of course the manner in which Mallard went about making his point could probably have been a bit more diplomatic, but a lack of diplomacy isn't the making of a bully. If that was the case, then the bully label could be widely applied, especially across the current governments benches.
