Controlled operations to go

Special G said :

4.5 tonnes of ecstacy seized in the worlds largest drug haul would suggest the AFP is staffed by people who are doing the job correctly. Controlled ops legislation would allow this sort of operation to run in the ACT.

http://www.afp.gov.au/media_releases/national/2008/sixteen_arrested_following_the_world_s_largest_ecstasy_seizure.html

I was wondering if someone would bring this up. This is a classic example of a controlled operation.

If these drugs had of come into the ACT (OK…unlikely with this quantity, because we are not a port or international airport…but it is still relevant) the police would have been able to seize the drugs…and do nothing else.

The controlled operations legislation in Victoria and NSW has enabled the AFP to follow this import to its recipient, and many others.

Drugs come into the ACT every day. This legislation simply gives the local plods the opportunity to follow any intercepted drugs to their recipient.

And as for oversight, there are a multitude of bodies in the ACT who review any complaint made against an ACT copper.

“The guys who conduct the multi million dollar investigations are unlikely to lurk here.”

Plastics.

bigred said :

Contrast you are a great big idiot. You should NOT do what you did with regards to identiying your father etc in a forum such as this. If you are truly who you say you are I can only guess at what your father will say when I next see him that you have identified him in a forum such as this. Swift kick in nether regions is required. Goose!!!!!

I did not in fact identify anyone. Merely their position.
Call me names if it helps you in some way, but I would have thought you would make some form of contribution to the subject in question? You would do well to stop thinking about my “nether regions” and to address the matter at hand, which is not in fact to do with me or my family.
Galah!

Methinks these blokes suffer from Napoleon syndrome. Now little boys, get off the station computer and drive out to Charnwood or someplace similar and have a visible presence. The guys who conduct the multi million dollar investigations are unlikely to lurk here.

Careful JB, you are starting to sound like TheTruthWillBeTold, that’s not abuse, just an observation.

Me thinks we are getting a bit off topic here eh what.

The legislation is good, it will help catch bad guys who deal drugs to kids.

4.5 tonnes of ecstacy seized in the worlds largest drug haul would suggest the AFP is staffed by people who are doing the job correctly. Controlled ops legislation would allow this sort of operation to run in the ACT.

http://www.afp.gov.au/media_releases/national/2008/sixteen_arrested_following_the_world_s_largest_ecstasy_seizure.html

Come on JB – you can’t hide behind that smoke and mirrors – it only goes to prove the point that you have nothing but innuendo and supposition to justify the claim that an additional layer of oversight is required. Oldest trick in the book – ignore the legitimate questions by claiming you have answered them before. All anyone asks is that you provide some facts, some hard evidence, to back up what you and others on this thread are alleging. I actually don’t think that is unreasonable given that is the currency Police have to work with.

Either that or they/we are right……because you’ve never done the same St. John

The funny thing is you blokes scream at people and call them names and then think that, because they stop talking to you, that somehow you’ve actually won something or convinced someone…

johnboy said :

Sorry cman, outside of a court or parliamentary privilege I’d get in a world of pain for repeating the details of that sorry saga.

The rest is arguments I’ve had before, I’ll leave it to others to make the running.

Because it is BS

It appears the ACT Law society doesnt have a problem with the laws.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/09/2329846.htm

Ari said :

DJ said :

your ignorance of the subjet might start to get me going but not today since you hace no concept ofwhat you are dribbling on about.

Yep, keep on shouting, angry man.

Yep, remain ignorant

Sorry cman, outside of a court or parliamentary privilege I’d get in a world of pain for repeating the details of that sorry saga.

The rest is arguments I’ve had before, I’ll leave it to others to make the running.

JB – the problem with the many points you (and others) have raised in previous posts on this thread is they do not provide evidence demonstrating a clear case for a new, expensive bureaucracy to oversee ACT Policing. It’s all just unfounded speculation, thinly veiled insults and distortions of what the Controlled Ops legislation actually means to the ACT.

For example, you allege you have first hand experience of the police conducting personal civil investigations, with the threat of the retribution of the full force of the law, on behalf of local politicians. Were they ACT Police? When did it happen? Exactly what happened? What is a civil investigation? Produce the evidence JB otherwise all you are spruiking is hearsay and anyone can do that.

Seriously, what evidence is there that corruption or malpractice in ACT Policing is not properly investigated and dealt with? The John Birch (watch house) case, Michael Hatch (child porn), the Clea Rose inquest, the DJ inquest are some examples I would offer to prove the AFP are very effective in investigating and where necessary dealing with their own. On a larger scale it was the AFP who investigated and arrested Mark Standen – further evidence of the inherent integrity of the organisation.

In terms of a new oversight agency, no one is saying it is too expensive to contemplate – just that there is no evidence demonstrating that it is in fact necessary. My original question remains unanswered, given the ACT Govt would have to pay for your oversight agency please tell us what other Govt program/s should be sacrificed to provide the funding.

JB, your comment regarding the fact that ACT Policing has lost two very senior officers in the last 20 years is pretty disingenuous to say the least. One was murdered and one committed suicide. This is evidence of corruption how? We also have a force where several hundred officers have been assaulted by the community they serve over the same period – should there be a separate agency to deal with that?

ACT Policing is routinely subjected to the same degree of scrutiny of any other Police agency in Australia. Where is the evidence that a new agency is needed – the answer (based on facts) is none!

DJ said :

your ignorance of the subjet might start to get me going but not today since you hace no concept ofwhat you are dribbling on about.

Yep, keep on shouting, angry man.

The concern isn’t so much with the legislation, which is common and has some reasonable points.

It’s that the other jurisdictions that have similar laws also have more transparent, if not stronger, safeguards.

Has anyone actually bothered to read the details of this legislation, or did you all see the word ‘police’ in the article and go straight to autopilot anti-police mode?

VG, yawn!

Ari said :

Guess what DJ? Unlike your preferred reality, neither I nor anyone else commenting on this site has to obey your orders.

That clearly p*sses you off.

I can almost hear the words, “Respect my authority!”

And anyone is free to engage in as much or as little debate as they feel like.

But keep on shouting anyway, angry man.

Wow, it’s like you know me or something…. this isn’t pissed or nor is it angry.

My prefered reality? Huh? Time for the meds and aluminium hat to come out I think – if you can almost hear me saying things to you then you need help. Re-read your posts and tell me if you have based your opinion on anything vaguely like an understanding of anything outside your own little world. Do you understand what this legislation will allow Police to do?

“This is a system ripe for corruption.” – how would you know? What are you comparing it to?

“That said it is pretty clear that the layers of oversight and review currently in place are ample for the task.

Bullsh*t.” – again, how would you know?

“It seems this whole issue is actually about me, is it?” – Is everything about you?

“That clearly p*sses you off.” – the suggestion of not obeying orders is a stab in the dark here – your ignorance of the subjet might start to get me going but not today since you hace no concept ofwhat you are dribbling on about.

Nice try bigred.

1 point for effort, but 0 for content, substance and attempt at a wind up.

Thanks for contributing though, great stuff

And I am always surprised by the extent the lower echelons of the AFP who read dwell on this site go to when defending “the job”.

You think they would adopt a stiff upper lip, take the views on board as a life expereince and move on. Me thinks they lack the resilience to advance far beyond the equivalent rank and salary level of a dog catcher.

Contrast you are a great big idiot. You should NOT do what you did with regards to identiying your father etc in a forum such as this. If you are truly who you say you are I can only guess at what your father will say when I next see him that you have identified him in a forum such as this. Swift kick in nether regions is required. Goose!!!!!

The lack of comprehension of what this legislation actually means is astounding

JB that was pretty soft ‘abuse’. BTW Contrast, rank does not equate to knowledge. So it wouln’t matter if your father was the Commissioner.

Guess what DJ? Unlike your preferred reality, neither I nor anyone else commenting on this site has to obey your orders.

That clearly p*sses you off.

I can almost hear the words, “Respect my authority!”

And anyone is free to engage in as much or as little debate as they feel like.

But keep on shouting anyway, angry man.

Oh and by the way Ari, do you actually have anything to contribute? Questions and opinions are fine (we all have them) but you don’t seem to back them up with anything when a conflicting opinion is raised, it’s just rubbish one liners and child like tit for tat bollocks.

Ari said :

If the behaviour of the police officers on this thread is typical of their interactions with the wider community, it only confirms the need for far stronger oversight, in my view.

Flame away, officers … er, sirs.

And if you are typical of the broader community that Police deal with then obviously the same goes. One difference I can see with you is that at least if you need help you can tell the Police their job when they arrive.

If the behaviour of the police officers on this thread is typical of their interactions with the wider community, it only confirms the need for far stronger oversight, in my view.

Flame away, officers … er, sirs.

It is much easier to have faith in the police if we are confident that there is a strong, active oversight going on of their operations. And … well, given that the AFP DO have unusually strong powers, and their accountability to the public is fairly indirect and usually practiced behind closed doors – well, it’s probably worthwhile looking at that.

Who is to say that oversight like this doesn’t exist? Do you have a reason to doubt? Just wanting to know for the sake of it is a little weak. If you are able to establish why the public shouldn’t be confidant then say so and use examples to demonstrate your position. To use those that have strayed from the path in the distant past is one thing but if you are going to use that argument then apply it to all facets of life – do you trust any politician or journalist after the lies they tell and publish? You are having a go at legislation and a situation that hasn’t occured in the ACT and are trying to pull it dow without testing it.

The legislated powers are not unusually strong at all – they level the playing field cross Australia. The Family Court has far stronger powers for example. So does Immigration and several other Departments.

The accountility is not indirect – there are so many levels that apply but why is it a problem if you don’t have open access to it beyond the reports of the Ombudsman? Do you believe that the wool is beig pulled ver your eyes? Do you have a valid reason for wanting to know the inner workings beyond a whim?

It is much easier to have faith in the police if we are confident that there is a strong, active oversight going on of their operations. And … well, given that the AFP DO have unusually strong powers, and their accountability to the public is fairly indirect and usually practiced behind closed doors – well, it’s probably worthwhile looking at that.

The fundamentals of risk management are pretty simple – what’s the possibility of this happening, what’s the potential damage if it happens, and what can we do to mitigate against it. Ignoring for the moment the possibility side (cause we’ll be stuck for days with the “don’t you trust the police”, “all police are untrustworthy” extremes, which is positively useless as a debate), the potential damage if these powers are abused is fairly high, and therefore should proabably be abated against.

Quite frankly, I was not looking to get into a debate on my family’s involvement in the police force. I at no point claimed to be a police officer, nor to have earned that status.
You asked the ranks of my family members and I obliged.
You seem to have gone way off topic on a vendetta to prove that I am not a police officer. Well done, I wasn’t claiming to be one to start with!

DJ, I have given my opinion, which is the one I am putting forth as part of this discussion. “Daddy” has bigger problems than HB’s demand that all opinions come with a badge and rank.

In fact I think it woud be a good idea to tell daddy about this little spat you are having. Tell him your oinion then ask his opinion and then quickly duck….

Ahh, the famous “You are not a cop shut-up” argument.

Favoured in all the less pleasant places to live around the globe.

Last warning on abusing the poster HB.

BTW Contrast, as fantastic as your immediate family member’s positions sound they do not equate to jack shit when it comes to a working knowldege of controlled operations. You know I met the Prime Minister once, I might run for it at the next election. That is the depth of your argument. How old are you? 10? Mate you are not a Police Officer, you don’t become a Police Officer by being related to one or playing dress ups and a working knwoledge of complicated operational legislation can’t be attained by having a chat to Dad. Back to your sandbox.

Pity.

Nope.

Do I pass your test, Mr High-and-mighty?!

Headbonius said :

Contrast wrote “Immediate family members in high positions on the force have caused me to pick up a basic overview.”

Sad times are these when you don’t trust your own family members. Before you spout on about how much you know about this Legislation perhaps you should go and acquire at least a Deb Foskey level of knowldege. Who are these “High Ranking” immediate family members you speak of – don’t name names but an indication of their seniority at the least.

I suspect you are talking crap. This legislation is widely supported by Police and your negative “basic overview” has been gleaned from your new recruit level relatives then they know about as much as you – stuff all.

My father is the head of international (airport) security for the Queensland region. He has been on the force for approx. 20 years, and has earned quite the reputation.
His wife, and my stepmother, is working with a select group on the Gold Coast tracking online predators (I am unsure of her position title, however I will ask at a more reasonable hour).

Contrast wrote “Immediate family members in high positions on the force have caused me to pick up a basic overview.”

Sad times are these when you don’t trust your own family members. Before you spout on about how much you know about this Legislation perhaps you should go and acquire at least a Deb Foskey level of knowldege. Who are these “High Ranking” immediate family members you speak of – don’t name names but an indication of their seniority at the least.

I suspect you are talking crap. This legislation is widely supported by Police and your negative “basic overview” has been gleaned from your new recruit level relatives then they know about as much as you – stuff all.

“who is to say that these officers will be overseen by a responsible superior?”

Why do you lack faith? Something you’d like to share?

In my heart of hearts I would love to believe that our Police force is totally crime/corruption free.

But given the history of Police forces throughout Australia, may I be forgiven for having twinges of doubt that our local force is as pure as driven snow.

Sure, not criminal/corruption, but the sight of watchhouse staffs totally degrading behaviour in front of known cameras perhaps indicates a disregard for normal concepts of behaviour. Thuggery because we can.

Can our AFP advocates appreciate that this is what the public get to see? What other tricks do the more complex areas of the force get away with? Can you appreciate that this is a fair question? And can we be assured that any aberations are adequately investigated?

Sort of smoke and fire situation.

Headbonius said :

Contrast wrote “but as far as I’m concerned, if they need to break the law they are employed to uphold to get their job done, then they need to undergo further training.”

Thanks for you expert insight Contrast. You are truly knowledgable on complex matters of law enforcement and investigation. Grow a brain.

Well aren’t you quick to assume?!
As a matter of fact, yes I do have a better than average idea. Immediate family members in high positions on the force have caused me to pick up a basic overview. And even if I hadn’t had this wonderful inclusion to my education, what I said in my prior comment is simple logic, not expert insight. Although I’m sure I could acquire some expert insight if you require.
Grow your own.

Contrast wrote “but as far as I’m concerned, if they need to break the law they are employed to uphold to get their job done, then they need to undergo further training.”

Thanks for you expert insight Contrast. You are truly knowledgable on complex matters of law enforcement and investigation. Grow a brain.

Tooks said :

sepi said :

Yep. ‘don’t you worry about a thing – just trust us’ is not much of an answer.

Especially as this legislation allows AFP to break the law in the course of their duties.

They’re called Controlled Operations, not ‘Police Do Whatever The Hell They Want Operations’.

As such, Police involved would be highly supervised and accountable for all operations.

“highly” supervised? who is to say that these officers will be overseen by a responsible superior? The police have been having a tough run, for sure, but as far as I’m concerned, if they need to break the law they are employed to uphold to get their job done, then they need to undergo further training.
Kids of the next generation are gonna be stuffed in the head if they are learning from the hypocrisy of their law enforcers breaking the law! Not to mention the dangers of the legislation. It doesn’t seem like the best solution to the issue.

sepi said :

Yep. ‘don’t you worry about a thing – just trust us’ is not much of an answer.

Especially as this legislation allows AFP to break the law in the course of their duties.

They’re called Controlled Operations, not ‘Police Do Whatever The Hell They Want Operations’.

As such, Police involved would be highly supervised and accountable for all operations.

Yep. ‘don’t you worry about a thing – just trust us’ is not much of an answer.

Especially as this legislation allows AFP to break the law in the course of their duties.

I respect the work of the police forces in what is a difficult, dirty and usually thankless job. I’m all for police being given the powers necessary to maintain law and order. I think that the ACT Police do a very good job with limited resources, and as mentioned above, the recent increase in visibility is a positive step.

However, telling the general public “you don’t need to know” when police are asked about their methodology is, to borrow Ari’s comment, bullsh*t. Any law enforcement agency, be it state or federal, should be subject to high scrutiny to ensure that their powers are being used appropriately. Of course there are matters of operational security, particularly around intelligence details, but otherwise the operations of the policing agencies should be open for public scrutiny. The populace/society gives police special powers over the general public and as such we need to be assured that those powers are not being misused.

JB…. obviously we have clashed on this subject before so without bringing up my thoughts regarding the past (cause it will get me moderated):

*he sighs as once again he is dragged unwillingly into a debate with the corrupt and the ill-considered*

Are you suggesting that because somebody doesn’t agree with your position regarding this subject they are corrupt? Surely not!

Here goes:

1) No comment – this caused moderation between us!

2) Very long bow there JB. Wouldn’t a rational thinker go with the idea that since the suggestion in the media of corruption in the AFP (including the ACT) is so very low that the only remaining logical conclusion is that it must be a small (albeit very serious) problem?

3) An interesting insight there JB. Do you have any proof that allegations of corruption are NOT investigated?

4) Cost v Need here JB. There isn’t a need (see my thoughts re: point 2)

5) What questions haven’t the Canberra Crimes (and that fool editor) and many on this site asked? I believe that we should respect those you refer to (and the families left behind) and leave it at that. What is there to gain?

How do you know there are “a very high number of very good officers on “stress leave””. You mention your experience… what is a very high number?

6) I am sure that the numerous levels of oversight and scrutiny will be pointed out to you and the well worn reply could also refer to my thoughts relating to point 2. Also, isn’t the ombudsman independent enough for you?

You may not be anti-police however you seem to have a deep seeded belief that there is corruption just under the skin and a slight scratch will uncover it all.

I would suggest that if you question Policing methodology the correct response should always be “you don’t need to know”. It doesn’t even come out in Courts in some cases…

*he sighs as once again he is dragged unwillingly into a debate with the corrupt and the ill-considered*

1. OK firstly this site has first hand experience of the police conducting personal civil investigations, with the threat of the retribution of the full force of the law, on behalf of local politicians.

I am told the police do not consider this to be corrupt but I offer that the public and interstate corruption investigators hold a contrary view.

—

2. Several AFP officers, when moving to other jurisdictions and services have been found to be corrupt. This does not mean that all are corrupt. It does, however, suggest to a rational thinker that all AFP officers are demonstrably not above corruption, no human is.

—

3. That corruption thrives in environments where it is not investigated is a concept so universal as to be axiomatic

—

4. To suggest that a dedicated solely responsible anti-corruption authority is too expensive is to ignore both the costs of corruption and the possibilities of outsourcing to another jurisdiction’s corruption fighting body.

—

5. A force with two very senior officers dead before their time in the space of living memory has some questions to answer, to say nothing of the, in my experience, very high number of very good officers on “stress leave”.

—

6. I’ll just make a, somewhat forlorn, plea for the very large number of fine AFP officers to think through these points and consider that maybe, just maybe, a single and efficient anti-corruption body might actually make their lives easier rather than the current arrangements.

—

I’m not anti-police. I’m extremely pro quality policing and I want to help wherever possible.

I just have questions, and “you don’t need to know” doesn’t cut it for me.

Mark Standen and the NSW Crime Commission anyone?

And the relevance of this comment was….what exactly?

The NSWCC were the ones that brought Mark Standen DOWN. Yes, one of their own.

Ari, most people give a reason for their views. If you write one word ‘opinions’, you’re hardly going to convince/convert anyone to your way of thinking. If you have an opinion, tell us what it is AND the reasons. If you have evidence of what you describe as bullsh*t, tell us here or report it to the relevant authority.

Ari, not specifically but you do portray an individual who had an ignorant knee jerk reaction. I note you dodn’t respond any of the questions asked of you… base your response on something and you might have a chanve of being taken seriously regarding this subject.

Boomcat – a stab in the dark? There have been a number of Police around Australia in ALL jurisdictions who have made decisions to overstep the line in the past few years. When you look at the circumstances of the basis of the Commissions (as thecman did quite well) you can can’t compare them to the AFP.

JB -“I’d ask Simon when was the last time any of those bodies held public hearings, conducted wiretaps, or compelled witnesses in relation to ACT policing matters?”

Why? Has something happened that you know and we don’t?

It seems this whole issue is actually about me, is it?

Mark Standen and the NSW Crime Commission anyone?

Ari, sorry dude, I forgot to add that you remind me very much of a male fowl.

I used to be underwhelmed by local plods ability and motivation, but never felt there was large scale corruption like existed in NSW. Lately they seem to have improved a fair bit in terms of presence (new head honcho? greater numbers?) so maybe its turning around.

Ari, very strong sentiment to express. On what basis do you hold that view? Are you an expert in Policing matters. Please enlighten us as to your level of knowledge or more to the point are you an armchair expert like Deb?

Controlled Operations are a necessary legislative power for Police to do their job properly. I doubt whether you even have any comprehension about what a controlled operation is or what it is designed to do. At the end of the day Police actions are subject to intense scrutiny by the Courts, internal mechanisms, external mechanisms such as ACLEI etc etc etc.

If you are so dead set against Police having this power please explain why. I would be most interested in your response.

Yep – good reply Ari. Clearly you are a deep thinker.

That said it is pretty clear that the layers of oversight and review currently in place are ample for the task.

Bullsh*t.

JB – I would ask:

Where is the evidence of systemic corruption within ACT Policing?

Where is the evidence that ACT Policing members who break the law or behave corruptly are not identified and dealt with appropriately?

Is the ACT Community prepared to spend several hundred thousand dollars a year to maintain a Police watchdog like the NSW PIC or the Victoria OPI? If yes, what community programs should be sacrificed to provide the funding?

What does Deb Foskey know about Policing matters? How many questions has she asked about Policing matters in the Assembly in the last 12 months?

Let me answer that one for you – not very much and less then 10. Therefore she must be an expert – apparently.

In addition to the review and oversight mechanisms detailed by Mr Corbell you can also include AFP PRS, the ACT Magistrates Court,the ACT Supreme Court and local and National media.

Looking back to identify the precipitating factors that led to the Fitzgerald (QLD) and Wood (NSW) Royal Commissions into Police corruption it is quickly apparent that:

1. failed prosecutions, accompanied by strong Judicial criticism of Police conduct; and

2. frequent and detailed media reports of improper / corrupt / suspicious Police behaviour

were invariably the catalysts for Governments to act to address the problem. Have we had any of this in the ACT?

Nobody would claim that ACT Policing is perfect and constant vigilance is required – if for no other reason then that our Police will reflect the society from which they are drawn and that society is absolutely flawed. That said it is pretty clear that the layers of oversight and review currently in place are ample for the task.

This is a system ripe for corruption.

At least there will be lots to talk about when it goes wrong.