Talk:New Zealand Police

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Law Enforcement (Rated B-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject New Zealand (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Untitled[edit]

Specifically I was thinking a photo of a police officer. Richard001 (talk) 10:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This article seems to be written by a anti police activist. Or a Waikato times reporter. What a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.59.110.236 (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


Still biased[edit]

The page was updated to include recent event, however the person who made these updates did so in a way that reads negatively against the police. Saying that people were shot and killed for "only for" vandalism and threatening behavior is not an accurate depiction of the events. Saying the four Operation 8 defendants had all but "minor" firearms charges dropped is blatantly wrong - one was sent to jail for more than two years.

I made some changes but it could be better - I encourage all users to remain vigilant for further biased and inaccurate edits.

I agree. This part of the page is a perfect example of why this wikipedia entry is heavily biased against the police. "Shane Legg's case in 2012 is a classic example.[36] After a minor incident, he was arrested by police, and handcuffed. As he was trying to get over a farm fence with the handcuffs on he was pushed to the ground by one of the officers. Unable to break his fall because of the handcuffs, he landed on his head and broke his neck. He was then dragged along the ground and police didn't call an ambulance for 45 minutes. Legg is now a tetraplegic and has to be fed through a tube. Although the IPCA has investigated the incident, six months later no police officers have even been stood down let alone charged." This incident is still under investigation, the IPCA report has not been released and the police's part in what happened is not clear yet.


I agree, more than half this article relates in a negative way against the police and often uses hearsay or personal opinion - KC

Recent Controversies[edit]

No doubt there has been some controversy regarding the NZ Police, but these things must be seen in perspective. Wikipedia is an international site and these issues do not have a place in this article. If necessary, make a seperate article with "New Zealand Police controversies". As a Kiwi, I find the contributions to this encyclopedia by my fellow countrymen to occasionaly be mildly ignorant and show a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is trying to achieve, especially ones that read like it's a tourist brochure and point out something like "the shop around the corner from X sells very good coffee". Reading this article I have the same gut feeling. No other country's police service is portrayed in this way here, despite the fact that many are much worse. Though the fact that the controversies are here does say one good thing about the New Zealand Police. They don't have many people who edit Wikipedia articles while at work. *I'm looking at you NZQA* Globo (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

New Recruits[edit]

If someone with reasonable knowledge of current recruitment versus attrition could provide factual figures to this article. I have an unsubstanciated figure of 1500 people leaving the New Zealand Police force recently while 1000 front line staff were promised in the recent election. There has been some discussion that the 1000 additional staff may not all be sworn officers

219.89.177.137 02:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Also another figure of currently 40 people leaving the police each month. Does anyone have actual figures?

Zven 10:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

111 details[edit]

I have moved the details of the 111 controversy to 1-1-1 as I think it is more appropriate there. -- FP <talk><edits> 08:05, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The controversy concerns the performance of the Police Communications Centres and the Police operational response to calls for assistance. Although many of the calls came via the 111 system, not all of them did, and the issues dealt with were much more about the Police and had very little to do with the 111 system, other than the Police's performance answering 111 calls. I propose moving the content back and changing the heading to be more appropriate. -- Cameron Dewe 07:56, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I considered which article to add the material to in the first place, and it seemed a better fit here. I had in mind also adding stuff about the rape allegations, the "sick culture" and the email abuse, but I got sidetracked into other things. I'm pleased to see you've written the material. In the longer term it probably needs to be put into perspective somehow; criticism of them is vital, but we still have one of the least corrupt police forces in the world.-gadfium 08:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The controversy over the Police Commissioner who was alleged to have said "That won't be necessary" about a breath test after his partner and he were stopped (and the claims he said that were withdrawn) might be added too.-gadfium 08:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lack of balance[edit]

This whole section seems to me (as a non-New Zealander) to be very POV and one-sided. It really does read as if it's been written by someone with an axe to grind. It seems odd to write "The New Zealand Police force is considered one of the least corrupt Police forces in the world" and then have half the article devoted to controversies. More about the force itself would be nice. -- Necrothesp 18:10, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As a New Zealander, we think our police force is mostly okay, but we're deeply shocked when there's the occasional betrayal of our trust in them. This is a reaction to recent allegations and relevations about sections of the police; given time, the article will become more balanced.-gadfium 09:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
New Zealand Police have come under severe criticism in the last year. The controversies listed are highly topical at the moment, although they are probably nothing out of the ordinary compared to other Police forces around the world. I expect, in time, that these controversies will fade into historical notes. However, at present the psychic wounds of apparent betrayal are rather raw and a bit of POV needs to be tolerated while spleens are vented, etc. Compared to local NZ Media coverage, this article is quite NPOV. I doubt it can be toned down much further without it being considered to have a POV in favour of Police. Further toning down at this time may encourage others to make it more NPOV (or, rather, less Police POV). Please give this article some time to evolve before NPOV'ing too much. -- Cameron Dewe 10:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but no, "a bit of POV" does not need "to be tolerated while spleens are vented, etc"! Put the POV here, if you must, not in the article. Better still, have a rant on a more appropriate website. This is an encyclopaedia - comparing it to local media coverage is ridiculous. The media write things to sell papers and pander to public opinion; they are almost by definition POV. We, on the other hand, write things to record facts. At the moment, the article is completely unbalanced and reads as though the controversy is more important than anything else, which for a police force with a 165 year history is blatantly not the case. For example, in the section headed "Communications Centres Performance" we have a list of nine specific incidents. Do we really need this much detail? Again, it sounds like it's been written by someone with an axe to grind and that is not appropriate here. If there's controversy, then record it, but don't let it dominate the article. I'm not going to NPOV it for now in the hope that someone from New Zealand will do it first, but I will if it stays like this for much longer. -- Necrothesp 12:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The article is actually written with a neutral POV; the problem is that it is unbalanced, because it gives so much coverage to events of the last few years which put the police in a bad light. The solution may be to split the recent controversies into its own article, but I think it's still too early for that. Let it settle a bit first.-gadfium 20:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The controversies listed under "Communications Centres Performance" are very topicial. As another New Zealander I can assure you that they are relevant and that such detail is warranted - for the time being. Goldfinger820 23:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
One possible option is to move the section about Recent controversies to another article e.g. New Zealand Police controversies linked from the New Zealand Police article. A time line of controversial events can then be written in that article. Currently half the article is on controversies. Speaking of controversies, theres no section on speed cameras.
Zven 03:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Motorway Patrol[edit]

Is the Motorway Patrol a seperate unit or part of the Highway Patrol unit or just another name for the Highway Patrol unit? Nil Einne 12:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Not sure, I think they're just part of the Highway Patrol. AS I live in Hawkes Bay I don't see them much (no motorways here). Lisiate 06:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

No. Motorway Patrol is a separate entity from Highway Patrol. Motorways is run by the North Shore/Waitakere District and operates out of the Harbour Bridge and Ellerslie Patrol Bases.

From what I understand, NZ had a 'real'Police force and also a Traffic department. A 'National' Government promised 5,000 extra heads in the police force, and upon winning the political elections, merged the two factions as one. Many long serving Police officers found themselves outranked by those with less time served in the traffic department. Training for both traffic duties and real police work is now done at police training college, with the first year of a recruits employment being in a traffic-based environment.

Police control on military[edit]

Quote in article; "Even if the incident controller calls in the SAS, an armed incident remains the jurisdiction of the New Zealand Police, with the IC having go/no-go control over the regiment's response team. The incident at Aramoana saw the Police request mobilisation of the SAS, but the incident was successfully resolved before they actually responded".

I maybe wrong, however I have always been led to believe if there was ever a terrorist incident inwhich the police could not deal with and the Police had handed it over to the NZDF, that it was a military operation until the incident was delt with and then handed back to the Police. Once it becomes a military operation I find it really hard to believe that the Police would have control over such a unit, and as for the Aramoana incident, was it succesful? As I said, I maybe wrong,only my opinion.13:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I would imagine that once the operation was handed over to the SAS then it is out of police control. Regarding the Aramoana massacre, I believe SergeantStewart Graeme Guthrie had the opportunity to shoot first but followed protocol with a challenge which led to the loss of his life. --Zven 23:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Whatever the facts of the case it is not NPOV to describe this operation as "successful" (or anything-else-ful) so I am about to edit that.Nankai 07:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The police have a specialist unit used for dealing with armed terrorist threats and threats to national security called the Special Tactics Group. This is seperate from the Armed Offenders Squad, and conducts training in unison with the Defence Force's Special Air Service. The Special Tactics Group was set up in the wake of the September 11th attacks on the united states and is comprised in part of ex SAS soliders. -=DrAcid=-
You have escalating tiers of capability; AOS are there to deal with Armed Offenders. Theyre made up of a subset of regular uniformed police with key training in firearms and hostage negotiation type stuff - the members are considered 'part timers' and fill other roles at other times.. Beyond them you have the STG are very much as described in the article - more like HRT, where AOS are more like SWAT. If STG require higher powered assistance the next port of call would be CTTAG which is a subset of the SAS - a military asset. However noting that the NZ Police Website clearly states "...the Police Commissioner is accountable for the operational response to threats to national security, including terrorism" it would seem to me that unless a situation was deliberately handed over to the military, that overall Incident Control is going to remain with the Police. The Military are an asset. Counter-Terrorism is an area that the Military assist with, but it is primarily a police function. (Also, if you read the website link, a brief description of AOS, STG and other specialty groups is included..) BlakJakNZ 10:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Taser trial period[edit]

I will start putting in content (when I get time) about the taser trial commencement, opposition to (briefly identifying opposing groups) , and first use of in New Zealand, possibly including reported family response to its use. I will put it under the controversies header for now, but that may not be the most appropriate header. --Zven 19:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel this should be a separate section, not within Controversies. I'm not disputing that the use of tasers is controversial, but it doesn't seem to me to fit within that section.-gadfium 09:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Moved --Zven 10:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

References[edit]

Other linkout sources need to be converted to references... --Zven 07:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok started this, but all references need to refer to the article title, Author, Source and date --Zven 09:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Police flag image[edit]

Need a flag again since the image has been deleted by someone --Zven 21:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

airport patrols packing.[edit]

NZ police that are partroling airports are now carrying firearms. (handgun/pistol) im pretty sure that its just airports that handle international operations.

Noted On this site that Police at Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch Airports (being those for International Operations) have a requirement for armed police under the Civil Aviation Act. I had a very brief peruse and can't find the clause, if you wanna read the whole thing - be my guest :) BlakJakNZ 10:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Update of Controversies Section needed?[edit]

Is it about time that this section was edited and updated? The items listed are isolated and mostly very old news but the space and detail devoted to them gives an unbalanced focus to the article. The New Zealand Police force has its faults but it deserves less biased reporting than this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.246.12.89 (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

I agree. I've reduced the detail in the Communications_Centres_performance section significantly. The Historic_sexual_misconduct section should be similarly condensed, with the references moved to Louise Nicholas. What happened to the trial of the same men for a different alleged incident?-gadfium 07:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

CTTAG[edit]

Who put that in? It is completely false and there is nothing to back it up!

You've stated its completely false yet you've not cited any evidence to back THAT up. I added the CTTAG reference - 'Counter Terrorist' seems self explanitory. I take it there isn't sufficient reference in the media about the Role of CTTAG (Or here) to cite the use of CTTAG at all? This especially noting that if you search for CTTAG on Wikipedia, the hit is within the NZSAS article and thus the tie in is quite clear, and also noting the likelyhood that 'operational' SAS are far more likely to see overseas action than CTTAG (based on the aforementioned NZ Herald articles) and therefore one can guess that CTTAG members will see operational service in the area of expertise they hold (Counter Terrorism)? I've put it back how it was, if you can cite some evidence of your assertion that it is 'completely false' then please do... BlakJakNZ 09:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Another thought. You say no precedent exists to cite the use of CTTAG. That of course means that theres no been no activation of the CTTAG since its formation, which is a relatively recent development. defensenews.com has an article of early December 2006 noting "While 1 NZSAS will continue to deliver the current range of special forces capabilities, CTTAG will specialize in domestic counterterrorism. Personnel from all three services are being encouraged to take up the challenge of becoming a member of the CTTAG." and further noting "The unit becomes operational this month when it attains the directed level of capability.". Whilst I concur we've not yet heard of CTTAG being used in anger, this doesn't discount the fact that they should be mentioned.... I have/had preserved the references to the SAS noting that CTTAG are a part of 1NZSASGp, as a deliberate bow to the SAS role and the fact that we really havn't seen the group respond to a domestic terrorism callout yet. BlakJakNZ 10:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The point is that there is no precedent for the CTTAG's use. There has been nothing from the police regarding there usage. I doubt the police would even consider using them, given that the Special Tactics Group is better staffted than CTTAG is, and all things considered probably better trained.

STG better trained than CTTAG? Interesting assertion - citation please! :-) Seriously, the fact there is no precedent is probably a good thing, but the fact remains that the CTTAG was formed with this very purpose in mind, which allows (among other things) the SAS to be tasked with military (actual special-forces) jobs which may take them overseas, but leaving a dedicated (and trained) force behind to deal with the role of Police Assistance and Anti-Terrorism. The Existance and purpose of CTTAG is documented in the media and as such I think its fair to mention them, but who knows - perhaps if the Military is called upon to assist Police at some stage, we'll then have some actual precedent to cite. BlakJakNZ 07:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC) PS please sign your comments...
Interesting conversation regarding CTTAG and STG use. These are obviously reasonably secretive organisations and I'm sure indisputible evidence about their role, structure, and purpose will be hard to come by. From my curiousity regarding this subject I stumbled across some reports that said that the STG will be deployed to help NSW police with regard to bomb threats, intelligence and increased counterterrorism capabilty during this years APEC summit. I cannot remember where I read it exactly as it was when I was (very) bored and aimlessly scrolling during a lull at work. I can however provide some anectdotal evidence about the SAS as when I was last in NZ I worked for a former SAS Major who is also a good friend. He seemed to imply that the SAS primary role was intelligence gathering and deep recon for long periods unaided - hence the absolutely killer selection process candidates go through. Could it therefore be possible that the CTTAG was formed with the primary purpose of being deployed overseas in places such as Timor/Afghanistan to act in a counter terrorism role in those theatres that the SAS doesn't currently cater to? or if it does is so overstreched with its primary role that this force had to be created? In saying all of this however I'm sure that the CTTAG would be deployed on home soil if need be. As I understand it there is currently a documentary series running on TV3 in New Zealand regarding the SAS. Unfortunately on demand tv doesn't seem to be available from where I am so haven't been able to see it. Maybe someone who has would help answer these questions? 84.233.131.60 16:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Homesick_kiwi_uk
Scince im a nz military enthusiast i think i can point out a few things regarding these questions. The STG and CTTAG are seperate organisations, the STG is part of the police, while CTTAG is part of the NZSAS. The CTTAG has the role of responding to terrorist incidents in New Zealand as part of the SAS role in support of the New Zealand Police. This group focuses on forced entry, and urban combat / counter terrorisim. CTTAG is officially part of the NZSAS but members by pass the selection and training courses, and are not permitted to wear the uniform of the NZSAS (eg, being 'badged'). I Beleive the STG is part of the police, but is a unit ranked before the CTTAG. Both units are also inserted via RNZAF Helicopters, but CTTAG are self deployable with their own vehicles and air support from the RNZAF, while STG will often use standard police vehicles and occationally the NZSAS style blacked out 4x4. There is somewhat alot of confusion but an easy way to explain it is like a a ladder or stages, Police - Armed Offenders Sqaud - Special Tactics Group -Counter Terrorism Tactical Assault Group and finaly the actual NZSAS.. But overall, i do think that ' are STG & CTTAG are similar or the same' is a good question.. There is also reason to beleive that STG could just be a term to cover the identity of CTTAG.. Either way i think NZ has plenty of defence against armed offenders and terrorisim.. - 202.150.112.91 03:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Kenny95258
STG is a Police specialist unit, as per The NZ Police Website - already cited in this article. Its also noted in the references to CTTAG - a unit of the 1NZSAS Group - that they pass a shorter, abbreviated version of the SAS training course. Drawing direct comparison as you've done seems inappropriate, one is a Police organisation, the other a Military one. This explains their means of self-deploy (via Police or Military) Finally theres the fact that STG have existed for quite some time whilst CTTAG are relatively new - this also observable based on media coverage if you search. Eg, I think you've not got it 'quite right' though if you'd like to cite some references.... noted this is meant to be encyclopediac, you'd need to prove your assertions above for them to be of value here. BlakJakNZ 08:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Improving the overall look and feel of the article[edit]

I have been prompted into editing this page after first viewing it to compare New Zealand police firearms policy in comparison to the United Kingdon's especially after recent media acitivity here in the UK (I am a homesick kiwi!) with regard to firearms and taser usage. I felt that the firearms section could be improved on and have made some recent edits. I do however feel that more could be improved so please discuss this. Also I feel the article lacks information on training and for international readers perhaps an analogy as to where the New Zealand police as a national force compares in terms of structure, jurisdiction, equipment, intelligence, organisation etc. in relation to the FBI, Australian Fedral Police, Australian state police, English county police forces etc. If anyone can help with this kind of information I think it would be a great improvement to the page. With a move to possibly making it an A-category article. 84.233.131.60 14:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Homesick_kiwi_uk

Too much chit chat[edit]

This discussion page is for discussing the Wikipedia article New Zealand Police, not for discussing the New Zealand Police.Nankai 07:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Project Topaz merge proposal[edit]

The article on Project Topaz is currently two lines and a link. There are probably dozens of "projects" active at any time within the police force; this does not appear to warrant a separate article.-gadfium 07:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a notable topic? -- Alan Liefting-talk- 05:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
An alternative is to AfD or prod the Project Topaz article. Given the lack of response to the merge proposal, I suspect no one cares much.-gadfium 08:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
If an article is done for this one other similar Police projects should have articles if they are of equal note. I will do an AfD. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 21:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nz police logo.gif[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Nz police logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

controversies section[edit]

If no one opposes, I'm going to move this into it's own article. currently it has too much weight in the article. to a new reader, might come across that NZ police as not so good which isn't the case. Michellecrisp (talk) 07:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This suggestion does not appear to have been acted on but I think that it was a good idea. If "controversies" is to remain a part of the main article then I would suggest that it is time that some pruning is done. Some of the issues detailed are either well out of date or trivial by international standards. The effect is to give an unbalanced bias to coverage of a police force that is for the most part honest, efficient and non-brutal. Would an acceptable compromise be to edit out controversy items that are more than four years old? Unless of course the incidents recorded are of such an impact or significance that they should go down in history.210.246.20.206 (talk) 23:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I have reduced the detail on three of the controversies, and removed the two which I think are most minor.
The last paragraph of the "Communications centres" section could be boiled down further by someone who knows what happened to the SNES trial. The taser trial can be reduced and merged into the "Arms" section.-gadfium 01:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
The section on "communications centres" had already been substantially reduced in February 2007. See [1]. I have no objection to a new article on the New Zealand emergency response systemPolice Communications Centres being created, and the material moved to it with a link left behind. However, someone would need to write some explanatory material on how the centres work and their history.-gadfium 01:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Changed my above comment; there is already an article on the 1-1-1 service, but the problems dealt with here are related to the Police Communications Centres and not to that service.-gadfium 01:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Comparing Police ranks to military ranks[edit]

There is no citation for this section. I assume the purpose for this is to give people unfamiliar with the NZ Police rank structure an idea of how it works, but I don't think that it works. I'll add a bit of information about how the rank structure works to the article, but I will struggle to provide citations, as the information comes from Police general instructions which aren't generally available to the public and my personal experience of being an officer in the NZ Police.

I'm new to Wikipedia so feel free to change what I've done, I'm still learning! However I feel very strongly that it is not accurate to compare Police ranks with military ranks, at least for the NZ Police. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.159.23 (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It comes straight from the horse's mouth. I'd like to keep it in because it shows the military origins and enduring similarity, and I do think it helps familiarise the reader with the hierarchy. XLerate (talk) 12:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Allocation of police time[edit]

I think there is info available on allocation of police time. For instance 18% is spent on alcohol related crimes. It would be good to find this info and add it to the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Use of non-free images on this article[edit]

This article has been identified as containing an excessive quantity of non-free content. Per the Foundation's requirement to keep non-free media use minimal, and per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #3, the non-free images on this article have been removed. Please note:

  • The presence of a fair use rationale for this article on an image description page does not make it acceptable for a given use.
  • Blanket restoration of the non-free images that have been removed can and most likely will be reverted, with subsequent reporting action possible.
  • If some restoration is desired, careful consideration of exactly what non-free media to use must be made, paying special attention to WP:NFCC #1 and #8. In most cases non-free media needs to be tied directly to the prose of the article, most preferably with inline citations tying the discussion to secondary sources regarding the image per Wikipedia:Verifiability.

If this is a list type article, please read the WP:NFLISTS guideline. If you wish to dispute this removal, it may be helpful to read WP:OVERUSE, as it answers a number of typical questions and responses to removals such as this. If after reading these, you still feel there is grounds for restoration of most or all of the media that have been removed, please post to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. ΔT The only constant 00:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

POV Template Talk[edit]

I have inserted a POV template in several sections. I believe that the entire second half of the article is biased against police. It has been pointed out by another person on this talk page that is wrong that more than half the article is about contemporary or recent controversies. The NZ police, compared to other police services throughout the world, has few controversies. While I'm not saying they should be ignored, I am saying that the amount of material should be proportionate to the controversy when viewed objectively, and the volume and coverage should be consistent with articles about other police forces.

I realise that a summary of why I think there is a lack of neutrality is not enough and specific examples are needed. I will give those as points following on from this introduction.

My intention is to give everyone an opportunity to have their say - I understand that for some, the topic of "police" is one they are passionate about. --Kiwi in nz (talk) 10:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Transport - list of police cars[edit]

The list of cars used by police adds little of any significance to this article. What say we remove the list? Offender9000 19:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

One of the joys of Wikipedia is that it includes such things. Some readers will not be particularly interested in the organisational structure of the police or the various controversies, but will be fascinated by the vehicles once used. It's not a large proportion of the article.-gadfium 21:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

'Police culture' section[edit]

I've just removed this section. While it has some useful information in it, it read like a personal essay and seemed hopelessly biased. It presented the culture of the NZ Police as being almost entirely bad, which I doubt is the case, gave huge weight to the views of Ross Meurant for no clear reason and was full of WP:SYNTH violations to imply that there's a broad problem with the police despite the references stating the opposite (for instance, "This led to a six-month inquiry into whether a "sick culture" existed in Counties-Manukau police. The investigation reported on 10 October 2005 that while the defunct Emergency Response Group at Counties-Manukau used excessive force and took inappropriate and degrading photographs of people in custody, there was no nationwide problem with police culture. However, inquiry head Sir David Tompkins highlighted 20 cases of police using excessive force over the previous five years" - the lack of any nation wide issue is immediately contrasted with a small, though awful, number of incidents to give readers the impression that there is a problem). Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit disappointed that my changes were totally reverted without any attempt at discussion (though WP:BRD does apply). In this edit the old version was restored on the grounds that "appearing to be biased does not not mean it is biased - its backed with citations". This was not my specific concern, which s that this material is cherry picked negative material, including giving grossly excessive weight to the views of one commentator, and is full of violations of WP:SYNTH as I've noted above. In this edit the rest of my changes were reverted on the grounds that the claim that a change in police procedures has artificially lowered the crime rate ("This means that police are not prosecuting as many offenders as they used to - leading to an apparent reduction in the level of crime") was in the last paragraph of the source - this does not seem to be the case at all. The source quoted for this commentary ("Former Prison Service head Kim Workman") does not express any concerns about the accuracy of the figures, and is arguing that the reduction is genuine, and the reporter does not contest this in the story. In particular, nothing like the word 'apparent' appears. More generally, this source, which is the only one for the paragraph, does not support the paragraph's contention that the drop in crime rate is not real - it does not query the crime rates presented by the experts at all, and simply reports that crime is down due to strategies of reducing the incidence with which people are expelled from school and better police practices. As such, the interpretation of this source in the article is clearly not accurate, and this raises real concerns with me about the way the other sources in the article have been represented. Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
As a few other examples of the restoration of biased wording not supported by its source (picked more or less at random):
  • "Whatever police officers may think, historically the public's perception of the police has generally been positive" - the source [2] does not state that there's a difference in how Police perceive their public perception to be and their actual perception. Moreover, this source explicitly says that it's only measuring perceptions of police between 2008 and 2011, so the next sentence's statement of "That began to change with the violence meted out by police against demonstrators opposed to the Springbok tour in 1981" is obviously not supported by the source and is clear WP:SYNTH.
  • The next sentence states that "Since then, police have been accused of excessive use of force a number of times". No specific source is provided for this sweeping statement, and the next reference is about a shambolic case where the police prosecuted an undercover policeman (with no suggestion of excessive force) which notes at the very end that there had been bullying directed at a policeman at a single police station ten years previously (again with no mention of excessive force, and this reference is apparently being used only to reference material on the policeman being bullied).
  • "This led to a six-month inquiry into whether a "sick culture" existed in Counties-Manukau police. The investigation reported on 10 October 2005 that while the defunct Emergency Response Group at Counties-Manukau used excessive force and took inappropriate and degrading photographs of people in custody, there was no nationwide problem with police culture. However, inquiry head Sir David Tompkins highlighted 20 cases of police using excessive force over the previous five years. A former officer who served in the district for 10 years told the inquiry it was common knowledge that officers used excessive force." - the source here explicitly states that that the report concluded that there was not a "culture of excessive violence or inappropriate conduct" among the Counties-Manukau police, with most instances of excessive violence being committed by members of the Emergency Response Group group. Yet the wording in the article does not mention that the Counties-Manukau police were found to not have a "sick culture" despite this being raised at the start of this material, and it's not clear that the commission found that the problems were mainly confined to one group of police. The statement that the inquiry found "no nationwide problem with police culture" also does not appear to be supported by the reference - the inquiry appears to have only investigated the police in South Auckland.
  • It's later stated that "Some cases only come to light because a complaint is made to the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA)." No source is provided for such a sweeping claim, which carries an obvious implication of considerable misconduct going unreported.
  • Towards the end of this material it is stated that following a 2012 audit "Another review conducted in 2013 was little better.". The source provided does not compare the 2013 audit report with the 2012 audit report, so this comparison is clearly not supported. The only comparison made in the article is with a 2010 audit report, and the article notes that the 2013 audit found "more positive results" than the 2010 audit. The source also quotes the auditor as saying that she had found "Mixed progress: some things are better, some things not so good" though the police still needed to lift their game. Overall, the comparison with the 2012 report is clearly not supported by the source, and the sweeping implication that things were "little better" is a misrepresentation of the auditor's views. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
As there has been no response to the above serious concerns about this section and the material about statiscis, I've re-removed them. Nick-D (talk) 08:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
The edits you have made and the reasons you give for making them seem very reasonable to me. Selective referencing looks to have given the article a very negative stance which isn't deserved Clarke43 (talk) 09:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Shootings by NZ Police[edit]

Just noticed in section Civilian deaths involving police it says On top of deaths in custody, police have shot and killed seven people in the last ten years. One was an innocent bystander, another two were not carrying firearms but were carrying other weapons.[63] The police were exonerated in all seven cases. Reference 63 is dated 2011.

Found an article last year that has more up to date till last year. Will have to get a more recent article.

I haven't updated the article as I would like to see if there's another article that confirms the dates and names or search individual articles to confirm the details. Linnah (talk) 12:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on New Zealand Police. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)