[LINK] It's Queensland - (sorry to Qlders)

[Richard Chirgwin]

On 19/05/11 10:33 AM, Noel Butler wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 17:17 +1000, rene wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 May 2011 13:29:56 +1000, Jan Whitaker wrote:
>>
>>> This is crazy. The original reporting was bad. The Police
>>> announcement was bad. The "arrest" was 'bad'. Anything else?
>> Ben Grubb's published (about an hour ago) an article on what happened when
>> he was "interviewed", then arrested, then "un-arrested". Same page includes
>> an audio recording of part of the police 'interview' with him - in which it
>> seems apparent that the point at which they decided to arrest him was when
>> he questioned their right to seize/detain his IPad.
>>
> I posted last night but seems this list eats messages with digital
> sigs...
>
> A crime is a crime, police officers, you, or I, do not get to decide on
> when someone's detained for questioning (that's the modern day arrest
> now because it allows seizure of evidence, contrary to old days where
> arrest meant charged) for an offence.
You can only be detained on reasonable suspicion that you have 
committed, or are committing, an offence. Even for questioning.
> I don't know this Grubb fellow from a bar of soap, but if he committed
> an offence, then as a tax payer, I expect the coppers to do their job.
Noel,

There's a difference between someone committing an offence, and a police 
fishing expedition. It's simply not safe to say "well, if the police are 
interested in someone, it's because they've done something wrong". The 
sole reason Ben Grubb was arrested at all is that Fairfax apparently 
didn't teach him to stay silent and call a lawyer. If a lawyer had been 
handy, the arrest would not have happened.

As Irene pointed out, the whole police press conference is available on 
the Internet, and the whole police interview transcript from Fairfax.

Now, as regarding "if he committed a crime". The police tried one on to 
get their hands on his iPad. Why? Because in an outburst of appalling 
incompetence, they missed the person they were investigating, who had 
already gone to Sydney. Possessing a copy of a photo might fall under 
the Copyright Act (not a police matter), or even one of the various 
computer crimes act, but not "being in possession of stolen property". 
The only reason nobody was laughing was there wasn't a lawyer present to 
see the joke.

Trying to (a) invent a new crime on the spot, (b) slip under the radar 
because the person you're interviewing is 20 years old and doesn't know 
how to do the police, and (c) acting this way because you've already 
made a mistake - well, "as a taxpayer", I expect the police to be 
competent, and to do their jobs within the law, neither of which appear 
to be the case here.

RC
> Wont bother reading his story about it that was linked to, because as a
> journo we only get to hear/read what he wants us to hear/read (not a
> swipe at Mr Grubb, that's just typical of all journos) it's also why I
> have not read a newspaper in 20 odd years, and why I still take digital
> media at half face value (because of selective editing to the bits only
> that grab attention)

> Perhaps its why, at least in Qld many media conferences are becoming
> available in full on youtube, so people can actually get the full
> picture of what was said and in what context, I'd rather waste the 20
> minutes there, then the 30-60 sec cut downs we get on tele or the 10 sec
> cut downs on radio, or the selective printed statements in a paper.
>
> my 2 cents worth,
> Noel
> (who worked Murdoch for nearly 10 years in his "younger days")
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>