You know, I'm getting more and more annoyed at the police we have in this country and the people who oversee their accounting. And this articles sums it up nicely, combined with that asinine APEC exercise and other issues that some of you probably would agree on.

It's almost as if the government is writing thousands of blank cheques to any government agency involved in the War on Terror sinkhole. It gets back to the saying about government bureacracy, inefficiency and corruption. The AFP and other police forces have blown a lot of our money on these political circuses and none of them seem to be accountable to anyone for it.

And Rudd is over in Nato like a fool saying how everyone should spend more time in a desert frittering our money away on it. Money is going into Afghanistan. Fuel and ammunition are being burned every day (and the prices of fuel are high..). Everyone over there gets extra wages. And Afghanis get killed twice over by both sides...amazing... This money should be spent here in Australia on our road systems and infrastructure. Even people in the country may want to use it for the water plans or broadband services (especially since the OPEL deal was scrapped by the communications minister)

-=-=-=-

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/haneef-nine-afp-staff-still-on-his-tail/2008/04/03/1206851105553.html

"NINE federal police staff members are still working full-time on the Mohamed Haneef case as the investigation of the Indian doctor - and the bill to taxpayers - keep ticking over."

"It's extraordinary that, after more than $7.5 million of taxpayers' money and many months after the [Director of Public Prosecutions] said he had no case to answer, my client is still a suspect," said Dr Haneef's lawyer, Rod Hodgson.

-=-=-=

No way will I support your complaint Steel.
Pour in the money I say!
For years and years state and federal governments neglected police forces as crime leaped upwards. They just wouldnt hire new cops.
Porn created a generation of sex maniac offenders who are out there RIGHT now stalking women and young girls and the money and manpower simply wasnt there to do much about it.
Cops all over this great land worked for decades with substandard equipment. Junk walkie-talkies, old handguns like the Smith and Wesson .38 revolver. Substandard motorvehicles that simply couldnt catch high powered sports cars and hotted up V8's etc.
*Governments like the Victorian government decriminalised witchcraft and who knows what the warlocks and witches are now planning in that state?
There was never enough put into policing in this area to gather data and watch these dark prowlers of the spirit world. People in prominent positions in government (mayors and aldermen) and the judiciary even some cops dancing around with demon powers in witchrcaft covens doing abominations. Whose in our police forces is there to stop them but those with a true commitment... and heaps of money?
Yes...pour in the millions and billions of dollars because society has become too permissive and too drugged and too drunk not to!

The blame for APEC, the money allocated to counter-terrorism and the new terrorism legislation rests at the feet of the former Prime Minister, Mr Howard.

Legislation link: http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/agd/www/nationalsecurity.nsf/AllDocs/826190776D49EA90CA256FAB001BA5EA?OpenDocument

As far as the Haneef case goes, well I think most agree the case was not handled as well as it might. But add this to the fact this case gave us the first opportunity to scrutinise the new anti-terror legislation there was bound to be criticism. Police can initiate control orders but they have to be approved by the Attorney-General (the former AG the Hon Philip Ruddock MP).

As far as the continuing investigation into Haneef goes ... the police cannot just ignore evidence or information received because the case has become 'unpopular'. Are they supposed to halt all investigations because it might look bad given the looming inquiry?

Trust me I am NO apologist for government - I know too well the lengths some managers in various government agencies and departments go to to cover up mistakes including lying or omitting relevant information during inquiries and investigations. Not to mention the spin and 'guff' they provide to oversight departments like PM&C or the travesty of access to documents under Freedom of Information.

I do however, feel sorry for the police (who I have worked with at various times) who often find themselves in a "damned if you do - damned if you don't" position.

Steel I agree with you about the "sinkhole" of money wasted on terrorism. I do believe that the risk of terrorism has increased since the invasion of Iraq and that more money had to be allocated to counter-terrorism but much of it has been misdirected. An inquiry that would be worth initiating is one that would closely assess where some of this money is being used to build empires of one sort or another.

Its not the criminals costing us the money is it?

runner, some admin changed the title of this article which gives a slightly different meaning that was unintended.

Dear Steel,

I won't discuss the money that is spent on our police force - I don't know enough about it - except that from the little I've read - they could do with some 'spring cleaning.'

As for the Haneef case - it was badly handled.

Spending more money on overseas wars ... We need an awareness of lethal double standards: that 'international law' and 'international community' are often merely the preserves of great power, not the expression of the majority.

The United States can mount a posse with Britain and one or two bribed hangers-on and call it a 'coalition,' for the purpose of a wholly piratical attack on other countries, while more than 400 United Nations resolutions calling for justice in Palestine are not worth the paper they are written on.

We also need to examine the common use of 'we' and its appropriation by great power. If 'we' are to fight terrorism, then 'we' must call on the United States to end its terror in the Middle East, and elsewhere. Only then can 'we' make the world a safer place.

Hi there, Steel and others...

I believe all correspondents herein have legitimate views and opinion.

As a retired member of the policing profession, I must agree with some of your sentiments, apropos the apparent 'wasting of resources' et al.

As most of you would know, the burden of proof that's incontrovertibly placed on police and the DPP is essentially this. '... police must prove that the accused person, did in fact, commit the crime, and that proof must be - to a point beyond that of a reasonable doubt...'.

In civil matters, the burden of proof is much simpler. 'On the balance of probabilities'

It's not very hard for a competent defence counsel (during a hearing or trial), to distinguish a simple flaw or deficiency in the prosecution's arguement. In order to raise that 'reasonable doubt'. It really doesn't need very much at all !

That is why it is so very necessary for police and the DPP, to 'dot every y' and 'cross every T' in the careful and punctilious preparation of a 'Criminal Brief of Evidence'.

I'm sure you good folk would recognise, the exacting nature of such an onerous task, would necessarily require the expenditure of a lot of dollars and many many hours of qualified labour (wasted resources, Steel?).

A reference was made (in this topic) with respect to a very well known recent event, involving a Gold Coast Medical Practitioner.

The only comment I'd make is... a lot is known (facts) about this individual, and some of those facts are; Emmmmmmmmmmmm (not quite sure how to word this precisely ?)..........

Essentially, police often KNOW (irrefutably) that an individual has done something wrong. However, KNOWING and PROVING it (in a court of law) can be two entirely different things, for many multifarious and varied reasons.

There is a very basic and important Tenet in the Criminal Law. Simply put, '...he who accuses, MUST prove...'! As I stated earlier, the successful interdiction of the world's ne'er do wells, really does cost the BIG bucks ! Is it a waste of Money...? I dunno?

Cheers !

I have a great deal of respect of the smart police forces,German,French and British police and to a certain extent the Victoria and Federal Police..
In Australia there are too many State police forces who think that they are still living in a 19th century convict colony.
They are trained to be Prison officers, and not Police,in a civilised society.
Try to complain to a police chief about there procedures.You soon come to a sticky end.....
The State Police do not tolerate sensible debate by either politicians or the general public.
The state police have no adit or control from above.
They act above the laws of the land and in their own small mind perform as the famous joke.
" why do police travel in three,s,One likes to think he is clever,One likes to be with somebody cleverer than themselves ,The third likes to hang around with intellectuals."
Since affirmative action in the force,Police used to walk or travel on their own,Now the big older police man had a lady servant to talk with.This is why it now costs twice as much to police the same area as in the 1960's.

What bothers me about that o sung wu is this: If police did not have enough evidence to convict Haneef, they should never have dreamed of detaining him in the first place, or have tried.

I find it hard to believe some emails to some relatives are no more than just that. Emails to relatives. Even if they were more than that, there is nothing wrong with talking to a family member despite their connections. Did you expect Corby's family to be detained because of their links and association to the convicted Corby.

Nevertheless I present this new information that should shame those involved and those still wasting our taxpayers money on their pride. Not only that, they hurt an innocent man and don't have the presence to admit they are acting like fascists/stalinists and believing their own propaganda.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/04/13/1208024996168.html

"POWERFUL evidence of Mohamed Haneef's innocence has emerged at the Old Bailey in London — evidence the Australian Federal Police and the Commonwealth Director of Prosecutions appear to have ignored in holding the Gold Coast doctor for questioning last year and then charging him with a terrorism offence."

Hi Steel and others...

Look I agree with you. If there was insufficient evidence or 'product' to hold and subsequently charge him, he should never have been detained.

I've retired from the job now, but I have heard that there were far too many agencies involved in this investigation.

Too many bodies with too many agendas. None really prepared to share their 'product', lest they miss out on getting the credit.

This petty overprotectiveness of information and intelligence that overtly pervades the culture of these law-enforcement bodies, further obscures and occludes the salient facts imperative for a successful prosecution.

God help us, if we ever do have a collaborative international terrorist incident. Individually, they have the talent to interdict such an event. But collectively, they'd all be trying to gain the credit and advantage........as I said, God help us?