ELECTRICITY SAVINGS THAT WORK FOR US

INTRODUCTION – NZ’S ELECTRICITY “REFORMS”
Maxwell Robert Bradford (born 1942, pictured right) is a former New Zealand politician and Cabinet Minister. He was an MP for the National Party from 1990 to 2002, and is known for introducing reforms to the electricity industry in 1998. What many of us don’t know, or forget, is that the New Zealand First Party supported those “reforms”. These are the same reforms that now provide you with limited competition, reduced supply per capita and increased power prices on an annual basis.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10526747

The Bradford legacy is this: since 2002 average residential electricity prices have risen by 4.7% a year in real terms. That means 4.7% over and above the general rate of inflation! It has created a new generation of people who can’t keep up with rising power prices, as every-day wages fail even to keep up with inflation. It has created a new kind of poverty; Power Paupers.
http://www.consumer.org.nz/reports/electricity-prices

It has, on the other side of the scale, created a whole new swathe of high-paid executives. We pay their wages. To give you a specific example of these powerful people whom Bradford’s “reforms” have created, have a look at the case of Michael Stiassny. Who? Well, www.stiassny.org reports him as “The face behind New Zealand's skyrocketing power bills.” It tells us that “power rates have increased an astronomical 80% [since] Michael Stiassny took over as Chairman of Vector Energy” in 2002. During that time, “Stiassny's own compensation doubled.” Hang on - who the hell is Michael Stiassny?!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Listener_Power_List
Scarily, he’s the Chairman of Vector Energy (pictured right) and has leaped from nowhere to become the 7th most powerful person in NZ, 2009. Such are the rewards from managing an electricity company. So desperate is he to protect his low profile and his interests, he uses that power and money to gag our principal documentary maker:
http://www.kiwisfirst.co.nz/index.asp?PageID=2145845376#stiassny-sicks-lawyers-on-tvnz-

More recently, we’ve had eleven years of a Labour government, and how many new power stations were built? All those years of boom-time, and the most Labour did with that tax revenue, it would seem, was to build a layer of middle-management bureaucracy. Hardly a lasting legacy, don’t you think?

So, how’s those electricity “reforms” working out for you, New Zealand? If our mainstream political parties will not help you, how can you help yourself?


SAVE YOURSELF – SAVE ELECTRICITY WITH THESE 14 STEPS
These steps work. My family has always had low monthly power bills around $210-$250, largely to many of these points, below. That's not bad for family of five. However, the ideas coming out in the wake of the Christchurch earthquakes of 2011 took our monthly power bills down even further to $177-$194. And that’s in a country of rising power prices. I’m not saying these tips, below, are a magic wand. I’m not saying each one of these cost-cuts will pay off your mortgage. BUT:

* Use them ALL and they WILL save you money:
* I’m sure there are other solutions, but these are the tips which work for us NOW
* This is our own personal experience – so it may not work for you
* These work for us – so there’s no harm in you giving them a go

1. Implement “Ripple” Power
Make sure, if you can, that you have “Ripple” Power installed. This is the facility that gives you cheap power after 9pm and until 7am the next morning. We had it when we moved in to this house, and not every house has it. Make sure YOU do.

2. Do Everything After 9pm, on Cheap Power
This, of course, depends on having Ripple Power. However, once you have Ripple Power, it opens up a whole avenue of cost-cutting. Do everything you can after 9pm on this cheap power; water heating, washing machine, dishwasher, mobile phone charging, re-chargeable batteries, even the car battery when it’s dead! Heck, we steam-clean the floor after 9pm!

3. Effective Water Heating – Turn it Down!
Crucially, we only do our water heating after 9pm as well. I know this is doubling up (a bit) on the above, but it’s worth making this point specific. We have a whacking great water-tank salvaged from Ashburton Army Base. As we only heat after 9pm, the tank lasts us all day, so it proves very cost-effective water heating. We kept tweaking the temperature down, until we heat only what we need to heat. Experiment with yours – turn it down until you have the lowest level that you need for your family.

4. Use your Microwave.
Anything with an element costs big electricity money. A microwave, alternatively, vibrates molecules to heat things. This means that heating a cup of water in the kettle costs TEN TIMES as much as heating a cup in the microwave. So, think what you can do in the microwave, instead of on the range or in the kettle; baked beans, tinned spaghetti, peas, soup, carrots, other vegetables, hot water for instant coffee, hot milk for hot chocolate, and much more. Be pragmatic about cooking with your microwave. Cooked chicken and a cup-of-tea from the microwave are awful. However, there are many recipes that WORK using your low-cost microwave!

5. Use your Slow Cooker (or “Crockpot”)
In the same way, a crockpot is a particularly efficient way to cook. It keeps the heat in, recycles that heat, and so cooks with very low power. It uses a lot less than those electricity-guzzling ranges and ovens. Also, there’s a lifestyle effect from using your crockpot: for families where both caregivers work, a crockpot can deliver a family meal in one pot, ready for when you come through the door. And, the crockpot DOES cook chicken well (but not cups-of-tea). Look at the crockpot cook-books by Simon and Alison Holst – they’re the masters - but there are many free recipes on the internet.

6. Use your (Gas) Barbeque
In the same vein, this was one that Orion suggested (trying to alleviate pressure on their fragile Christchurch power network). And it works. Using your barbeque just once or twice a week to cook your family meal will have a significant effect on your monthly electricity bill. Yes, I know you’re still using gas (LPG), but we’ve found it’s still a lot cheaper than using the ranges and ovens.

7. Avoid your Range and Ovens
So, the summary of 4-6 is DON’T use your oven and ranges wherever possible. Use your microwave, crockpot and barbeque instead.

8. Washing Machine on Cold
A washing machine on a Cold Wash uses 80% less power. It worked for us, and gets our clothes clean. Try it! To be fair, we did experiment with powders until we found one we liked. We settled on “Fab” Citrus Blossom by Colgate-Palmolive. Also, “Surf” Aromatherapy by Unilever was effective.

9. Fill Your Washing Machine – and get a Bigger One!
Before the Christchurch earthquakes, we’d put on the washing machine (albeit after 9pm!) regardless of how full it was. We’d just put it on a Low-, Med- or High-Water wash. However, Orion said "Use only when full." Indeed, we found that it’s cheaper over the month to miss a wash, and put a full one on the next night. So what, if there’s a half-full laundry basket for a day? It’s led us to the conclusion, that the next time we buy a washing machine; it’ll be an even bigger one. That way, we may even only have to laundry every couple of days.

10. Fill Your Dishwasher
As above, we now do the same with the dishwasher as we do with the washing machine; only put it on when it’s full. Whilst there is some debate, we’ve found a dishwasher to be more cost-effective on power than sink washing. A lot of this has to do with putting the dishwasher on only when full, and after 9pm. Critics of sink-washing say that much hot water (and therefore energy) is wasted by eking out hot water over the duration of washing and rinsing dishes. A dishwasher works for us.

11. Use your Heat Pump Effectively for Heating
We have two heat pumps; one upstairs, and one downstairs. A neighbour reminded us that a heat pump works on the principle of a freezer: once you get it to the ideal temperature, it uses very little. She then told us to run it 24/7, and we wouldn’t notice the money difference!! And she was right! We started up our heat pumps (after 9pm, of course!) when winter set in. It uses a bit of power as it starts, getting up to an ambient temperature (which is why you start it after 9pm). However, once we got to “cosy,” we hardly notice the difference in our heat bills. We used it sensibly, at temperatures between 18-20 degrees, and we subsidised that with our log burner (with free pine cones from the forest!!). We also found that there was a heckuva difference in the heat pumps’ performance when we had them serviced and cleaned. We didn’t notice much money difference from the service, but we did notice more heat for the same temperature. We recommend you do the same.

12. Use Free Wood for your Log Burner
Become a wood hound. There are always piles of wood on the road – especially around the industrial estates. As you drive around, look out for the “free wood” signs or old pallets folk throw out. It all burns. Also, we live near the forest: pine cones give off a lovely toasty heat. They’re free, lying there on the ground ready for you to pick up. The more you do this, the less electricity heating you’ll use.

13. Efficient Light Bulb Use
Couple of things here. It’s not just about switching bulbs to low-energy ones. That’s a given. It’s also about changing your habits. The kids are useful here! Whilst we can’t have them digging coal or cleaning chimneys any more, they’re easier to train than we are, in terms of switching off lights! Get started! Switch off lights behind you as you move around the house. Don’t light up rooms you’re not in. How many times do we see houses lit up like Auckland Sky Tower? In isolation, this method saves just $30-$50 a year according to the energywise.co.nz site. But used in conjunction with everything else, you can save real money.

14. Change your Power Provider – Shop Around
I was already on my way out of Contact Energy, so Mercury knocked on my door at exactly the right time. Call me old-fashioned, but I have a real problem when executives award themselves higher-than-inflation pay rises (insultingly higher than their employees) and then charge their customers (again) higher-than-inflation price rises. After what we’d been through with the earthquakes, I found Contact’s price rises insulting. So I changed from Contact to Mercury:

Company - - - - - Night Rate - Day Rate
Contact Energy: - 10.113kWh - 24.257kWh
Mercury - - - - - - 9.74kWh - - 23.49kWh


WHAT ABOUT THE FUTURE – WHAT MORE CAN WE DO?
Remember, this is all about reducing the cost of something that fleeces us on a monthly basis. Because the electricity market is not yet truly opened up, being an electricity provider is having a licence to print money. This article is all about reducing dependence on someone who is trying to screw us regularly. And here’s what else we can do about that in the future:

1. Capital Expenditure – Solar Water Heating
“The time to buy Solar Water was always 5 years ago.” This is a phrase the solar pundits use, and they’re right. Because the solar hot-water solution has such a high capital cost and long-payback rate, it’s an electricity-cutting solution that draws a sharp intake of breath. However, I know the owner of a motel in Christchurch who installed solar water heating for all their units, and he borrowed to do it. His cash-flow actually improved, to the extent he proved to me it was more cash-effective to borrow for solar water heating, than to rely on legacy electricity water heating. The savings outweighed the interest payments! The reality is, for us normal house owners, the best time to install solar water heating is when we build a house.

Watch out for those solutions that use electricity as well as solar. The system in our neighbour’s house uses electricity to push the solar heated water from the panels to the water tank. This means, in the event of a power cut, you still don’t have hot water! In that same power cut, there’s the danger of the heated water blowing the seals on the panels! Shop around for the right solution for you.

2. Capital Expenditure – Log Burner
The only bummer now is that, with Christchurch’s “Clean Heat” programme, it’s difficult to get consent for standard log burners in the city boundaries. And that's a shame, because traditional log burners can burn your free wood, and heat your house for virtually free. Watch out for those pellet fires – they need electricity!!! Yes, honest. My other problem with pellet fires, until recently, was that there was only one provider of pellet fires in Christchurch. Call me old fashioned, but that’s the monopolistic fleecing arrangement we’re already in.

3. Burn up Electricity Next Power Crisis
Yes, radical and contradictory, I know. However, nothing lights a rocket under the arse of a government quicker than nationwide power cuts. It brought down the UK Heath government in 1974, and even Thatcher worried about it during the 1980s UK miners’ strike. In the early 2000s, Pete Hodgson was the NZ Energy Minister managing a drought situation. The resulting energy crisis was from the South Island dams running out of hydro water. The best Pete Hodgson could do (in this second drought year!), was to muster a meeting with the power companies and ask “Why are we here again?” I’ll tell you why Pete; because in 11 years of a Labour government, you didn’t build any more bloody power stations!!

So, the country bought into the government propaganda and conserved power. The whole nation massed behind electricity-cutting campaigns to avoid power cuts. And the media endorsed it by joining in and encouraging us. Remember the country charts on TV1's news that showed Christchurch saving more electricity than Auckland in this week or that week? What we should have been doing is RAMPING up our usage to trigger nationwide power cuts. I guarantee you, there would have been changes. Sadly, not that time. Next time, perhaps.

HOW DO WE DEAL WITH BULLYING IN OUR SOCIETY? DAMN POORLY

This story infuriated me, it’s still on-going, and it prompted me to write one of my most extensive (that means long – sorry) blog entries. This is important for all of us and all our children, so please bear with me on this:

MORRINSVILLE GIRL BEATEN SENSELESS BY BULLIES
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4669216/Bashing-bully-girls-back-at-school

If you don’t want to read the news link, here are the article’s summarised facts:
• four girls from Morrinsville College, New Zealand, beat a peer so severely, the victim has a brain injury
• the police are “investigating the attack.” There are no reports of charges.
• the incident is almost an exact repeat of the victim’s beating in November 2010, where she was left with concussion
• the attackers were not expelled or even suspended – they were “stood down.”
• while the victim was in 24-hour care, the four bullies returned to school

So where were the real consequences for this unacceptable – and repeated – behaviour? The Principal, John Inger (pictured left), issued a woolly statement about the attackers incurring “various consequences.” Apart from his phrase, “various consequences,” the only specific punishment I could read was that the attackers were “stood down” – for a week. That’s a flaming holiday, for God’s sake. What about financial compensation, detention, community service, public apology, expulsion? Are those some of your “various consequences,” Mr Inger? Probably not. I look forward to reading about some real deterrence, Mr Inger. The TV media has asked some hard questions, but Mr Inger has given up trying to put his point across, because of the “hard time” he’s getting, trying to explain his point of view. Clearly, the coward hasn’t the strength of his convictions.



And that’s what this article is about. For New Zealand to deal with bullying, we have to have a lot of courage.

WHY IS BULLYING SO PROLIFIC?
The TV3 60 Minutes article on Mikayla Edwards’ assault tried to ask “why?” bullying happens and came up with some answers. The programme implicated that the parents of the bullies might have some responsibility here for the viciousness of their children, but that was never followed up by naming-and-shaming those parents. Frankly, the programme bottled out. Let me state what we all know; bullies have been bullied – usually at home. A specialist on teen girl violence, Dr Donna Swift (pictured right), hinted on the programme at accountability and reasons (the parents!). However, she came up with few solutions on how to break the cycle of violence. So why is New Zealand among the worst in the world for school bullying? I’ve no idea. However, I’d like to put it to you that if New Zealand has a poor record for bullying at school, it doesn’t end just because those bullies leave school. It’s clear we have a real bullying problem in our New Zealand society at large.

I’d like to put it to you that bullying might be part of our instinctual make-up. Darwinians might say that bullying occurs in the animal kingdom, and everything we do in our society has some parallel in the animal world. This is true. And, Darwinians could argue that bullying is designed to weed out the weaklings in the world, or make them tougher – so they contribute to our society in some way. That contribution might be; by the victims toughening up, or by the victims just fading away. If we start to believe that, we start to accept that it is simply part of nature’s life. And, if we accept that, bullying continues. And that is totally unacceptable.

This is where we humans are supposed to be different, aren’t we? We have moved beyond “beast” to where we live in a supposedly civilised society. That means, whilst we still have those animal instincts, we socialise-out that behaviour in place of a collective-good: a civilisation. This civilisation is governed by rules – and law. Those people who administer those rules, therefore, have a duty to protect us, if we are thereby to live by those rules. For example, I can’t pick-axe a bully’s head as a reaction to bullying – I’ll be punished. So society’s governors have an obligation to both protect us and administer the consequences to those who would harm us. So (God forbid!) when society’s rules are broken, there are specific, explicit consequences which act as a deterrent. You’d think.

INEFFECTUAL – THE INDOLENCE AND SHAME OF OUR PROTECTORS
In that light, let’s look at some of the statements coming from the Morrinsville school. Tell me if you think there’s something wrong here:
• The bullies were “stood down” - for a week. Remember, this is a repeat attack.
• The Morrinsville College principle Mr Inger said the girls would "almost certainly [not definitely!!] be looking for a different school" if they did something like this again. Remember, this is already a repeat attack
• Victoria McAuley stood up in front of her Year 9 peers during an assembly yesterday and told them "bullying and violence is not acceptable no matter what the reason". Remember, this is already a repeat attack
• Morrinsville College deputy principal Murray Feast said the girls would not have been allowed to return to school if school management did not think it was safe. Remember, this is already a repeat attack
• Mr Feast said, “Morrinsville College is actually addressing the problem really well." Remember, this is already a repeat attack

How many times do we hear these phrases (below), in respect of bullying:

• “Just walk away, move away”
• “Just try and keep away from these people”
• “Just try and ignore it.”

We heard all three from our Community Constable and all three from our school principal. “Just.” That’s one of those words that completely trivialises and minimises an issue. And, these three phrases are so easily uttered by those who are strong, balanced, have power, or who’ve never experienced bullying. So, by definition, they simply don’t understand the victims’ point-of-view.

The add-on words I often hear, to the phrase “Try and ignore it” are, “the bully will grow tired of it.” Well, that’s bollocks – and I’ll qualify that.

CURRENT STRATEGIES ARE SIMPLY NOT WORKING - SOME PROOF
The strategies above may be true for some, but I’ve two examples that say otherwise. The son of a man I know was bullied almost all through primary years. His dad taught him to ignore it, and the son coped well. He told me that “the bullies soon get tired of it.” But then he admitted his son still got chipped by the same bully at high school!! For years. So, this story – with countless others - tells us that this society expects us to address our own reaction to the bully, not shut down the bully himself!

Well, I think that’s bloody wrong.

The second example is our own. We incurred the wrath of our next-door neighbour. After a year of physical and verbal abuse, we had to take her to court under the New Zealand Harassment Act 1997. Judge Michael Crosbie issued a half-assed Judgement-of-Solomon, whereby we did secure a year’s Restraining Order – but we had to accept a Restraining Order back. Through the resulting uncertainty of the year of that Order and beyond, the bully slowly learned what she could get away with. When we tried to bring the case to a conclusion, the judge couldn’t be bothered, instructing us to mediate with a bully who had been given no consequence by the judge to go to mediation. Not suprisingly, she rejected mediation, and we'd run out of money to go back to court. You see, “the judge threw out” the case [bully’s husband’s words!]. It was true that the judge washed his hands of it. So the needle continues. Four years of bullying, and she hasn’t “grown tired of it.”

The other moral of these two examples, is that society treats bullying as always the victims’ problem. When we went to counselling, the help is ONLY centred on the premise that being bullied is our problem!!! We have to change our reaction to the bullying, you see, not actually stop the bullying. Throughout our harassment case, neither the police, lawyers, judiciary, nor school was able to offer any leadership on how to shut the bully down. And that is exactly how the whole issue of bullying is treated at every level of our society. The emphasis is not on consequences or punishment, but on how the victim has somehow allowed this to happen by his/her reaction to the bullying. By that logic, murder, rape and burglary are the victims’ own fault. And I can tell you, there have been a few public figures that have slipped up by admitting that little number!

The phrases we often hear, the three I listed above, are so easy to blurt out. And they’re a cop-out by our protectors. However, for the vulnerable people under siege and attack, they are an alien language. Is that really the best our protectors are able to do? So it would seem. As the 60 Minutes article suggested, bullying is endemic in our society. However, in terms of our actually dealing with it, bullying is in the “Too Hard” basket. How do politicians and the police show “Reduction in bullying”? The Harassment Act 1997 was designed to help, but it’s an expensive option for victims. In addition, even after 14 years of the Act, lawyers still say that the area of harassment is “an evolving law.” One area of its evolution is that judges don’t trust the very people who bring actions – judges fear the restraining order will be abused. Judges don’t trust victims, you see. The police can’t do much unless there’s an actual criminal law broken, which clever bullies won’t do. And, actually, the police don’t really want to get in involved: their empathy has been de-sensitised, and harassment disputes are exceptionally time-consuming.

Dealing with society’s bullies is too hard, too expensive, for seemingly too-little return. Politicians won’t deal with it effectively – because there’s not enough glory or publicity. Now, the schools. Ah, not much better. Like the police and judiciary, they simply don’t want to get involved. Perhaps they’re haemorrhaged by the workload or by inadequate guidelines from the respective Ministry, but they’re certainly not dealing with the problem where it first enters the public arena – the school.

OUR OWN RECENT EXPERIENCE – WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE?
Here’s one of our own most recent incidents. I want you to read this, thinking “How would I have reacted to the bully in this situation – what would I have done?” In the school playground, shortly after school finishes, the bully’s 6-year-old son stamps my 6-year-old, as he tries to climb a ladder. My 4-year-old tries to intervene (bless him) shouting, “Stop, that’s my brother!” The bully’s 10-year-old takes out the legs from my 4-year-old. When I went up to the mother (the bully) and asked what she was going to do about it, she laughed in my face. I told her that whatever she did to me or my family, she was still a sad, cowardly hyena. I looked around for help, and another teacher flippantly told me I should “walk away – just walk away.” So what would you have done?

I went to the principal for recompense and asked him to confirm his no-tolerance of bullying. He said he’d have to have “pretty damn good evidence” before he’d issue a trespass order. So I write to him to get him to put his talk on paper – I asked what evidence he would need before a trespass order was issued. I never had a reply to that letter, but was told he “preferred to talk about it instead.” Then there was another incident. It, too, was dealt with ineffectually. After writing to him a second time and pressing for a reply, I received a short one-paragraph email that still didn’t answer all my questions. I still don’t know what proof I could gather (in terms of my family being bullied in school grounds) before there would be a trespass order on the bully – the mother. So, the bully was not punished or deterred for the future. Telling me to “walk away,” is not a deterrent to the bully – far from it. In fact, it only serves to make the bully braver and vindicates her behaviour. So, it was no surprise that there was a repeat incident a month later.

BULLYING IS TOLERATED AND IS ACCEPTED
Bullying is tolerated and is accepted, because it is often so difficult to prove that it happens, so its difficult to deter. It’s difficult to prove the effect of bullying, or it’s difficult to capture evidence of it over a sustained period. Clever bullies will say “I deny it – where’s your evidence?” We had to use audio recordings, doctors’ letters and therapists’ letters to prove our harassment case in court, with little result. We distressingly bared our soles to the court, with our attacker present, with little result.

Back to our school. I challenged our principal’s policy on “No Tolerance to Bullying.” He said, “I’m not going to suspend a boy for calling your son a ‘fat-boy’.” And he’s right, although he chose to take that ONE comment out of context, and trivialise what my son is going through. However, the Morrinsville case has shown that it’s likely that even if the bully and three of his mates concussed my son, the bully might not even be suspended! I told our principal, I never wanted to hear his “No Tolerance to Bullying” phrase ever again. However, his answer to my complaints is endemic of schools’ continued inability to deal with the problem, and society’s continued inability to deal with the problem. So, where’s our principal’s answer on behalf of the school, when that same nasty-piece-of-work continues to chip away at my son again, and again, and again? We all know the basics of psychology: you repeat a statement often enough and it is believed - taken on board. A parent calls his son “useless” and that son takes it on and will feel useless. In the same vein, my son is being affected by this over a sustained period. I’m not the only parent of a school kid with this heart-rending problem. The mother in Morrinsville has it much worse than I.

After our incident in the playground, I wanted to beat the living crap out of that smug, mocking bully. The cold, calculating intelligence of the woman was frightening. She wanted to provoke a violent reaction from me – perhaps towards her children. She knew damn well that a physical retaliation – which she deserved – would be severely punished by our so-called protectors. The provocation is often completely ignored in these circumstances, isn’t it? What would you have done? As we all know, we’re not allowed to retaliate. Whilst the story in the link below is a bit of a popular fairy tale, we know damn well, how much more the retaliator is punished than the bullying initiator:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/4780726/How-the-net-transformed-bullied-boy

WHAT’S THE SOLUTION? YOU WON’T LIKE IT
What made those children do that to my children? Who put them up to it? What makes school bullies? Clearly, we have to educate out the problem. We identify those bullies quickly, educate those children, so that even if there is violence or bullying at home, they go through the school system with help, understanding that bullying is completely unacceptable – every day if necessary. This is the way we break the cycle of bullying and violence. If the impetus to bully is coming from the parents, then we make the parents accountable. If consequences don’t work, then we keep hammering and hammering and hammering consequences into these parents until it does work – the bullying stops. The reality is that this expensive, long-term, and bloody hard work.

I listened to someone who told me that we will never educate-out or eliminate bullying (the Darwinian argument?). That may be, but I can’t accept it. I think it’s a matter of will. Currently the will is not there in our protectors; the judges, the police, the government, and even our headmasters. From those same people, who tell me about their “No Tolerance” policies to bullying I hear the phrases “walk away” and “ignore.” That’s hypocrisy, it doesn’t work and it’s not addressing the root problem. The victim at Morrinsville tried to walk away,” and the bullies kicked the toilet door down to get to her.

Even if strategies of “walk away” and “ignore” actually worked, it only moves the problem onto another victim. It puts up someone else, even weaker, to be bullied. And, it’s not dealing with the bullies’ issues. Is that our definition of a civilised society? Actually, it probably is, of the society we have now. How many times do we see in our lives, the problem being pushed aside rather than addressed at the root source? It doesn’t have to be this way. The root problem is not the victim, it’s the bully. So, the true solution is not to change the victim’s reaction, but stop the damn bully. However, the will isn’t there to do that.

Our protectors’ unwillingness and inability to deal to this problem is so frustrating, that it is maddening – literally. With our own experience, four years of tension took its effect. The fact that all these bullying incidents happen (and continue to happen) across New Zealand is because of a complete failure of leadership by those who are supposed to protect us. That failure of leadership is at every level of those who are supposed to show leadership in our society: the government, the schools, the police, and the judiciary. So what’s the solution? You won’t like it. For our protectors, it’s expensive, difficult and long-term (so they won’t like it either). Here are my summary thoughts:

1. Educate the bullies. Identify bullies, and have it hammered into them every damn day at school, that this is not socially acceptable, even if it’s part of their violent upbringing. Isolate the bullies in tight, disciplined, special classes if need be. Involve the parents in the communication, but not the decision-making process. Re-shape the school bullies.
2. Put Consequences in Place. For the school bullies and their parents. Not woolly stand downs, but real financial, community service and reduction-in-freedom consequences. There should be staged severe consequences that become even more severe with every incident. The consequences may have to be hard. Have the courage to kick them out. Have the courage to implement the consequences.
3. State Explicit Consequences. Educate the bullies, and their parents, to the fact that there will be FIRM, consequences for bullying. And if that’s ignored, carry them out. If that’s no good, escalate the severity of the consequences. Make the staged consequences of the behaviour explicit – have a contract if needs be. Keep the consequences coming, until the bullying stops. Again, involve the parents in the communication, but not the decision-making process.
4. Have the Will to Eliminate the Problem. Clearly, we do not, currently. If we baulk at the consequences, as did John Inger of Morrinsville, the problem will NOT go away. In fact, baulking at the consequences exacerbates the problem. If we do not have the courage to punish bullies severely, the problem will continue.

Only by courage in our civilised society, will we kill this problem. Hammer the bullies with consequences again, and again, and again until it stops. And, with our shouts of “Shame, coward!” at our ineffectual protectors, we can induce some progress.

CAPITALISM “LOVES” CONSUMERS, AND WE “LOVE” FONTERRA TOO

I saw this article from 18 February 2010, and I tried to clarify in my own head, what the hell is going on in our milk industry in New Zealand. I’m still not sure:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/4672810/Milk-price-Minister-demands-answers

We're told by Fonterra that, because we live in a global market, "sadly" we must pay global price. However, some of the reasons that New Zealand (essentially Fonterra!) is ahead in world milk production is because of cheaper labour, cheaper land, and cheaper water. So, we pay global price for milk - but milk is not produced at global cost!! Clearly, Fonterra has no qualms about crapping on its own doorstep. Remember, this is because the only loyalty a capitalist company has is to its shareholders (the milk farmers). However, in the last 150 years, since the industrial revolution, there has emerged an new class; the Executive Class - they manage stuff. Despite being elected and delegated by the shareholders, the Executive Class' priority is to maximise its own wealth - at the expense of the shareholders and consumers. The Executive Class will self-award the highest bonuses and salary, and the lowest possible return to the shareholders - that it can get away with. The Executive Class is clearly alive and well in Fonterra. Because, if you read this article, it makes you think:

http://www.nzfarmersweekly.co.nz/article/8731.html

The writer of this article, Alan Emerson, is a former farmer himself. And, if he is to be believed, FARMERS aren't reaping the benefits from the "international" milk price. I believe him. Which leads me to state that someone in the milk process is getting very rich - and it ain't the farmers. However, Alan harps on about the government stepping in and inhibiting "market forces" (that old chesnut). OK, Alan, what say New Zealand milk farmers pay "international" water prices? Various government forces have intervened ON YOUR BEHALF to prevent that. This means, that farmers' water is in fact subsidised by the New Zealand rate payers - we pay more for water because farmers pay less. And, it is still a reality that we Kiwis are bitter about paying "international" milk prices, for a product produced on our own doorstep. So forgive me, Alan, if I don't feel "$270 better off." I question how broad are your paramters, when you conjure up that figure.

The other reason that New Zealand is ahead in milk production, is because of the sheer size – and POWER – of Fonterra. Fonterra was created out of a number of New Zealand milk production companies, to have a strong conglomerate company capable of taking on the world milk market. Our intelligence was insulted when we were told that Fonterra’s creation was necessary to generate exports to make our country stronger. We were told we’d benefit from those exports with increased wages (long term), and a stronger dollar in our pocket (long term). Well, it’s been 10 years now, and I ain’t seein’ it. How “long” is the “long term?” Well, wages haven’t increased (past housing and cost-of-living), and the effect of our higher dollar has been increased interest rates on our mortgages!!

Our wages are still way behind those in Australia, but (more importantly) our prices continue to grow faster that our wages. In other words, it’s getting harder to pay for things even aside from the fact that our next door neighbour’s wages are rising faster. Houses, council rates, petrol, power, all continue to rise faster than our ability to pay for them. In other words, there are a few people getting very rich, while the majority of us are getting poorer in real terms. “Get a new job that pays better” I hear you shout. So, if we all shift jobs, does that increase our collective ability to buy goods at faster rising prices? I think not.

Oh, and milk. Milk continues to increase in price.

The Market Force economists herald phrases like this:
• “So, don’t buy milk”
• “Buy another milk brand that is cheaper.”
• “Let consumers dictate prices”

So here’s the answers to those fallacies:
• So we feed our kids cola instead, or just give them calcium vitamin tablets instead, do we? Milk is more expensive than fizzy drink.
• We’ve all tried buying another brand. How many of us now buy the “Budget” brand because the “Anchor” brand is simply too expensive? Remember, it’s essentially all the same milk. Well what happens when we’ve done that, as we’ve done? Even Budget milk products rise faster than wages.
• Well, we’d love to dictate prices, but the reality is that we can’t if the company supplying milk is the ONLY company; monopolistic Fonterra.

And then, as I was writing this, THESE stories were released a day later!!!!
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/4676611/Fonterra-freezes-prices
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/4677953/Call-for-shops-to-freeze-milk-prices

My wife’s uncle loves his phrase “Capitalism Loves Consumers.” Well, frankly Alistair – that’s bollocks. These articles above show that capitalism doesn’t love consumers, it exploits them. It’s true, in a loving relationship, there is some f*cking - because that's what's happening to us consumers! However, this kind of exploitative behaviour from companies like Fonterra is wrong, it’s pimping and it's raping. Companies generally view consumers cynically, as untrustworthy, with no loyalty, who will buy from another company when there’s a favourable price shift. And that’s true – but there’s nothing wrong with that!!! Apparently, that’s called “Market Forces.” And that’s why Fonterra was formed – to stop that consumer shifting. Capitalism doesn’t “love” consumers, it exploits them.

I’d like to think that the Fonterra climb-down (the milk price-freeze) is a victory for consumers. However, in reality the Agriculture Minister David Carter has had to step in to “rein in Fonterra's domestic market power.” This is the FIRST time he’s done that: not because he’s worried about consumers having to pay more, but he’s worried about unfettered capitalism upsetting the right-wing National Party’s attempts to secure a second term. This is election year. In fact, I DO see this as a small victory - for democracy. Voter pressure has forced our elected representatives to do what voters want (there's a first!). However, if it hadn’t been an election year, David Carter wouldn’t have given a toss.

Fonterra’s continued, cynical attempts to raise the price of our milk over the last ten years, demonstrates they will continue to do so. Let’s be quite clear: price has NOTHING to do with cost-of-production. Price is ONLY about our willingness to pay for it. You can make something for $1, but if consumers will only pay 50c, then it won’t sell. You can also make something for $1, but consumers might be willing to pay $5: that might be capitalism and “the market,” but it doesn’t make it right or ethical. As consumers, we are prepared to pay a fair price for a fair product. Fonterra’s continued scaremongering, and the associated publicity, about “rising world dairy prices” are attempts to FUD (fear-uncertainty-doubt) us into raising our willingness-to-pay. Thankfully, it’s not working.

Remember, Fonterra has this power because of its privileged monopolistic position. As we all know, Privilege has Power. Fonterra has power, because there are no competitors. Where small milk operators in New Zealand do try to establish a foothold, we see this:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/tatua-co-operative-dairy-company-ltd/news/article.cfm?o_id=204&objectid=10420907
In other words, Fonterra raises the milk price it pays to its farmer-suppliers in the region where there is a Fonterra competitor. Fonterra calls it “tactical pricing.” I call it abuse of monopolistic power.

At this point, I want to tell you about the people who talk about “too much government interference” or even “we don’t need government – let market forces do the work.” Yeah? What would the victims of Somali pirates say about the effects of there being no government there? What about the children working 12 hours a day in the mines of the industrial revolution? Capitalism NEEDS regulation. Capitalism will ALWAYS exploit and work towards increasing market share of a particular industry. In other words, it will try to secure 100% market share – monopoly. Fonterra is an example of that “success.” New Zealand consumers are getting a taste of unfettered capitalism through this experience. If it hadn’t been an election year, we’d be paying more for milk. I wonder, how long after the election will we be having this debate again?

Frankly, capitalism with no restraints scares the crap out of me. The milk debate has nothing to do with “Market Forces” here in New Zealand, and everything to do with global capitalism fighting for maximum returns. In other words; greed. It’s quite a shame really, because I remember there was a sense of pride around New Zealand when Fonterra was formed – a company from small NZ, capable of taking on the world. However, why did the scorpion sting the fox as he was hitching a ride on that fox across a wide river, knowing that he too would drown? Because that’s what scorpions do. Fonterra is going to continue to screw us, going to continue to push the price of milk for New Zealand consumers whenever it can. It’s what capitalism does. Change will only come about by regulating these companies who try to harm us financially. Get used to that fact, or send us back to the industrial revolution.

WHY DO JUDGES SHRUG OFF THE PRESS? BECAUSE THEY CAN

Now here’s an interesting article:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4267918/Jetting-judges-fly-at-taxpayer-expense

Yes, I know, jet-setting civil servants is not a new story. For me, the bit that’s really interesting, is this bit:

“Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias attended five trips in that period [the past two years], costing $74,490. On two of them, to Melbourne and London, she took along her husband, Hugh Fletcher...The Sunday Star-Times twice requested an interview with Elias to discuss the judiciary travel bill. Her spokesman, Neil Billington, said: 'I am sure you will get a response as soon as she is free to consider your request.'"

Weeeeeelllll, if that had been a politician, that politician would be running to the interview, to justify his position!! He’d then apologise to the people for the “possible” excessive spending and promise to be more prudent in the future. Or, he’d fall on his sword. If this was any other civil servant, he would be stating a very diplomatic case through a spokesperson, and having a private justification with his superior. Every employee in the private sector has to account to his paymaster for business expenses. But Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias (pictured right) is able to shrug off the press with contempt and arrogance: “When I’ve got time, I’ll think about it,” is effectively what she’s saying through her spokesperson.

So why don’t judges have to answer for their expenses? Because judges have no accountability to the people who pay those expenses – us, the taxpayer.

This leads us to the discussion about an “independent judiciary, free from political interference”. I accept that many political and social commentators believe that this is a fundamental principle and part of our democratic society. However, I’m not sure I agree with this principle, although I do believe in the democratic state. I had this topical discussion and debate on judicial independence with a police sergeant, who expressed that “we didn’t want to get to a Stalinist state.” Once I’d thought past the crassness of his black-white thinking, I realized that, indeed, there are the two ends of the spectrum when you debate judicial accountability: independent judges versus appointed puppets.

Of course, virtually no-one in a democracy wants our judges to be at the whim and mercy of our politically-motivated representatives in government, whose sole aim is merely to stay in power for the next three years. However, the “Independent Judges” principle only works as long as the judges are conducting themselves with dignity, fairness, humility, integrity, and freedom from corruption. And, frankly, that ain’t workin’ right now.

I believe that you can not have completely free judges in a democratic state, where the taxpayer pays for such excessive salaries and expenses – especially in times of recession. My personal experience, and from reading increasingly regular articles in the media, is that judges are far from perfect. And their behaviour is not improving. There are no checks and balances. There are no KPIs, no assigned objectives to meet, no feedback loop. That means, in the accountability debate, we need to place judges somewhere in the middle of the two extremes I described above.

The Judicial Conduct Commission is a start, but it is still “crumbs from the rich man’s table.” [Luke 16:19-31]. The Judicial Conduct Commissioner, Sir David Gascoigne, seems to lack the courage, will, or (this year, he says) “resources” to push his task to its assigned purpose – to bring accountability to the judiciary. Since its formation in August 2005, no judge has ever been officially or publicly impeached, cautioned, disciplined, sanctioned, dismissed or fired. As a result, poorly performing judges won’t change their behaviour – there is absolutely no reason or incentive. They will still be arrogant, contemptuous, excessive, or corrupt.

So, what can you do to bring more judicial accountability to the people?

• If you have had a court case and experienced judicial sarcasm, disdain, pre-determination, apathy or worse, submit a complaint to the JCC. Ensure the court audio recording is secured quickly, then keep asking for progress on your complaint.
• If you wish to submit a complaint against a judge, make sure you go EXACTLY through the process, or your case will be dismissed out-of-hand: www.jcc.govt.nz/PDF/JCC-booklet.pdf
• If you haven’t submitted a complaint, write to Sir David Gascoigne at judicialconduct@jcc.govt.nz. Ask him why the “unfinalised” cases from the year are merely rolled over to the next year. Ask him why no judge has ever been disciplined.
• Write to your MP and tell him what you’ve learnt. Ask your MP what they would intend to do about making judges more accountable to you, the taxpayer. Continue that dialogue and maintain the pressure.
• Write to Simon Power, our current Minister of Justice (Hah! There’s a contradiction in terms!). Ask him why he continually ignores the issues here and is doing nothing about it. Read this article:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2429188/Judges-go-under-microscope

Good luck, and God be with you.

COMPLAINTS AGAINST JUDGES ARE ON THE RISE

I note with interest this article 4 October 2010, “Complaints about judges rise.”

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4194630/Complaints-about-judges-rise

Now if you look at THIS article (12 October 2009), they look remarkably similar:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2956259/More-complaints-against-judges

In fact, you might think that the editor or journalist just has to pull out the previous year’s article and change the numbers. I am continually stunned, every year, by the fact that no journalist seems to ask the hard questions. Perhaps, and I don’t blame ‘em, they’re afraid.

With the increasing profile of his office, plus the increased questions about Judicial Accountability, the Judicial Conduct Commissioner (JCC), Sir David Gascoigne (pictured right), would appear to have the weight of a democratic nation on his shoulders. He tells us that "present resources are not adequate for the task in hand.” Hence, what is different about this year is that Sir David is asking for more money.

With the request for more “resources” now perhaps we’ll have some answers, because therein lies the obvious hard questions the country needs to ask him:

* What exactly is the Judicial Commissioner’s “task at hand”?
* What real outputs have come from the Office of the Judicial Commissioner since its formation, other than cases merely being dimissed out-of-hand?
* How many cases have been cleared?
* How many judges have been cautioned, disciplined, or (God forbid) fired?

If you go to court - and I encourage you to sit in the public gallery of any court room - you'll be surprised. You’ll be surprised at the time-wasting. You’ll be surprised by the inefficiencies. You’ll be surprised by some of the comments from the judge - which will NOT subsequently appear in the so-called transcript, “Notes of Evidence.” In the research for my complaint, I was flabbergasted by the sheer contempt of judges and the court system for its paymasters – us, the taxpaying public. There is an entire regime dedicated to NOT releasing information - in a supposedly free society. This regime of arrogance exists because not enough of us know that such contempt exists. It exists, because there are no apparent target outputs or key performance indicators for the judiciary or court system. In other words, this contempt exists because there is no accountability to the public.

Thankfully, our awareness is increasing, even though the formation of the Office of the Judicial Commissioner is still “crumbs off the rich man’s table” [Luke 16:19-31]. Unfortunately, the Judicial Commissioner uses that awareness as a reason for his increased workload – more complaints. Clearly, it can’t be that judges have done anything wrong, could it? So, again, the Judicial Commissioner will use that increased-workload as an excuse for not "clearing" any cases (such as disciplining any judge!)

Well, here are some facts relating to complaints against judges and the Office of the Judicial Commissioner:

* On 11 February 2010, Chris Finlayson MP, expressed that the JCC office “provides the public with a transparent and accessible judicial complaints process.”
* In making a formal complaint to the JCC, the complainant will not have access to the judge’s written reply prior to the JCC's decision, or to the audio recording of the court case which invariably generates the complaint.
* Court documents, including any audio recordings in court, do not come under the Official Information Act, and so can not be requested by the complainant as part of any research for a judicial complaint.
* The Ombudsmen (www.ombudsmen.parliament.nz) is a department that monitors and regulates government offices and departments. The JCC and judiciary do not come under the auspices of the Ombudsmen.
* Judges earn $360,000 (plus) per year, paid for by the government, and so by us.
* Retired High Court judge John Hansen calculated that each High Court judge costs taxpayers more than $630,000 a year.
* The number of complaints rises each year, and the number of “unfinalised” complaints rises each year, but no complaints have ever recorded as being “finalised,” other than being simply dismissed out-of-hand.
* Since its formation in August 2005, no judge has ever been officially or publicly impeached, cautioned, disciplined, sanctioned, dismissed or fired.

Think about that when you consider whether we live in a "free society." Do your research and make your own mind up.

THE NATURE OF COURAGE IN OUR SOCIETY

I had an insight into the nature of courage the other week.

I had a fracas with our local rugby club in June 2010, following the standing down of my son’s coach. I was so incensed by what I saw as the faceless, clumsy way it was handled, that I wrote a letter putting the matter into the public domain. The issue brought back all the toxicity around how the police and judiciary treated my family during our harassment case (see previous posts, below): people in authority making decisions, but not having to account for those decisions.

I wrote to the rugby club about what I saw as its faceless committee: making decisions without communicating with, or consulting with, the parents of our family-orientated rugby club. My 5-page email (yes, FIVE) opened a Pandora’s Box, because I copied-in all the respective parents.

There are many people in faceless committees and in authority who make decisons like this. There are many authority figures and bodies who make decisions for us and about us, but don’t want to front up to account for those decisions. They do not want to face those who are affected by the adverse effects of those decisions. Large call centres are a feature of this cowardice. Call centres are often set up by bad managers of bad companies who don’t want to talk to their disaffected customers.

Do these phrases below sound familiar to any of you? I had all three in the 40-minute telephone meeting with a representative from the Rugby Club:

• How often do we hear, “Well, I don’t want to get into specifics,” when the person you’re debating with realises the facts are not on his side?

• How often do we hear, “I’m not going to get into that,” when the person you’re debating with realises he’s losing the debate?

• How often do we hear, “I think we should just move on,” when the person you’re debating with realises he’s made a huge mistake and doesn’t want to be accountable for that mistake?

So many authority figures seem to lack courage to stand up to account. However, such people without courage aren’t necessarily cowards. Not one of the parents I’d copied in wrote a public reply. I thought I’d overstepped the mark, and I was going to have to be accountable for my email. Fair enough. So, I had to dig deep when I had to face those same parents. Beforehand, I had a fantasy conversation with the parents. In my head, I would say “Well, if you guys want to give me a hard time, take your shot.” Instead, the reality was that some of the parents were shaking my hand, congratulating me on having “the balls” to write the letter, and congratulating me on staying with the rugby club. I was truly humbled.

And here’s the part about courage.

Why didn’t any of those other parents write a letter, if I was so right to put pen to paper (well, fingers to keyboard, actually)? The reason is, because our society is DESIGNED to sap our courage. This suburban life we lead becomes so comfortable, that anything or anyone that threatens that comfort is a threat to our standard of living. Shouting about the wrong and standing up for what-is-right is less important than paying for the mortgage or keeping the job. Our entire economy is dependent on the masses (and I include suburbanites in that category) being good, compliant, worker ants.

As such, we are made to FEEL like ants. We often feel completely powerless when we have to deal with a conflict, or when we have to deal with someone in authority, or when we are victims of power abuse. We are pressured to comply. Often we are one ant in a hive of indifference, and our voices are diluted. Our so-called democracy works in exactly the same way – to dilute our collective voice. We are ants.

This is why, in conflict situations, our courage leaves us. It’s supposed to.

WHAT CAN WE DO WHEN WE FEEL WE HAVE BEEN WRONGED?

• Write a letter to the person who has wronged you. State your feelings and ask for a re-dress

• Write a letter to the BOSS of the person who has wronged you. State your feelings and ask for a re-dress. Copy other people involved.

• If you have been wronged by a company, write to the Managing Director personally. Find our his exact name, title and address.

• Write to your MP on the issue and ask for help

• Put the issue in to the public domain, so the person committing the wrong can’t hide.

• Contact the media and write to the newspapers.

• Set up a blog (Hah! Like this one!)

• Keep writing

Sometimes, little comes of it, and it’s a huge battle. However, the very act of writing is often a cathartic form of therapy. The process WILL strengthen you. And, you know, occasionally – just occasionally – you might get a result. When we all combine as a local, national or global community, we can find a little bit of courage and stop faceless figures in authority harming us.

LETTER TO SERGEANT GARY MANCH, NEW BRIGHTON POLICE

This is a letter we sent, complaining about the way our Community Constable handled our neighbourhood harasment case. The letter says it all, really. We met with Sergeant Manch for an hour. Nothing at all was resolved, settled, or acheived. Make your own mind up:

Sergeant Gary Manch
New Brighton Police Station
Christchurch

19 February 2010
Dear Sergeant,

Gardiner (Applicant) vs McEwen (Respondent) CIV-2008-009-002002

I spoke with Sergeant Phil Barker last week, and he suggested that I write to you, prior to your return. I wish to express my deep concern about the handling of our neighbour harassment case, by your community constable, Senior Constable Shane Thompson. I refer you to the above case and associated affidavits, and ask for your help.

Since June 2007, we have received intimidation and harassment from our neighbour, Ms Robyn McEwen of 21 Monterey Place, Parklands. Disturbingly, she incites her children to participate in the needle. This has spread to the harassment of the Oughtons at 23 Monterey Place. The nature of the harassment is largely verbal, though there have been two physical assaults and a near-miss of my son by Ms McEwen in her car. Whilst Ms McEwen has no police record, her actions make her a danger to the two families being harassed. Clearly, Ms McEwen is not well. Also, it is clear; she has never had to deal with the consequences of her issues in her life.

As Constable Thompson can confirm, when the respondent receives a shock, the intimidation ceases for a time. We went to court on 14 October 2008, determined to deliver such a shock, that we believed the harassment would end:
• securing a restraining order, criminalising further abuse
• securing punitive costs, bringing home the consequences of her actions
• securing a judgement that she seek help for her personal issues

So, Constable Thompson had the opportunity to bring a resolution to this case. Despite our pleas, he chose not to complete an affidavit or attend court at the part-hearing on 14 October 2008. This allowed the respondent to omit key facts and make some offensive counter-allegations. My wife, Karyn, (the Applicant) and I had another court appearance on 21 April 2009 - it took us that long to secure Judge Crosbie again for the continuance. Only after months of lobbying, did Constable Thompson complete a short, inadequate affidavit and reluctantly agree to attend court. However, the day before the appearance, he declared himself sick. As a result, Judge Crosbie used this as an excuse to wash his hands of the matter, vacate the court and effectively end our case (see the enclosed Minute). We have spent in excess of $16,000 of our own money trying to end this harassment, to no avail.

Frankly, I found the timing of Constable Thompson’s sickness a cynical coincidence. If I was in his position, knowing the distress that our family had suffered, it would have taken wild horses to stop me attending. If I was truly sick, I would have attended court in a wheelchair, if I had to.

Constable Thompson stated that his reason for not attending court was that he is the Community Constable, and he should not have a bias. We have never asked Constable Thompson for any bias or opinion in an affidavit. We have only ever asked for him to state facts and events in court, not give opinion. Indeed, it was Constable Thompson himself who suggested we seek a Harassment Order! At no time when Constable Thompson knew we were preparing the case, did he indicate that he could not (or would not) attend court. Indeed we were given a precedent (Irvine vs Edwards 1999 DCR 171) where the community constable gave evidence for the applicant. Whilst Constable Thompson did supply some case notes, there were key omissions which should have been in his Affidavit: We were denied that opportunity.

Constable Thompson’s handling of this case has left two families with very different perceptions of our police force. In these days of continuing public debate about confidence in our police, I would ask you to take note:

• One family feels bitter, let down and unprotected by the police.
• One family realises that it can conduct a pattern of harassment and intimidation with virtual impunity

I am told, continually, that I should let this matter lie. I’m told I should “let go” and “try to move on.” However, there is the part of me that feels so wronged, that I have to write a series of letters, including this one to you. What I’m asking for is:

• Change. If no-one flags this, then nothing changes for the better. For example, if Community Constables are obliged to testify to resolve a case (and prevent a crime!), then this will be a good thing.
• Accountability. There has been no accountability from the respondent or Constable Thompson for the distress and financial hardship we’ve suffered.
• Help. If Robyn McEwen hurts someone in our street, you and I both know that all the respective parties involved will run to protect themselves or shift blame. If that happens I wish it be known that I have documented this warning, should nothing be done to prevent a tragedy. I’m asking you to prevent a tragedy.

I look forward to your help and advice, and to meeting with you soon.

Yours sincerely,


Paul C Gardiner