Scipione wants proof of drugs corruption

[grace]

Scipione wants proof of drugs corruption

 

May 6, 2008 - 5:28PM

 

 

The head of a Sydney drug and alcohol clinic must back up his claims that corrupt police are selling cannabis, NSW's police chief says.

 

St Vincent's Hospital drug and alcohol service director Alex Wodak says criminals and corrupt police control the cannabis market.

 

Dr Wodak argues cannabis should be legalised and distributed by the government, which would then be able to reap the resulting tax revenue.

 

"What's so good about criminals and corrupt police that you'd want them to have a virtual monopoly of cannabis distribution," he said on ABC Radio on Tuesday.

 

NSW Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione said Dr Wodak had an obligation to provide any knowledge of corrupt police activity to the relevant authorities.

 

"I am deeply concerned Dr Wodak's comments have unfairly smeared all police who work hard to uphold the law," he said.

 

"That is not right."

 

Mr Scipione said he had ordered his assistant commissioner responsible for professional standards to contact Dr Wodak regarding the allegations.

 

He said he had also approached the head of the Police Integrity Commission about the issue.

 

"If there is something rotten that needs to be dealt with, if you give me a sniff I'll put every resource I've got to go after them," Mr Scipione said.

 

Mr Scipione said he had discussed the allegations with NSW Health Department director general Professor Debora Picone, who also urged Dr Wodak to release any evidence he had.

 

Dr Wodak told Macquarie Radio he admired the work of the great majority of police.

 

But evidence of police corruption was well documented by various royal commissions, he said.

 

"Whether we like it or not ... the corruption in the police force connects with the enforcement of drug laws," Dr Wodak said.

 

"It's a minority problem, but it's a serious problem and we've got to deal with it."

 

Police were committed to fighting the illegal cannabis trade, Mr Scipione said.

 

He said 2007 crime statistics recorded 12,250 charges of cannabis use or possession, 441 charges of trafficking the drug and 1,082 charges of cultivation.

 

Mr Wodak made his original comments after presenting a model for the taxation and sale of cannabis at post offices at the weekend's Mardi Grass festival in Nimbin, in northern NSW.

 

Mr Scipione said his views on cannabis differed from those of the doctor and branded the drug as dangerous.

 

© 2008 AAP

Brought to you by

 

<http://news.smh.com.au/scipione-wants-proof-of-drugs-corruption/20080506-2bjp.html>

[RobbieGanjaSeed]

He wants EVIDENCE? what the fark??

How about each and every royal commision into government corruption this country has spent millions on, in each state?/ Why bother paying all these QCs and investigators to make royal enquiries, if the evidence is so completely dismissed?

 

In another state, Queensland, Fitzgerald made a huge deal of how police corruption will never be controlled until marijuana is decriminalised. Why would an imaginary border line at tweed heads change that? He (QC fitzgerald) made hundreds of reccomendations including the two most controversial, being legalising prostitution..not for the sake of prostitutes, but to stop police control of it, and the decriminalisation of pot, for exactly the same reason.

 

He made the decrim of pot the highest on his agenda, and yet 20 years after the fact in that state at least, the up tight population of queensland who one would have thought would never have accpeted prostitution in their suburbs have legal brothels. And the emergency type status Fitzgerald put on decriminalising pot to stop police and governement corruption has gone ignored, indeed, they have done the opposite to his reccomendations in regards to grass.

 

I know Nifty Nev has had the similar recccomendations made when they investigated his police for in the late 80s, or was it the 90s? and again in Victoria under QC Pilkington.

 

Police in Mullumbimby had the lockup filled to overflowing with large mature dope plants. It made huge news that night, a friday night. Come Monday morning, the evidence was gone, "stolen" from the lockup at the police station, while manned 24 hours a day during the time for the very reason they had so much dope in the shop! Reporters used graphic illustrations to show the plants had to be carried out through the corridors past the main desk and that a large van, bordering on a trusk, maybe apantec had to be used to move so many plants if it was done in one hit. Of course in spite of the dare-devil type raid by these theives, no trace of the dope or perpetrators was even uncovered..

 

How much fucking evidence does the prick want?

 

rob

[Rose Gardener]

This reminds me of a tale Mr told me when he got home Tuesday just gone.

 

Apparently one of the people he worked with on his trip north owns a very large block of land.

The owner and family were clearing a big patch of sugar cane on this block recently when they discovered a crop of 60 plants in the middle of the cane patch.

The owner and family didn't know what to do, and since it was on their land they got worried and called the local police.

The appropriate drug 'authorities' came out and cleared the crop.

 

Now, the owner of the land and the family had carefully counted the number of plants and had come up with a count of 60.

 

On the police report, or whatever it was, the "official" count was only 45.

 

You can not tell me that a group of adults can miscount by that much!

 

There are crooked cops a plenty out there I tell you!

 

~Rose.

[RobbieGanjaSeed]

Yep Rose I'm sure they would have counted right the first time. It would have been very significant to them and they would have been careful. I've heard a similar story involving a guy who had his car pinched with a pound in the back. When it was recovered a few weeks later by the police they charged him for an ounce. You'd reckon the decent thing to do would have been to at least taken the fuckin lot and not charged him at all. That's the in-equality in all this that really bites hey.

 

Two chicks I know were hicht-hiking back home to bruns from Mullumbimby, and the cops stopped to pick them up. One of the girls (they are sisters) is a real rebel rouser, and the other is fairly sedate..but seeing as they were late on a fairly empty road they took the lift. They hopped in the back of the 4 wheel drive and in the course of the trip they realised the floor was littered with grass. I can't recall if it was fresh or dry. Anyway, the one sis started to fill her bag as sly as she could, until the cops caught her. They laghed and told her to help themselves.

 

the rebel rouser girl (my fave of the two) let fly at them. Calling them for the hypocrites they are, busting some poor sod and ruining their life, and with the very same gear trying to curry favour with two nice looking girls.

 

In the end they wound up with their hand bags chockas, and the cops nursing a headache.

 

Both these stories happened in NSW. The bastard want more evidences?

 

cheers

rob

 

Ps Rose, just out of interest was the incident you speak of in NSW?

[Rose Gardener]

Yeah. It's fucking hypocritical alright!

 

It makes me sick to my stomach!

 

The extroverted sister sounds like she gave them what for too! Good one her!

 

To put it bluntly, this Scipione fella really needs to wake the fuck up!

 

~Rose.

[grace]

In 1996 there were 200 serving police officers with criminal records not to mention all the Royal Commissions. Maybe the New South Wales Police Force has cleaned up since then. I do agree there are plenty of good police who are fair and many who use drug themselves or have kids using drugs but having a go at Dr Wodak was a bit out of order.

 

Parliament of New South Wales - Hansard - Legislative Assembly 5 June 1996

 

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parl...y/LA19960605011

 

Police Discipline

 

Speakers - Crittenden Mr Paul; Whelan Mr Paul

Business - Questions Without Notice

 

POLICE DISCIPLINE

 

Mr CRITTENDEN: Could the Minister for Police advice the House of the difficulties within the police disciplinary system and the means of addressing those difficulties?

 

Mr WHELAN: As honourable members would be aware, last night I reintroduced the Police Integrity Commission Bill and the Police Legislation Amendment Bill, after extensive consultation. Now that the bills are before the House we must turn our minds to other outstanding issues - in particular the police disciplinary system. It has been clear for years that the police disciplinary system is in need of a major overhaul. No-one should forget the notorious "Chook" Fowler, who beat the system on 13 separate occasions and was still a serving officer when exposed by the royal commission.

 

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Northcott to order.

 

Mr WHELAN: No-one should forget the infamous Trevor Haken. And, of course, no-one should forget the central coast detective Wayne Eade, who was exposed by the royal commission as a drug and vice king. The rumblings about the police disciplinary system are not new. It is sad to note that in June 1994 the Ministry for Police prepared a draft discussion paper about reform for a coalition Cabinet subcommittee. But the coalition - those opposite - failed to act to remove police who were convicted of serious crimes. Currently, department charges can be laid against any officer who breaches discipline or is criminally prosecuted for an offence. But the procedures are protracted, complex and inefficient and they differ from the procedures that apply to all other public servants.

 

Mr Hartcher: On a point of order. I have listened to the Minister's answer and I now raise a point of order under Standing Order 137(5), which relates to questions anticipating discussion upon an order of the day. The two bills to which the Minister has referred have been introduced, they are on the notice paper, they relate to police integrity and police discipline and they are now at the second reading stage. The Minister for Police is anticipating the debate on those bills.

 

Mr WHELAN: On the point of order. The question asked about difficulties within the police disciplinary system. It does not relate to the bills. The honourable member for Wyong is entitled to ask the question, and I submit that there is no point of order.

 

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.

 

Mr WHELAN: As at 20 May 1996 more than 200 serving sworn police have recorded entries for convictions in the criminal histories system - some dating back to 1968. More than half of the convictions relate to alcohol, personal drug use and traffic offences. But the rest relate to more serious crimes such as stealing; false pretences; assault occasioning actual bodily harm; larceny; malicious damage; break, enter and steal; sex offences; possession of explosives; drug dealing; conspiracy to pervert the course of justice; and malicious injury. I should make two points clear. As the Premier and I have said on many occasions, the Government believes that the vast majority of police are hard working and honest, and that corrupt police are in the minority.

 

Police officers are like any other group in our community: they have human foibles and failings. But there are too many police with serious criminal convictions still serving in the Police Service. I am pleased to advise that the Government has already turned its mind to this very difficult issue. It has been working with the Police Association, the Labor Council and the Department of Health in relation to drug and alcohol abuse within the Police Service. A working party chaired by my parliamentary secretary, the honourable member for Bulli, has prepared a draft random drug and alcohol testing policy. After final agreement is reached, I will introduce legislation in this regard. I can also advise the House that the Police Service policy on recruitment of applicants was reviewed last year. The policy is uncompromising in relation to applicants with criminal records. It says that applicants for police employment with adult criminal records will be rejected. Applicants with serious traffic records will not normally be acceptable. Applications from persons subject to current apprehended violence orders will be rejected.

 

Mr Jeffery: On a point of order. The Minister is now announcing Government policy. He should be making a ministerial statement.

 

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.

 

Mr WHELAN: The community has a right to expect the highest possible standards from its police. If you are a crook, do not bother applying for a job in the New South Wales Police Service. But the problem remains: what do we do with police within the service who have serious criminal records? The Government, unlike the coalition, will not ignore the problems in the system. The ministry paper, as I mentioned earlier, recommends a complete overhaul of the disciplinary system and its replacement with a revised system. The royal commissioner described the existing system as "complex and convoluted" and the number of dismissed police who have been reinstated following appeals to the Government and Related Employee Appeal Tribunal was highlighted by him as of "concern". His Honour said the disciplinary system needs to be "addressed" but the commission "wishes

Page 2560

to examine the disciplinary process further, and make recommendations in its Final Report". To ensure that we are ready on this important issue, I will be asking the industry consultation group to make the future disciplinary system a priority. The Carr Government will be ready to move as soon as the royal commissioner indicates his preferred approach.

 

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Davidson to order for the second time.

 

Mr WHELAN: Finally, the onus is now on Opposition members, the people who said in 1994 that there was no need for a royal commission. They have to decide whether to support the Government in its determination to get rid of crooks in the New South Wales Police Service. They must now vote for the Police Integrity Commission Bill and the Police Legislation Amendment Bill to ensure that corrupt police are fast-tracked out of the New South Wales Police Service.

 

Last modified 05/12/2007 16:33:48 : Update this page

[bufo marinus]

hehe good shit

Out of all the outstanding points Dr Wodak raised, the only one his detractors want to highlight is this crap about corrupt pigs.

This makes it easier to ridicule him, in their eyes

I think the Dr scares the prohibitionists with his common sense

 

Let's see now, what stories I remember about the pigs and drugs...

One time I got raided the biggest and best plant never made it into the 'official count', it needed to go back to Brisbane to be analysed as they suspected the plant was being fed Heroin!

I am not lying! That is what the head of the drug squad said to my face! before he loaded it into the boot of his fricken car lmao!!

 

Another time, and this is going back a few years now, but a friend ended up (one of those weird situations where strange shit happens) waiting in a car while the 2 guys he found himself with did a deal for $120 000 worth of buds. While he was waiting his cigarette lighter stopped working so he started rumaging around under the seat and found a wallet with police ID in it!

 

A well known D in Toowoomba, grew up at Ravensbourne, where a lot of pot is grown, was a link between dealers in that city/area. He even had the hide to give a friend his police business card!

[sunnycoaststoner]

another story, friend of mine years ago, busted for a big outdoor crop, goes to court and is read the charges. friend says to solicitor that the weight is not right, was charged for 2 pounds. but should have been more in the vacinity of 20 or 30 pounds. solicitor puts this to the court and and asks to see the seizure report, a few calculations later and the magistrate is starting to ask the police questions. friend openly admits to 20 or 30 pound and asks where it is? anyway magistrate gets the shits that police cant answer questions and throws case out of court.

[Indycar]

Not a fan of Dr Wodak myself, going by what i've seen so far. He's prepared to trade off some stoner rights in return to look for some leniency towards the current laws.

 

I'm yet to look into it more, but i have a feeling he may have possibly had a hand in demonizing hydro, a few years back. The "green heroin" thing, resembles his style.

 

All speculation at this stage, on my behalf.

Edited May 10, 2008 by Indycar

[freddie]

Not a fan of Dr Wodak myself, going by what i've seen so far. He's prepared to trade off some stoner rights in return to look for some leniency towards the current laws.

 

What stoner rights? It is illegal. We have no stoner rights.

 

I'm yet to look into it more, but i have a feeling he may have possibly had a hand in demonizing hydro, a few years back. The "green heroin" thing, resembles his style.

 

Dunno. I think that was HEMP (Balderstone e.t.c.). nOt sure if Wodak has anything to do with them or not.

 

Personally I can't see anything wrong with Wodaks plan. He has no problems with people growing their own which I think was your argument against him in another thread. It'll never happen anyway. I think he just wants to generate some debate.