|
Allegations of Abuse by
NZ Police |
|
|
peterellis
Home / police allegations / Rickards,
Shipton, Schollum vs Jane Doe Page 7 - Further Reaction to Not
Guilty Verdict |
|
|
I was at a funeral recently for a
man I knew only slightly. We had said hello to each other every Sunday at
church. He was tall, with kind eyes that hinted at a humorous disposition and
I sensed, rather than knew, that he was a good man. It was only after he died, from
cancer, that I found out what kind of person he was. He had been, among other
things, a policeman, a faithful and devoted husband, an adored grandfather
and father, and a good friend and neighbour. My daughter and I were pleased to
have our good opinion confirmed. You can tell a good person, I'd told her, by
the people around them - good people rub off on others and attract others of
the same ilk. She replied, in her typically
knowing teenage way, that good people stand out on their own account. Strange how we almost always agree
on whom to confer goodness, despite the generation gap. According to us, a good person
can't just be someone who hasn't broken any laws, or lived a blameless life.
There must be active goodness at play, a shining sense of decency and
humanity. I think of my father as the model
of a good man. Not just because he was devoted to the same woman for nearly
50 years, but because he took on responsibility for other people's children
as well as his own, because he was humble, honourable, dignified and
principled. And because he was prepared to stand up for his principles when
it counted. Many years ago, when he was
fighting a seemingly hopeless legal battle, my father's young lawyer
explained why he was working so hard for my father - because my father was a
good man, he said, as if that settled everything. My father's refusal, as
treasurer of his church, to accept the minister's misuse of church funds,
resulted in a bitter split and a lengthy legal battle. My father won. And after the court
awarded him the church assets he gave half to the parishioners who had
followed him, and half to those who had made his life hell. Good and bad, moral and immoral -
these are unfashionable concepts in today's "anything goes as long as it
feels good" society. We like to think the lines have been blurred to the
point where nothing is ever really bad or good on its own. As long as it's
legal, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. Why then is there such a visceral
reaction to the idea of Clint Rickards getting his job back as If the man has been convicted of
no crimes, if his sexual proclivities didn't prevent Police Commissioner Rob
Robinson from promoting him before, why should they prevent him returning to
his job now? A Herald reader says it isn't
necessary for a police officer to be morally virtuous to properly fulfil his
duties. So what has morality got to do with this? More than we like to admit.
Rickards' actions fall below a level of decency that I think most New
Zealanders still expect from its police force. By decency, I don't mean the
type of sex Rickards and his colleagues indulged in, but their behaviour and
attitude towards vulnerable young women. Rickards says he regrets it, that
he is deeply ashamed - although he appears to say this without a hint of
shame or regret. His justification is that it was
the usual infidelity, the natural behaviour of a tomcat, and that he can tell
the difference between rape and consensual sex. But this wasn't sex between
equals. Louise Nicholas was a mixed-up teenager. Rickards and his mates Brad
Shipton and Robert Schollum were the ones with all the power. Former assistant commissioner
Bruce Scott, who investigated Nicholas' 1995 allegations, described the
behaviour of Rickards, Shipton and Schollum as "disgraceful and
unacceptable", that they had used their position as police officers to
"take advantage of a promiscuous young lady". At the 2005 sentencing for the
1989 Mt Maunganui abduction and rape of a 20-year-old woman, Justice Ron
Young described Shipton and Schollum as corrupt police officers whose
arrogance knew no bounds, who had treated their victim like a piece of meat,
and who had seriously abused their power as police officers. Rickards wasn't involved in that
crime, but his outspoken support of his mates - despite compelling evidence
of their guilt at Mt Maunganui - settles the question for me. By many accounts, Rickards was a highly
effective police officer. But his blurring of the line between right and
wrong suggests he was never a good one. |
