The NZ Herald is fast gaining a reputation for the media outlet that protects the interests of bludgers, ratbags, crooks and scumbags.
Today their editorial minimises the criminal political conspiracy to hack and then attempt to pervert an election as a mere theft.
I wonder if they are minimising because they are complicit in the crimes committed against me and my friends?
On one level the police search of author Nicky Hager’s home and their seizure of his electronic files can be argued as standard measures in a criminal investigation. A complaint of theft had been made and Hager had been identified as the eventual user of the stolen material. The missing information was email and social media data and therefore Hager’s computers and devices could be suspected of holding it.
They are wrong right there. I did not lay a “complaint of theft”, and to my knowledge the Police have not identified the charge or charges they intend to lay, but I will bet a million dollars that it will not be a charge of theft.
But the editorial continues to minimise the crime by constantly referring to “theft”.
Yet the case, with the police actions and the ensuing battle to prevent officers examining the material, are far from straightforward. In response to a complaint of theft – common old theft – five police officers spent the best part of a day searching the Hager home and taking away everything from computers to an iPod. Not because Hager was considered a “suspect” but because he could be a “witness” to the crime.
It is not a complaint of theft. Why are the Herald minimising this crime? Their other pages are full of celebrities having their phones and computers hacked and nude photos published, that is a crime to the Herald, but a raid on my intellectual property by criminal means is just a simple theft?
And again they call it theft.
If every theft complaint made to police resulted in this kind of response, searches under warrants of houses and businesses would be constant and not much else would be achieved by our constabulary.