Paul Little: Stubborn police stance lets hurt fester

Police have damaged their relationship with Tuhoe. Photo / Alan Gibson

Charges have been dropped against 13 of the 17 defendants arrested in the so-called "terror raids" of Operation 8 back in October 2007. After years spent with charges hanging over them, these people now receive a tacit admission that the charges had been baseless.

Yet, the defendants spent time in jail. They lived under the stress of prosecution when they were innocent. People of modest means, they incurred huge debts trying to clear their names. Opposing them, the Crown has been hell-bent not on seeing justice done but on proving itself right. It has fought against this outcome every step of the way, notably in its efforts to get around normal judicial processes and have the case heard by a judge alone.

The only terror connected with all this is that felt by the victims of the dawn raids by armed police at Ruatoki and elsewhere four years ago.

Everyone makes mistakes. When those mistakes come to light there is an accepted procedure to follow - it's called apologising.

This will not be happening. The Police Minister knee-jerked into action immediately. "We are not apologising for the work of New Zealand police," said Judith Collins. My coppers, right or wrong.

Previous police commissioner Howard Broad said last year that if an apology proved to be necessary in this matter then an apology would happen. Mr Broad was on the way out and knew there was no way he would be called on to carry out that promise. His successor, Peter Marshall, has said no apology is necessary because the charges had been laid in good faith. They were also laid in error.

Financial compensation, if any, is a long way down the track. An apology can be made now. If the former defendants get no apology, what will they get? A Lotto ticket?

For Tuhoe, at the centre of the raids, there is now another affront to add to the legitimate litany of complaints they have amassed over the years. Marshall has acknowledged the raids damaged the relationship between Tuhoe and police. He must also know there is a simple act that would begin to repair that relationship. He must apologise.

SHAKESPEARE IN SCHOOLS

There's no way of knowing what Shakespeare would think about his work being taught in schools. But we do know he wouldn't have used a 400-year-old language to tell us.

Shakespeare's English looked forwards, not back. He was an inventor of words and reformer of language bar none. He was the most contemporary of writers, in his time.

Alarms were sounded this week when it was reported that teaching his plays in schools would be a matter of choice for teachers from next year. The anti-PC alarmists have taken this to mean Shakespeare is banned from the classroom. He is not. He is optional.

It's hard to know what those who wish to see Shakespeare forced on school children really want. If it's to instil a love of language and an appreciation of poetry then any number of writers can be pressed into service. Shakespeare is part of our heritage but so too are his contemporaries: Christopher Marlowe, who wrote of the face that launched a thousand ships, or Ben Jonson or many others who've been relegated to the attic of literature. Anyone who is likely to love Shakespeare will discover him without any help if their teachers have inspired them with a love of language.

But many more people have been turned off by mediocre teachers attempting to persuade them they should like it because it's good for them - like verbal Brussels sprouts.

We would do Shakespeare's legacy a great kindness by rescuing it from the clutches of those teachers.

Instead of believing the myth of slipping standards, as though only Shakespeare can keep the barbarians from the gates, let's concentrate on teaching our children that the English language is one of the glories of life; something to be treasured, that we are privileged to have.

HAPPY FEET HAPPY DAYS

Knock knock.

Who's there?

Happy Feet.

Happy Feet who?

See, you've forgotten already.