In his column (Chronicle, June 7) Rob Rattenbury supports police surveillance of the community, minimizing race as a factor in such actions.
He put a lot of emphasis defending the police for photographing people on the basis that it's legal for ordinary people to take pictures of others so police should be able to do it, too.
Rob felt the need to repeat those four times in his column. He did include his opinion that people who objected or questioned this behaviour were being "precious". What he seems to have omitted are a few facts.
This newspaper reported recently (March 10) that police stopped two boys 13, and 14 standing outside a shop where their koro was inside, and accused them of theft, asked their details and proceeded to photograph them in the absence of their elder and without that responsible adult present to give permission.
What's precious is the ability of the boys to trust the police. The boys who happen to be Māori, reportedly were quite traumatized by the experience and lost some of that trust.
Maybe as Rob says, it's OK and legal for people to take pictures of people on their cell phones. Usually, they would need permission.
I'm not convinced though that anyone, police or not is entitled under law to accuse, interrogate and photographer minor children without suitable permission.
Maybe Mr. Rattenbury knows of a law that makes it OK but I wonder whether he'd be alright with it if it had been his mokopuna who were treated that way.
St Johns Hill
Be bold, council
Yet another of your correspondents hits the nail right on the head. Ross Fallen has a cogent analogy for those council doubters; the success of the Upokongaro Bridge.
I bet no consultant predicted it, no councillor imagined it and I am sure some probably still cannot believe it.
Therein may lie some of the reasons they voted so negatively for the velodrome roof proposal. But it is not yet over and a full council needs to confirm that thoughtless decision.
Will some of our elected representatives show more courage, accede to the wishes of the majority of plan submitters and demonstrate boldness and vision for a change?
Say no to velo roof
If the pro [velodrome] roof mob had spent energy engaging with the public, ratepayers or sportspeople at any time in the past to encourage use and support for their precious wooden track and sports centre then I might think there is some weight to their appeal to dip their hands into the public trough, however they have not...
I support the Whanganui District Council's stand against this proposed monstrous use of ratepayers' money. I watch dozens and dozens of footballers, netballers, rowers, cricketers, rugby players – and many other sports - getting along quite well without thought of a $20 million arena for their sports.
Imagine the outcry if the footballers at Wembley Park came cap in hand for a $20 million grandstand and training facility. The proposal would clearly be seen as laughable and extravagant. This "roof it" proposal is a worse use of public money for far fewer participants.
I believe the WDC promised too much already in potentially repairing the track. With pathetically few riders using the track and no track record of engagement with the community, and clearly a weak business case for a new arena, even handing over money for demolition is a rich gift.