67531 stories
·
3 followers

"There may be damage – serious damage – to public trust and confidence in the Police when the rot and corruption are present at such a high level."

1 Share
"The Rule of Law is one of the foundational principles of constitutional democracy. ... Its essence is that law—not individuals—governs the polity, and that all exercises of public power must be rooted in, constrained by, and accountable to the law. ... Public officials—from Ministers to constables—must act within and according to the legal powers Parliament or the Constitution grants.

"All individuals—from Prime Ministers to ordinary citizens—are equally subject to the law. ...

"The Rule of Law constrains Government power and ensures that majorities cannot act outside legal limits.

"It protects individual rights and freedoms. ...

"But the Rule of Law goes beyond the institutional realm. It operates through a culture of legality. It requires respect for legal norms by citizens and officials, habitual compliance by state actors, a commitment to constitutionalism, openness to scrutiny, and entrenched expectations of fair process. ... At the front line of the Rule of Law in our society are the Police and the Courts. Both rely on public trust and confidence for their continued legitimacy. ...

"Society expects the highest standards of its police officers from the constable on the beat to the Commissioner’s office in Wellington. And when those standards are not present there must be an almost automatic erosion of public confidence in the Police.

"Indeed the Police force has had its problems recently. A failure by Police to alert the Beehive when a press secretary’s phone was found at a brothel; more than 100 police recruits who had been allowed to start training despite failing fitness and language tests; that over the last 5 years a total of 159 serving police officers have been charged with crimes including serious family violence and sexual offending – none have been dismissed. In October 2025 it was revealed that more than 100 officers are under investigation for falsifying breath tests.

"And it is clear, from the McSkimming scandal, that the rot was at the highest level. ...

"[Quite] apart from the various other elements of cover-up and evasiveness on the part of the Police top brass there was their use of the Courts to prosecute a complainant and use Court processes to further the cover-up.

"There may be damage – serious damage – to public trust and confidence in the Police when the rot and corruption are present at such a high level. But in addition the activities of these officers challenges some fundamentals that underpin their independence and the Rule of Law.

"Like it or not another institution central to the Rule of Law that depends on public trust and confidence – the Courts – has become involved. ...

"Ultimately, public confidence depends on citizens seeing the courts and the Police as fair, impartial, and accessible - institutions that reflect their values while standing above politics and corruption.

"Without that faith the Police are no more than a paper tiger, distrusted and to be avoided in times of trouble.

"Without that faith, the judiciary’s moral authority—the only sword it wields—grows dangerously blunt.

"And in either case, the Rule of Law suffers."
~ Cranmer from his post 'Public Confidence and the Rule of Law'
Read the whole story
gangsterofboats
10 hours ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

How ‘Young Guns II’ Fueled Unlikely Western Revival

1 Share

Geoff Murphy’s “Young Guns II” (1990) is better than the film that came before it and has maintained such a favorable reception that reports of a much delayed “Young Guns III” in the works has longtime fans intrigued.

More importantly, let me be clear about this: “Young Guns II” is a great western and worthy of rediscovery for those who only remember it for a certain Jon Bon Jovi song (more on that later).

YouTube Video

An elderly “Brushy Bill” Roberts (Emilio Estevez, effectively hidden beneath tons of convincing make-up and sporting a workable “old man” voice) meets with an attorney (a young Bradley Whitford) in 1950 and reveals that he is actually Billy the Kid.

Despite history telling us that Pat Garrett killed Billy the Kid, “Brushy Bill” tells the tale in which we get the “real” story, which may or may not be true.

We flashback to 1879 and see that Billy the Kid (Estevez, wonderful and boisterous) is still on the run with his Regulators gang, which includes returning outlaws Doc Spurlock (Kiefer Sutherland) and Jose Chavez y Chavez (Lou Diamond Phillips).

The new Regulators include Hendry (Alan Ruck in an unfocused turn), “Arkansas” Dave Rudabaugh (Christian Slater, stealing scenes left and right), and the terminally boyish Tom O’Folliard (Balthazar Getty, right after his breakout turn in “Lord of the Flies”).

Also on Billy’s team is his longtime friend Pat Garrett (William Peterson, post- “To Live and Die in L.A.” and “Manhunter”), who eventually changes sides, accepts a ton of money, gets a haircut, dons a badge and seeks to either arrest or kill Billy.

How true is “Young Guns II” to history? Who cares? I know a few historians and schoolteachers who may be horrified by that but seriously, it’s the story of Billy the Kid. The mythmaking, revisionism and difficulty in separating the man from the legend has always been a problem.

For those who want the story told as “true” to history as possible, I highly recommend Michael Wallis’ absorbing “Billy the Kid: The Endless Ride,” which was published in 2007. You can also visit Salida, Colorado, where two buildings hold competing attractions: one old west museum has Billy the Kid’s grave, while the other displays his gun.

Both locations are great visits for history buffs and worth the drive.

As far as “Young Guns II” is concerned, the most important location attached to the film has to be Old Tucson Studios in Tucson, Arizona. I made a visit out there in 1993, a few days before I saw “Tombstone” (1993) on opening weekend and was stunned to see the distinct, rundown outdoor locations and buildings I saw were utilized for much of that film.

Likewise, when I revisited “Young Guns II,” I recognized so many locations as being sets that once stood in Old Tucson Studios. It’s a fitting connection, as “Young Guns II” may not have a firm grip on western history but is a potent example of the western film genre as a means of shaping legends and tall tales.

At one point in time, during the early years of cinema establishing itself as a new attraction, the two genres that were the most popular were musicals and westerns. It’s no wonder that everyone from Tom Mix to John Wayne became movie gods in the way they embodied a life of survival and discovery.

Estevez and his young Teen Beat Magazine-worthy co-stars were never in the same league as the likes of Wayne or Clint Eastwood. They didn’t have to be.

If “Young Guns” (1988) was about engaging a young teen audience with a very old genre (mission accomplished, as it was a sizable hit), then “Young Guns II” is about the nature of the Western as mythmaking, as well as an ensemble piece that allows the actors to let us in on the good time they’re clearly having.

Estevez’s best dramatic work is probably “The War at Home” (1996) or “The Breakfast Club” (1985) but his take on Billy the Kid, as exuberant and emotionally unstable, with an itchy trigger finger that goes off within seconds, is a pleasure to watch.

Sutherland and Phillips are also solid and intense in their returning roles, though Peterson’s terrific take on Garrett centers the film. There’s also a great single scene cameo from James Coburn, a nice reference to Coburn’s having played Garrett in “Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid” (1973).

Did Murphy think his film had a shot at competing with “Pat Garett and Billy the Kid,” let alone “High Noon” (1952) or “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly” (1966)? Of course not. However, film buffs who know their westerns will be quick to recall that the genre didn’t always cater to Oscar voters and cinephiles.

The genre is overloaded with rousing, middle of the road B-films that make up what they lack in budget or prestige with sheer showmanship. “Young Guns II” is a lot like that. To give it a big compliment, I’d say it’s every bit as engaging (though not quite as accomplished) as James Mangold’s “3:10 to Yuma” (2007).

YouTube Video

A word about Jon Bon Jovi’s Oscar-nominated, Golden Globe winning, ubiquitous #1 hit single “Blaze of Glory”: it includes the lyrics “Lord I never drew first, but I drew first blood, I’m a devil’s son, call me young gun.” It’s not poetry and neither is “Young Guns II” but Bon Jovi clearly understands this story and relishes the chance to spin the tale of Billy the Kid as much as Murphy and Estevez.

“Young Guns II” is not pretentious or perfect (it actually could have benefitted from, of all things, being a little longer) but it gets so much right about the power of creating and maintaining a legend. It doesn’t matter if “Brushy Bill” Roberts really was Billy the Kid or not.

It makes for a great story.

Murphy’s film sports grand cinematography by “Mad Max” vet Dean Semler, a thrilling score by Alan Silvestri and enough great scenes to make up for the portions that are just okay. The knife fight between Slater and Phillips is really something, as are the final moments with Sutherland and Phillips.

“Young Guns” (not a bad movie but smaller and far less engrossing than this one) and “Young Guns II” deserve credit for helping keep westerns (so-called “horse operas”) alive. Clint Eastwood’s “Unforgiven” (1992) and George P. Cosmatos’ “Tombstone” (1993) get all the credit for revitalizing Westerns in the 1990s.

Billy the Kid and his Regulators got there first.

The post How ‘Young Guns II’ Fueled Unlikely Western Revival appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Read the whole story
gangsterofboats
10 hours ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

Why Food Stamp Recipients (and Government Contractors) Should not Be Allowed to Vote

1 Share
If the voting taxpayers (those who actually pay the bills) are outnumbered or outcompeted by the tax receivers, then national bankruptcy is the most likely outcome.
Read the whole story
gangsterofboats
19 hours ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

Why Food Stamp Recipients (and Government Contractors) Should not be Voting

1 Share
If the voting taxpayers (specifically, those who actually pay the bills) are outnumbered or outcompeted by the tax receivers, then national bankruptcy is the likely outcome.
Read the whole story
gangsterofboats
19 hours ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

Did Virginia's Huge Population of Federal Bureaucrats Swing the Election to Spanberger?

1 Share
It stands to reason that federal employees (i.e., federal bureaucrats) are likely to vote in favor of expanding federal spending on the bureaucracy.
Read the whole story
gangsterofboats
19 hours ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

The Cut That Spoke Volumes: The BBC’s Edit and Trump’s Response

1 Share


Read the whole story
gangsterofboats
19 hours ago
reply
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories