Home > Issues > Policing > Police Culture and Anti-Male Bias Straight from the Pig's Mouth (Book Review)

The Black Ribbon Campaign

Empowering Men:

fighting feminist lies

Police Culture and Anti-Male Bias Straight from the Pig's Mouth (Book Review)

Peter Zohrab 2018

Home Page Articles about Issues 1000 links
alt.mens-rights FAQ Sex, Lies & Feminism Quotations
Male-Friendly Lawyers, Psychologists & Paralegals Email us ! Site-map


Chivalry and Anti-Male Sexism

False Allegations

Sexual Harassment and Rudeness

Police Intelligence and Over-Confidence

Domestic Violence



As I state on my webpage "A Woman's False Allegation Straight from the Pig’s Mouth", I recommend the book by Al Lester, "Straight from the Pig’s Mouth: The Life and Crimes of a Kiwi Detective". New Zealand: Penguin, 2018, which is the memoirs of a New Zealand police officer. Those people (mainly men) who are the victims of irrational behaviour by the Police, lawyers and/or Judges are likely, I believe, to want to have an insight into the workings of the minds of such people, so that they can try to improve their behaviour and make it more rational and fair. I have a Law degree, so I not only know something about the Law but I have also experienced the traumatic lunacy of Law School, which explains a lot. The above book has now also vastly increased my understanding of the mentality of the average Police officer. It is not a pretty picture!


  1. Chivalry and Anti-Male Sexism

(a) As I mentioned on my webpage "A Woman's False Allegation Straight from the Pig’s Mouth," this book, on pages 75-81, recounts the case of a woman who had stabbed herself in order to get the Police to charge her male ex-flatmate with wounding her. She was not charged with any crime, but was treated as a sick person. Compare that with the way men are treated who are heartbroken when they are rejected by a woman and are then violent towards her. The Police always treat these men very severely, as far as I am aware. They don't rush to declare them sick so that the Court has no chance to evaluate them! There is a big difference between a decision by Police not to charge someone and an acquittal in court on mental health grounds. This is about the anti-male sexism of the Police. Never let it be said that I have claimed that Clinical Psychologists, Psychiatrists, Lawyers or Judges are competent or know what they are doing, but at least they make their decisions together and in a relatively transparent way. If the Police do not even bring a woman before the courts, then Justice has no chance to run its course. The man involved was very lucky to have had a provable alibi -- otherwise he could have been in jail for a long time, with his reputation and life ruined.

It is noteworthy that two relatively independent detectives were involved in the above case, one (the author) interviewing the woman and the other (from a different police station) interviewing the alleged perpetrator. At first, each man believed that the person whom he had himself interviewed was telling the truth and the two detectives had a bit of an argument about it. It seems to me that, if the author had been working alone, or in charge of his own team from his own police station, the woman would have been believed and the man would have been charged with attempting to murder her.

(b) This next case (pages 97-100) was similar, in that it involved a female liar and two different sets of male investigators. The author was called to investigate a suspicious house fire, where male firefighters (i.e. firemen) were already present and the fire was out. The author states the following about the female co-owner of the house:

The lady was wearing a very form-fitting pair of jean shorts, a tight singlet that highlighted her athletic physique and an exposed, coloured bra. It seemed to me that the woman was receiving as much attention as was the fire.

The senior firefighter said that the fire was no longer deemed to be suspicious and that the Police were no longer needed. Nevertheless, the Police had a look at the room where the fire had been and formed the conclusion that the fire was indeed suspicious, but dropped the case because it was the firefighters who were in charge. Some weeks later, the house burned to the ground and the woman eventually admitted starting both fires for insurance purposes. In this case, the chivalrous firemen prevented the woman with being charged with the first arson, but the Police were able to take a more objective view of her, because they were sexual rivals (as it were) of the firemen. If the Police had been the first on the scene, they might have been just as chivalrous as the firemen were in this case.

(c) The next case (pages 130-134) that I want to mention is about Police interrogation/interview techniques and Police self-confidence and sexist bullying and manipulation. The book's author was asked by the then watch-house Senior Sergeant, Dave, to get a woman to change her admission of receiving stolen goods and to get her boyfriend, a senior gang member, to admit that the stolen goods were his. At issue was not a charge of theft, but only of receiving goods that had already been stolen.

"The occupant of the address, Jean, is in the cells and has admitted to receiving all of the stolen property. Jean also says that the pistol and ammunition are hers," Dave told me. "However, she's lying -- none of it is hers."

The author first spoke to Jean and got her to retract her admission of guilt.

.. after a lengthy chat where we talked about her future and where her life was headed, she reassessed her options, and admitted that none of the stolen items were hers. She told me that if she didn't take the blame on behalf of Grim, she would get a beating from him. I didn't know if this would actually happen or not, but Jean looked scared.

Then the author persuaded the gang-member boyfriend to take responsibility for receiving the stolen goods, by saying such things as the following:

You're a bloody unmanly, cowardly sook who hides under a woman's skirt, that's who you are. Call yourself a gang member? You must be bloody kidding me. It's unbelievable that any gang would allow a cowardly soft arse like you in.

I think it's outrageous for the Police to be telling a gang member what the correct behaviour for a gang member is! That makes the Police look like a gang! In fact, I have called the Police "women's thugs" to their face, because that is what they are!

Jean was the occupant of the address where the goods were found. Her boyfriend admitted knowing about them, but Jean knew about them too. The primary motivation for the Police behaviour here appears to be chivalry and the fact that the boyfriend would get a heavier sentence for the crime than she would, because he presumably had previous convictions, whereas Jean perhaps had few or no previous convictions.

Jean was the girlfriend of a gang member and was knowingly wholly or partially living on the proceeds of crime. Why should the taxpayer-funded Police be looking to devote energy to exonerating such women? I have an anecdote of my own: In 2018 I went twice to the Palmerston North District Court with respect to a Disputes Tribunal claim that I wanted to lodge. On the former of those occasions, not only was I spoken to rudely by the White female behind the counter, but there were three intoxicated, over-weight, middle-aged Maori women sitting in the District Court office DRINKING BEER! I overheard one of them say that they had come from Gisborne and then one of them addressed me as "Darling" and was obviously trying to pick me up as a date! There is obviously a Maori subculture in which women want to pick up men who are in trouble with the Law -- because, otherwise, why would out-of-town women go to a courthouse to pick up men!? Such women know exactly what they are doing and should not be seen as victims by the Police or anyone else.

(d) The fourth example of Police chivalry (pages 237-240) is also another case of a false allegation made by a female. She was a student and claimed that she had been raped by a taxi driver, so as to get an aegrotat for a university examination that she was afraid she would fail. However, her story was full of holes and did not match other evidence, so the Police got her to confess to having lied. Again, the woman was not charged but was referred to counselling. Moreover, the author states:

I have no desire to identify or embarrass the woman involved in this story so have changed her name.

(e) Compare the above case to that of a man (pages 178-181) who made a false complaint of rape in order to cover up the fact that he himself had put a carrot up his rectum and found that he needed help to get it out again. In this case, the author gives the man's name and the general area in which he lived and does not mention whether or not he was charged with making a false complaint. What is involved here is clearly anti-male double standards by the Police.

(f) On page 35, the author states that the Police cannot be offended by bad language, according to the Courts. Talking about a specific incident, the author says:

Had there been an old lady listening she could have felt offended and we could have arrested the youth, but apparently police officers cannot be offended.

This is yet another example of anti-male sexism and chivalry in policing. According to the author, I -- as a mere male -- could not legally be offended by bad language.

(g) In section 5 (below) I refer to how the author said in a radio interview how nice a female victim of Domestic Violence was, when he really had no rational evidence of that fact.


  1. False Allegations

The first case mentioned above (pages 75-81) is one of a false allegation by a woman about a man. The second case (pages 97-100) is also one of a false statement by a woman -- but not about a man. The fourth case mentioned above (pages 237-240) is also of a false allegation by a woman about a man and the fifth case is one of a false allegation by a man about other men.

On page 234, the author states the following:

Unfortunately, it was not uncommon for both males and females to make false allegations that they had been sexually violated. The most common motives for these false complaints were that one party sought revenge on the other for some perceived wrongdoing or because a relationship had ended acrimoniously. These false complaints wasted a great deal of police time, time that would have been better spent investigating real crimes committed against real victims.

(See also: Women = Lies = Journalists = Women = .... )

I understand that the powers that be don't want to discourage people from reporting crimes by routinely prosecuting people who make false allegations. Nevertheless the above focus on the issue of wasting police time implies that that is the main consideration if an allegation is false. What about the right of innocent people (mainly men) to be safe from false accusations, false prosecutions and false imprisonment? The above quotation, given Police over-confidence in their own abilities, does not take account of that issue. But the Police do not always get it right and there is little deterrent to people making false allegations -- especially to women making false allegations, given the Feminist political atmosphere and Police chivalry.


  1. Sexual Harassment and Rudeness

In this section, I would like to talk about the Police as victims. The book mentions that the Police have to put up with abusive bad language, because the Courts won't protect them from it, seeing it as just one of the job conditions. The book also (pages 49 and 54) gives examples of prostitutes sexually harassing policemen, by behaving provocatively and embarassing them, although the legalisation of prostitution may have brought this behaviour to an end.

I suggest that legislation be enacted to protect the Police from sexual harassment and rudeness, because this would improve their working conditions, raise the respect with which the Police are viewed and encourage good candidates to join the Police who might otherwise be put off from doing so.


  1. Police Intelligence and Over-Confidence

Quite apart from the issue of sexist, anti-male double standards in the hiring of female Police officers, the Police are not just unskilled labourers -- they actually have to be able to think. As I stated above, the title of the book includes the rude slang term for the Police, "pig". The author has this to say on that topic at the very start of the book:

Being called names such as 'pig' and being subjected to verbal abuse comes with the job. That is why the book's title seemed so appropriate

He then goes on to treat the word "PIG" as standing for "Pride, Intelligence and Guts". The words "Pride" and "Guts" may well be appropriate, but not the word "Intelligence", although the Police may well be more intelligent (or at least better educated) than most of the criminals they deal with.

On page 9, the author states that he left school at the age of 16. He says:

By 16 I'd had enough of school and decided to leave. By all accounts I was a challenging student and, in fact, many of my teachers encouraged me to leave....

Although leaving school at 16 (other things being equal) is a sign of possible low intelligence, it may not have been so for this author. At Police College, he had a shock when he was one of 3 people out of 92 candidates who failed a practice examination. He states (page 17):

I had never studied in my life. Didn't you simply go to school, listen, ask questions, then sit and pass the exams? It had worked that way for me up to this point.... I asked one of the more clever recruits what this study lark was all about and learnt about mnemonics, moving pictures and other memorising techniques. These tools turned out to be bloody handy and once I got the hang of them I found that learning was easy enough and got on with it.

So maybe he had actually had the capacity to complete his secondary education and go on to tertiary education after all. However, the fact that the Police accept recruits who left school at the age of 16 shows that the level of intelligence is not generally very high -- as I know from other experiences.

So it is very disturbing and probably counter-productive to Law and Order that such relatively unintelligent and biased people have so much power to take all sorts of decisions, including whether to prosecute someone. What makes the situation worse is the anti-male politicisation of the Police by Women's Refuge and other Feminists.

Above, I have mentioned cases where the Police make their mind up as to what the truth of a situation is and then proceed to apply pressure to members of the public, in order to get them to say what they want them to say. The Police just do not have the intelligence or impartiality to be able to do that competently, in my view. For example, referring to his own selection process for entry into the Police force, the author states (page 15):

My final pre-entry interview was conducted ... by a police inspector in Timaru.... His final question to me was: 'Why do you want to join the police?' I knew I was supposed to to tell him that I wanted to do good for the community, make a difference to people's lives and turn troubled youths around, etc. However, erroneously believing that that the police were trained to detect liars and not wanting to be caught out, I told him the truth.

That constitutes an admission that the Police do not have a rational basis for thinking (as they obviously do) that they can detect who is telling the truth (absent compelling evidence on that issue). In other words, they act as if they have actually been trained to detect who is telling the truth, without actually having been trained to do that! Once, when I made an emergency call to Police from a train to report having been assaulted by a Maori woman, I could practically hear the man at the Police end of the phone line turning over the cogs in what he probably thought was his "mind", as he tried to evaluate the truth of what I was telling him, in the context of the background noise coming from the train compartment. Since the Police decided to charge me, although I was an innocent victim (but guilty of being a male in New Zealand), I have no reason to respect Police intelligence.

  1. Domestic Violence

  2. On pages 65 to 71, the author tells the story of a woman, Glennis, who ended up with horrific injuries all over her body -- allegedly caused by her husband. The Police prosecuted the husband and he ended up being found not guilty on all charges on mental health grounds and was sent to a mental health institution as a special patient. Apparently, the couple had been part of a gang.

    In New Zealand, the Lesbians and other Feminists control the narrative, as far as Domestic Violence is concerned, so it's all about women as victims and men as perpetrators. That applies to the Police, in particular, who are both thick and brainwashed. They are simply not interested in males as victims of female violence, as I have experienced myself, unless the situation is so dramatic that even the Police cannot ignore female culpability. Here is an excerpt from the book about what the author learned about the above couple's relationship:

    ... at some stage things started to go horribly wrong. Slapping and hitting crept into their relationship slowly and increased in severity and frequency as time progressed. Glennis's husband had an accident and as a result his eyesight became very poor. She detailed how the violence he inflicted upon her increased greatly following the accident....

That is all incredibly vague about who did what to who, which is exactly the hypocritical Feminist way of talking about Domestic Violence. It is only when you get to the fourth sentence out of the above quoted four sentences that it is stated who actually carried out any of the violence. So it seems to me that the author is just reporting what Glennis told him, and she did not tell him who committed what violence, at first. Why didn't she? Becuse it was mutual violence, undoubtedly. Now, let's assume that Glennis had started some, most or all of the violence, in the initial phases. What would have been her husband's options? Could he have complained to the Police? No, because the Police would either have hung up on him (which I have experienced) or arrested him on the basis that he was a male gang member and they wouldn't believe anything he said (I have also experienced the Police refusing to believe me). Could he have run away to the Men's Refuge? No, because there is no such thing as a Men's Refuge. So he had to either fight back or leave the relationship (and probably his children too).

Glennis says that her husband had had an "accident". Apart from telling lies, women's other great talent is doing things by accident-on-purpose. The chances are that that "accident" was not an accident at all.

I first heard about this book on the National Radio programme "Nine to Noon," where the author was interviewed about his book and this episode in particular. He said what a nice person Glennis was, which shows how chivalrous, biased and anti-male he is. He had no rational means of knowing what kind of a person she actually was. Also noteworthy is the way the Feminist interviewer focussed on this particular incident, which she did because it featured a woman as a stereotypical victim of Domestic Violence. She did not mention any of the incidents in which women made false allegations, of course!


  1. Ethics

    Several sections or chapters of the book end with events which are obviously meant to be humorous, but also actually testify to unprofessional behaviour by the Police. This is important, because the general public relies on the Police behaving in a professional manner. If the Police think it's funny to behave in an unprofessional behaviour, this indicates that they probably often behave in an unprofessional manner towards members of the public.

    For example, on page 14 he talks about the timekeeper, Dave, of the running component of his fitness test for entry into the Police:

    Dave had taken it upon himself to make sure that I passed the test and literally dragged me the final 400 metres to the finish line.

    Once he was in the Police, his first job was in Timaru, where he referred to his Sergeant as "Sarge" (page 23):

    Sarge also taught me that Sundays were very quiet and that on late shifts we should go to the movies to ensure that there was no disorder in the theatres. Often we had to stay for the whole movie just in case trouble erupted. It never did.

    Another example is on page 25:

    While there he told me that whenever confronted with a nasty and very sad incident like the suicide we'd just encountered, it was okay to pop home to consume a couple of fingers of whisky.



Summary Haiku:

Men have no rights,
but aren't less human.
We blame sexism.


See also:




Peter Douglas Zohrab

Latest Update

30 October 2021