City Vision Cr votes to ban smoking in Auckland CBD

December 16th, 2008 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

Aaron Bhatnagar blogs that a Councillor voted to ban outside in the Auckland CBD.

Why not just cut out all the in between steps, and just start shooting smokers?

Tags: , , , ,

58 Responses to “City Vision Cr votes to ban smoking in Auckland CBD”

  1. Ross Nixon (614 comments) says:

    To get rid of all smoking in NZ, I propose that the legal age for smoking be raised by one year every year. Eventually all the remaining smokers will die off.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. wreck1080 (3,864 comments) says:

    Smokers should be taxed such that they pay for the 100% of the costs of smoking related diseases.

    I have a relative who continues smoking despite numerous heart operations and unclogging of veins and arteries.

    The docs keep telling him he won’t get another operation if he keeps smoking. But, they are hollow words because he keeps smoking and they keep giving operations.

    I do object to paying for the hospital treatment of those who choose to smoke.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. gingercrush (153 comments) says:

    The amount of tax that comes in via cigarettes more than offsets whatever it costs in health etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Brian Smaller (4,037 comments) says:

    Smokers rarely if ever impinge on my life nowadays. Leave the poor bastards alone. If someone has to die early to reduce the demand on National Super, long costly years in rest homes etc etc, it may as well be smokers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. slightlyrighty (2,506 comments) says:

    I am probably as anti-smoking as they come. It killed my mother, father and stepfather, all before their time. I find it a disgusting habit with no moral virtue, no benefit and no reason.

    Yet banning it is a retrograde step. By all means use the fact that a person smokes as a means of rationing treatment however. If there is a hospital waiting list, then those who choose to smoke should do so in the knowledge that this will move a person down the waiting list for treatment.

    In fact that is the warning that should also appear on ciggie packs. “smoking will negatively impact the ability to access the health care that you will need by smoking in the first place.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Chris Diack (739 comments) says:

    I can’t quite work out what the cheap jibe at 1Auckland is for.

    I might think that trying to ban smoking outside in public places is probably a public policy issue best left to Wellington as smoking matters generally are.

    The same observation might be made about the dopey C&R attempt to pass a by law against the homeless – a measure unwanted by Council officers, the Police, the Mayor and most social service providers.

    Very Francis Urquhart.

    I note Cr Bhatnagar hasn’t blogged about this unwanted, mangled C&R attempt at social policy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Whaleoil (767 comments) says:

    I’m not a smoker, except of fine Cubano Cigars.

    It is a fallacy that smokers don’t pay their way. In actual fact the amount of taxes they pay far outweighs the cost to society of them. They die quicker and of diseases that don’t really allow you to linger.

    If we cut out smoking we are just going to have heaps of whining old people cluttering up the place.

    My view is if we tax it then it must be legal and there should be small limits on smokers, they are paying for it after all. If as a nation we decide that smoking isn’t really our bag then just get on with it and make it illegal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. MikeE (555 comments) says:

    Its a fucking daft idea, regardless of who’s it is.

    The smoking ban hurt clublife enough forcing smokers out onto the streets as 2nd class citizens in the rain. Now they won’t be allowed out at all.

    I’d rather they propose something allowing cannabis selling coffee shops in open spaces… now thats something I can support!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. bearhunter (859 comments) says:

    Maybe they suggested it becuase their pick on the homeless campaign didn’t work. Most homeless smoke (one of the few pleasures the poor bastards have) so this is a nice way to remove them from the more salubrious parts of the CBD so the City Vision types won’t have to see them and they can contiunue their delusion that everyone lives in a nice middle-class lefty suburb. Twats.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. dime (9,799 comments) says:

    this is the problem with freaking leftists!

    step 1) – ban smoking in bars… oh shit, people like that.. lets see how far we can push it..

    step 2) -ban smoking outside bars! cause ummm the smoke can be seen by non-smokers! and its bad for the enviroment! and we hate business… fuck all the pubs/resturants that will lose a tonne of money cause smokers wont go out anymore! fuck em!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Right of way is Way of Right (1,129 comments) says:

    Next step, ban smokers from having Sky TV! Then they will stay home and do nothing at all except post on blogs! Cough cough!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Right of way is Way of Right (1,129 comments) says:

    City Vision? Blurred vision more like!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Ryan Sproull (7,093 comments) says:

    City Vision? Blurred vision more like!

    MORE LIKE SHITTY VISION.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. MT_Tinman (3,092 comments) says:

    I’m a non-smoker.

    Have been since 1984 – one week before the mad bastard Muldoon was deposed.

    Even I can see that smokers, by the simple act of dying almost as young as the super-fit scrawnies and paying ridiculous taxes for that pleasure, contribute more to the NZ economy per head than the we-know-what’s-best-for-you anti-pleasure dickheads.

    Carry on smokers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. unaha-closp (1,157 comments) says:

    Why not just cut out all the in between steps, and just start shooting smokers?

    Shoot them with cancer

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Ratbiter (1,265 comments) says:

    DPF: “Why not just cut out all the in between steps, and just start shooting smokers?”

    FUCKING AYE!!!
    A smokeless society would be fan-bloody-tastic.

    I flew back into Wellington on Pacific Blue recently. The steward on the PA was hilarious… “Please remember to remain seated until the captain has switched off the seatbelt lights. Also I remind you that smoking is not permitted on the tarmac outside the aircraft, or inside the terminal building, or on the bus, or anywhere in Wellington at all. GIVE UP people, it’s disgusting and it’s bad for you. And thank you for flying with us on Pacific Blue etc etc…”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. bearhunter (859 comments) says:

    “FUCKING AYE!!!
    A smokeless society would be fan-bloody-tastic.”

    Well where do you propose to get the extra $900 million in excise from? Or will you just start with the smokers and then move on to the drinkers? Meat-eaters? Coke drinkers? And keep going until there are only health-conscious, tofu-eating wowsers sitting around knitting their own undies? Good luck with that, it’s not a land I’d care to live in. I’m a smoker; smoking is a perfectly legal activity. Where is your problem with this?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Jackson Wood (14 comments) says:

    Bring smoking back into pubs, but with restrictions similar to those in Australia. Provide govt support for the extractor fans to be put in establishments that want to go back to being a smoking venue.

    Then outlaw smoking in public places. Why? When I go into a smoking bar, I know and expect there to be smoke! What I really hate is walking down the street and having some smoker in front of me clogging my lungs with their vial stench, tar and nicotine.

    Also the amount of cigarette butts that pollute Wellington streets, planter boxes, gardens, beaches, gutters, is somewhat disgusting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Ratbiter (1,265 comments) says:

    bh: “Well where do you propose to get the extra $900 million in excise from?”
    Nowhere! Does the state need it? Really?? Rodney can cut some fat out of the system somewhere. That’s his whole job description.

    bh: “Or will you just start with the smokers and then move on to the drinkers? Meat-eaters? Coke drinkers?”
    No. None of those things disgusts me – only smoking.

    bh: “smoking is a perfectly legal activity. Where is your problem with this?”
    I quite often need to take a piss after leaving a bar. Unfortunately I can’t do this because usually there is a whole gauntlet of smokers hanging around in the street outside the door coughing and wheezing, and pissing on them might constitute indecency or assault – which is also not allowed in a polite society, because it’s DISGUSTING!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. CraigM (694 comments) says:

    Ratbiter: “No. None of those things disgusts me – only smoking.” Why does the ‘it’s all about me” attitude from Rb not surprise me.

    Biter hates smoking but thinks pissing in the street is acceptable. I would rather have smoke blown in my face than have someone piss on my jeans. Hyprocitical idiot.

    Why is it that lefties just want to ban shit all the time. FFS, get out of my life.

    I stopped smoking in March. 9 months of money in my pocket, extra enegry (and weight damn it) and non smelly clothes.

    If Auckland goes the way of parts of LA and bans smoking in public places I will start again just to walk up and down outside the council offices puffing away merrily. See you in court assholes.

    Make it illegal and fight that battle, or leave it alone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Murray (8,844 comments) says:

    More “make everyone the way I say they’ll be” rules. Did we not just crap all over that concept in an election?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Ratbiter (1,265 comments) says:

    CraigM: “Why does the ‘it’s all about me” attitude from Rb not surprise me.”

    Well you obviously look to your own values for your sense of what should be allowed and what shouldn’t be allowed (e.g: “lefties just want to ban shit all the time. FFS, get out of my life”…) but for some reason you are criticizing me for doing the same?

    CraigM: “Biter hates smoking but thinks pissing in the street is acceptable. I would rather have smoke blown in my face than have someone piss on my jeans. Hyprocitical idiot.”

    WHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHH as the whimsy in the allegorical pissing-on-smokers tale goes straight over poor CraigM’s head!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. goodgod (1,363 comments) says:

    As a ex-smoker, I don’t have any interest in telling other people what to do with their smokes. None of my business.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. bearhunter (859 comments) says:

    Well, since no one gets your “whimsy”, RB, perhaps you could address my point about smoking being a perfectly legal activity? I get inconvenienced by others performing legal activities all the time, but I don’t call for the banning of joggers, cyclists, bungy-jumpers or town planners.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Ratbiter (1,265 comments) says:

    You should, if you don’t like those things and you think there is a problem with them. If enough people agree with you, then our country might take a legislative leap forwards!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    hey..!

    .how about bhatnagar talking about his multi-million dollar (rate-payer-funded) plan for the benefit of the millionaires of/on paratai drive..?

    ..his ‘personal project’..

    ..that’d be (kinda) interesting..

    ..eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    [DPF: Suggestions like this are more on topic on Aaron's blog, not here]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. bearhunter (859 comments) says:

    Philu, any chance of you looking up the phrase “on-topic”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Ratbiter (1,265 comments) says:

    PhilU is completely on topic. Making all sorts of assumptions (and then insinuations) about Bhatnagar’s personal agenda as a way of supposedly discrediting him is about par for the course and a standard way of addressing a topic around here.

    The difference is that when PhilU does this, he usually does his own research first!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. WebWrat (516 comments) says:

    Ten years ago smoking related health issues cost $200 million/year and Govt took $1 billion in tobacco tax. That was according to Lindsay Perigo on talk back …. don’t know what todays figures are.

    What right has anyone to say that a smoker has no right to health care? Smokers are the only people that pay for their own.

    It really fucks me off how you so called “freedom fighters” are prepared to ‘cherry pick’ what personal rights the Govt is allowed to take off us.

    Smoking is not illegal.

    And it is OK for you to see discrimination when it suits you. Imagine the fucking fuss if a 200 kg PI was told he wasn’t allowed to eat a big mac in public …. and you nanny state fuckwits would be jumping up and down with the rest of them. Selective discrimination is OK.

    How come we don’t have to have pictures of squashed kids painted on the sides of our cars? Or a picture of an exploding 400kg PI on KFC boxes?

    I am 58 years old. Smoked since I was 9. I can climb to 6,000 feet with people 30 years younger than me. Did Goat Pass
    (33 ks) in a 6 1/2 hour stroll last year. Walked 27 miles behind sheep in two days last week and the week before rode and walked 70 miles in three days behind cattle. I know smoking is not good for me, but that is my business.

    Last year it took me all summer to get my Commercial Pilots medical renewed. My cardiologist and GP both said I was “extremely healthy, in fact 99% healthy but unfortunately, because you smoke, the Department want you to be 100% healthy.” Who the fuck is 100% healthy?

    This discrimination cost me the summer seasons flying ($20,000) and $6,000 in tests.

    Everywhere I look I see our rights being taken from us or degraded and the sheeple applaud.

    I have never seen such fucking drongos as the average Kiwi.

    Get out of my life you oppressive, nanny state fucking sheep!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Aaron Bhatnagar (43 comments) says:

    Chris, I’d hardly describe my comments on 1Auckland as a “cheap jibe”. The nutty idea to ban smoking in parts of the CBD came from a director or vice-chairman of your 1Auckland ticket, who was also a candidate. The idea was co-sponsored by another 1Auckland candidate. if the argument got politicised, it’s because your director and former candidates have been doing so in the local papers and in their local email loops.

    Phil – what on earth are you talking about? Paritai Drive isn’t even in my ward, and if you are referring to Judges Bay (which is 2km, 2 suburbs and 2 bays away) , you might like to contemplate the fact that it has the worst water quality of any Auckland ithsmus beach. I thought you greenies were in favour of environmental improvements to our beaches? Or are you just as clueless as you appear to be?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Portia (204 comments) says:

    One of the Maori Party’s health policies is to introduce the “Tobacco out of Aotearoa” Bill. That would mean a total ban on cigs.

    Perhaps not so ludicrous an idea now that Tariana Turia is Associate Minister of Health…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Aaron Bhatnagar (43 comments) says:

    Oh, and just to make it clear, the City Vision proposal was soundly defeated.

    1 vote in favour of banning smoking in parts of the open spaces of the CBD.
    6 votes against, which comprised of 4 C&R councillors and 2 independents.

    The motion is not going any further, so those who are concerned about it can rest easy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. WebWrat (516 comments) says:

    And don’t talk to me about Councils! Our Council gave a private company $1.2 million of our rates to do a feasibility study on their irrigation scheme. Since then, bent Benson-Pope approved acquiring authority for this private company to take my farm off me.

    Not only am I to have my farm stolen off me, I am paying for them to do it out of my rates!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. CraigM (694 comments) says:

    “PhilU is completely on topic.”

    Not.

    “….when PhilU does this, he usually does his own research first!”

    Oh dear, how embarrassing.

    Aaron Bhatnagar just owned him. And you.

    I’m guessing you weren’t expecting Aaron to be reading Kiwiblog huh.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. bearhunter (859 comments) says:

    Aaron, I find it very hard to rest easy knowing the stubborness of many in Auckland City Council and the “don’t worry your little head, we know best” attitude of so many of the staff. Roll on the Royal Commission report and restructuring.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Murray (8,844 comments) says:

    phool isn’t even on this planet let along topic.

    Back to the job search phool. Villages everywhere will be eager to recieve your CV.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Chris Diack (739 comments) says:

    Aaron:

    “I’d hardly describe my comments on 1Auckland as a “cheap jibe”. The nutty idea to ban smoking in parts of the CBD came from a director or vice-chairman of your 1Auckland ticket, who was also a candidate. The idea was co-sponsored by another 1Auckland candidate. if the argument got politicised, it’s because your director and former candidates have been doing so in the local papers and in their local email loops.”

    In fact, Dick Ayres came to your committee in his capacity as a member of the CBD Board upon which he represents Auckland CBD Residents’ Advisory Group Inc, a body he has long been a member of. Tim Coffey has been a CBD resident for over 30yrs and is likewise involved in the CBD Residents’ Advisory Group Inc.

    Their activities on behalf of their community have nothing to do with any role in 1Auckland. It’s only you (and not anyone else) who has attempted to draw 1Auckland into an issue that it is not involved. And what a long bow.

    By you own admission a CBD smoking ban is going nowhere. In fact, no one is interested in this “story” and it hasn’t got political, because compared to the utter dopiness of a By law to outlaw the homeless, it pales into insignificance.

    Whatever the enthusiasm of Messrs Ayres and Coffey for a smoking ban in the CBD, at least it has not resulted in a waste of $50,000 of ratepayer money on a By law that no one wants and most regard as ridiculous, and that will cost shift onto the NZ Police if they bother to enforce it along with reams of other laws they don’t have the resources to enforce.

    Why not post on C&R’s waste of money on this unwanted By law which is in an area of social policy that is plainly out of Auckland City’s core competence – that is a story.

    Attacking or ridiculing ordinary people exercising their democratic rights (whatever you think about the wisdom of what they ask for) isn’t a hot look. Political leaders should be bigger than that. Perhaps Auckland City should stick to ‘big events’ something for which it clearly has the Midas touch :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. WebWrat (516 comments) says:

    Ratbiter (354) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 3 Says:
    December 16th, 2008 at 12:57 pm

    bh: “Or will you just start with the smokers and then move on to the drinkers? Meat-eaters? Coke drinkers?”
    No. None of those things disgusts me – only smoking.

    …………………

    Batshit finds smokers disgusting. “Hooray”, shout the PC socialist brigade. “Go for it Batshit!”

    Now what happens if I say homos disgust me?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. reddeath26 (97 comments) says:

    @WebWrat-
    Excellent point, I too agree that smoking is and should be a perfectly legal activity. There is plenty of information about the possible effects of smoking, so if someone chooses to engage in such an activity then they are accepting such risks. I do not really have a problem with people smoking outside at all. As others have mentioned they do contribute towards their health costs through the tax they pay.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. wreck1080 (3,864 comments) says:

    WebWrat you are an ignoramus. Just because you can climb mt everest having smoked 10 packs a day since you were 1 doesn’t mean that smoking does not cause health problems.

    There is a definite difference between eating related issues and smoking ones. The body is built to eat to survive, but not to smoke to survive. That is something you picked up behind the school toilets with the rest of your dropout mates.

    Why should I pay for any of your smoking related health problems?

    You can smoke so long as I don’t pay for your filthy little habit and if I don’t have to smell the putrid air you emit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. bearhunter (859 comments) says:

    “WebWrat you are an ignoramus. Just because you can climb mt everest having smoked 10 packs a day since you were 1 doesn’t mean that smoking does not cause health problems. ”

    Smoking does cause illness in many – not all – smokers and I’d like you to show me the clinical proof that says different. Noter I said “proves” not simply something “suggests a link”

    “Why should I pay for any of your smoking related health problems?”

    You don’t. It’s all taken care of through the extra taxes we kind smokers provide for the benefit of our fellow humans.

    As for the putrid air, would you like to see an end to diesel trucks too? Buses? Cars? Fast-food outlets that vent their kitchen odours into the air?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. WebWrat (516 comments) says:

    wreck1080 totally misses the point/s, as all narcissists always do.

    Smokers pay for their own health care through tobacco tax.

    I admitted smoking is not good for me.

    Over eating is an addiction.

    Smoking is an addiction.

    One is defended.

    The other vilified.

    Selective discrimination.

    I did correspondence school most of my school years … no shcool toilets.

    OK, you’ve sprung me …. my mates are dropouts.

    You don’t pay for my “…. smoking related health problems.” I do.

    You don’t pay for my “…. filthy little habit.” I do.

    I find poofter after shave lotions and under-arm deoderants putrid but I’ve never tried to have them banned. I can accept the differences in people as long as they don’t nanny me.

    It would be absolutely hideous if everyone was the same, as the socialists want us to be. We’d may as well be a mob of sheep.

    Oh, but that’s the whole ide…………..a!

    Get stuffed 1080 … you are the poison.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. WebWrat (516 comments) says:

    I heard a bit on the radio about that mushroom farm thats closing down on that lesser known out-lying isle of NZ. It seemed that there was mainly only one person complaining about the stink.

    Was that 1080?

    Isn’t it amazing how one PC whinger can take the jobs off 160 people?

    Another thing Lindsay Perigo was saying when he was on about smoking: ASH had, at the time only 350 paid up members.

    So there’s another amazing thing, how a PC minority can totally rearrange and socially engineer a whole nation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    Stick it up them WebWrat.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    oh really..!

    “..# philu (3700) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 6 Says:
    December 16th, 2008 at 1:26 pm

    hey..!

    .how about bhatnagar talking about his multi-million dollar (rate-payer-funded) plan for the benefit of the millionaires of/on paratai drive..?

    ..his ‘personal project’..

    ..that’d be (kinda) interesting..

    ..eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    [DPF: Suggestions like this are more on topic on Aaron's blog, not here]..”

    so..bhatnagar can only be questioned on what he chooses..eh..?

    ..i thought he was a fucken elected official..

    ..and as such..answerable to us..

    ..so..what about your taxpayer-funded five million dollar project to pretty the harbour views of the paratai drive millionaires..?

    ..eh bhatnagar..?

    ..at the same time you cynical/self-serving rightwing bastards cut services in the poorest/in most need..areas..eh..?

    ..you reek of rightwing self-interested manipulation of local government..

    ..bhatnagar..

    ..and engaging in class war..against the poor..

    ..you do realise..eh..?

    ..that much more of this..

    ..and those mansions/privileges you abuse..

    ..will/could be taken from you..eh..?

    (if i were you..i would go to whoar..and look up the predictions of those who give obama untill mid-2010..to start fixing things..

    ..if he dosen’t…some predict american cities will explode in a class-rage..

    ..do tou fucken idiots really think you can get away with/just keep your boots on the knecks of the poor..forever..?

    ..it’s a new world coming..darlings..

    ..and if you want to see the end result of elites abusing the poor..

    ..and the price those elites will have to pay..

    ..can i suggest a (council-funded..of course..!)..trip to port moresbey…

    ..where you will see that unless we get a more equitable society..

    ..that the paratai drive views wont’t be of your five million dollar upgrade..

    ..they will be of high walls..with barbed wire on them..

    ..and armed guards patrolling..

    ..that is the dystopia you are promoting..

    ..you fucken idiot..!

    ..phil(whoar.co.nz)

    ..farrar strikes another blow for free speech/open discussion/questioning..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    Cant decide between two pithy comments, so I will give both:

    1) Takes a phule to understand a phule, I suppose.
    2) phule-SPLOSION!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    “Shoot them with cancer”

    Nice one, UC!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Ratbiter (1,265 comments) says:

    CraigM Says: “PhilU is completely on topic…. Not.”

    Oh dear, Cwaig is still oblivious to irony! Time for a S.O.H. upgrade methinks…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. big bruv (13,681 comments) says:

    phool

    Any criticism about tax payer funded schemes is a bit bloody rich coming from a bludger like you.

    You also talk about a more equitable society and in usual pinko fashion threaten violence if your demands are not met yet it cannot have escaped even the thickest lefty that you write these words as a person who does not contribute one cent to government revenue or I suspect local body revenue.

    As usual you want what others have without working for it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Aaron Bhatnagar (43 comments) says:

    Chris, addressing your points (and others)

    1. In fact Ayres is an executive director of a political organisation, as well as a former candidate for it (as was Coffey), so their politicising the decision after it didn’t go their way makes their political allegiances completely relevant.
    2. In fact this story has been newsworthy. I just had a interview with radio a few hours ago about it. Local rags have covered the story as well.
    3. I’ll take lessons on events management from 1Auckland when they learn how to have a campaign launch (see http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10454615&pnum=0 and http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10454613 – no confirmed candidates, no policy, no website despite making the ticket name a URL).
    4. I have blogged before about homeless related issues on my site, but if this issue is of interest to you, you should blog about it yourself. My committee (City Development) doesn’t deal with social services, so it’s not my duty to discuss it. Were it my story to tell I’ll point out that it was reported in the media the other day that we’re not necessarily spending a dime on a new by-law, but that is simply one of the options the council are considering.
    5. The only reason Ayres and Coffey haven’t cost the ratepayer any sum of money for a daft bylaw is because I killed it dead, no thanks to them.

    Phil – you must be afflicted in some way. How many times do I need to tell you that Paritai Drive isn’t in my district and is two whole suburbs away from where I think you are talking about? As for your other comments, I think you need a nice cup of tea and a long lie down.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Chicken Little (793 comments) says:

    Um….Aaron…..phule’s been lying down and taking our money since he got out of prison (and that’s a looooong time)….it really doesn’t seem to be doing him much good.

    Phule….I suggest you have a nice cup of tea and then go and get a f**ken job.

    Just don’t lie on your CV…..google is not YOUR friend phule, remember that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. mara (762 comments) says:

    When I have enjoyed a good steak at Tony’s and step out onto the street to have a well deserved fag, I would defy anyone telling me to stub it out. Police included. I simply would not obey such a silly by-law. It is called reasonable civil disobedience. Sheep bleat as they are corraled for slaughter. I don’t. What is the worst thing that will happen to you if you show balls? Nothing. But we need numbers. Where are they?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. wreck1080 (3,864 comments) says:

    webwrat, i don’t care if you smoke, so long as i don’t pay for it, or have to smell it.

    You seem to think your measley tobacco tax pays for it, but I doubt it.

    And , regarding your mushroom sidetrack – how would you like to put up with putrid smells at your house – – oh thats right, you are a smoker, you already do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. kaykaybee (153 comments) says:

    What is it about me when my normally liberal self starts nodding in agreement with the last sentence of this blog piece David?

    Your “…why not shoot smokers?” – is the best idea I’ve heard for a long time.

    That filthy, stinking, invasive and impossible for a non-smoker to avoid habit will be the one and only thing I’ll ban when I assume power.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. bearhunter (859 comments) says:

    KKB: I presume you’ll ban diesel buses too? Those “stinking, invasive and impossible for a non-passenger to avoid” polluters?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Murray (8,844 comments) says:

    Jesus someone get a mop and clean up phools verbal incontinence.

    kkb you’re an idiot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. riki (234 comments) says:

    I knew it!

    I knew this was going to happen

    The Fabian Socialists are working according to their agenda.

    first it was Opotiki; illegal to smoke in public. The next step was probably other provincial nowheres until the cities caught on. apparently, the agenda is being fast tracked.

    The agenda is not about health any more than bike helmets are.

    The agenda is subjucation. Accepting govt into our personal life.

    The people showed they had enough of nanny state.

    But has anyone heard of any convictions in Opotiki yet. Being such a small place probably not. It was a cunning place to start.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Chris Diack (739 comments) says:

    Aaron.

    No event that 1Auckland is involved in has ever resulted in an Auditor General’s investigation. I wonder how much Auckland City’s idea of funding Beckham’s football team will eventually cost ratepayers.

    I note in relation to 1Auckland’s policy – it was pretty clear from the name…. and wait for it…… it’s coming.

    I guess I will defer to your expertise at getting tv coverage for a political launch. And Bernard always gives C&R such great copy.

    Again what is very odd is why you are trying to link 1Auckland into something that it isn’t involved merely because a couple of people pushing a local issue happen to be one Auckland people. It’s a sort of cheap ‘guilt by association’ argument – infantile politics really. No links to ANY news coverage of this “story” or the 1Auckland angle….. because there is no story.

    Is everything you do by extention the actions of C&R/National? Of course not.

    Pleased to hear you will be voting against the proposal to outlaw the homeless as it is clearly a dopey idea. Of course it joins the ranks with that other triumph of public policy, the By law on buskers and song repetition. I wonder how much that cost.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.