General Debate 16 June 2009
1 Total TweetBacks: (Tweet this post)
Tags: General DebateGeneral Debate 16 June 2009
124 Responses to “General Debate 16 June 2009”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
June 16th, 2009 at 9:52 am
The phrase “trust me” is not one I have any interest in hearing from any Prime Minister.
Try a different line.
June 16th, 2009 at 9:52 am
her it is big bruv, here it is.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:02 am
WTF:
‘Cost-cutters take axe to police fleet’: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10578670
Somewhat surprising considering all the talk of ‘front line services’ being boosted, is all.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:04 am
Key has become the Sledge Hammer of New Zealand politics,
“Trust me I know what I’m doing”
June 16th, 2009 at 10:05 am
What are people having for lunch today?
I’ve got last night’s fried rice to reheat. I might add a sausage roll from across the road.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:07 am
Comment 2000 cares not for your foolish lunch options.
Comment 2000 eats lunch like you for breakfast.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:09 am
Last year the left campaigned on the issue of trust, “Slippery John” they called him, “you cant trust him” they said.
Many of us thought that was a load of crap, many of us thought Key was a man that one could trust, hell, many of us thought that man was a capitalist and a man who was to the centre right of the political spectrum.
Well Neville Key has made a fool out of all of those who supported his party.
He made a big issue of Klark’s refusal to have the anti smacking referendum at the last election, he said that it could save the country some nine million dollars, now the bastard is trying to scupper the referendum before the people have had their say.
Klark was famous for not listening to the people, it cost her the election and Neville Key is going down the same track.
So far Key has lied about tax cuts, the anti smacking referendum, getting tough on long term beneficiary bludgers, cutting public spending, and lied about being more accountable, no doubt the bastard will renege on his promise to have a referendum on MMP as well.
I never thought I would say this but I hope the Nat’s take a hammering at the next election, as much as I despise socialists at least I know what they stand for.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:10 am
Dear Judith Tizard, Government of New Zealand, Government of France, RIAA, MPAA, Government of Australia -
DO NOT FU*K WITH THE INTERWEBS.
The interwebs do not like you messing with their shit.
kind regards
Chicken Little
June 16th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Got the flyer in my letterbox for that ridiculous referendum.
Surely even the most avid pro-spankers have to admit that this question is biased. And we’re wasting $9 million on it.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Left over pasta carbonara – not that brought shit you get in a jar either. Real stuff made with pancetta, eggs, cream, parmesan cheese, salt and pepper and grated nutmeg. And a banana for morning tea.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Would have only been 900K if your lot had included it in the general election.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:17 am
big bruv has choked/turned..
..can reddy be far behind..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
June 16th, 2009 at 10:18 am
Brian can I come to your place for lunch?
June 16th, 2009 at 10:18 am
toad (1140) Vote: 0 0 Says:
June 16th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Got the flyer in my letterbox for that ridiculous referendum.
Surely even the most avid pro-spankers have to admit that this question is biased. And we’re wasting $9 million on it.
Toad, i got a dumbarse pamhplet in my letetrbox too.
It was heade “Warmer houses, Cooler planet”, from this I gather the greens have a policy to implement a new Ice Age. Why?
June 16th, 2009 at 10:22 am
Fuck off Phool, I will never turn to the side of the bludger, I would never be happy to steal money from those who get up each morning and earn an honest dollar.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Mickey on of the reason I have no interest in hearing it is because we had a decade of the autocrate of NZ politics your mummy pulling shit like that.
Its a bit late for hard core socialist to be jumping on this bus. Your ride is the 12B Hypocrasy Direct.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:23 am
What Chicken Little said.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:24 am
I’m disgusted with John Key, despite voting for them in the last election. The arrogance has crept in already.
Is it true that he is saying that he will ignore the results of the upcoming smacking referendum?
I don’t care what the issue is. There should be a law that makes referendums binding. Politicians cannot choose to ignore the results.
If so, he is giving the fingers to the people of NZ.
Otherwise, my bad.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:26 am
Don’t worry wreck, we’ve gotten a taste for firing PM’s.
Evetually we’ll get one with the elementary sense to work out who is working for who.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Wreck you are on the money.
My wife and I joined the Nat’s to get rid of decisions like this.
Now we are back to square one.
Very disappointed, at least M. Laws is speaking up for good parents on
his show.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:34 am
Good parents? You mean brain dead bible believeing idiots who think it is their “god given right” to assault their children and inflict pyschologivcal trauma?
Still, when you believe in the xtian god, not surprising, is it? What sort of parenting example did HE set? Poor old Isaac, traumatised for life, i’d expect. And Jesus, hung out to dry.
Yes, I can learn a lot about parenting from the bible.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:34 am
gooner..!..
hold that sausage roll..!
http://whoar.co.nz/2009/eating-meat-is-not-natural/
phil(whoar.co.nz)
June 16th, 2009 at 10:36 am
mynameisjack, you are crazier than any bible bashing idiot.
Do you always babble incoherently? Or, are you just a clown on odd-occasions?
June 16th, 2009 at 10:40 am
“My wife and I joined the Nat’s to get rid of decisions like this.”
The sad reality is the National Party is never prepared to stand on its principles to rock the boat and shock the system. Quite the contrary, the Tories are appeasers, whom rather go along with economic stupidities such as Working for Families, an unsustainable welfare state, high income tax, keeping the Families Commission, etc, for the sake of political compromise and expediency.
Socialist Labour is despicable and ruled (and ruined) NZ for nine years. Not much hope for our country with this brand of National Party leaders, either.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:42 am
I’m with Big bruv and Wreck, find something red for Key to wear and die his hair black and we could be forgiven for thinking we had travelled back in time a few years. I’m fucking tied of liberal politicians telling us how to run our lives despite the clear wishes of the people that we want nothing of their “wisdom”. 9 million for this referendum and it means piss all, fucking wankers.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:44 am
Phil, I just buy them for the pastry. I biff the rest out. That’s on Doctor’s orders that meat is bad for you.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:46 am
Mike Laws for PM?
June 16th, 2009 at 10:48 am
When today’s Christchurch Press finally arrived through today’s lousy weather, I read Colin Espiner writing that John Key says he is unlikely to change the anti-smacking law regardless of the result of the referendum.
Key says if the law is working don’t change it, and he has seen no evidence it isn’t working.
“Key said the question being asked in the referendum was ambiguous as it did not directly call fro the law to be changed or repealed. The smacking issue was of significant public concern two years ago, but had died away.”
Our politicians treat referenda as though they were a vote by kindergarten children.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:57 am
oh dear..!
john key seems to be ‘losing’ the real rabid foamers/gibberers/carpet-chewers..
..eh..?
(‘morning all..!’..)
..they are turning from ‘honest john’..seemingly en-masse..
..y’see..they believed ‘honest john’ when he (nudge-nudge-wink-wink) promised to deal to benificiaries..eh..?
..(they had their pitchforks sharpened..bibles ready…and were looking for suitable spots/candidates for bonfires..)
..and then..they were given the bitter news the witch-hunt would have to be delayed/cancelled..
..’cos there was a shortage of real shitty jobs they could pitchfork them in to..
..and from there..
..the disappointments in/with honest john have just come in waves .
..so..spare a thought for the droolers..eh..?
..they are having a bit of a rough time at the moment..
..’honest john’ has gone all brown and runny..
..in their mouths..
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
June 16th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Yep John sure has it easy, he can use the recession as an excuse for flip flops.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:58 am
gooner..is ‘doctor’ what you call ‘her indoors’..?..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
June 16th, 2009 at 11:05 am
Look at this bullshit
http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/tv/2504098/Lack-of-balance-on-TVNZs-Breakfast
If the BSA can upheld a complaint on something as insignificant as this
Can someone make a complaint about TV1 and TV3′s political reporting regarding the Mt Albert by-election?
June 16th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Thank you Philu for reminding me better the devil you know (key) than the foaming, retarded fuckwits you don’t know (philu and co.)
National keeps my vote for now.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:06 am
I got my referendum forms- “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”
The postal referendum is more than a bit ambiguous- the question seems to read as if it means that we should be allowed to smack a parent in order to correct their parenting? It was intended to mean to ask whether it should be legal to smack a child for disciplinary reasons, which of course it still is, just as it used to be- we no longer get to cite “discipline” as a defence if charged with assault, but the principle of “de minimis non curat lex” still applies, so a spank hasn’t been criminalised as such.
For the record, I supported Katherine Rich; my question in the letter to the ODT : “who would Jesus smack?” was unanswered, although given the rhetoric of some persons on the subject I’d guess that they may think that Jesus left heaven and came to earth not because he was sent but because of parental incompatibility.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:06 am
How about this for the quote of the day….
“Is John Key just Helen Clark with a shave”
M. Laws (Radio live 16/6)
In his editorial response to the PM’s dismissal of
the upcoming referendum.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Good on Key for saying he wont take any notice of the Smacking Referendum. It’s plain dumb politics, and will piss off that constituency who signed the petition, but it’s the truth. The referendum will not change the law.
Key’s a useless politician and he isn’t learning on the job. As a past gambler on the futures market you’d think he had the smarts to hedge his bet and not reveal his hand. Just say, “Lets wait for the result.”
So Key is either really stupid or dazzlingly smart in building his image as Honest John, a man you can Trust. Trouble is he’s inconsistent, and either doesn’t reveal (Worth), or runs away (Melissa Lee) and when asked if he believes in God, replies, “Um Er”
Key might be a nice guy, and superficially successful by winning $50m on the futures markets, but he’s totally out of his depth in top politics.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Unlike the left phool conservatives don’t toe a party line. Nothing that nut job Clark did was anything less that the ten commandments to the the wool blind socialist.
Those of us able to think for ourselves will alwasy be critical of a bad move.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Nah, Phil I was having you on. I gulp down the sausage meat as if I haven’t eaten in a month.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Toad,
What are you – against good parenting?
June 16th, 2009 at 11:21 am
Murray
“Those of us able to think for ourselves will always be critical of a bad move”
Sadly there are not enough of us, there are many on this very site who are nothing but cheer leaders for Slippery John and the Nat’s, to them it is all about their “team” winning and grabbing the baubles.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:24 am
I’m getting a bit sick of people telling me my mum ‘assaulted’ me, or that my grandma ‘beat’ my dad. They were not criminals, they were using a diverse repertoire of techniques to manage and raise their children.
The whole ‘smacking is beating is abuse is murder’ brigade are a bunch of finger pointing gossips who need to get off their butts and reach out to those families most likely to actually abuse their kids. Go to them and help them find better ways to cope. I bet they’re all just piss and wind and would rather point the finger.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:24 am
so gooner..
..gonna continue to ‘run with the bulls’..eh..?
“..To this day, meat-eaters have a higher incidence of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and other problems..”
phil(whoar.co.nz)
June 16th, 2009 at 11:27 am
“..Unlike the left phool conservatives don’t toe a party line. Nothing that nut job Clark did was anything less that the ten commandments to the the wool blind socialist..”
that’s me in one..!..muzza..!
..never criticised clrk/labour..me..
you righties are the knee-jerk apparatchiks..
..your blind desire to piss away $9 million on a referendum..
..that even if 100% vote for it..
..will not change the law..
..couldn’t be stronger proof of that..
..meh..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
June 16th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Good god you right wingers are bloody slow are you not.
After ruthless Ruth did you really believe that Key would put that old pensioner Douglas in as finance minister ?
The Nats would be bloody lucky to see out three years if that happened.
Think the majority of middle class would be in favor of making university education user pays, think again.
Now here is the hard part for you, you are not needed, ACT can bugger off out of the coalition and it will make no bloody difference.
It seems that you right wingers do not get the fact that the Nats and Labour have bugger all differences.
And yes being a democracy can be bugger can it not.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:30 am
Shouldn’t have grown up in a country where hitting someone to cause pain counts as assault, I guess.
It was assault long before the repeal of Section 59. All that has changed is that if you get charged with assaulting your child, your lawyer can no longer weasel you out of it by claiming it was reasonable force for correction.
To return Section 59 is to return that option to lawyers defending people charged with assaulting their children.
Making smacking children not assault – as this referendum seems to suggest – would require far more than rolling back the repeal of S59. You would have to change the definition of assault itself. That’s a pretty big call. It’d be fascinating seeing this referendum put into law if it succeeds.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:31 am
Toad, I read Sue Bradford is just another hypocrite (which I believe is criteria number 1 for being a green MP)
Comment posted at http://www.salient.org.nz/features/fuck-off-sue-bradford/comment-page-1#comments
“When Sue was starting her life, working at the Auckland People’s Center (1992ish), she would often bring her kids into work. When they ran wild (as they often did) she would smack them really hard where-ever her hand would make contact, not just the smacking but yell at them (even though they were less than one foot from her mouth). ”
June 16th, 2009 at 11:32 am
Well, that would probably WOULD change the law.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:33 am
“..RightNow (72) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
June 16th, 2009 at 11:24 am
I’m getting a bit sick of people telling me my mum ‘assaulted’ me, or that my grandma ‘beat’ my dad. They were not criminals, they were using a diverse repertoire of techniques to manage and raise their children.”
so you beat yours..do ya..?
..much of it is all about intergenerational patterns..
..my parents never hit me..
..i have never hit my children..
..your parents hit you..
..and so you think this gives you the ‘right’..
..to hit your children..
(are you with me so far..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
June 16th, 2009 at 11:33 am
Ryan Sproull said: Toad, What are you – against good parenting?
For good parenting, against “smacking” (whatever that may mean), Ryan. There is no evidence to support “smacking” being a part of good parenting, and plenty of evidence to suggest hitting children is a part of poor parenting.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:34 am
Ryan, given your logic what was the point of the repeal of s59 then? Pointless. Waste of money, waste of time. The only gain from it was to help roll Clark’s government. Key may well be the next to go down with that ship.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:38 am
But it has never been about the children has it Toad.
The anti smacking bill is all about the state gaining control.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:42 am
It is my theory that the performance of the All Blacks are closely linked to the cultural harmony or disharmony in New Zealand.
I remember Frank Bumce saying that Walter Little and him and other “brown” players had no real say in the calls in the back line at that time.
How can a country with such cultural disharmony and unrest expect to win a world cup? Impossible as even if their is no said racism it would be heart-felt by the players.
So, 1987 was the last time the country had racial and cultural harmony enough to win the cup.
By this theory, we won’t win it in the next world cup at home.
And about smacking, the only real question is how the hell was the country stupid enough to the ant–smacking in the first place? What a joke.
Answer: MMP.
I voted against it. It makes the country powerless. If I voted for National I would never ever vote for the Maori party.
China is a dictatorship. They get things done.
If two Chinese people tried to assault the Chinese leaders, one, they would be shot before they managed it or beaten to death, two, they would be shot as punishment if they succeeded.
In New Zealand, we just do nothing and let them use it as a way to make a political statement in court.
The PC nature of this country is really sickening.
Just my thoughts for today.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:52 am
you mean..the v.l.w.c..?..bruv..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
June 16th, 2009 at 11:55 am
RightNow, did Bradford ever say she’d never smacked anybody?
June 16th, 2009 at 11:59 am
…think that Jesus left heaven and came to earth not because he was sent but because of parental incompatibility.
I have never thought that, I have always been of the understanding it was to satisfy his father’s blood lust.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
“..my parents never hit me.”
Whoar, proves the point conclusively and beyond refutation.
Look how he ended up: a parasite, a bludger, a useless leech, always ready to suck the blood of his fellow citizens, and whom has never lifted a hand to do any decent work.
Had your parents hit you Whoar, the situation could’ve been different. It’s too late to save you now.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Having seen the referendum question yesterday, this referendum is not at all about the repeal of s59 imo. It is about family first trying to restructure the debate around the repeal of s59 to imply that smacking is part of good parenting rather than the important issue of child abuse in this country as it should be. This referendum is detracting from the cause of preventing child abuse in this country.
While I have issues with the law and its implementation I think JKs approach is the sensible one, this country needs to do something to stop children being put in clothes dryers etc and while repealing s59 won’t do much to prevent that neither will reinstating that.
The debate needs to be moved on from s59 to how to prevent NZs children being abused.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
man-so-low..!..you did a comment without the word ‘baking’..or any derivatives..
..well done..!
..are you on another twelve step-program..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
June 16th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Can someone enlighten me? What are the rules around the question in a CIR? Does the Clerk of the House have to approve the wording?
June 16th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Doesn’t cost that much money to clean up a foolish old law with a quick Private Members Bill, does it? Unless some silly people make a huge fuss by either misunderstanding or misrepresenting what the law change is.
The logic behind the repeal was to remove that legal defence for people who have been charged for assaulting their children, to prevent those few cases where it gets child abusers off because courts have to follow the law as it is written. It was also obviously a symbolic move by Sue Bradford against any form of violence against children at all.
While I wouldn’t be surprised if Sue Bradford would also like to change police arresting behaviour so that parents who smack their children to any degree are charged with assault, that is not what the repeal of Section 59 did, and it would be a very difficult change to make and probably quite impractical to enforce.
But, again, that is not what the repeal of S59 did. She would have to table a further much more radical law change to make that happen, and it would be as tricky and ridiculous a law change as one that makes smacking children no longer assault.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
stephen, I haven’t time now to search for quotes from Sue stating she didn’t smack her kids, but will try to do that tonight and post what i find.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Anyone know how many convictions Sue Bardford has (I believe they’re mostly for disorderly conduct). Her regard for the law would seem to make her actions even more hypocritical.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Um, nope. It’s pretty clear really. Should a light smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence. yes or no. simple. We’re having a referrendum because there is a groundswell of support (and in excess of the required number of kiwi’s asking for it a referrendum… even after the previous govt moved the goal posts). The $9m cost is being incured because Helen didn’t want to run this at election time… presumably because it would remind undecided voters of her meddling nanny-state track record. So suck it up toadie.. and get ready to have your say (rather than telling everyone else what to think)
June 16th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Here’s my rant on the topic of children today:
Very disturbing that JK is saying that the referendum will make no difference to the law. A little childlike in his footstamping, or like a dictatorial parent – I can’t make up my mind which. This is despite my opinion that the repeal of s59 was necessary. For the doubters who carry on about “the repeal hasn’t stopped child abuse”, it wasn’t supposed to. The purpose of repealing it was to remove the defence of reasonable force. It’s illegal to murder someone but the law doesn’t stop people being murdered. Pure and simple. It wasn’t about smacking and case history since the repeal proves out that it still isn’t, despite what Bob McRoskey spouts. Why does that fool even get media time?
This is not the time or place that costs should be cut. Police vehicles shouldn’t be cut either.)
Now it turns out CYFS are closing some their local offices. I can see the logic behind some of the decisions with the limited information provided, but surely the removal of local CYFS offices is hardly likely to help the children we most need to protect. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10578733&pnum=0
June 16th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Okay RightNow. *other comments deleted, slightly patronising*
June 16th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
It always amuses me that many of the leading lights in the Antismacking brigade have either
A never had children or
B have had totally dysfunctional children.
As several have said this is but a stalking horse for more direct government control over Mum and Dad. Its been going on for 35 years since the Kirk Socialists started and it will continue until we freedom fighters win the battle against the pinko lesbo muff munchers and their supporters
June 16th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Whoops, had a few editing problems with the above. The middle paragraph should have been last.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Does S59 of the current Crimes Act say “A smack as part of good parental correction is a criminal offence in New Zealand”?
If not, then “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”
is a stupid referendum question.
It is not relevant to the Act that they are trying to get changed.
It is merely an emotional question that tells you everything you need to know about the people who organised the petition. IMHO it is a leading question too. But it does not even approximately address the law of the land that they want to change.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
What about the guy accused of purposefully spreading HIV around Auckland? Talkback mentioned that there was an HIV positive man purposefully infecting people in auckland, wonder if it is the same person?
The judge granted name suppression. I find that decision totally unacceptable.
This guy may have infected others, does the judge not care about that?
June 16th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
gerry – so turning 10′s (or probably 100′s) of thousands of loving parents into unconvicted criminals so that that handfull (think <10) of previously successful s59 defence calls would have instead led to convictions… is a good thing? Pfffft. We have laws against assault. They now, just as then, need to be applied correctly.
IMO the s59 repeal is part of a socialist agenda to disenfranchise families and increasingly place the state in a position of deciding what our children should do/think/become.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
wreck, do you mean may have infected others, in which case he is possibly charged with that as well?
Or do you mean he could still BE infecting others?
June 16th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Getstaffed – is a light smack as part of good parental correction a criminal offence right now? I didn’t think so.
Why are we so crap at referenda questions? This one misses the mark & a result either way won’t necessitate a change to the law. IMO of course.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
In essence the repeal of s59 was simply taking discretion away from the judiciary. It boils down to those that supported it through parliament stating they don’t have confidence in the judge to make the right decision.
June 16th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Another lie from Comrade Key, remember the crap about getting tough on crime?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2504542/Police-vehicle-fleet-to-be-reduced-in-size/
How the fuck do you get tough on crime when you reduce the number of police vehicles?
June 16th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
RightNow – I definitely remember Katie Bradford saying “mum never hit us” when she was in her green-party-spokesperson-masquerading-as-a-journalist phase on RadioLive back when the bill was going through parliament.
June 16th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
He may have infected others (allegedly of course).
Thankfully they kept this guy in remand for now, so it is unlikely he will infect others.
It is a nasty case if true.
June 16th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
BB – spending more time looking for crime in them versus sub-contracting to the inland revenue collecting the velocity tax maybe?
Hey! I didn’t mention doughnuts once…
Edit – or, here’s a plan for the coppers, getting off your arse and walking through the communities you’re supposed to be protecting?
June 16th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Edit – or, here’s a plan for the coppers, getting off your arse and walking through the communities you’re supposed to be protecting?
Closest cop to your home invasion is 2kms away, you wouldn’t mind if they took 10 minutes extra to get there?
June 16th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
How could a gummint think of reducing police vehicles to combat crime? Crusher has lost the plot and thieves just walked away with the Church’s copper spouting. Dam satan! Oh well, I can always lend them the Church Van in an emergency. God help this sick country.
June 16th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
wreck
The “guy” has been released on bail.
June 16th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Maybe he’s starting by addressing the criminal driving of so bloody many cops.
June 16th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
There are apparently about one police vehicle per three cops. Given that one third are on duty at any time one needs to ask how many vehicles are needed. The article referenced above said that there were going to be more front line cars brought, and that vehicle savings would be in other areas. All those cars used by senior officers to drive home pissed in would be a good place to start.
June 16th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Did anyone mention getting rid of all police vehicles?
June 16th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Released on bail? This is from the stuff website…
“The occupation of the accused was also suppressed and he was remanded in custody for a further appearance on Friday.”
June 16th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Obviously not, but getting rid of a few hundred will increase the chances of my hypothetical example, wouldn’t it?
June 16th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Whats the bet the speed camera vans, booze buses and unmarked cars are not on the chopping block. Can’t cut off the revenue stream, can we.
June 16th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
How interesting, both Flick Goff and Comrade Neville Key have said they are going to abstain from the anti smacking referendum.
This is a jack up!, both of these bastards are to gutless to do what the people want lest it cost them votes, Flick Goff even went as far as to say that the wording the referendum is wrong.
June 16th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
The wording doesn’t appear to address the act – a result either way is irrelevant to changing the law. Who gets to choose these questions anyway?
June 16th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
everyone knows what the wording means. Goff is being a dick!!
I’ll tell you what the wording means, should parents have the right to smack their kids.
Stupid people!
June 16th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Goff says in the herald;
“The citizen initiated non-binding referendum asks: “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand? That was “absolutely” the wrong question, he said today. The question implies that if you vote `yes’ that you’re in favour of criminal sanctions being taken against reasonable parents – actually nobody believes that.”
Doh – If you don’t believe it Phil, then you vote “NO”
June 16th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
To all the National party cheerleaders, who said this?
“The Labour Government has shown utter contempt for New Zealanders and the democratic process with its plan to railroad the anti-smacking bill through Parliament. The Labour-led Government knows the measure is deeply unpopular, so it plans to act against the wishes of the majority of Kiwis and ram the bill through under urgency. This is a deeply cynical abuse of power as Labour tries to clear the decks of this controversial issue. Helen Clark has refused to let her MPs vote the way they really think on this bill. To ram it through under the cover of urgency shows just how out of touch her government has become.”
That’s right, it was Comrade Neville Key at his slippery best.
June 16th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Sue Bradford of the watermelon party has a fuckin nerve complaining about $9 million dollars of wasted tax payer money for this referendum. If it weren’t for the bitch trying to control peoples lives we wouldn’t need the referendum in the first place.
June 16th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
big bruv, Key is wrong on this issue.
In saying that, Helen was much much worse.
Best of a bad bunch perhaps.
I’m sadly disappointed in key.
June 16th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Just as well I voted ACT in the election in order to help build a strong coalition, then.
As for the referendum, I plan on voting no just to spite the Green Party.
June 16th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
No everlastingfire, its only a waste of money because beady eyed, creepy handed christains like yourself bashing the shit out of children, then lying to the public in order to try and protect yourself
June 16th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
racerdumb, Christians don’t smack babies on the head with hammers or hang the kids out on the clothes line.
June 16th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Just watched the tv 3 report on the smacking referendum, What a bloody disgrace, couldn’t help but think of redbaiters rants of the pinko scum bag MSM.
Democracy is in an appaling state in this country, its not up to the bloody politicians to tell us what is or isn’t a waste of money. You would think the fact that nearly 400 000 people signed the petition would gain at least a token awknowledgement of democratic process.
I am disgusted with John Key’s attitude, and this will hurt the National party.
June 16th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Quite right Ted – and I’ve NEVER put my kids in the dryer and spun them around …
June 16th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
“No everlastingfire, its only a waste of money because beady eyed, creepy handed christains like yourself bashing the shit out of children, then lying to the public in order to try and protect yourself”
While dickheads like you provide your kids with no boundarys, then when they inevitably get in trouble with the law you go and berate the cops for doing their bloody job.
June 16th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
What did you expect, Shunda? TV3 News is horseshit. I remember just last week while reporting on the Mount Albert byelection, Hilary Barry smirked while saying that David Shearer was expected to win. I wanted to reach through the screen and throttle her.
June 16th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Police cars going!! Yeh well that will be Crusher Collins getting in some practice won’t it. Perhaps she is going to let them have the boy racer cars to run around in.
For those that voted for the National Socialists don’t stop complaining for another 2.5 years at which time we will allow you to vote with logic and for principle and vote for ACT. If you had this time we would still have the tax cuts and so on. You all know what we could have had, so stop moaning, take your medicine and get better for the next election if you survive the piggy flu. ( Muldoon’s legacy.) The only Nat. Minister to look like he is going anywhere is Ryall and he has the toughest portfolio of them all.
June 16th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
TV3′s owner is hurting right now. I can think of a couple of areas where they could make some cost savings.
June 16th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
Our country is heading towards an ideological split, hope it doesn’t go that way but when politicians and the so called intellectuals flat out ignore the populace it is only going to end one way.
June 16th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
racer1 is the kind of person who screams “narrow minded bigots” at Christians but finds it’s a-ok to spew “beady eyed, creepy handed christains like yourself bashing the shit out of children, then lying to the public”. my advice: get some help.
June 16th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
At least I don’t believe in fairies.
June 16th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Of course you do, racer. You believe in socialist economics.
June 16th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
“Of course you do, racer. You believe in socialist economics.”
June 16th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
I applaud Rodney Hide for not thumbing his nose to the people of New Zealand like the rest. Parliament is suppose to represent the voters instead what this anti-smacking referendum points out is Parliament knows what is best for the people. The tail is wagging the dog. To say this is ambiguous to protect mp’s discusts me. Plus, the people of New Zealand want it on and to say it is a waste of 8 million while the government squanders billions each year is another slap in the face. I am not voting National next time, I am going with Act.
June 16th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
You lot believe in made up shit. It is as simple as that. People like you should not be taken seriously, in fact I just cannot see why you are. This society tolerates far to much crank craziness. You guys believe in fairies FFS.
June 16th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Sorry to disappoint you, racer, but I’m an atheist. I haven’t practiced the religion I was baptised into in my life. Get over it.
June 16th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
jackp – you are just plain wrong. Democracy is not meant to be about the tyranny of the majority and the exclusion of the minority (however you may define them on whatever issue). It is about everyone being able to have an input to public policy, and about an attempting to achieve a consensus political direction.
That’s what is good (or at least should, be good) about MMP. If Labour and National could just get over their “born to rule” attitudes, it could work well.
June 16th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
It is either a Tyranny of the majority or Tyranny of the minority Toad.
June 16th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Toad: “If Labour and National could just get over their “born to rule” attitudes, it could work well.”
In other words, “bawwwwwwwwwwwwwwww y dunt u giv us greenies sum more tastee power n stuff.”
June 16th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
My parents never hit me; or my 4 siblings. None of us have had any trouble with the law. Two of us are univeristy students doing honours degrees – both planning on working in the private sector when we graduate (ie “real” life experince). I am more right wing than John Key…. Pretty much I think I don’t have any problems as far as you pro-smacking nutjobs are concerned. Apart from maybe not having been hit as a kid and the strong belief that physical discipline is completely unecessary in raising a child.
June 16th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Toad says “It is about everyone being able to have an input to public policy, and about an attempting to achieve a consensus political direction.”
Banana Llama replies It is either a Tyranny of the majority or Tyranny of the minority Toad
Hurf Durf replies
In other words, “bawwwwwwwwwwwwwwww y dunt u giv us greenies sum more tastee power n stuff.”
Toad me old green chum, I have got a feeling that they don’t understand what consensus decision making process is
June 16th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
That’s rich coming from a watermelon. How much consensus was involved in s59, light bulbs, tuck shops, showers, family size limits and a myriad of other socialist control-freak initiatives? None. Zip. Just pursuit of a failed ideology that demands individuals bow down and worship at the alter of an all powerful state.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
Tuija old chum, i don’t think you understand.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
“Apart from maybe not having been hit as a kid and the strong belief that physical discipline is completely unecessary in raising a child.”
For some kids it is unecessary, you are obviously one of them, no one is sugesting smacking is a one stop shop for all discipline.
Personally, all the parents I have met that don’t smack their kids have violent uncontrollable children. I have yet to meet a single example of that approch being succesfull, you may be the first.
Give us a call back when you have your own kids and a bit more life experience.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Consensus decision making = “bawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww giv us moar attenshun woo muvver gaia woo soo bradphed”
No thank you.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Toad, there isn’t anything better than a referendum to give public impute. Why you think this is undemocratic is puzzling. When you truly look at the reason the anti-smacking law came into being, has nothing to do with democracy, only politicking. Fields is the reason and Labour made a deal with the greens and sue bradford. National watered the bill down and sue bradford was against this otherwise there would be more criminal parents than the one in Christchurch and I truly feel sorry for that man and his family. What a waste of life and time and $$$$. For what? For Labour to gain a majority. Democracy, don’t think so and I think this was an issue that certainly helped them loose the last election. The politicians are thumbing their noses at us, the taxpayer and voters. There should be binding referendums to give politicians a reality check. This is democracy. Another form of true democracy is to ban lobbying. I won’t get into that.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
Erm… in the real world only two of those things came to be Getstaffed, one has been rescinded, the other is being debated again. This is hardly tyrannical.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Did you mean input? Impute almost works better.
June 17th, 2009 at 12:24 am
Family size limits?! give me a break.
June 17th, 2009 at 3:15 am
No Kit Kat for you!!