This entry was posted
on Saturday, July 18th, 2009 at 8:13 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
140 convictions!!! For every conviction there will be about a dozen crimes he hasn’t been caught for.
This is how hard it is to get into jail in this country, he should have locked up for life before he got to 10.
The most cost effective thing for the country to do with this guy is lock him away for the rest of his life, doesn’t matter if its 40 years+. We already pay to house and feed a third of our population who are on benefits or work for the government, and paying to do so for this type will give taxpayers far more benefit than the six figure salaries we pay various commissioners.
Rather than expensive attempts to rehabilitate his type which are bound to fail in the majority of cases, a prison can provide a life better than he might have as a p addict in society. There are plenty of government jobs he could carry out over this time from filing paperwork to manual labour.
I’m sure the Judges and Prison Officers will only ever experience a polite person as I’m sure even rapists, murderers, and paedophiles are often very pleseant and constructive people when not commiting crimes, the only people who know and can judge their character are their victims.
1400 x the cost of the stolen goods
1400 x the property damaged during the crime
1400 x lost productivity and mental scarring to the victims
1400 x additional security measures paid for by the victims thereafter
140 x police investigation costs
140 x court costs
vs
one of cost to build four walls and a roof
1% of a prison guards time to watch him
$5000 pa food and electricity
I wouldn’t bother paying for a psychiatrist to ask him how he feels every week.
One is the progress through Congress of Ron Paul’s bill to audit the Fed. Further to phil’s link, the issue is very well summarised here in 7 mins of video, and this is interesting because the more people understand the Fed and how it works and what its done the less happy they will be. Obviously, very few journos in the MSM are covering this. How odd.
Second story is the progress of the 13 medical professionals to re-open the investigation into Dr Kelly’s mysterious death. A new book is out that covers the surrounding issues very well and this is reviewed here.
So here we are, the saddest part of this is that we did it to ourselves.
1.Drug test randomly every person who gets a bennefit or supplement payment from the Govt, if they fail then take away the assistance for 12 months then retest.
2.No children allowed to visit prisons before age 17.
3.Any liqour licencee who is found guilty of seling to minors is shut down for atleast 2 years.
4.Tender out long term prisoners to countries who will do it for a fraction of the costs, if you dont like that dont go to prison, simple and cheap.
5.Take all Class A drug dealers and manufacturers and execute them, short term career path I would say!
“Goldman Sachs reported a record profit for the latest quarter while J.P. Morgan Chase weighed in with record revenue, and other banks are set to exceed expectations.”
Is this a sign of success of the Bush/Obama bailouts?
Is it an example of the big money creaming it while the small investors cry over their spilt milk?
Refer to page 36 of this report. UK and NZ have victimisation rates of 22% vs US 18%
NZ has the highest rate of car theft and theft from a car, and attempted burglary in the world.
Studies have shown that the most important factor in crime is the risk of getting caught. Police numbers and effectiveness are the number one factor. Also, that incarceration works.
Sonny, prison costs around the $100,000 per prisoner per annum. It varies with the security level, but if you take that as a ballpark figure you won’t be far out.
So, fiscally speaking, I don’t like your idea!
Can you find something that might address it in a less, shall we say restrictive, way?
“Sonny, prison costs around the $100,000 per prisoner per annum. It varies with the security level, but if you take that as a ballpark figure you won’t be far out.”
Crime costs the community much more. Your cost argument does not hold water mathematically. It is cheaper to keep offenders jailed than it is to let them roam the streets and re-offend.
Example (Herald today) -
JOHN ANTHONY CLARK
* 37 years old.
* 166 convictions, 54 for burglary.
He was stealing property at the value of $100, 000 per annum, and that is only the tip of the iceberg in the costs to the community this stinking amoral cowardly parasite has caused.
Sonny, prison costs around the $100,000 per prisoner per annum. It varies with the security level, but if you take that as a ballpark figure you won’t be far out.
I realise this.
But if the person was receiving welfare outside of prison you are looking at less than $50,000 after subtracting saved benefit payments and associated costs.. If they had a job, another person comes off the benefit to take their job.
If you were able to get some productive work out of them you can get close to 0 before you even factor in the cost of crime which is many, many times higher than any incarceration costs.
If it takes 140 convictions before incarceration, we really need to double our prison capacity to properly protect our communities from crime.
For those who like long-range 20 year+ forecasts, have a look at this article which uses generational patterns to identify epochs in civilisation.
For those who’ve never heard of these patterns…
Strauss and Howe have been able to trace consistent 80 to 100 year generational patterns throughout modern history. The 20 to 25 year quartiles are a High (1st Turning), an Awakening (2nd Turning), an Unraveling (3rd Turning), and a Crisis (4th Turning). They have also identified four archetypes that occupy their necessary position within the 80 to 100 year cycle. These archetypes are Prophets, Nomads, Heroes, and Artists. History forms the generations as the generations create history in a repetitive dance throughout the ages. The archetypes always follow the same path. As an example, the Prophet archetype is always born during a High, comes of age during an Awakening, enters midlife during an Unraveling, and spends their elderhood during a Crisis.
He then goes on to analyse the current frame of mind existent in today’s US and looks at what this means for the coming 20+ years. It’s not very good news, really. Bear in mind these patterns have been established throughout history and are visible in various well known events like the American Civil War, the Great Depression, WWI, WWII, etc. One of his tenets in the article is peak oil which I’m a bit of skeptic on, however, I have an open mind on it, certainly the lack of new oil discoveries bears out that issue. All the rest of what he says however rings very true to me and I imagine, many of you as well.
With respect to the energy issue, one thing that’s extremely dangerous to us here in NZ, is the Great South Basin field, which China could easily make a move on if a US vs China and Russia war breaks out. That to me is a very good reason for us to be very careful indeed about how we conduct our international diplomacy over the next decade or so.
Fuck off you repugnant gut turning narcissist and parasite. I could not give one damn what choices this worthless piece of excrement, this coward, made in his life. He has no right to break into people’s houses in the dead of night and steal their property. He wants drugs, let him work for the money like everyone else.
There’s hardly a better use of taxpayer money than jailing criminals.
If you consider the full picture, the huge financial burden that crime inflicts on society, it becomes clear that expenditures for extra policing and prison construction are very good investments.
A useful guideline for the calculation of crime’s financial toll is provided by a 1996 US Department of Justice (DOJ) study titled “Victim Costs and Consequences,” one of the most comprehensive assessments ever made of the costs associated with personal and property crime.
Here’s some text from an article on the study from my database-
————————————————–
The research showed that in recent years the total monetary value of property losses and immediate medical expenses incurred by crime victims has hovered around $18 billion annually. But after additionally factoring in long-term medical and mental health care costs, legal fees, lost earnings due to work time missed, and the cost of public victim assistance programs, this $18 billion figure swells to $105 billion. In other words, the real, tangible costs of violent and personal crimes are about 5.83 times higher than the bare-bones figure.
But even this figure tells only a portion of the story, for it does not consider the values of pain, suffering, and diminished quality of life that criminals inflict upon their victims. To quantify the values of these variables, the research team analyzed jury awards given in recent years to survivors of violent crimes. The punitive damage portions of these awards were ignored, making the sole consideration the dollar amount designated to “compensate” the victims for their suffering and lost quality of life.
With regard to fatal crimes, the researchers found no reliable figures estimating medical costs specifically for homicide victims, and thus based their calculations on the average medical costs associated with fatal workers’ compensation cases. They then faced the cold and difficult task of assigning a monetary value to what would have been the remaining portions of the lives prematurely terminated by crime. In an exhaustive review of the literature on this subject, the DOJ team took the average of nearly fifty previously published values – which were adjusted for the expected life spans of the deceased people involved – and arrived at a figure of $2.7 million per life.
After adding these quality-of-life and premature-death considerations to the mix, the DOJ study estimates that the aggregate costs resulting from crime in America rise by another $345 billion, to $450 billion annually. But the DOJ report does not go far enough, for it does not consider such variables as: (a) white-collar crimes like theft, fraud, and embezzlement; (b) the cost of operating the criminal-justice system; (c) preventive expenditures and actions taken to reduce the risk of victimization; (d) the wasted potential productivity of incarcerated criminals; (e) the lost productivity of injured or traumatized victims; and (f) “victimless” crimes such as drug abuse, gambling, and prostitution. To truly appreciate the heavy financial burden with which crime saddles our nation, we must factor these variables into the equation. Let us briefly consider some of them individually.
The aggregate value of all property and money stolen or obtained through fraud is $603 billion annually. This is probably a conservative estimate of victims’ losses, as it does not account for the value of assets whose theft is unreported.
In 1997, the cost of operating the criminal-justice system (police, prisons, and courts) was $129.8 billion. Moreover, the Justice Department’s crime-fighting expenditures are complemented by $23.38 billion per year from thirty separate government agencies that devote additional resources to law enforcement. Above and beyond even these expenditures, an additional $160.6 billion is devoted to anti-drug trafficking programs.
Americans also allocate huge sums to the purchase of goods and services whose express purpose is to prevent or deter crime. For example, each year they spend $4.3 billion for locks and safes, $1.5 billion for surveillance cameras, another $1.5 billion for safety lighting, $1.1 billion for protective fences and gates, $6.5 billion for alarm systems, and $17.9 billion for private security guards. This is only a very partial list. In the absence of crime, of course, the time and money spent on these protection measures could have been used for other purposes. Simply put, $1,000 spent on a home alarm system is $1,000 that cannot be spent on groceries.
In a 1999 Journal of Law and Economics study, Centre College professor David Anderson quantifies what he calls crime’s “opportunity costs;” i.e., the value of potential opportunities for productivity lost to criminal activity. Because criminals are sitting idly behind bars rather than being productive members of the economy, society is deprived of the goods and services they could otherwise have produced in the time they devoted to crime and its planning. Anderson calculates that the lost workdays that all inmates spend executing their crimes and serving their prison sentences cost society $39.206 billion annually.
Another opportunity cost imposed by crime is based on the National Crime Victimization Survey’s estimate that each year 1.8 million victims lose a combined 6.1 million workdays because of crime, which result in lost wages of $876 million per year. Additionally, a similar formula estimates that the “lost opportunity” value of the hours people devote every year to our nation’s 20,000 Neighborhood Watch programs is $655 million; in other words, the 100,000 person-hours dedicated to these programs each day represent time that otherwise could have been spent on business pursuits or similarly valued leisure activities.
Adding together all the aforementioned costs of criminal activity (including also those quantified by the DOJ study), Anderson calculates that the total aggregate financial burden of crime in America is $1.705 trillion per year – a monumental figure. Thus, if stricter law enforcement is successful at diminishing crime rates, it must be embraced as a worthwhile investment – regardless of whether it has a “disparate impact” on people of any particular race, ethnicity, gender, or age group.
Philu’s sitting in a bar having a few beers when a short, well-dressed and obvious
gay guy walks in and sits beside him.
After three or four beers the gay guy plucks up the courage to say something to Philu.
Leaning over towards Philu he whispers, ‘Do you want a blow-job?’
At this philu leaps up with fire in his eyes and smacks the gay guy in the face, knocking him swiftly off the stool…
He proceeds to beat him all the way out of the bar before leaving the little precious one bruised and battered in the car park, and returned to his seat at the bar.
Amazed, the barman quickly brings over another beer.
‘I’ve never seen you react like that’, he says,’ Just what did he say to you?’
“If it takes 140 convictions before incarceration”
Nah, he will have been to prison many times before he gets to 140. As a druggie crim he will have a lot of burgs in his list and that tends to get you locked up pretty quickly.
RB, I don’t doubt that the costs, especially of property crime, are high, although I am not sure they will go above the cost of yearly imprisonment on a per person basis. But, if we take Sonny’s example from the Herald, wouldn’t a decent rehab (which the country really doesn’t have) be more effective?
I know all of the arguments about the person needing to admit their problem and so on, I have seen it with my own clients, but I just look at the types of property offenders that come through my office and I see a large amount of them fit into two categories: young men (usually 17-18 years old) who break into cars, and slightly older men with drug habits. If you talk to the cops in my area, you will find that we don’t have too many ‘professional’ burglars. Many burglars are men who are stealing to pay for their habit. I don’t defend that (the stealing or the habit) but I just wonder from time to time if we could do it differently.
I have no problems with the idea of them doing rehab while in prison, but to get onto those courses you need to have very lengthy sentences, which most don’t get. The prison rehab/course system is completely dysfunctional, at least from where I sit, and needs a complete overhaul.
I just don’t think that the idea that “The most cost effective thing for the country to do with this guy is lock him away for the rest of his life, doesn’t matter if its 40 years+.” is anything but kneejerk and ill thought out.
“RB, I don’t doubt that the costs, especially of property crime, are high, although I am not sure they will go above the cost of yearly imprisonment on a per person basis.”
It kind of puzzles me that one who subscribes to such a temperate style of debate could say such a thing after reading the facts in my post at 11.27am. There is no doubt that jailing crims is the cheaper option, and whether the crime is against property or person is unimportant.
The real argument is this:
1) The country is broke.
2) It is awash with crime, having one of the highest rates in the world.
There is no patience for namby pamby rehab solutions and there is not the money. The real problem here is the breakdown of morality. The solution is to rebuild the invisible walls that stop people from committing crime.
Once glass was enough to deter criminals. Now one needs security locks, steel screens and a raft of other measures.
The benefit of harsh treatment of criminals is that it reinforces morality in society and help draw the line between good and bad. A line the left, (with the kind of tripe you read from worthless unspeakable wretches on here) have spent decades erasing.
Singapore has no serious crime or drug problem. Because society and the government and morality has not been white anted by left wing social engineers posing as “liberals”.
It is not the law abiding Joe Citizens’s job or cost to pay for reforming adults who have not been raised correctly. (rehab) Joe has his own family to care for. If good and bad are clear concepts within society, kids will be raised right. The first step in conquering crime is to restore morality.
Those generations fouled by left wing doctrine are better locked up for good as “write offs”. I just do not have the time money or patience for them any more.
And I especially do not have time for ideas that contribute to the undermining of good and bad by manufacturing excuses for amoral behaviour.
that’s a must-read read there reid…all mp’s should read it..eh..?
Rings true, doesn’t it. Buckle yourself in. The next twenty years are not going to be boring.
It’s almost inevitable that the next war will open with a nuclear exchange. You know the first thing they do upon detecting a launch? Detonate atmospheric EMPs all over the planet. Every unhardened plane in the air drops out of the sky, every unhardened computer system stops working, the entire electrical grid goes out. And that’s before all the thermal and radiation damage.
I would also not be surprised to see the trigger for the crisis being a nuclear detonation in a major US city. Blamed on Iran.
I just don’t think that the idea that “The most cost effective thing for the country to do with this guy is lock him away for the rest of his life, doesn’t matter if its 40 years+.” is anything but kneejerk and ill thought out.
No it’s not and this is why:
Nah, he will have been to prison many times before he gets to 140. As a druggie crim he will have a lot of burgs in his list and that tends to get you locked up pretty quickly.
If this is the case he obviously shouldn’t have been let out.
I really believe your response is kneejerk and ill thought out.
When we let John Clark out in 2 years, we know he is going to break into someones house and steal tens of thousands of dollars of someones hard work.
Do you think it is acceptable for us to put this burden on an innocent member of the public?
Whilst he may not reoffend on release, he lost the benefit of the doubt well before 166 convictions.
We let Grame Burton kill Karl Kuchenburger, we let William Bell commit the RSA murders, etc, etc. When someone amasses a decent record, we know whats gonna happen next and we have no right to pretend otherwise and let innocent people suffer.
It is nothing to do with retribution, it is the unfortunate reality. I don’t think prison has to be that horrible of an existence.
The people in prison are the leaders of our criminal communities, if you seperate them from the other vulnerable people out there, there will be less people led down the criminal path in the future.
“Singapore has no serious crime or drug problem. ”
Most police states don’t, RB.
Personally, I agree the treatment of prisoners has to be harsh, but it’s important for it not to be brutal. There’s a critical distinction there and I think the level of violence and intimidation that we today allow inside prisons is not acceptable in anyway. Prison is deprivation of freedom, end of story. It is not and should not, be about violence.
There are various ways to achieve that, starting with 24/7 surveillance of every single nook and cranny with no exceptions and extremely harsh penalties for even the mildest breach of a zero tolerance policy. In addition you would classify prisoners based on their personal nature and not on the crimes they committed and have different regimes for the different types.
I can’t see why that wouldn’t work, if one had the will. Trouble is, I imagine that if you put it them, the prison reform lefties talk about how howwible it would be to subject everyone to that surveillance and the conservatives would talk about the extra cost. I don’t find either objection particularly compelling, in light of what you’d gain.
Reid, I’ve got better things to do than exchange words with extremist propaganda fed nutjobs. If Singapore is a police state, where’s the Iran style riots? Why do four million people plus choose to live there and many more seek (fruitlessly) to emigrate there??
RB, I didn’t respond to those figures because they were US figures and I didn’t see how they fitted into the NZ stats. That’s all.
Actually, I would happily have any person convicted of possession of any illicit drug subject to a sentence of imprisonment. No problems with that at all. That goes to the same arguments we were having with KP yesterday on the child porn debate: if you hit the end users hard then the demand for production will lessen. Singapore hangs drug traffickers. Maybe that is something we should consider? Either way, I agree that a tough line on drug use is necessary, however you do it.
My concern is the idea of locking someone up for the rest of their lives because they have a significant criminal background, which is what Sonny was suggesting. I have no problems with a tough line, otherwise, so long as the process that obtained a conviction was a fair one.
Dealing with crims on a daily basis, there are actually only a few that I write off. I think that you are correct when you say that the problem is a breakdown in morality. A lot of the problem is evident in schools from an early age, especially those that focus on engineering society rather than simply educating. I think I have said before, but the overriding trait of many of my clients is one of complete self-centredness.
I don’t know what the answer is fully, but it isn’t preventive detention for property offenders.
I would like it if you developed the point on the morality point. How do we restore that? The socialists have complete control of our education system and they don’t like that word.
Edit: Sonny, my grandfather was a prison nurse in the 60s, and then worked in hospitals after that. He always maintained that the best form of rehab was cold turkey and then a complete change of lifestyle. None of this methadone crap that we have today. That just keeps them addicts for longer.
“Reid, I’ve got better things to do than exchange words with extremist propaganda fed nutjobs. If Singapore is a police state, where’s the Iran style riots? Why do four million people plus choose to live there and many more seek (fruitlessly) to emigrate there??”
Where’s the Iran style riots? Crikey, RB, it’s only 12:30 and you’re drunk already. You should see someone about your confusion before you hurt yourself. Clearly, you haven’t lived in Sing. It is a police state. The velvet glove type. You try on anti-social behaviours there and you’re fucked. There is no tolerance and no benevolence. You don’t criticise the govt, just like you don’t in China. The reason most westerners live there is for business. Most of the residents are ethnic Malay, Chinese or Indian. I tire of this. Discussing things sensibly with extremist propaganda fed nutjobs like yourself is boring. Try not to reply as I don’t care what you think, or say.
“RB, I didn’t respond to those figures because they were US figures and I didn’t see how they fitted into the NZ stats. That’s all.”
Why would it be substantially different anywhere else? At least in the US the culture allows diversity of opinion, (well , it did until Obama was elected) and that’s why information like that in the report is available.
Most criminals are welfare receipients. Some of the highest rates of crime can be found in the socialist coutries. Take away their welfare, criminals have to work, and that means they have less time or opportunity for crime. Work also increases one’s sense of self worth and therefore again will decrease crime focused tendencies.
“I would like it if you developed the point on the morality point. How do we restore that?”
We cease worshipping government and return to faith in family.
“The socialists have complete control of our education system and they don’t like that word.’
If reason fails, and the left continue to destroy democracy, we will have to remove them by force as the only remaining alternative. If the first two means fail, there is a tipping point that predicates that one day, the third solution will inevitably be reached.
We are talking about someone with 166 convictions. Do you think it is acceptable to have people with 166 convictions free in society when they clearly have not been rehabilitated?
Once again Phool demonstrates that liberal parasites like spending other peoples money.
This wanker CHOSE to take drugs Phool yet you want me to pay for the piece of shits rehabilitation?
Mind you, it does not surprise me, you think that work should be optional and that you have the right to try or do anything safe in the knowledge that the tax payer will pick up the bill.
It baffles me how Phool can take money from hard working Kiwi blokes every week when he (Phool) knows that he is not contributing anything to society.
I have. For a long time. I enjoyed it. I lived there even when I could leave if I wanted to. Like every other Singaporean citizen. The government is not so in your face as here. They collect only half as much tax. Woman can walk the streets there any time of night. They cannot in NZ. Your sick Progressive style concepts of freedom are a socially destructive fraud and in reality, ideas that imprison society in a cell of its own making.
Police state… pfft, you’re a Progressive whack job.
Anybody with 166 convictions should never have had the chance to commit that many crimes, the man should have been locked up for good before he got the chance to commit his tenth.
RB, according to that political test a few weeks back, I’m precisely centrist in my views and as you know I frequently critique both left and right policies and politicians. The only reason you think I’m progressive is because you’re a rabid idiot without objectivity.
How many Singaporeans have been granted asylum in “non police states”????
Heres’ some news you sad ignorant irrational fuckwit. Singaporeans don’t even want to come here (NZ) anymore because they actually have much more freedom in Singapore, including a tax freedom day that comes four months before it does in your “non police state paradise”.
Where you have voted yourself into tyranny and a sick downward spiral of crime welfarism and violence that as other posters above point out, there is little chance of escaping from (I think) without violent revolution.
BTW, I didn’t click on your link. When the hell have you ever come up with a source worth a pinch of goat shit??
“RB, according to that political test a few weeks back,”
Oh gawd. A contrived piece of artifice based on sick Progressive ideas itself, with concepts relating to freedom that are so deeply flawed it is laughable. Get a damn brain for chrissakes.
In the time he has ‘worked’ for me he has been caught drunk driving while disqualified half a dozen times, usually spending a night in a holding cell because he got shitty with the officer.
After about the second or third time I discussed this with the staff member who was called in on their day off to cover his shift while he was at the cop shop, and we agreed that he would keep doing it until he was locked up because there were no real consequences for him, and it would be far better for him than going to jail later on for killing someone. But they kept letting him out.
Eventually he went for sentencing and got given… a curfew. The weekend immediately upon sentencing, he celebrated his last night out by getting drunk, driving home, and getting caught.
To be caught half a dozen times, I suspect he has been driving around drunk every weekend for at least the last year. If he had been put in the slammer the 2nd or 3rd time he had done this, he might have learned a lesson and be out by now. But instead the justice system has knowingly left him to endanger innocent peoples lives for the last year.
Like you say FESmith, his overiding character trait is complete self-centredness. He simply cannot be reasoned with. We are letting these people out because the Justice system would rather stick to it’s budgets and let us pay for it.
I think two important points have been highlighted regarding how a society controls crime, and indeed, all behaviour that impinges on the lives of others.
Firstly, a police state [a la Singapore] imposes control by external means upon its populace. The individuals motive is one of fear of the state, and this is what regulates his behaviour.
Secondly, the individual is taught the difference between right and wrong; he is taught, and thereby provided with, a ‘moral code’ which not only, as a minimum, teaches him to ‘obey the law’, but causes him to consider exactly how his actions will affect other members of society. In short, his ‘moral code’ affects his world-view, and one could argue that the ‘law’ written upon his heart greatly exceeds that which is imposed upon him by societal restraints [ie the laws of the land].
Of course, most of us know which society we would prefer to live in. But if we do not teach our children ‘good morals’ then we as a society will continue down the road of increasing state imposed sanctions, until we ultimately become a fully fledged police state.
If we look at the freedoms we have lost as a society in the last ~40 years as evidenced by increasing legislation that regulates all our lives, and the burgeoning prison population, to name just two, then I think the writing is clearly on the wall as to where we are ultimately headed if we don’t turn society around.
Given that I happen to live in the country, I must side with reid on the issue of Singapore as a “velvet glove” state. Contrary to the ranter’s claims, there are issues of violent crime, drugs and other anti-social conduct that are comparable to those of NZ given the demographics of the country, but the news of such events is heavily controlled and often suppressed entirely. Instead, the public is fed a steady diet of “threats” ranging from epidemics, to cyclones, to illegal immigration to–at least once a week– terrorism. All of these threats can only be countered by the state, not the people themselves, so what is promoted is a form of social dependency whereby the citizens are inculcated with the belief that only the state can save them from disaster(s). Informants and plain close police substitute for an overt uniformed presence on the street, and the bottom line is that so long as one does not engage in open anti-social behaviour, and most importantly, engage in criticism of the state, then the velvet never comes off the fist. But should one decide to do either, then the true nature of the PAP-run state is quick to surface. Add to that the extensive use of state welfare systems to deepen citizen dependency on the state for housing, subsidised food, transport etc., and you have the makings of a very compliant society. It is authoritarian genius, SE Asia style.
Bottom line: comparing NZ to SG when it comes to approaches to crime as well as most other things is specious in the extreme and demonstrates a profound ignorance not only of comparative methodology (which I am sure is of no interest to such as the ranter) but also of the basic facts of the cases involved. But then again, one should never let facts get in the way of a good diatribe.
“BTW, RB, how do you feel about water? You OK with it?”
I don’t need to try and shift the argument because I cannot defend my POV with rationale and reason. Singapore is not a “Police State” and it is absurd to claim it is. Only those who weakly succumb to Progressive propaganda hold that view, and you do that endlessly.
I believe our liberal soft cock politicians have neutered their constituents and basically left us defenseless. How many times does the criminal in this country end up looking like the victim?. God forbid a citizen make a stand and take some of these scumbags out, they usually end up in deeper shit then those that perpetrate the crime. I don’t wish to see the wild west but it would be good if the common citizen of this country enjoyed the full protection of the state instead of it’s wrath should they decide to defend family and property. We have breed a society of victims and to add insult to injury the state runs around like a chook with it’s head cut off, running blind with no idea of how to pull us from the mire.
“Singapore is not a “Police State” and it is absurd to claim it is.”
Well apparently Paul Buchanan disagrees with you RB, and with his background, I think he’d be able to assess the issue better than most – certainly better than you or I.
Now, about that water. You really should check that link, RB. It could explain a lot.
Finally, “Only those who weakly succumb to Progressive propaganda hold that view, and you do that endlessly.”
Now how the heck would you know what I read and what I believe? You don’t even know what I look like. Do you really think you can assess someone’s belief’s from interpolating blog posts? You’re crazy, and not like a fox.
“But then again, one should never let facts get in the way of a good diatribe.”
So how long did you live in Singapore, and when did you experience all that “facts” that you report on?? Given your dislike for rants, I would expect you’d have some pretty positive responses to those questions or else you may actually be guilty of pot kettle back syndrome.
And how do you justify tax freedom day, the measure of a population’s enslavement to the state, being four months ahead of NZ??
The real truth is, all academic Progressive based sick leftist waffle aside, Singaporeans as self supporting individuals have far more regard for the concept of liberty than your average socialist, dependency addicted NZer.
“Well apparently Paul Buchanan disagrees with you RB, and with his background, I think he’d be able to assess the issue better than most – certainly better than you or I.”
Bullshit. He is (IMHO) merely another left wing academic with opinions fed and moulded by Progressive sources. I have not read one comment from him on this blog that is not framed in those terms.
Redbaiter 1:26 pm,
Singapore is not necessarily the most extreme example of a ‘police state’, but I believe it is one nonetheless. I have two friends who are both native Singaporeans, and they do not deny that in reality it is a police state. Provided you don’t ‘kick the dog’ you are generally ok. They have moved to NZ because of the greater freedoms [free speech, etc], and because it is a better place to raise their two children.
If you feel more comfortable with me using ‘China’ as an example, then I encourage you to re-read my comment at 1:12 pm in light of this.
“If you feel more comfortable with me using ‘China’ as an example, then I encourage you to re-read my comment at 1:12 pm in light of this.”
You failed to answer the questions. You have no argument. Only propaganda and poorly formed concepts moulded by left wing academia and media sources.
To suggest there is any real comparison between democratic Singapore and Communist China ruled by a mass murdering and criminal military junta is just a sick joke.
For those who wonder why I reject the “Singapore is a police state” view, it is because opponents of harsh punishment always, in any debate on crime, use this as a means to excuse NZ’s poor performance in law and order. Lame lame lame.
Singapore’s success in maintaining a relatively crime free society is not down to it being a “police state”, and NZ’s failure’s to provide law and order is likewise not down to tolerance for diverse political views.
The “police state” allegation is a complete red herring.
One of the points it makes in talking about the current world recession is that macroeconomists, especially within central banks, have been too fixated on taming inflation and too cavalier about asset bubbles.
Now doesn’t that sum up NZ? Our Reserve Bank, via interest rates, keeps the kiwi dollar crazily high, and assets are pumped up by inflowing capital from Japan etc for the high interest, all in the name of holding inflation.
Ballard has just finished singing the praises of how well NZ is going, on the eve of Fitch warning of a possible credit downgrade. The effect of Ballard’s statement was to hold up the kiwi.
He, and even Brash before him, applying the mandates given them by politicians, have almost stuffed the country by handicapping export industries (and inflating property prices) in a one-eyed battle to tame inflation. The resultant large gap in the balance of payments and rising foreign debt to finance it, threaten not only NZ now, but the country’s economy for decades to come.
Don Brash in latter times has been calling for efforts to find other tools to combat inflation, but meantime we blunder on with a faulty, damaging tool.
Redbaiter 1:54 pm,
“You failed to answer the questions. You have no argument. Only propaganda and poorly formed concepts moulded by left wing academia and media sources.”
The two friends I cited actually were born and lived in Singapore. Are you implying that they, too, are victems of both “propaganda and poorly formed concepts moulded by left wing academia and media sources”?
In much the same way as asking a Kiwi what life in NZ is like, I think individuals who have been born and raised in a country are likely to provide a fairly balanced and honest account of exactly ‘how things are’ in said country.
Proves nothing. I too have Singaporean friends who went back because they thought NZ was a violent dependency centered crime ridden drug addicted freak zone. Answer the questions I posed or go away.
philu- just for you ok, read what I blogged, I didnt say executethe addicts, I said execute the pushers and manufacturers, big difference, if addicts need help fine , dont have a problem with that ,help them.
As with all soft leaning tossers, you fail to grasp the problem but never fail to offer answers, thats the reason we are where we are.
………….uuuummmmm………..
bbbbbbuuut………..
……….for fffffff……….
………ssaaakkee…
Although I disagree with Kris K that Singapore and China are comparable as police states (SG is, in fact, far more benign on a number of counts), the notion that SIngapore is “democratic” verges on lunacy. To make such claims is to reveal a willing ignorance or bias that renders any argument fatuous. Moreover, equating lower tax rates with higher degrees of freedom is equally ludicrous, especially when the trade-off for lower taxes is serious restrictions on freedoms of speech and assembly ( I shall leave aside the use of lower tax rates as a lure for foreign skilled labour, which is the ghost behind the PAP machine).
It would be far better for anti-crime conservatives to compare NZ with the approach of other liberal democracies (say, Canada) rather than expose themselves as capitalist authoritarian sycophants by using the likes of Singapore as a model for NZ crime-fighting.
I agree that NZ is largely “a violent dependency centered crime ridden drug addicted freak zone”. But we’re getting side-tracked with the whole ‘Singapore’ thing. The real issue is, as I stated at 1:12 pm, do we want to become a police state, or have morally sound individuals that make up society as a means of societal control? I state again, that if we dont aim for the latter then we will, by default, end up with the former.
If Singapore was the “police state” you claim, the questions I posed should be answered in thirty seconds flat. That you cannot answer them proves your allegations false. Without a doubt.
“especially when the trade-off for lower taxes is serious restrictions on freedoms of speech and assembly”
Typical left wing academic bullshit. If I had the time I would prove to you that in actuality, NZ with its soft totalitarian socialist tyranny, and the influence of huge numbers of welfare recipients on each election, is far less democratic than Singapore.
People, it is because we have listened to the waffle of misguided misinformed academics like Mr. Buchanan, isolated and safe from dissent in their carpeted heavily curtained smoke filled, staff rooms, that we are in the sewer we are in. Their ideas, always deeply rooted in the post modern Progressive paradigm, must be confronted at every opportunity if we are ever to escape the mire these ideologically blind zealots have led us into.
If I had the time I would prove to you that in actuality, NZ with its soft totalitarian socialist tyranny, and the influence of huge numbers of welfare recipients on each election, is far less democratic than Singapore.
If there is one thing I am well and truly sick of, it is that addiction to drugs and alcoholism is refered to as a health issue. It simply is not. I was addicted to smokes for nearly 30 years. I was using coke through the first part of the 80 s and believed myself to be addicted. It was only when I stopped blaming addiction and claiming it to be a health issue that I stopped smoking and snorting.
Any alcoholic and drug user who claims that it is a health issue are simply gutless wankers who shifts the blame somewhere else. “not my fault I am sick.” Piss off, from an ex smoker and snorter, you are full of it. It is your fault, you are the user, you are the fool. You are doing it to your self. Take ownership and deal with it. Else you end up a long term loser like Phool. Claims to worry about healthy eating, smokes dope. Blames all else for his waste of a life.
Same goes for those on twelve step programmes. Stop blaming others and own the damn addiction then deal with it.
Sorry about this rant but seeing the oh help me I am not responsible BS at the start of this thread just annoyed me.
This is also the one place the Libs argument about drug use falls down. You just had to spend time in Amsterdam in the late 70′s to know that their drug policies are useless. Back then you could go into a cafe, smoke a joint snort a few lines and in some even shoot up (never my gig) to your hearts content. The problem is that dope turns you into a lazy sloth and heroin into a useless sack of nothing. So these guys still went out and stole and burgled. The speed freaks still got into weird fights and bloodshed.
I remember speaking to a guy who we helped after he nearly got his head kicked in in Amsterdam. He had tried to steal a car radio and the owner caught him. Kicked the hell out of him. We cleaned him up and got him off to medical help. I asked him why he was trying to steal the radio. He wanted to buy some dope. Well why did you not go and buy it at the cafe…?, no money…, but It was welfare day, yep but the office was two km away, and he knew some-one who would buy the radio a couple of hundred yards down the road. Also he wanted a joint before going to the welfare office later that day…
yep that “addiction” what a crock. And it is never a victimless crime.
I must say that the last rant was brilliant. I and other academics get credit for the decline of NZ “into the sewer.” Shoot, were that half true! I cannot even get back into NZ academia much less consort with other post-modern progressive wafflers in “carpeted heavily curtained smoke filled, staff rooms” (sic and WTF?!) In fact, my experience is that academics spend so much time back-stabbing and nitpicking over petty matters that they could not organise a piss-up in an navy pool hall. But I like the idea that somewhere there is someone who actually believes that academics wield such power. I need to get some of whatever you are smoking/drinking/snorting/injecting/inserting. Alas, in SG I cannot, what with the death penalty and all that… :-0
“In fact, my experience is that academics spend so much time back-stabbing and nitpicking over petty matters that they could not organise a piss-up in an navy pool hall.”
True. Confirmation of that old saying: “If you cannot do, teach”.
It baffles me how Phool can take money from hard working Kiwi blokes every week when he (Phool) knows that he is not contributing anything to society.
..simple…whores a parasite , finds a host ( taxpayer ) and lives off it. Trouble is..whore has bred already…theres another parasite waitin in line…and the cycle continues..eh??..eh..??
If it takes 140 convictions before incarceration, we really need to double our prison capacity to properly protect our communities from crime.
For every person like this, who should have been dealt with long ago, I can show you someone who’s been locked up on their first offemce – and not for harming another person.
The problem is, different judges have different attitudes to the same crime. So strike a run of “soft” judges and you get an unbelieveable lucky streak like the guy you cite in your example (not that he’d had 100+ soft judges, of course. Most of those charges would have come before a judge in batches).
What do you think of this, for instance?
Case 1: a young girl, no previous convictions but a drug addict, who waved a weapon at two people, in two separate crimes a few days apart, in an attempt to get money for drugs. She was so stoned, and it was broad daylight, that the victims were left so untraumatised they declined to even file a victim impact statement and instead expressed the wish she was given treatment for her addiction and rehabilitated.
The prosecutor recommended a 2 to 3 year sentence. The defence concurred. The judge said “I don’t care, I’m handing out five” on the basis that the second robbery occured while on bail. So really she was sentenced not for the seriousness of her crimes but for a bail breach. Because the total sentnece is over 4 years she must serve 3 before being eligible for parole.
Case 2: another young girl, but this one with previous convictions. Walked up to a woman at an ATM, demanded money and was refused. Pulled out a hunting knife, stabbed the victim in the upper arm, withdrew the knife, abused the victim, then stabbed her again. The victim received 27 stitches and her victim impact report said she has nightmares, can’t sleep, can’t concentrate, feels constantly afraid etc.
The judge in that case handed down a sentence of three years. because it’s less than 4 years total, she becomes eligible for parole in 18 months. So she has received half the sentence given to the first girl, who harmed no one.
And that’s just one appeal I’m working on at present. What’s more, when one is researching precedents more and more cases come up whereby the sentence is really nothing more than the luck of the draw. For every “lucky” scumbag like the one you cite, there’s at least one unlucky person whose life wne toff the rails – usually becasue of drugs – and who has been thrown into jail for far too lonmg and with no real hope of rehabilitation.
These are issues worth debating from other than an “all criminals are scum, lock them away forever” versus “all criminals are poor misguided souls who need nannying” perspective. But sadly that’s what it always seems to come down to, even when someone like Sian Elias tries to kickstart a rational debate.
Apart from the fact phil chooses a lifestyle some disapprove of, what’s he done wrong here?
It’s a legal choice and while the word bludging springs to mind, he doesn’t hurt or harm anyone in what he does and if he chooses to live off a few hundred a week when clearly he’s capable of generating far more than that, what’s the damage?
There are far more useless cases out there who do the same bludging routine and we don’t get all upset about them. Gang members on the dole, for example.
Shit it is a slow day, isn’t it.
Anyone read that link I posted previously? Apart from phil?
Rex, Increasingly I’ve of the mind that the judicial system we have is more suited to the 17th century than the 21st.
Do we really need to hold judges in such high esteem, their decisions almost above questioning or was that ancient tradition started as a device to control Commoners, deterring them expressing doubt in a system that hands out results like a lottery?
reid
Apart from the fact phil chooses a lifestyle some disapprove of, what’s he done wrong here
..youre such a lefty apologist reid..I bet you wear roman sandles and knee high socks with shorts whilst sporting a beard.
you hang out around public libraries and ride a vespa ’round town wearin a helmet with no peak…heh heh (snort snigger!)
What joke this bloody argument is .you want less in prison let me run the outfit for 2 years I guarantee that the Population in the prison would drop dramatically.
Make it so bloody horrible, so bloody degrading that the last place on earth you would want to be is inside.
1.Food only available to those who work an 16 hour day, no exceptions.
2,One blanket, no heating.
3.No medical treatment for anything, either live or die.
4.No visitors.
5.No rights of any kind.
6.Take away anything and everything, you go to jail and sit and work when told and you complete the total time.
7.Anyone pedalling drugs is executed, a inmate or prison warden.
8.Any disobbedience is punishable by an extra 2 years mandatory jail.
9.No contact with the outside world at all.
All this would be for repaet offender ,as anyone can make a mistake.
P.S. philu I would let you do 2 terms in my perfect world.
Take the worst you can think of then treble it ,then the population will drop consistantly.
reid (and others concerned about victims) please have a listen to this remarkable young woman, paticularly from 11’20″ remaining (the timer counts down not up) where she talks about the criminals she’s encountered during that time.
She’s been the victim of horrendous crimes, been through Family and Supreme Court trials, fought for the rights of victims, been a member of a government Victims Reference Group, and then was appointed to the Prisoner Review (Parole) Board.
She has an intelligent, reasoned approach to justice issues – no soft “treat all criminals as victims” approach by any means, but she also realises that unless the drivers of criminality are dealt with effectively and criminals properly supported within jails (which does not happen now – rehabilitation is grossly under-resourced because it doesn’t win votes) and upon release, then we are condemning society to a cycle of recidivist offending.
Sian Elais’s point wasn’t that we should ignore victims, but that by placing them at the centre of the trial and sentencing process we risk making the entire process about revenge. If the judge doesn’t hand down as harsh a sentence as demanded by the victim, they run the risk of being called “soft”, despite the fact that a myriad of other issues ought rightly to be taken into account.
One of Georgia’s main points is that there’s no such thing as “criminals” – each offender is an individual and what works for one won’t work for another. Yet we persist in viewing an offender as their crime – “he’s a burglar, he’s a car thief” – and sentencing them accordingly.
She concludes: “I don’t know what ‘tough on crime’ means, and I don’t know what it’s meant to do… we need to stop labelling people.”
“Apart from the fact phil chooses a lifestyle some disapprove of, what’s he done wrong here?”
Surely you are taking the piss?
If you and your left wing mates think that what Phool is doing is OK then how about you pay extra tax to pay for his lifestyle while those of us who think he is nothing but a parasite pay nothing.
Are you also saying that you approve of his lifestyle?, do you really think that other hard working Kiwi’s should have work 5-6 days a weeks so that drug fucked wreck can sit on his lazy arse all day doing nothing?
“There are far more useless cases out there who do the same bludging routine and we don’t get all upset about them. Gang members on the dole, for example”
How is Phool any different from a gang member?, both are parasites, both are a drain on public funds and both terrorise innocent members of our community to obtain what they want, Phool is every bit as bad as a gang member, indeed there is an argument to say he is doing far more damage, the example he is setting for his kids is shocking, he is raising another generation of bludgers who think that other people owe them a living.
Are you also saying that you approve of his lifestyle?
No, I thought my use of the word “bludger” was a clue there. But the reason I don’t approve is because he’s a capable guy able to earn lots more than he gets on whichever benefit he’s on. So the reason I don’t approve is more because I see it as a waste, rather than I resent paying for him, since as I said, I also pay for other wankers who I don’t approve of.
How is Phool any different from a gang member?
As far as I know, he’s not a violent wanker, notwithstanding his conviction, which I understand was many years ago. People do change, and phil is evidence of that fact.
the example he is setting for his kids is shocking, he is raising another generation of bludgers who think that other people owe them a living
How do you know what attitudes his son has, unless you know him personally. Do you?
As far as I know, he’s not a violent wanker, notwithstanding his conviction, which I understand was many years ago. People do change, and phil is evidence of that fact.
..told ya !!! Fuckin apologist for scumbags !! Whores was an armed drugged up robber !! People change pffft…leopards etc…
whore is evidence of the fact??? Do you know him ??
“really bruv..attacking my offspring..eh..?…that’s a bit tacky..”
I did pause for a moment before I posted my comments, however I reckon that you attack the offspirng of every single hard working Kiwi with your lazy, bludging lifestyle, because of scum like you there are hard working men who cannot provide things for their kids, because of scum like you there are kids who have to go without because YOU choose to be a lazy fuck.
My comments stand Phool, I pray that your kids turn out differently however I suspect that with a junkie and a bludger for a parent they will end up being just like you.
Do I know Phool?…you must be joking, If I did I would spend a large part of my day pestering the local WINZ office about him and the way he is ripping off the system.
I would NEVER have anything to do with low life like him.
..told ya !!! Fuckin apologist for scumbags !! Whores was an armed drugged up robber !!
Yeh, I know. I also understand (correct me if I’m wrong), no-one was hurt as-in, assaulted or wounded, and it was a long time ago.
What would you do, starboard. Endless condemnation without forgiveness is not a good path. Immediate forgiveness without holding to account is not a good path.
Where are you on that spectrum?
P.S. No, I don’t know him, but I have been reading his comments since he started and his attitude has been consistent all that time. Admittedly he might be completely different from my impression if I did know him, but you get a vague sense over time, about what sort of person he is.
Justice Ministry chief executive Belinda Clark: $470,000 to $480,000.
This from a news item today. Lota hooch for the job in an organization that is a failure. But then no doubt its another of Clarks Quality womens Brigade.
A pox on women Chiefs. The just are hopeless.
By way of comparison:
* Peter Hughes, chief executive of the Social Development Ministry, the biggest government department: salary package of $530,000 to $539,000.
* Stephen McKernan, chief executive of the Health Ministry: $500,000 to $510,000.
* Justice Ministry chief executive Belinda Clark: $470,000 to $480,000.
* Prime Minister John Key: $393,000, plus allowances and superannuation.
So for running a failing organization she earns 80000 more than Keys.
In the article by Colin James with link below James contends that, “National brokered the awkward compromise as an article of politics to avoid losing women’s votes.”
Roughly 80% of the public want the law changed. The may be more men than women but certainly well over 50% of woman want a law change.
I suppose maybe more woman that men may vote on this issue but I cannot see National gaining votes by supporting this unpopular law. I suspect the Nats have done some backroom deal with the Watermelons.
Does anyone have a view on National’s real motive for supporting this anti-parental authority law?
Chuck is right, Neville Key is so fucking determined to be a three or four term PM that he will do a deal with the devil just to stay in power.
The man is a bloody disgrace, he has sold out all those people he conned into voting for him, many thought they were going to get tax cuts, many thought they were going to see a change in the anti smacking law, many thought they were going to see National get tough on dole and DPB bludgers, and many thought we were going to see a referendum on MMP.
While Neville Key has not yet backed down on the MMP referendum I can assure that he will, either that or the bastard will word the question in such a way that he achieves the outcome he wants, Key has done a deal with the communist Green party over MMP and the anti smacking bill, the sooner we get rid of him the better.
Justice Ministry chief executive Belinda Clark: $470,000 to $480,000.
So for running a failing organization she earns 80000 more than Keys.
Yep, and it’s her and her minions – not the Chief Justice, as some were trying to make out the other day – who’s responsible for the endless delays and snafus in trying to obtain justice in this country. And it is the MoJ who oppose any change to any aspect of the current system. Yet the obvious fact that it isn’t working is the one thing on which we all seem agreed, regardless of our respective views on sentencing etc.
Must be nice to be in the public service, taking home nearly $10,000 every week and entirely insulated from the fallout from your incompetence. Just ask Barry Matthews.
After 2 and a half years battling the lethargy and incompetence of the family court I could easily start sounding like D4J. We finally (over two fn years after filing!) got the hearing at the end of march, nearly 4 months later and the judge still hasn’t made a decision, in the meantime I travel over a thousand km each week driving the kids to and from school. why the f would a straightforward decision take 4 months to make? What judge would put up with a jury (a committee!) taking 4 month? Could the quality of the decision possibly be improving after such a time? Does the judge still remember what we look like? Does the judge still have any recollections of the proceedings at that hearing considering all the other cases she’s seen in the interim?
“Indeed philu, it is not my usual style but it is early in the day here in SG and I am in the mood to stir.”
Gosh. Seeking the allegiance of one of the the most odious and cowardly Kiwiblog posters of all time. How the mighty can fall.
Now back to my point, that those who whine about the lack of democracy in Singapore completely overlook the real perversion of the voting system that exists in NZ as a result of the left’s abuse of the welfare system.
From Muriel Newman’s stats- (somewhat dated now but still relevant enough for the point)
———————————-
There are 870,000 adult New Zealanders who predominantly rely on the state for their benefits and pensions. Every 100 full-time workers support 56 full-time beneficiaries or pensioners. And if dependent children are included, there are over one million New Zealanders whose prime income comes from the state.
Labour takes $15 billion in PAYE tax from working New Zealanders, roughly the same as it spends on all benefits and pensions: $10,000 a year from every full time worker. Of this, $7.5 billion (seventeen percent of annual spending) goes on benefits to working age New Zealanders. Over 6,100 persons on the dole have been on a benefit for more than ten years.
Labours 1999 pledge was no rise in income tax for 95% of taxpayers. But today, 18% of all taxpayers who work fulltime are paying Labours hiked 39 cent tax rate. Thats 270,000 people.
There are now 78,000 adults supported by the invalids benefit a rise from 62,000 when Labour was elected. Thats an increase of 26% in just over three years. So far, total DPB numbers have remained static under Labour at around 108,000. But the number of woman on the DPB not naming the father has risen rapidly to 17,200. These 17,200 beneficiaries support 32,600 children up from 24,000 children when Labour was elected. Of these 32,600 children, 17,242 or 53% are of Maori ethnicity, and 8,369, or 25%, are of European ethnicity.
In 1981, 13% of all dependant children were part of one- parent families. In 2001 – just twenty years later 27% of all dependant children (around 250,000) are in single parent families.
Over 1,204 sole parents currently on the DPB have been on a benefit for more than 20 years.
Under Labours new Primary Health Organisation (PHO) Strategy, GPs on average receive 20% more funding for enrolling Maori and Pacific Island patients than others. A PHO which enrols a European female superannuitant will receive $19. A PHO which enrols a Maori or Pacific Island female superannuitant will receive $60.
There are 2.5 million eligible voters, including 1.55 million full time workers. Only 2.1 million bother to vote.
Labour has clinically and cynically focused its spending on the following groups: the 200,000 voters who are students; the 850,000 voters who are on benefits and super; and the 450,000 Maori and Pacific Island voters. Looking after these groups is the core of Labours re-election strategy.
This strategy is clever, not only because dominating these groups can assure election, but also because they are all growing as a percentage of the total vote. Full time workers are the losers under Labours political strategy. They are being overtaxed to the tune of $4 billion this year to help fund Labour’s re-election strategy.
Rex brings up a good point about the differences in sentencing and punishment.
Like most goverment departments, it all boils down to the beureaucrat that you get to deal with at the time. Depending on the way the wind is blowing, you will get different treatment according to each persons interpretation of the policies (or law) of that department or their mood on the day.
One part that really struck me was a prison guard handcuffed her to a bed while she was giving birth because it was policy. At the change of shift, the next guard released the cuffs.
Obviously 2 interpretations of policy going on there!
Phool used to be (and probably still is) a smackhead, so it’s obvious that his sympathies lie with his fellow junkies. It would be a lot cheaper and easier (and less painful for us) if he was just shot through the head and his corpse dumped in the Tasman.
Bloody disgrace, pissant drug dealers and scumbag little gangster sholding a society to randsom.
If ever there was a time to shove the crap back up the state titfeed criminals this is it.
I have told all my children this,if they get involved with shit,then in my eyes thats what they will become.
But they also know the world of complete hell which will be visited on them pales into the minor leagues compared to what I shall rein down unpon them and their so called new friends.
They know what will happen ,but more importantly they know I MEAN IT.
Gee RB, re: your 7:31, I was expecting a comparison. After all, you said you would:
“prove to you that in actuality, NZ with its soft totalitarian socialist tyranny, and the influence of huge numbers of welfare recipients on each election, is far less democratic than Singapore.”
It wasn’t quite the killer hit you made it out to be. Quite flaccid, really.
I was surprised to learn today that there are 400,000 registered gun owners in NZ. What a great deterrent to crime if criminals were more worried that many of us can and will defend ourselves and our property. I’m guessing these gun owners are mainly rural folk. Perhaps we need more private gun owners in the cities.
Dribble. Just watching “In the Shadow of the “Moon” about the astronauts who went to the moon, excellent programme. Almost makes me want to stop drinking beer and save the world or something.
The point you fuckwit is that there are comparatively few welfare recipients in Singapore, sitting around on the dole doing fuck all except receiving government handouts, and therefore their elections escape the pervasive evil of hundreds of thousands of welfare bludgers (like the yellow scum who write here that you are so friendly with), who will never vote for any government that might take their welfare cheque away.
Hence our accelerating descent into amorality violence, crime and social decay, and given the numbers of beneficiaries that now exist, and are fully dependent on handouts, there’s not a damn thing that can be done about it by means of the democratic process.
Seeing you needed that explained to you, I’d guess your brain is in an even more state of permanent flaccidity than your dick.
“gangsterism is…rightwing thought in its’ purest form”
I’m sorry? Which ideology feels free to steal wealth from the middle and upper classes and gives to the working class to keep them in a prison of bondage and cycle of poverty, and enrich themselves and appease their own guilt?
Bloody hell, the ruling’s dated 22 May 2009! So it looks like it’s taken 2 months for the decision to get from the judge, through the court system to the lawyers.
July 18th, 2009 at 8:49 am
For Cerium and Sian Elias
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2605097/I-burgled-John-Keys-mansion
140 convictions!!! For every conviction there will be about a dozen crimes he hasn’t been caught for.
This is how hard it is to get into jail in this country, he should have locked up for life before he got to 10.
The most cost effective thing for the country to do with this guy is lock him away for the rest of his life, doesn’t matter if its 40 years+. We already pay to house and feed a third of our population who are on benefits or work for the government, and paying to do so for this type will give taxpayers far more benefit than the six figure salaries we pay various commissioners.
Rather than expensive attempts to rehabilitate his type which are bound to fail in the majority of cases, a prison can provide a life better than he might have as a p addict in society. There are plenty of government jobs he could carry out over this time from filing paperwork to manual labour.
I’m sure the Judges and Prison Officers will only ever experience a polite person as I’m sure even rapists, murderers, and paedophiles are often very pleseant and constructive people when not commiting crimes, the only people who know and can judge their character are their victims.
1400 x the cost of the stolen goods
1400 x the property damaged during the crime
1400 x lost productivity and mental scarring to the victims
1400 x additional security measures paid for by the victims thereafter
140 x police investigation costs
140 x court costs
vs
one of cost to build four walls and a roof
1% of a prison guards time to watch him
$5000 pa food and electricity
I wouldn’t bother paying for a psychiatrist to ask him how he feels every week.
July 18th, 2009 at 9:09 am
this is kinda spooky..
http://whoar.co.nz/2009/a-dark-hole-of-democracy-how-the-fed-prints-money-out-of-thin-air/
view it as a-house-of-cards-about-to-collapse-alert..
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 18th, 2009 at 9:15 am
Less noise from the criminal fraternity would be good.
July 18th, 2009 at 9:16 am
this is definitely spooky..
http://whoar.co.nz/2009/big-pharma-bribes-doctors-to-hook-your-kids-on-drugs/
(think .. kids hooked on speed/ritalin..and being prepared for a lifetime of addictions/pills..
..how fucked is that..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 18th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Sonny, wouldn’t it be better if this was prevented long before it got this far? Pre-rehabilitation?
July 18th, 2009 at 9:29 am
Two international stories I’ve been following.
One is the progress through Congress of Ron Paul’s bill to audit the Fed. Further to phil’s link, the issue is very well summarised here in 7 mins of video, and this is interesting because the more people understand the Fed and how it works and what its done the less happy they will be. Obviously, very few journos in the MSM are covering this. How odd.
Second story is the progress of the 13 medical professionals to re-open the investigation into Dr Kelly’s mysterious death. A new book is out that covers the surrounding issues very well and this is reviewed here.
July 18th, 2009 at 9:29 am
Preemptive retaliation.
July 18th, 2009 at 9:30 am
Like, say, Somalia?
Or the US? High imprisonment rate, long sentences, death sentence……and high crime rate. Something doesn’t work with that model.
July 18th, 2009 at 9:35 am
So here we are, the saddest part of this is that we did it to ourselves.
1.Drug test randomly every person who gets a bennefit or supplement payment from the Govt, if they fail then take away the assistance for 12 months then retest.
2.No children allowed to visit prisons before age 17.
3.Any liqour licencee who is found guilty of seling to minors is shut down for atleast 2 years.
4.Tender out long term prisoners to countries who will do it for a fraction of the costs, if you dont like that dont go to prison, simple and cheap.
5.Take all Class A drug dealers and manufacturers and execute them, short term career path I would say!
TRY THAT, BECAUSE THIS JUST AINT WORKING .
July 18th, 2009 at 9:43 am
“Goldman Sachs reported a record profit for the latest quarter while J.P. Morgan Chase weighed in with record revenue, and other banks are set to exceed expectations.”
Is this a sign of success of the Bush/Obama bailouts?
Is it an example of the big money creaming it while the small investors cry over their spilt milk?
July 18th, 2009 at 10:07 am
or..lilman..instead of your totalitarian-nightmare ‘solution’..
..we could treat drug use/addiction as a health issue…
..not a justice/imprisonment issue..
(the successful international-models are there to see/emulate..
..once again..we don’t need to reinvent the wheel ..)
cos’..the lock-em-all-up method..has ..to date..been a spectacular failure..eh..?
..here’s a stat to pin back yr ears..
‘ in 1980 america had 40,949 ‘drug offenders’ behind bars..
..in 2003 that number was 493,722..’
http://whoar.co.nz/2009/the-drug-war-by-the-numbers/
(i wonder what our numbers are here..?
..and does anyone else see the dots that could be joined..?
..and the raft of problems/issues that would just disappear..?
..(think container-cells..eh..?..
..just for starters..
..and then you could think about monies/police energies/resources being directed at ‘real’ crime..
..eh..?)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 18th, 2009 at 10:24 am
Yes, keep this generation of criminals away from the next generation of young and impressionable people.
Incorrect.
http://www.unicri.it/wwd/analysis/icvs/pdf_files/ICVS2004_05report.pdf
Refer to page 36 of this report. UK and NZ have victimisation rates of 22% vs US 18%
NZ has the highest rate of car theft and theft from a car, and attempted burglary in the world.
Studies have shown that the most important factor in crime is the risk of getting caught. Police numbers and effectiveness are the number one factor. Also, that incarceration works.
July 18th, 2009 at 10:37 am
like the american-model there..eh sonny..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 18th, 2009 at 10:40 am
Sonny, prison costs around the $100,000 per prisoner per annum. It varies with the security level, but if you take that as a ballpark figure you won’t be far out.
So, fiscally speaking, I don’t like your idea!
Can you find something that might address it in a less, shall we say restrictive, way?
July 18th, 2009 at 10:55 am
“Sonny, prison costs around the $100,000 per prisoner per annum. It varies with the security level, but if you take that as a ballpark figure you won’t be far out.”
Crime costs the community much more. Your cost argument does not hold water mathematically. It is cheaper to keep offenders jailed than it is to let them roam the streets and re-offend.
Example (Herald today) -
JOHN ANTHONY CLARK
* 37 years old.
* 166 convictions, 54 for burglary.
He was stealing property at the value of $100, 000 per annum, and that is only the tip of the iceberg in the costs to the community this stinking amoral cowardly parasite has caused.
July 18th, 2009 at 11:06 am
yes redbaiter..you left out the ‘key’ ingredient..
..that he is a ‘p’/drug-addict…
..now..imagine if he had access to real help to both manage his addiction…
..and to address the underlying causes…
..then there would be no need for the epidemic of low-level crime..
..an epidemic purely to feed his addiction..
..um..!
..are you able to join those dots..?..
..redbaiter..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 18th, 2009 at 11:16 am
I realise this.
But if the person was receiving welfare outside of prison you are looking at less than $50,000 after subtracting saved benefit payments and associated costs.. If they had a job, another person comes off the benefit to take their job.
If you were able to get some productive work out of them you can get close to 0 before you even factor in the cost of crime which is many, many times higher than any incarceration costs.
If it takes 140 convictions before incarceration, we really need to double our prison capacity to properly protect our communities from crime.
July 18th, 2009 at 11:17 am
For those who like long-range 20 year+ forecasts, have a look at this article which uses generational patterns to identify epochs in civilisation.
For those who’ve never heard of these patterns…
He then goes on to analyse the current frame of mind existent in today’s US and looks at what this means for the coming 20+ years. It’s not very good news, really. Bear in mind these patterns have been established throughout history and are visible in various well known events like the American Civil War, the Great Depression, WWI, WWII, etc. One of his tenets in the article is peak oil which I’m a bit of skeptic on, however, I have an open mind on it, certainly the lack of new oil discoveries bears out that issue. All the rest of what he says however rings very true to me and I imagine, many of you as well.
With respect to the energy issue, one thing that’s extremely dangerous to us here in NZ, is the Great South Basin field, which China could easily make a move on if a US vs China and Russia war breaks out. That to me is a very good reason for us to be very careful indeed about how we conduct our international diplomacy over the next decade or so.
July 18th, 2009 at 11:19 am
“.now..imagine if he had access to real help to both manage his addiction”.
Whoar, are you talking about yourself? It’s time you get off drugs and lift your decayed body in search of paid employment.
Aren’t you sick of being a bludger?
July 18th, 2009 at 11:20 am
“..that he is a ‘p’/drug-addict…”
Fuck off you repugnant gut turning narcissist and parasite. I could not give one damn what choices this worthless piece of excrement, this coward, made in his life. He has no right to break into people’s houses in the dead of night and steal their property. He wants drugs, let him work for the money like everyone else.
July 18th, 2009 at 11:21 am
Nope, they clearly need more police and more prisons also.
July 18th, 2009 at 11:23 am
And the best place to manage a p addiction is in prison.
Sure he probably can get his hands on the stuff, but there will be no associated costs to the community.
July 18th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Sonny, you’re on to it.
There’s hardly a better use of taxpayer money than jailing criminals.
If you consider the full picture, the huge financial burden that crime inflicts on society, it becomes clear that expenditures for extra policing and prison construction are very good investments.
A useful guideline for the calculation of crime’s financial toll is provided by a 1996 US Department of Justice (DOJ) study titled “Victim Costs and Consequences,” one of the most comprehensive assessments ever made of the costs associated with personal and property crime.
Here’s some text from an article on the study from my database-
————————————————–
The research showed that in recent years the total monetary value of property losses and immediate medical expenses incurred by crime victims has hovered around $18 billion annually. But after additionally factoring in long-term medical and mental health care costs, legal fees, lost earnings due to work time missed, and the cost of public victim assistance programs, this $18 billion figure swells to $105 billion. In other words, the real, tangible costs of violent and personal crimes are about 5.83 times higher than the bare-bones figure.
But even this figure tells only a portion of the story, for it does not consider the values of pain, suffering, and diminished quality of life that criminals inflict upon their victims. To quantify the values of these variables, the research team analyzed jury awards given in recent years to survivors of violent crimes. The punitive damage portions of these awards were ignored, making the sole consideration the dollar amount designated to “compensate” the victims for their suffering and lost quality of life.
With regard to fatal crimes, the researchers found no reliable figures estimating medical costs specifically for homicide victims, and thus based their calculations on the average medical costs associated with fatal workers’ compensation cases. They then faced the cold and difficult task of assigning a monetary value to what would have been the remaining portions of the lives prematurely terminated by crime. In an exhaustive review of the literature on this subject, the DOJ team took the average of nearly fifty previously published values – which were adjusted for the expected life spans of the deceased people involved – and arrived at a figure of $2.7 million per life.
After adding these quality-of-life and premature-death considerations to the mix, the DOJ study estimates that the aggregate costs resulting from crime in America rise by another $345 billion, to $450 billion annually. But the DOJ report does not go far enough, for it does not consider such variables as: (a) white-collar crimes like theft, fraud, and embezzlement; (b) the cost of operating the criminal-justice system; (c) preventive expenditures and actions taken to reduce the risk of victimization; (d) the wasted potential productivity of incarcerated criminals; (e) the lost productivity of injured or traumatized victims; and (f) “victimless” crimes such as drug abuse, gambling, and prostitution. To truly appreciate the heavy financial burden with which crime saddles our nation, we must factor these variables into the equation. Let us briefly consider some of them individually.
The aggregate value of all property and money stolen or obtained through fraud is $603 billion annually. This is probably a conservative estimate of victims’ losses, as it does not account for the value of assets whose theft is unreported.
In 1997, the cost of operating the criminal-justice system (police, prisons, and courts) was $129.8 billion. Moreover, the Justice Department’s crime-fighting expenditures are complemented by $23.38 billion per year from thirty separate government agencies that devote additional resources to law enforcement. Above and beyond even these expenditures, an additional $160.6 billion is devoted to anti-drug trafficking programs.
Americans also allocate huge sums to the purchase of goods and services whose express purpose is to prevent or deter crime. For example, each year they spend $4.3 billion for locks and safes, $1.5 billion for surveillance cameras, another $1.5 billion for safety lighting, $1.1 billion for protective fences and gates, $6.5 billion for alarm systems, and $17.9 billion for private security guards. This is only a very partial list. In the absence of crime, of course, the time and money spent on these protection measures could have been used for other purposes. Simply put, $1,000 spent on a home alarm system is $1,000 that cannot be spent on groceries.
In a 1999 Journal of Law and Economics study, Centre College professor David Anderson quantifies what he calls crime’s “opportunity costs;” i.e., the value of potential opportunities for productivity lost to criminal activity. Because criminals are sitting idly behind bars rather than being productive members of the economy, society is deprived of the goods and services they could otherwise have produced in the time they devoted to crime and its planning. Anderson calculates that the lost workdays that all inmates spend executing their crimes and serving their prison sentences cost society $39.206 billion annually.
Another opportunity cost imposed by crime is based on the National Crime Victimization Survey’s estimate that each year 1.8 million victims lose a combined 6.1 million workdays because of crime, which result in lost wages of $876 million per year. Additionally, a similar formula estimates that the “lost opportunity” value of the hours people devote every year to our nation’s 20,000 Neighborhood Watch programs is $655 million; in other words, the 100,000 person-hours dedicated to these programs each day represent time that otherwise could have been spent on business pursuits or similarly valued leisure activities.
Adding together all the aforementioned costs of criminal activity (including also those quantified by the DOJ study), Anderson calculates that the total aggregate financial burden of crime in America is $1.705 trillion per year – a monumental figure. Thus, if stricter law enforcement is successful at diminishing crime rates, it must be embraced as a worthwhile investment – regardless of whether it has a “disparate impact” on people of any particular race, ethnicity, gender, or age group.
July 18th, 2009 at 11:39 am
that’s a must-read read there reid…
all mp’s should read it..eh..?
(and redbaiter has a ‘database’..?..heh..!..
..heavy on that bottle-blond rightwing rabblerouser..?
..what’s her name..?..coulter..?.isn’t it..?
..and ‘palin’..would be a sizeable category..eh..?
..lot’s of pics..you’d imagine..
..does redbaiter..?..y’know..!..(shudder..!..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 18th, 2009 at 11:41 am
Philu’s sitting in a bar having a few beers when a short, well-dressed and obvious
gay guy walks in and sits beside him.
After three or four beers the gay guy plucks up the courage to say something to Philu.
Leaning over towards Philu he whispers, ‘Do you want a blow-job?’
At this philu leaps up with fire in his eyes and smacks the gay guy in the face, knocking him swiftly off the stool…
He proceeds to beat him all the way out of the bar before leaving the little precious one bruised and battered in the car park, and returned to his seat at the bar.
Amazed, the barman quickly brings over another beer.
‘I’ve never seen you react like that’, he says,’ Just what did he say to you?’
‘I’m not sure’, philu replies,
“Something about a job…”
July 18th, 2009 at 11:42 am
“If it takes 140 convictions before incarceration”
Nah, he will have been to prison many times before he gets to 140. As a druggie crim he will have a lot of burgs in his list and that tends to get you locked up pretty quickly.
RB, I don’t doubt that the costs, especially of property crime, are high, although I am not sure they will go above the cost of yearly imprisonment on a per person basis. But, if we take Sonny’s example from the Herald, wouldn’t a decent rehab (which the country really doesn’t have) be more effective?
I know all of the arguments about the person needing to admit their problem and so on, I have seen it with my own clients, but I just look at the types of property offenders that come through my office and I see a large amount of them fit into two categories: young men (usually 17-18 years old) who break into cars, and slightly older men with drug habits. If you talk to the cops in my area, you will find that we don’t have too many ‘professional’ burglars. Many burglars are men who are stealing to pay for their habit. I don’t defend that (the stealing or the habit) but I just wonder from time to time if we could do it differently.
I have no problems with the idea of them doing rehab while in prison, but to get onto those courses you need to have very lengthy sentences, which most don’t get. The prison rehab/course system is completely dysfunctional, at least from where I sit, and needs a complete overhaul.
I just don’t think that the idea that “The most cost effective thing for the country to do with this guy is lock him away for the rest of his life, doesn’t matter if its 40 years+.” is anything but kneejerk and ill thought out.
July 18th, 2009 at 11:51 am
so..joining those dots was ‘beyond you’..?..redbaiter..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 18th, 2009 at 11:54 am
F E Smith,
How to you rehabilitate someone? What is the success rate of rehabiliation? What are the costs of rehabilitation?
I expect the kind of professionals invloved will cost $100,000 to employ.
I think it’s a nice idea. But I suspect it has it’s limits.
July 18th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
“RB, I don’t doubt that the costs, especially of property crime, are high, although I am not sure they will go above the cost of yearly imprisonment on a per person basis.”
It kind of puzzles me that one who subscribes to such a temperate style of debate could say such a thing after reading the facts in my post at 11.27am. There is no doubt that jailing crims is the cheaper option, and whether the crime is against property or person is unimportant.
The real argument is this:
1) The country is broke.
2) It is awash with crime, having one of the highest rates in the world.
There is no patience for namby pamby rehab solutions and there is not the money. The real problem here is the breakdown of morality. The solution is to rebuild the invisible walls that stop people from committing crime.
Once glass was enough to deter criminals. Now one needs security locks, steel screens and a raft of other measures.
The benefit of harsh treatment of criminals is that it reinforces morality in society and help draw the line between good and bad. A line the left, (with the kind of tripe you read from worthless unspeakable wretches on here) have spent decades erasing.
Singapore has no serious crime or drug problem. Because society and the government and morality has not been white anted by left wing social engineers posing as “liberals”.
It is not the law abiding Joe Citizens’s job or cost to pay for reforming adults who have not been raised correctly. (rehab) Joe has his own family to care for. If good and bad are clear concepts within society, kids will be raised right. The first step in conquering crime is to restore morality.
Those generations fouled by left wing doctrine are better locked up for good as “write offs”. I just do not have the time money or patience for them any more.
And I especially do not have time for ideas that contribute to the undermining of good and bad by manufacturing excuses for amoral behaviour.
July 18th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Rings true, doesn’t it. Buckle yourself in. The next twenty years are not going to be boring.
It’s almost inevitable that the next war will open with a nuclear exchange. You know the first thing they do upon detecting a launch? Detonate atmospheric EMPs all over the planet. Every unhardened plane in the air drops out of the sky, every unhardened computer system stops working, the entire electrical grid goes out. And that’s before all the thermal and radiation damage.
I would also not be surprised to see the trigger for the crisis being a nuclear detonation in a major US city. Blamed on Iran.
July 18th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
No it’s not and this is why:
If this is the case he obviously shouldn’t have been let out.
I really believe your response is kneejerk and ill thought out.
When we let John Clark out in 2 years, we know he is going to break into someones house and steal tens of thousands of dollars of someones hard work.
Do you think it is acceptable for us to put this burden on an innocent member of the public?
Whilst he may not reoffend on release, he lost the benefit of the doubt well before 166 convictions.
We let Grame Burton kill Karl Kuchenburger, we let William Bell commit the RSA murders, etc, etc. When someone amasses a decent record, we know whats gonna happen next and we have no right to pretend otherwise and let innocent people suffer.
It is nothing to do with retribution, it is the unfortunate reality. I don’t think prison has to be that horrible of an existence.
The people in prison are the leaders of our criminal communities, if you seperate them from the other vulnerable people out there, there will be less people led down the criminal path in the future.
July 18th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
you aren’t a prison screw..are you reddy..?
let’s play..’guess wot redbaiter does’..
..(a prize ..(a ‘free’ annual subscription to whoar.co.nz)
..for best/funniest suggestion…)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 18th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
“Singapore has no serious crime or drug problem. ”
Most police states don’t, RB.
Personally, I agree the treatment of prisoners has to be harsh, but it’s important for it not to be brutal. There’s a critical distinction there and I think the level of violence and intimidation that we today allow inside prisons is not acceptable in anyway. Prison is deprivation of freedom, end of story. It is not and should not, be about violence.
There are various ways to achieve that, starting with 24/7 surveillance of every single nook and cranny with no exceptions and extremely harsh penalties for even the mildest breach of a zero tolerance policy. In addition you would classify prisoners based on their personal nature and not on the crimes they committed and have different regimes for the different types.
I can’t see why that wouldn’t work, if one had the will. Trouble is, I imagine that if you put it them, the prison reform lefties talk about how howwible it would be to subject everyone to that surveillance and the conservatives would talk about the extra cost. I don’t find either objection particularly compelling, in light of what you’d gain.
July 18th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
“Most police states don’t, RB.”
Reid, I’ve got better things to do than exchange words with extremist propaganda fed nutjobs. If Singapore is a police state, where’s the Iran style riots? Why do four million people plus choose to live there and many more seek (fruitlessly) to emigrate there??
Just fuck off.
July 18th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
RB, I didn’t respond to those figures because they were US figures and I didn’t see how they fitted into the NZ stats. That’s all.
Actually, I would happily have any person convicted of possession of any illicit drug subject to a sentence of imprisonment. No problems with that at all. That goes to the same arguments we were having with KP yesterday on the child porn debate: if you hit the end users hard then the demand for production will lessen. Singapore hangs drug traffickers. Maybe that is something we should consider? Either way, I agree that a tough line on drug use is necessary, however you do it.
My concern is the idea of locking someone up for the rest of their lives because they have a significant criminal background, which is what Sonny was suggesting. I have no problems with a tough line, otherwise, so long as the process that obtained a conviction was a fair one.
Dealing with crims on a daily basis, there are actually only a few that I write off. I think that you are correct when you say that the problem is a breakdown in morality. A lot of the problem is evident in schools from an early age, especially those that focus on engineering society rather than simply educating. I think I have said before, but the overriding trait of many of my clients is one of complete self-centredness.
I don’t know what the answer is fully, but it isn’t preventive detention for property offenders.
I would like it if you developed the point on the morality point. How do we restore that? The socialists have complete control of our education system and they don’t like that word.
Edit: Sonny, my grandfather was a prison nurse in the 60s, and then worked in hospitals after that. He always maintained that the best form of rehab was cold turkey and then a complete change of lifestyle. None of this methadone crap that we have today. That just keeps them addicts for longer.
I don’t think that is a popular opinion either!
July 18th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
“Reid, I’ve got better things to do than exchange words with extremist propaganda fed nutjobs. If Singapore is a police state, where’s the Iran style riots? Why do four million people plus choose to live there and many more seek (fruitlessly) to emigrate there??”
Where’s the Iran style riots? Crikey, RB, it’s only 12:30 and you’re drunk already. You should see someone about your confusion before you hurt yourself. Clearly, you haven’t lived in Sing. It is a police state. The velvet glove type. You try on anti-social behaviours there and you’re fucked. There is no tolerance and no benevolence. You don’t criticise the govt, just like you don’t in China. The reason most westerners live there is for business. Most of the residents are ethnic Malay, Chinese or Indian. I tire of this. Discussing things sensibly with extremist propaganda fed nutjobs like yourself is boring. Try not to reply as I don’t care what you think, or say.
July 18th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
“RB, I didn’t respond to those figures because they were US figures and I didn’t see how they fitted into the NZ stats. That’s all.”
Why would it be substantially different anywhere else? At least in the US the culture allows diversity of opinion, (well , it did until Obama was elected) and that’s why information like that in the report is available.
Most criminals are welfare receipients. Some of the highest rates of crime can be found in the socialist coutries. Take away their welfare, criminals have to work, and that means they have less time or opportunity for crime. Work also increases one’s sense of self worth and therefore again will decrease crime focused tendencies.
“I would like it if you developed the point on the morality point. How do we restore that?”
We cease worshipping government and return to faith in family.
“The socialists have complete control of our education system and they don’t like that word.’
If reason fails, and the left continue to destroy democracy, we will have to remove them by force as the only remaining alternative. If the first two means fail, there is a tipping point that predicates that one day, the third solution will inevitably be reached.
July 18th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
crikey..!..reddys’ really ‘losing it’..slipping into ‘final solution’ talk..
..steady on the gin there..tiger..!
phil(whoar.co.nz0
July 18th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
F E Smith,
We are talking about someone with 166 convictions. Do you think it is acceptable to have people with 166 convictions free in society when they clearly have not been rehabilitated?
July 18th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Once again Phool demonstrates that liberal parasites like spending other peoples money.
This wanker CHOSE to take drugs Phool yet you want me to pay for the piece of shits rehabilitation?
Mind you, it does not surprise me, you think that work should be optional and that you have the right to try or do anything safe in the knowledge that the tax payer will pick up the bill.
It baffles me how Phool can take money from hard working Kiwi blokes every week when he (Phool) knows that he is not contributing anything to society.
July 18th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
“Clearly, you haven’t lived in Sing.”
I have. For a long time. I enjoyed it. I lived there even when I could leave if I wanted to. Like every other Singaporean citizen. The government is not so in your face as here. They collect only half as much tax. Woman can walk the streets there any time of night. They cannot in NZ. Your sick Progressive style concepts of freedom are a socially destructive fraud and in reality, ideas that imprison society in a cell of its own making.
Police state… pfft, you’re a Progressive whack job.
July 18th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Anybody with 166 convictions should never have had the chance to commit that many crimes, the man should have been locked up for good before he got the chance to commit his tenth.
July 18th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
his ‘database’ probably has lists of those he intends ‘taking out’..eh..?
..i wonder if he plans on/has plans for invading those hotbeds of ‘unrepentant-socialism’..
..those high-tax/high state-support scandanavian countries..?
whoar..!
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 18th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
RB, according to that political test a few weeks back, I’m precisely centrist in my views and as you know I frequently critique both left and right policies and politicians. The only reason you think I’m progressive is because you’re a rabid idiot without objectivity.
I suggest you have a look at this and answer it honestly.
July 18th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Police State Singapore???
How many Singaporeans have been granted asylum in “non police states”????
Heres’ some news you sad ignorant irrational fuckwit. Singaporeans don’t even want to come here (NZ) anymore because they actually have much more freedom in Singapore, including a tax freedom day that comes four months before it does in your “non police state paradise”.
Where you have voted yourself into tyranny and a sick downward spiral of crime welfarism and violence that as other posters above point out, there is little chance of escaping from (I think) without violent revolution.
BTW, I didn’t click on your link. When the hell have you ever come up with a source worth a pinch of goat shit??
“RB, according to that political test a few weeks back,”
Oh gawd. A contrived piece of artifice based on sick Progressive ideas itself, with concepts relating to freedom that are so deeply flawed it is laughable. Get a damn brain for chrissakes.
July 18th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
I employeed a young kid about 9 months ago.
In the time he has ‘worked’ for me he has been caught drunk driving while disqualified half a dozen times, usually spending a night in a holding cell because he got shitty with the officer.
After about the second or third time I discussed this with the staff member who was called in on their day off to cover his shift while he was at the cop shop, and we agreed that he would keep doing it until he was locked up because there were no real consequences for him, and it would be far better for him than going to jail later on for killing someone. But they kept letting him out.
Eventually he went for sentencing and got given… a curfew. The weekend immediately upon sentencing, he celebrated his last night out by getting drunk, driving home, and getting caught.
To be caught half a dozen times, I suspect he has been driving around drunk every weekend for at least the last year. If he had been put in the slammer the 2nd or 3rd time he had done this, he might have learned a lesson and be out by now. But instead the justice system has knowingly left him to endanger innocent peoples lives for the last year.
Like you say FESmith, his overiding character trait is complete self-centredness. He simply cannot be reasoned with. We are letting these people out because the Justice system would rather stick to it’s budgets and let us pay for it.
July 18th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
I think two important points have been highlighted regarding how a society controls crime, and indeed, all behaviour that impinges on the lives of others.
Firstly, a police state [a la Singapore] imposes control by external means upon its populace. The individuals motive is one of fear of the state, and this is what regulates his behaviour.
Secondly, the individual is taught the difference between right and wrong; he is taught, and thereby provided with, a ‘moral code’ which not only, as a minimum, teaches him to ‘obey the law’, but causes him to consider exactly how his actions will affect other members of society. In short, his ‘moral code’ affects his world-view, and one could argue that the ‘law’ written upon his heart greatly exceeds that which is imposed upon him by societal restraints [ie the laws of the land].
Of course, most of us know which society we would prefer to live in. But if we do not teach our children ‘good morals’ then we as a society will continue down the road of increasing state imposed sanctions, until we ultimately become a fully fledged police state.
If we look at the freedoms we have lost as a society in the last ~40 years as evidenced by increasing legislation that regulates all our lives, and the burgeoning prison population, to name just two, then I think the writing is clearly on the wall as to where we are ultimately headed if we don’t turn society around.
July 18th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
“Firstly, a police state [a la Singapore] imposes control by external means upon its populace.”
Three questions for you. If you cannot answer them, it exposes your allegations against Singapore as worthless Progressive propaganda.
1) If Singapore is a “police state” that “controls” its population, why do people choose to live there and not leave as they are free to do?
2) How many Singaporeans, escaping the alleged “police state”, have sought and been granted asylum in the “free world” ?
3) Put Singapore at the top, and then underneath, list as many other such “Police states” as you can.
July 18th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
And this is one aspect of Elias’ speech that really pissed me off. The bit about shifting the focus away from the victims.
The reason we’re in this shit in the first place is because we haven’t placed enough focus on them.
BTW, RB, how do you feel about water? You OK with it?
July 18th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Given that I happen to live in the country, I must side with reid on the issue of Singapore as a “velvet glove” state. Contrary to the ranter’s claims, there are issues of violent crime, drugs and other anti-social conduct that are comparable to those of NZ given the demographics of the country, but the news of such events is heavily controlled and often suppressed entirely. Instead, the public is fed a steady diet of “threats” ranging from epidemics, to cyclones, to illegal immigration to–at least once a week– terrorism. All of these threats can only be countered by the state, not the people themselves, so what is promoted is a form of social dependency whereby the citizens are inculcated with the belief that only the state can save them from disaster(s). Informants and plain close police substitute for an overt uniformed presence on the street, and the bottom line is that so long as one does not engage in open anti-social behaviour, and most importantly, engage in criticism of the state, then the velvet never comes off the fist. But should one decide to do either, then the true nature of the PAP-run state is quick to surface. Add to that the extensive use of state welfare systems to deepen citizen dependency on the state for housing, subsidised food, transport etc., and you have the makings of a very compliant society. It is authoritarian genius, SE Asia style.
Bottom line: comparing NZ to SG when it comes to approaches to crime as well as most other things is specious in the extreme and demonstrates a profound ignorance not only of comparative methodology (which I am sure is of no interest to such as the ranter) but also of the basic facts of the cases involved. But then again, one should never let facts get in the way of a good diatribe.
July 18th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
We all knew that a Clark was involved in the break in at Keys house
July 18th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
“BTW, RB, how do you feel about water? You OK with it?”
I don’t need to try and shift the argument because I cannot defend my POV with rationale and reason. Singapore is not a “Police State” and it is absurd to claim it is. Only those who weakly succumb to Progressive propaganda hold that view, and you do that endlessly.
July 18th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
I believe our liberal soft cock politicians have neutered their constituents and basically left us defenseless. How many times does the criminal in this country end up looking like the victim?. God forbid a citizen make a stand and take some of these scumbags out, they usually end up in deeper shit then those that perpetrate the crime. I don’t wish to see the wild west but it would be good if the common citizen of this country enjoyed the full protection of the state instead of it’s wrath should they decide to defend family and property. We have breed a society of victims and to add insult to injury the state runs around like a chook with it’s head cut off, running blind with no idea of how to pull us from the mire.
July 18th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
“Singapore is not a “Police State” and it is absurd to claim it is.”
Well apparently Paul Buchanan disagrees with you RB, and with his background, I think he’d be able to assess the issue better than most – certainly better than you or I.
Now, about that water. You really should check that link, RB. It could explain a lot.
Finally, “Only those who weakly succumb to Progressive propaganda hold that view, and you do that endlessly.”
Now how the heck would you know what I read and what I believe? You don’t even know what I look like. Do you really think you can assess someone’s belief’s from interpolating blog posts? You’re crazy, and not like a fox.
July 18th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
“But then again, one should never let facts get in the way of a good diatribe.”
So how long did you live in Singapore, and when did you experience all that “facts” that you report on?? Given your dislike for rants, I would expect you’d have some pretty positive responses to those questions or else you may actually be guilty of pot kettle back syndrome.
And how do you justify tax freedom day, the measure of a population’s enslavement to the state, being four months ahead of NZ??
The real truth is, all academic Progressive based sick leftist waffle aside, Singaporeans as self supporting individuals have far more regard for the concept of liberty than your average socialist, dependency addicted NZer.
July 18th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
“Well apparently Paul Buchanan disagrees with you RB, and with his background, I think he’d be able to assess the issue better than most – certainly better than you or I.”
Bullshit. He is (IMHO) merely another left wing academic with opinions fed and moulded by Progressive sources. I have not read one comment from him on this blog that is not framed in those terms.
July 18th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Tell me RB, do you have a smart uniform at home that you play dress-up with?
It’s just that I’m forming a picture of your belief-system by interpolating your blog comments. Am I on the right track?
July 18th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Redbaiter 1:26 pm,
Singapore is not necessarily the most extreme example of a ‘police state’, but I believe it is one nonetheless. I have two friends who are both native Singaporeans, and they do not deny that in reality it is a police state. Provided you don’t ‘kick the dog’ you are generally ok. They have moved to NZ because of the greater freedoms [free speech, etc], and because it is a better place to raise their two children.
If you feel more comfortable with me using ‘China’ as an example, then I encourage you to re-read my comment at 1:12 pm in light of this.
July 18th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
“Tell me RB, do you have a smart uniform at home that you play dress-up with?”
If I did Reid, it would still be a far better use of my time than bandying words with brain damaged idiots like you.
July 18th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
“If you feel more comfortable with me using ‘China’ as an example, then I encourage you to re-read my comment at 1:12 pm in light of this.”
You failed to answer the questions. You have no argument. Only propaganda and poorly formed concepts moulded by left wing academia and media sources.
To suggest there is any real comparison between democratic Singapore and Communist China ruled by a mass murdering and criminal military junta is just a sick joke.
July 18th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
So was that a yes or a no, RB?
See, if you don’t answer, then I’ll have to assume:
“You have no argument. Only propaganda and poorly formed concepts moulded by
left wing academia and mediayour database sources.July 18th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
For those who wonder why I reject the “Singapore is a police state” view, it is because opponents of harsh punishment always, in any debate on crime, use this as a means to excuse NZ’s poor performance in law and order. Lame lame lame.
Singapore’s success in maintaining a relatively crime free society is not down to it being a “police state”, and NZ’s failure’s to provide law and order is likewise not down to tolerance for diverse political views.
The “police state” allegation is a complete red herring.
July 18th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
New topic if I may …
Interesting Economist article on macroeconomics (which I reached through the great Arts & letters Daily web site):
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=14031376
One of the points it makes in talking about the current world recession is that macroeconomists, especially within central banks, have been too fixated on taming inflation and too cavalier about asset bubbles.
Now doesn’t that sum up NZ? Our Reserve Bank, via interest rates, keeps the kiwi dollar crazily high, and assets are pumped up by inflowing capital from Japan etc for the high interest, all in the name of holding inflation.
Ballard has just finished singing the praises of how well NZ is going, on the eve of Fitch warning of a possible credit downgrade. The effect of Ballard’s statement was to hold up the kiwi.
He, and even Brash before him, applying the mandates given them by politicians, have almost stuffed the country by handicapping export industries (and inflating property prices) in a one-eyed battle to tame inflation. The resultant large gap in the balance of payments and rising foreign debt to finance it, threaten not only NZ now, but the country’s economy for decades to come.
Don Brash in latter times has been calling for efforts to find other tools to combat inflation, but meantime we blunder on with a faulty, damaging tool.
July 18th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Redbaiter 1:54 pm,
“You failed to answer the questions. You have no argument. Only propaganda and poorly formed concepts moulded by left wing academia and media sources.”
The two friends I cited actually were born and lived in Singapore. Are you implying that they, too, are victems of both “propaganda and poorly formed concepts moulded by left wing academia and media sources”?
In much the same way as asking a Kiwi what life in NZ is like, I think individuals who have been born and raised in a country are likely to provide a fairly balanced and honest account of exactly ‘how things are’ in said country.
July 18th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Caution, shameless self-promotion follows.
Paul G Buchanan:
Judging by the views expressed in your well-written comment I think that you may well find my blog to be to your taste, e.g.
http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2009/07/17/internet-censorship-has-arrived-in-nz/
July 18th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
“The two friends I cited”
Proves nothing. I too have Singaporean friends who went back because they thought NZ was a violent dependency centered crime ridden drug addicted freak zone. Answer the questions I posed or go away.
July 18th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
philu- just for you ok, read what I blogged, I didnt say executethe addicts, I said execute the pushers and manufacturers, big difference, if addicts need help fine , dont have a problem with that ,help them.
As with all soft leaning tossers, you fail to grasp the problem but never fail to offer answers, thats the reason we are where we are.
………….uuuummmmm………..
bbbbbbuuut………..
……….for fffffff……….
………ssaaakkee…
JOIN THOSE DOTS PAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
July 18th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Although I disagree with Kris K that Singapore and China are comparable as police states (SG is, in fact, far more benign on a number of counts), the notion that SIngapore is “democratic” verges on lunacy. To make such claims is to reveal a willing ignorance or bias that renders any argument fatuous. Moreover, equating lower tax rates with higher degrees of freedom is equally ludicrous, especially when the trade-off for lower taxes is serious restrictions on freedoms of speech and assembly ( I shall leave aside the use of lower tax rates as a lure for foreign skilled labour, which is the ghost behind the PAP machine).
It would be far better for anti-crime conservatives to compare NZ with the approach of other liberal democracies (say, Canada) rather than expose themselves as capitalist authoritarian sycophants by using the likes of Singapore as a model for NZ crime-fighting.
July 18th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
“Answer the questions I posed or go away.”
Same to you, RB. Or do different rules apply to you?
“To make such claims is to reveal a willing ignorance or bias that renders any argument fatuous.”
Welcome to RB’s little world, Paul.
July 18th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
“Judging by the views expressed in your well-written comment”
Well written???
As usual, he doesn’t have a damn clue about paragraphing.
July 18th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Redbaiter 2:16 pm,
I agree that NZ is largely “a violent dependency centered crime ridden drug addicted freak zone”. But we’re getting side-tracked with the whole ‘Singapore’ thing. The real issue is, as I stated at 1:12 pm, do we want to become a police state, or have morally sound individuals that make up society as a means of societal control? I state again, that if we dont aim for the latter then we will, by default, end up with the former.
July 18th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
“Same to you, RB.”
If Singapore was the “police state” you claim, the questions I posed should be answered in thirty seconds flat. That you cannot answer them proves your allegations false. Without a doubt.
July 18th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
… how ’bout 31 seconds flat?
July 18th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
“That you cannot answer them proves your allegations false.”
Only to you, RB, only to you…
Woof.
July 18th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
“especially when the trade-off for lower taxes is serious restrictions on freedoms of speech and assembly”
Typical left wing academic bullshit. If I had the time I would prove to you that in actuality, NZ with its soft totalitarian socialist tyranny, and the influence of huge numbers of welfare recipients on each election, is far less democratic than Singapore.
People, it is because we have listened to the waffle of misguided misinformed academics like Mr. Buchanan, isolated and safe from dissent in their carpeted heavily curtained smoke filled, staff rooms, that we are in the sewer we are in. Their ideas, always deeply rooted in the post modern Progressive paradigm, must be confronted at every opportunity if we are ever to escape the mire these ideologically blind zealots have led us into.
July 18th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
(Sound of clicking heels and a few trumpets)
You’re so funny, RB.
Go on then. Do you have any graphs?
July 18th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Graphs?
Gawd you’re a bloody fruitcake Reid.
I have to leave now. I’ll give you the numbers when I return.
July 18th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
If there is one thing I am well and truly sick of, it is that addiction to drugs and alcoholism is refered to as a health issue. It simply is not. I was addicted to smokes for nearly 30 years. I was using coke through the first part of the 80 s and believed myself to be addicted. It was only when I stopped blaming addiction and claiming it to be a health issue that I stopped smoking and snorting.
Any alcoholic and drug user who claims that it is a health issue are simply gutless wankers who shifts the blame somewhere else. “not my fault I am sick.” Piss off, from an ex smoker and snorter, you are full of it. It is your fault, you are the user, you are the fool. You are doing it to your self. Take ownership and deal with it. Else you end up a long term loser like Phool. Claims to worry about healthy eating, smokes dope. Blames all else for his waste of a life.
Same goes for those on twelve step programmes. Stop blaming others and own the damn addiction then deal with it.
Sorry about this rant but seeing the oh help me I am not responsible BS at the start of this thread just annoyed me.
This is also the one place the Libs argument about drug use falls down. You just had to spend time in Amsterdam in the late 70′s to know that their drug policies are useless. Back then you could go into a cafe, smoke a joint snort a few lines and in some even shoot up (never my gig) to your hearts content. The problem is that dope turns you into a lazy sloth and heroin into a useless sack of nothing. So these guys still went out and stole and burgled. The speed freaks still got into weird fights and bloodshed.
I remember speaking to a guy who we helped after he nearly got his head kicked in in Amsterdam. He had tried to steal a car radio and the owner caught him. Kicked the hell out of him. We cleaned him up and got him off to medical help. I asked him why he was trying to steal the radio. He wanted to buy some dope. Well why did you not go and buy it at the cafe…?, no money…, but It was welfare day, yep but the office was two km away, and he knew some-one who would buy the radio a couple of hundred yards down the road. Also he wanted a joint before going to the welfare office later that day…
yep that “addiction” what a crock. And it is never a victimless crime.
July 18th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
I must say that the last rant was brilliant. I and other academics get credit for the decline of NZ “into the sewer.” Shoot, were that half true! I cannot even get back into NZ academia much less consort with other post-modern progressive wafflers in “carpeted heavily curtained smoke filled, staff rooms” (sic and WTF?!) In fact, my experience is that academics spend so much time back-stabbing and nitpicking over petty matters that they could not organise a piss-up in an navy pool hall. But I like the idea that somewhere there is someone who actually believes that academics wield such power. I need to get some of whatever you are smoking/drinking/snorting/injecting/inserting. Alas, in SG I cannot, what with the death penalty and all that… :-0
July 18th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
“In fact, my experience is that academics spend so much time back-stabbing and nitpicking over petty matters that they could not organise a piss-up in an navy pool hall.”
True. Confirmation of that old saying: “If you cannot do, teach”.
July 18th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Geez Manolo, that was classic. I’m going to have to write that one down.
I have another one for ya: ignorance is bliss.
You strike me as very happy.
July 18th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Happy indeed.
Dear Pablo, if arrogance were money, you would be a multi-millionaire.
July 18th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
um..!..bok…cocaine is not physically addictive..
..a slight wanting it is all you go thru..
so ..comparing your dalliance with peruvian marching powder..with the imperatives of heroin..or ‘p’ ..
..is really just a crock..eh..?..bok..?
and no..don’t believe the urban (self-justifying) myth that tobacco is harder/as hard to kick..as heroin..
..that one also dosen’t fly..
..so really..your ‘experiences’..as a launching pad/justification for opinions…don’t amount to diddly..eh..?
so..that..and a couple street-anecdotes from amsterdam..(whoar..!..eh..?..)
..that’s your evidence..?
..for your case..?
..(and speaking of addictions..?..um..!..
..seeing as you have described yourself as ‘obese’ in these columns..
..it is hardly out of place to note you are actually standing in a glass-house..eh..?..
..when you attempt to pontificate on the ‘weaknesses’ of addicts..
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 18th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Dear Manolo:
If wit were money you would be a pauper.
July 18th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
mr buchannan..i recall having a conversation with you one time..
..where you gratified my ego/gave me a squirt of empowerment by noting you liked what i did on whoar..
..and liked my comments at kiwiblog..
..but that i should try to refrain from tit-for-tat in the mudslinging..
..advice at the time..i ignored…
…so..it is with a raised eyebrow i see you getting down into the manolo-sewer..
(psstt!!..he’s got ‘the idiots guide to homilies’..as his main guide/reference book..you can’t engage on any rational level..
..there isn’t one..)
..and/but should you persist ..i must counsel you to wear full-body-protection..at all times..!
..even small splashes can infect..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 18th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
So phil, how’s your month-long abstinence from ad homina coming along then?
July 18th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
and when he reaches z in the homilies-book..
..he will accuse you of being a ‘p’-cook..
..and will answer any argument ..with the sneer..to ‘get back to your kitchen’..
..it’s all a tad predictable..
..ut..y’know..
..this is no intellectual giant we are talking about here..
..i understand there are times he barely shows signs of a pulse..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 18th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Must be a slow Saturday afternoon.
July 18th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
at times i struggle..but all in all..it’s quite effective..
..to just ignore the mewlings of the deranged..
..it renders them toothless..
..and prevents them distracting from any substance present..
..so..cheers for the push..
..i’ll probably continue just ignoring/laughing at…them..
..after the end of the month..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 18th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
It baffles me how Phool can take money from hard working Kiwi blokes every week when he (Phool) knows that he is not contributing anything to society.
..simple…whores a parasite , finds a host ( taxpayer ) and lives off it. Trouble is..whore has bred already…theres another parasite waitin in line…and the cycle continues..eh??..eh..??
July 18th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Sonny Blount says:
For every person like this, who should have been dealt with long ago, I can show you someone who’s been locked up on their first offemce – and not for harming another person.
The problem is, different judges have different attitudes to the same crime. So strike a run of “soft” judges and you get an unbelieveable lucky streak like the guy you cite in your example (not that he’d had 100+ soft judges, of course. Most of those charges would have come before a judge in batches).
What do you think of this, for instance?
Case 1: a young girl, no previous convictions but a drug addict, who waved a weapon at two people, in two separate crimes a few days apart, in an attempt to get money for drugs. She was so stoned, and it was broad daylight, that the victims were left so untraumatised they declined to even file a victim impact statement and instead expressed the wish she was given treatment for her addiction and rehabilitated.
The prosecutor recommended a 2 to 3 year sentence. The defence concurred. The judge said “I don’t care, I’m handing out five” on the basis that the second robbery occured while on bail. So really she was sentenced not for the seriousness of her crimes but for a bail breach. Because the total sentnece is over 4 years she must serve 3 before being eligible for parole.
Case 2: another young girl, but this one with previous convictions. Walked up to a woman at an ATM, demanded money and was refused. Pulled out a hunting knife, stabbed the victim in the upper arm, withdrew the knife, abused the victim, then stabbed her again. The victim received 27 stitches and her victim impact report said she has nightmares, can’t sleep, can’t concentrate, feels constantly afraid etc.
The judge in that case handed down a sentence of three years. because it’s less than 4 years total, she becomes eligible for parole in 18 months. So she has received half the sentence given to the first girl, who harmed no one.
And that’s just one appeal I’m working on at present. What’s more, when one is researching precedents more and more cases come up whereby the sentence is really nothing more than the luck of the draw. For every “lucky” scumbag like the one you cite, there’s at least one unlucky person whose life wne toff the rails – usually becasue of drugs – and who has been thrown into jail for far too lonmg and with no real hope of rehabilitation.
These are issues worth debating from other than an “all criminals are scum, lock them away forever” versus “all criminals are poor misguided souls who need nannying” perspective. But sadly that’s what it always seems to come down to, even when someone like Sian Elias tries to kickstart a rational debate.
July 18th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Indeed philu, it is not my usual style but it is early in the day here in SG and I am in the mood to stir. I shall desist from now on.
July 18th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Apart from the fact phil chooses a lifestyle some disapprove of, what’s he done wrong here?
It’s a legal choice and while the word bludging springs to mind, he doesn’t hurt or harm anyone in what he does and if he chooses to live off a few hundred a week when clearly he’s capable of generating far more than that, what’s the damage?
There are far more useless cases out there who do the same bludging routine and we don’t get all upset about them. Gang members on the dole, for example.
Shit it is a slow day, isn’t it.
Anyone read that link I posted previously? Apart from phil?
July 18th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
q.e.d..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 18th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Sian’s expression of her desire to distance victims from the process guaranteed a widespread and highly emotional adverse reaction.
You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to work that one out.
If she wanted to “kick start a rational debate” she sure as hell doesn’t know how to go about it.
July 18th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Rex, Increasingly I’ve of the mind that the judicial system we have is more suited to the 17th century than the 21st.
Do we really need to hold judges in such high esteem, their decisions almost above questioning or was that ancient tradition started as a device to control Commoners, deterring them expressing doubt in a system that hands out results like a lottery?
July 18th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
reid
Apart from the fact phil chooses a lifestyle some disapprove of, what’s he done wrong here
..youre such a lefty apologist reid..I bet you wear roman sandles and knee high socks with shorts whilst sporting a beard.
you hang out around public libraries and ride a vespa ’round town wearin a helmet with no peak…heh heh (snort snigger!)
July 18th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
What joke this bloody argument is .you want less in prison let me run the outfit for 2 years I guarantee that the Population in the prison would drop dramatically.
Make it so bloody horrible, so bloody degrading that the last place on earth you would want to be is inside.
1.Food only available to those who work an 16 hour day, no exceptions.
2,One blanket, no heating.
3.No medical treatment for anything, either live or die.
4.No visitors.
5.No rights of any kind.
6.Take away anything and everything, you go to jail and sit and work when told and you complete the total time.
7.Anyone pedalling drugs is executed, a inmate or prison warden.
8.Any disobbedience is punishable by an extra 2 years mandatory jail.
9.No contact with the outside world at all.
All this would be for repaet offender ,as anyone can make a mistake.
P.S. philu I would let you do 2 terms in my perfect world.
Take the worst you can think of then treble it ,then the population will drop consistantly.
July 18th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
reid (and others concerned about victims) please have a listen to this remarkable young woman, paticularly from 11’20″ remaining (the timer counts down not up) where she talks about the criminals she’s encountered during that time.
She’s been the victim of horrendous crimes, been through Family and Supreme Court trials, fought for the rights of victims, been a member of a government Victims Reference Group, and then was appointed to the Prisoner Review (Parole) Board.
She has an intelligent, reasoned approach to justice issues – no soft “treat all criminals as victims” approach by any means, but she also realises that unless the drivers of criminality are dealt with effectively and criminals properly supported within jails (which does not happen now – rehabilitation is grossly under-resourced because it doesn’t win votes) and upon release, then we are condemning society to a cycle of recidivist offending.
Sian Elais’s point wasn’t that we should ignore victims, but that by placing them at the centre of the trial and sentencing process we risk making the entire process about revenge. If the judge doesn’t hand down as harsh a sentence as demanded by the victim, they run the risk of being called “soft”, despite the fact that a myriad of other issues ought rightly to be taken into account.
One of Georgia’s main points is that there’s no such thing as “criminals” – each offender is an individual and what works for one won’t work for another. Yet we persist in viewing an offender as their crime – “he’s a burglar, he’s a car thief” – and sentencing them accordingly.
She concludes: “I don’t know what ‘tough on crime’ means, and I don’t know what it’s meant to do… we need to stop labelling people.”
July 18th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
..good one lilman..a reasoned voice amongst the blah blah…I’ll be your Lieutenant if I may..and I want the whore in my wing…
July 18th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
reid
“Apart from the fact phil chooses a lifestyle some disapprove of, what’s he done wrong here?”
Surely you are taking the piss?
If you and your left wing mates think that what Phool is doing is OK then how about you pay extra tax to pay for his lifestyle while those of us who think he is nothing but a parasite pay nothing.
Are you also saying that you approve of his lifestyle?, do you really think that other hard working Kiwi’s should have work 5-6 days a weeks so that drug fucked wreck can sit on his lazy arse all day doing nothing?
“There are far more useless cases out there who do the same bludging routine and we don’t get all upset about them. Gang members on the dole, for example”
How is Phool any different from a gang member?, both are parasites, both are a drain on public funds and both terrorise innocent members of our community to obtain what they want, Phool is every bit as bad as a gang member, indeed there is an argument to say he is doing far more damage, the example he is setting for his kids is shocking, he is raising another generation of bludgers who think that other people owe them a living.
July 18th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
really bruv..attacking my offspring..eh..?
that’s a bit tacky..
even for the likes of you..
..isn’t it..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 18th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
I don’t have any left wing mates, bb.
No, I thought my use of the word “bludger” was a clue there. But the reason I don’t approve is because he’s a capable guy able to earn lots more than he gets on whichever benefit he’s on. So the reason I don’t approve is more because I see it as a waste, rather than I resent paying for him, since as I said, I also pay for other wankers who I don’t approve of.
As far as I know, he’s not a violent wanker, notwithstanding his conviction, which I understand was many years ago. People do change, and phil is evidence of that fact.
How do you know what attitudes his son has, unless you know him personally. Do you?
July 18th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
you can sorta imagine the likes of bruv/starboard/tinman…clenching and unclenching their fists in impotent anger/frustration..teeth grinding..
..and having to regularly wipe the foam-flecked spittle from their monitors/keyboards..
..eh..?
they are very scary/angry worlds they inhabit..
..they really need to learn how to ‘chill’..
..eh..?
(maybe they should skin-up..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 18th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
As far as I know, he’s not a violent wanker, notwithstanding his conviction, which I understand was many years ago. People do change, and phil is evidence of that fact.
..told ya !!! Fuckin apologist for scumbags !! Whores was an armed drugged up robber !! People change pffft…leopards etc…
whore is evidence of the fact??? Do you know him ??
July 18th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Phool
“really bruv..attacking my offspring..eh..?…that’s a bit tacky..”
I did pause for a moment before I posted my comments, however I reckon that you attack the offspirng of every single hard working Kiwi with your lazy, bludging lifestyle, because of scum like you there are hard working men who cannot provide things for their kids, because of scum like you there are kids who have to go without because YOU choose to be a lazy fuck.
My comments stand Phool, I pray that your kids turn out differently however I suspect that with a junkie and a bludger for a parent they will end up being just like you.
July 18th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
reid
Do I know Phool?…you must be joking, If I did I would spend a large part of my day pestering the local WINZ office about him and the way he is ripping off the system.
I would NEVER have anything to do with low life like him.
July 18th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Yeh, I know. I also understand (correct me if I’m wrong), no-one was hurt as-in, assaulted or wounded, and it was a long time ago.
What would you do, starboard. Endless condemnation without forgiveness is not a good path. Immediate forgiveness without holding to account is not a good path.
Where are you on that spectrum?
P.S. No, I don’t know him, but I have been reading his comments since he started and his attitude has been consistent all that time. Admittedly he might be completely different from my impression if I did know him, but you get a vague sense over time, about what sort of person he is.
July 18th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Justice Ministry chief executive Belinda Clark: $470,000 to $480,000.
This from a news item today. Lota hooch for the job in an organization that is a failure. But then no doubt its another of Clarks Quality womens Brigade.
A pox on women Chiefs. The just are hopeless.
By way of comparison:
* Peter Hughes, chief executive of the Social Development Ministry, the biggest government department: salary package of $530,000 to $539,000.
* Stephen McKernan, chief executive of the Health Ministry: $500,000 to $510,000.
* Justice Ministry chief executive Belinda Clark: $470,000 to $480,000.
* Prime Minister John Key: $393,000, plus allowances and superannuation.
So for running a failing organization she earns 80000 more than Keys.
July 18th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
In the article by Colin James with link below James contends that, “National brokered the awkward compromise as an article of politics to avoid losing women’s votes.”
Roughly 80% of the public want the law changed. The may be more men than women but certainly well over 50% of woman want a law change.
I suppose maybe more woman that men may vote on this issue but I cannot see National gaining votes by supporting this unpopular law. I suspect the Nats have done some backroom deal with the Watermelons.
Does anyone have a view on National’s real motive for supporting this anti-parental authority law?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/opinion/2588580/The-economics-of-whacking-kids
The economics of whacking kids
By COLIN JAMES – The Dominion Post
July 18th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
“Does anyone have a view on National’s real motive for supporting this anti-parent authority law?”
Key’s blue on the outside but red inside?
July 18th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Probably currying political favour Chuck, MMP means the tail wags the dog more often than not.
July 18th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Chuck is right, Neville Key is so fucking determined to be a three or four term PM that he will do a deal with the devil just to stay in power.
The man is a bloody disgrace, he has sold out all those people he conned into voting for him, many thought they were going to get tax cuts, many thought they were going to see a change in the anti smacking law, many thought they were going to see National get tough on dole and DPB bludgers, and many thought we were going to see a referendum on MMP.
While Neville Key has not yet backed down on the MMP referendum I can assure that he will, either that or the bastard will word the question in such a way that he achieves the outcome he wants, Key has done a deal with the communist Green party over MMP and the anti smacking bill, the sooner we get rid of him the better.
July 18th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Viking2 notes:
Yep, and it’s her and her minions – not the Chief Justice, as some were trying to make out the other day – who’s responsible for the endless delays and snafus in trying to obtain justice in this country. And it is the MoJ who oppose any change to any aspect of the current system. Yet the obvious fact that it isn’t working is the one thing on which we all seem agreed, regardless of our respective views on sentencing etc.
Must be nice to be in the public service, taking home nearly $10,000 every week and entirely insulated from the fallout from your incompetence. Just ask Barry Matthews.
July 18th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
is key as ‘bad’ as me..?..bruv..?
..does the macro..or the micro..
..insense you more..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 18th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
After 2 and a half years battling the lethargy and incompetence of the family court I could easily start sounding like D4J. We finally (over two fn years after filing!) got the hearing at the end of march, nearly 4 months later and the judge still hasn’t made a decision, in the meantime I travel over a thousand km each week driving the kids to and from school. why the f would a straightforward decision take 4 months to make? What judge would put up with a jury (a committee!) taking 4 month? Could the quality of the decision possibly be improving after such a time? Does the judge still remember what we look like? Does the judge still have any recollections of the proceedings at that hearing considering all the other cases she’s seen in the interim?
End of gripe.
July 18th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
“Indeed philu, it is not my usual style but it is early in the day here in SG and I am in the mood to stir.”
Gosh. Seeking the allegiance of one of the the most odious and cowardly Kiwiblog posters of all time. How the mighty can fall.
Now back to my point, that those who whine about the lack of democracy in Singapore completely overlook the real perversion of the voting system that exists in NZ as a result of the left’s abuse of the welfare system.
From Muriel Newman’s stats- (somewhat dated now but still relevant enough for the point)
———————————-
There are 870,000 adult New Zealanders who predominantly rely on the state for their benefits and pensions. Every 100 full-time workers support 56 full-time beneficiaries or pensioners. And if dependent children are included, there are over one million New Zealanders whose prime income comes from the state.
Labour takes $15 billion in PAYE tax from working New Zealanders, roughly the same as it spends on all benefits and pensions: $10,000 a year from every full time worker. Of this, $7.5 billion (seventeen percent of annual spending) goes on benefits to working age New Zealanders. Over 6,100 persons on the dole have been on a benefit for more than ten years.
Labours 1999 pledge was no rise in income tax for 95% of taxpayers. But today, 18% of all taxpayers who work fulltime are paying Labours hiked 39 cent tax rate. Thats 270,000 people.
There are now 78,000 adults supported by the invalids benefit a rise from 62,000 when Labour was elected. Thats an increase of 26% in just over three years. So far, total DPB numbers have remained static under Labour at around 108,000. But the number of woman on the DPB not naming the father has risen rapidly to 17,200. These 17,200 beneficiaries support 32,600 children up from 24,000 children when Labour was elected. Of these 32,600 children, 17,242 or 53% are of Maori ethnicity, and 8,369, or 25%, are of European ethnicity.
In 1981, 13% of all dependant children were part of one- parent families. In 2001 – just twenty years later 27% of all dependant children (around 250,000) are in single parent families.
Over 1,204 sole parents currently on the DPB have been on a benefit for more than 20 years.
Under Labours new Primary Health Organisation (PHO) Strategy, GPs on average receive 20% more funding for enrolling Maori and Pacific Island patients than others. A PHO which enrols a European female superannuitant will receive $19. A PHO which enrols a Maori or Pacific Island female superannuitant will receive $60.
There are 2.5 million eligible voters, including 1.55 million full time workers. Only 2.1 million bother to vote.
Labour has clinically and cynically focused its spending on the following groups: the 200,000 voters who are students; the 850,000 voters who are on benefits and super; and the 450,000 Maori and Pacific Island voters. Looking after these groups is the core of Labours re-election strategy.
This strategy is clever, not only because dominating these groups can assure election, but also because they are all growing as a percentage of the total vote. Full time workers are the losers under Labours political strategy. They are being overtaxed to the tune of $4 billion this year to help fund Labour’s re-election strategy.
July 18th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Rex brings up a good point about the differences in sentencing and punishment.
Like most goverment departments, it all boils down to the beureaucrat that you get to deal with at the time. Depending on the way the wind is blowing, you will get different treatment according to each persons interpretation of the policies (or law) of that department or their mood on the day.
The Investigator on TV1 the other night had a story about Emely Jessop. See the details here: http://tvnz.co.nz/the-investigator/emely-2842663
One part that really struck me was a prison guard handcuffed her to a bed while she was giving birth because it was policy. At the change of shift, the next guard released the cuffs.
Obviously 2 interpretations of policy going on there!
July 18th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
We won the rugby game WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
July 18th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Phool used to be (and probably still is) a smackhead, so it’s obvious that his sympathies lie with his fellow junkies. It would be a lot cheaper and easier (and less painful for us) if he was just shot through the head and his corpse dumped in the Tasman.
July 18th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
ah..!..hurf..!
..the voice of the reasoned right..
..you do your cause no end of..um..!..
..eh..?
..what must the casual reader here think of you..and your politics..?..eh..?
..(does your mum know you write stuff like this..?..wouldn’t she box your ears..?
..and send you to your room..?)
..(btw..as does redbaiter..as just one other example..you particularly toxic versions of your ilk..
….spill/splash/stain over all the other righties..eh..?
..and just show them/you all in your true light..
..and render any ‘ideas’ you might put forward..as laughable/beneath contempt..
..so thank you for performing that (illuminating) service for the rest of us..
..eh..?
..(and um..!..been watching a bit too much ‘underbelly’..have you..?..heh..!..)
..mind you..gangsterism is the ultimate rightwing fascist solution/rightwing thought in its’ purest form…eh..?
act on 1%
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 18th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
and i see from your other comments..
..that you are a snotty-nosed ninteen year old student..
silly boy..!
or..seeing as you are an underbelly fan..
..would ‘punk’ be more appropriate..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 18th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
Bloody disgrace, pissant drug dealers and scumbag little gangster sholding a society to randsom.
If ever there was a time to shove the crap back up the state titfeed criminals this is it.
I have told all my children this,if they get involved with shit,then in my eyes thats what they will become.
But they also know the world of complete hell which will be visited on them pales into the minor leagues compared to what I shall rein down unpon them and their so called new friends.
They know what will happen ,but more importantly they know I MEAN IT.
July 18th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
Gee RB, re: your 7:31, I was expecting a comparison. After all, you said you would:
“prove to you that in actuality, NZ with its soft totalitarian socialist tyranny, and the influence of huge numbers of welfare recipients on each election, is far less democratic than Singapore.”
It wasn’t quite the killer hit you made it out to be. Quite flaccid, really.
Never mind. Better luck next time.
July 18th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
I was surprised to learn today that there are 400,000 registered gun owners in NZ. What a great deterrent to crime if criminals were more worried that many of us can and will defend ourselves and our property. I’m guessing these gun owners are mainly rural folk. Perhaps we need more private gun owners in the cities.
July 18th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
Dribble. Just watching “In the Shadow of the “Moon” about the astronauts who went to the moon, excellent programme. Almost makes me want to stop drinking beer and save the world or something.
July 18th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
These fuckers went to the moon in a baked bean can with bits attached to it, outstanding!
July 18th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
“Quite flaccid, really.”
Like your dick is permanently?
The point you fuckwit is that there are comparatively few welfare recipients in Singapore, sitting around on the dole doing fuck all except receiving government handouts, and therefore their elections escape the pervasive evil of hundreds of thousands of welfare bludgers (like the yellow scum who write here that you are so friendly with), who will never vote for any government that might take their welfare cheque away.
Hence our accelerating descent into amorality violence, crime and social decay, and given the numbers of beneficiaries that now exist, and are fully dependent on handouts, there’s not a damn thing that can be done about it by means of the democratic process.
Seeing you needed that explained to you, I’d guess your brain is in an even more state of permanent flaccidity than your dick.
July 19th, 2009 at 12:13 am
Who said I was reasoned, phool?
“gangsterism is…rightwing thought in its’ purest form”
I’m sorry? Which ideology feels free to steal wealth from the middle and upper classes and gives to the working class to keep them in a prison of bondage and cycle of poverty, and enrich themselves and appease their own guilt?
July 19th, 2009 at 12:16 am
And I may be snotty-nosed and a student, but I’ll more coherent that you’ll ever be! ;D
July 19th, 2009 at 12:31 am
Hmm, shot myself in the foot with that last comment there.
July 19th, 2009 at 7:39 am
Dear Pablo,
It’s a sad day when the most despised character in this blog, the parasitic Whoar, agrees with and supports your stance.
It seems you haven’t learnt your lesson, have you? Be careful with what you put in e-mails. It could come back to haunt you.
July 19th, 2009 at 7:52 am
both of you, naughty corner.
1 minute for each year of your age.
come out when you can say sorry.
July 19th, 2009 at 7:53 am
July 21st, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Yay, a comprehensive ruling, and in our favour, a very arduous experience though.
July 21st, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Bloody hell, the ruling’s dated 22 May 2009! So it looks like it’s taken 2 months for the decision to get from the judge, through the court system to the lawyers.