Crown proceeding with “Money Laundering”

I was wondering if there are others that are concerned about the “Laundering” of the Public’s Interests in their Investments in this Nations Infrastructure (both National and Regional)?

No I am not talking about Corporations, I am referring to the Infrastructure from which the Corporations derive an income.

The Public Invested in Infrastructure (not Business Enterprises) and up until the Business Lobby took over Government (1984) those Investments were held under the “Stewardship” (not Ownership) of Ministries- 1984 comes along and by “Hobsons Choice” the Public’s Interests in the various properties were systematically concealed and transferred to become the Property of Corporations in which the “Public” have no Legal Interest.

[The Crimes Act 1961 Section 243 Money Laundering defines that which is considered to be a Crime and Section 408 refers to this Act shall Bind upon the Crown]

And now they want to sell us shares in the laundry?

Tom Jackson – a smack isn’t a beating and you know it.

What are fundamental human rights?

Not a question you expect to hear on a supposedly Tory blog.

Every adult New Zealander has the right to be free from physical violence. Heck, it’s even illegal to thump incarcerated felons – because corporal punishment of adults is illegal. Children also have that right, just like they have the right not to be raped or murdered. Otherwise we end up with a situation where a relatively powerless minority can be physically attacked at will with no prospect of protection or recourse. Child beating is no different than beating our wife as punishment. This used to go on all the time, but who would stand for it to be legal now? Hell, it used to be legal in many places to rape your wife.

FFS National DID. It was one of their main policies. They WON the election with that policy clearly stated to the public. What is so hard about that to understand?

Or are you all saying that you know better than the voters of New Zealand on what they really want? Slippery slope much.

There is a larger mandate to get rid of the undemocratic anti-smacking law, than there was to change our voting system.

I wish they would say that but I have my doubts because they’ve provided so much entertainment over the last 4 years it just strikes me that there has to be a point when it stops. But then on the other hand, they are pretty fucking stupid so who knows?

“For Fucks sake National has been dithering around this issue for 3 years. They need to get on with it now”.

Pray tell me how they were dithering when every obstacle was put in their way by Liarbour, Gweens and Maori Council.
Had those I’ve mentioned had done nothing, then MRP would have been sold last year FFS!

Am I the only one who sees the arse-over-tit way the Greenies/Lefties see things: They say “Don’t sell OUR assets” when they are not in fact “OURS”. However if National sell the assets, and we buy them, they will then be OURS

The slogan should be “Sell the government’s assets so they are truly OURS”

Would Labour drop a key policy after being elected if over 50% of ppl said they didn’t want it? Even if the revenue was going to be used for other purposes? OF COURSE THEY WOULDN’T!!!!!

Ah, but that would be different, Labour’s policies would be best for the country whether people know that or not, usually just because the media don’t explain it properly.

“Well, FFS, that’s a highly risky strategy then” – sorry I went overboard with the FFS’s

Well that was the strategy though wasn’t it. They bought it to the country and were voted in. People knew the proposal to partially sell assets and they voted them in (even though granted they did not necessary like it, they saw it as necessary). How can the oppositon then turn around and say ‘oh you should drop that policy’? How the hell are we as voters supposed to make an informed decision at election time if parties could just drop policies after being voted in? When you think of it that way, the referendum is an absolute waste of time and to me what they are proposing is undemocratic. Would Labour drop a key policy after being elected if over 50% of ppl said they didn’t want it? Even if the revenue was going to be used for other purposes? OF COURSE THEY WOULDN’T!!!!!

It’s not “relitigating the election”; no one is challenging National’s majority, merely one of its policies.

But if this referendum succeeds (in getting majority suport) and then succeeded in overturning National’s asset policy it would set a very disturbing precedent.

I could imagine Labour wouldn’t be too happy if they won the next election (with Greens) and National initiated referendums to stall CGT implementation, increasing the minimum wage, killing all the cows or whatever they try and get through.

In this case CIR is being used as a political filibuster and in fact also as Govrnment buster. It is also being used as an inter-election campaign tool, funded by the taxpayer.

If this sets a trend in politics expect mayhem driven by the large parties. The people’s voice will be drowned out by the party systems. (Successful) sabotaging of governments could become standard procedure