-
-
@no-quarter said in NZ Politics:
Look at this fucking idiot completely unable to define the hate speech laws he wants to pass. You'd think he would reflect after the interview and realise how ridiculous it is but that's probably asking too much.
Don't be silly, laws don't define what is and is not legal.
-
-
Has anybody submitted a response to the proposed "Incitement of Hatred" legislation? If you want to the link below is where you will find the papers and the submission questions / survey.
Im not a fan of how they have presented the questions. In some cases the "Yes/No/Unsure" format along with the wording of the questions precludes the option that the status quo doesn't need changing. It results in a "have you stopped stealing from your workplace" style question. I doubt it was done by accident.
For example "are the proposed changes insufficient to protect...": Yes, No, Don't Know. It enables them to conclude that the changes are either inadequate so should go even further (Yes), adequate so should go ahead as is (No), or I'm confused so ignore me (Don't Know). No option is provided for "I don't think any changes are necessary".
Politicians are just the worst.
-
@antipodean said in NZ Politics:
Actually a good investment if you want effective use of taxes. Equates to around 15 prison years or actually much less if you count public defence, probation, reintegration etc.
Trials prove an ability to curtail re-offending, so anything over 5 crims put straight starts to add up as a good return.Not saying that is is more 'valuable' than the other options displayed just that it is financially sound.
-
@crucial Bollocks. It only makes financial sense if it actually works.
Around here everybody knows the leader has a reputation as a user himself. I have no problem funding rehab / counselling programs but this isn't one. It's a rort run by unqualified criminals. At the same time there are any number of services here in the Bay that can't get their legitimate services funded. Full disclosure: Mrs JC works for a rehab. Turns out she would be better off being a patched thug.
-
@jc said in NZ Politics:
@crucial Bollocks. It only makes financial sense if it actually works.
Around here everybody knows the leader has a reputation as a user himself. I have no problem funding rehab / counselling programs but this isn't one. It's a rort run by unqualified criminals. At the same time there are any number of services here in the Bay that can't get their legitimate services funded. Full disclosure: Mrs JC works for a rehab. Turns out she would be better off being a patched thug.
I do wonder if there is any line Jacinda could cross that Crucial wouldn’t defend? This is a no brainer pork barrel cronyism scam.
-
@jc said in NZ Politics:
@crucial Bollocks. It only makes financial sense if it actually works.
Around here everybody knows the leader has a reputation as a user himself. I have no problem funding rehab / counselling programs but this isn't one. It's a rort run by unqualified criminals. At the same time there are any number of services here in the Bay that can't get their legitimate services funded. Full disclosure: Mrs JC works for a rehab. Turns out she would be better off being a patched thug.
The funding for things like this is actually very hard to get and has to pass quite a high bar through joint agencies for anyone to stick their neck out and support it to a minister.. The implication that it is merely a political stunt is way off the mark. If anything, those that hold the purse strings are very politically risk averse.
Fact is that certain individuals don't respond to the majority of rehab programmes so you need something that works for them or they just turn around and cost everyone more pain and cost.
The funding is performance based as well and has to be justified and audited. Money is not just 'given'.
It is also possible that your 'any number of services' aren't achieving bang for buck or are all competing with each other for the same group. -
@kirwan said in NZ Politics:
@jc said in NZ Politics:
@crucial Bollocks. It only makes financial sense if it actually works.
Around here everybody knows the leader has a reputation as a user himself. I have no problem funding rehab / counselling programs but this isn't one. It's a rort run by unqualified criminals. At the same time there are any number of services here in the Bay that can't get their legitimate services funded. Full disclosure: Mrs JC works for a rehab. Turns out she would be better off being a patched thug.
I do wonder if there is any line Jacinda could cross that Crucial wouldn’t defend? This is a no brainer pork barrel cronyism scam.
Have some evidence to back this up? Jacinda* doesn't even come near the work or decision on things like this. But hey, fire away like a talkback caller.
*EDIT: has final sign off once all the work is assessed
-
@crucial said in NZ Politics:
@jc said in NZ Politics:
@crucial Bollocks. It only makes financial sense if it actually works.
Around here everybody knows the leader has a reputation as a user himself. I have no problem funding rehab / counselling programs but this isn't one. It's a rort run by unqualified criminals. At the same time there are any number of services here in the Bay that can't get their legitimate services funded. Full disclosure: Mrs JC works for a rehab. Turns out she would be better off being a patched thug.
The funding for things like this is actually very hard to get and has to pass quite a high bar through joint agencies for anyone to stick their neck out and support it to a minister.. The implication that it is merely a political stunt is way off the mark.
I didn’t suggest it was a political stunt. It’s just blind, arrogant incompetence. And the Minister should have told them to fuck off, I’m not giving money to gangsters.
If anything, those that hold the purse strings are very politically risk averse.
Well that certainly worked didn’t it!
Fact is that certain individuals don't respond to the majority of rehab programmes so you need something that works for them or they just turn around and cost everyone more pain and cost.
The funding is performance based as well and has to be justified and audited. Money is not just 'given'.
It is also possible that your 'any number of services' aren't achieving bang for buckBack atcha buddy. Where is one shred of evidence that you have to hand that the Notorious Mongrel Mob have any capability whatsoever at rehabilitating drug addicts? We live in Mob Central. They are everywhere, they are bold and open and they are, excuse me, shit on my shoe. A great many of the social problems we have in the Bay can be laid directly at their door. Including meth addiction. Go on, suggest with a straight face that in a region awash with meth that the Mob lets somebody else sell it on their patch...
Honestly mate, it’s offensive that you are happy to throw stones at the people who actually work to try and make some difference, in the worst of conditions, for some of the saddest cases you can imagine. For what? Because you can’t admit that giving money to gangsters is just straight out wrong?
or are all competing with each other for the same group.
Yes, they are. Because there’s never enough money. Because it’s going to nonsense causes. Oh, and gangsters.
Here’s a question - those “any number of services” you so blithely cast aspersions on, how many addicts did they cause? Fucking. None. Now ask yourself how many the Notorious Mongrel Mob chapter caused. How many of the addicts they put through this program are there as the result of the Mob's own drug dealing efforts? How many addicts do you reckon they caused THIS WEEK?
Don’t defend this, you look like an idiot.
-
@jc said in NZ Politics:
@crucial said in NZ Politics:
@jc said in NZ Politics:
@crucial Bollocks. It only makes financial sense if it actually works.
Around here everybody knows the leader has a reputation as a user himself. I have no problem funding rehab / counselling programs but this isn't one. It's a rort run by unqualified criminals. At the same time there are any number of services here in the Bay that can't get their legitimate services funded. Full disclosure: Mrs JC works for a rehab. Turns out she would be better off being a patched thug.
The funding for things like this is actually very hard to get and has to pass quite a high bar through joint agencies for anyone to stick their neck out and support it to a minister.. The implication that it is merely a political stunt is way off the mark.
I didn’t suggest it was a political stunt. It’s just blind, arrogant incompetence. And the Minister should have told them to fuck off, I’m not giving money to gangsters.
If anything, those that hold the purse strings are very politically risk averse.
Well that certainly worked didn’t it!
Fact is that certain individuals don't respond to the majority of rehab programmes so you need something that works for them or they just turn around and cost everyone more pain and cost.
The funding is performance based as well and has to be justified and audited. Money is not just 'given'.
It is also possible that your 'any number of services' aren't achieving bang for buckBack atcha buddy. Where is one shred of evidence that you have to hand that the Notorious Mongrel Mob have any capability whatsoever at rehabilitating drug addicts? We live in Mob Central. They are everywhere, they are bold and open and they are, excuse me, shit on my shoe. A great many of the social problems we have in the Bay can be laid directly at their door. Including meth addiction. Go on, suggest with a straight face that in a region awash with meth that the Mob lets somebody else sell it on their patch...
Honestly mate, it’s offensive that you are happy to throw stones at the people who actually work to try and make some difference, in the worst of conditions, for some of the saddest cases you can imagine. For what? Because you can’t admit that giving money to gangsters is just straight out wrong?
or are all competing with each other for the same group.
Yes, they are. Because there’s never enough money. Because it’s going to nonsense causes. Oh, and gangsters.
Here’s a question - those “any number of services” you so blithely cast aspersions on, how many addicts did they cause? Fucking. None. Now ask yourself how many the Notorious Mongrel Mob chapter caused. How many of the addicts they put through this program are there as the result of the Mob's own drug dealing efforts? How many addicts do you reckon they caused THIS WEEK?
Don’t defend this, you look like an idiot.
I just deleted a rather long justification and (possibly) educational post because it was written straight after being called an idiot for having the gall to call out a meme for being overly simplistic. On reading back it was more 'aggressive' than I intended once I cooled down.
Look, I understand the surface reaction to any of this money finding it's way back to dealers, but working from the outside and against these people is part of the causes that created them in the first place.
Read this good summary (https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/15-07-2021/sorting-fact-from-fiction-in-the-latest-outcry-over-gangs/) of the facts around this and if you still think it is a rort, a sham, blind incompetence etc then fair enough I won't try and convince you otherwise.
Just as much as @Kirwan accuses me of defending Labour decisions without knowledge, perhaps some of the statements made above could be tempered with some facts., -
@kirwan said in NZ Politics:
The police view it as money laundering, but what do they know right?
The police?
I think you’ll find that “the Police “ support it.
The Police Association (basically the union/mouthpiece) for individual police staff are who is quoted there. This is the same PA that has argued for open carry forces for almost 20 years, proclaiming that without it we would have dozens of police deaths in service. They do a job but aren’t experts. -
@crucial said in NZ Politics:
@kirwan said in NZ Politics:
The police view it as money laundering, but what do they know right?
The police?
I think you’ll find that “the Police “ support it.
The Police Association (basically the union/mouthpiece) for individual police staff are who is quoted there. This is the same PA that has argued for open carry forces for almost 20 years, proclaiming that without it we would have dozens of police deaths in service. They do a job but aren’t experts.Did you even read the article? Police in the region are exasperated at seizing millions of “dirty” money they made selling drugs. And the government handily laundered it and gave it back to help fix a problem the mob has a large hand in.
It’s Australian levels of corruption.
-
@kirwan said in NZ Politics:
@crucial said in NZ Politics:
@kirwan said in NZ Politics:
The police view it as money laundering, but what do they know right?
The police?
I think you’ll find that “the Police “ support it.
The Police Association (basically the union/mouthpiece) for individual police staff are who is quoted there. This is the same PA that has argued for open carry forces for almost 20 years, proclaiming that without it we would have dozens of police deaths in service. They do a job but aren’t experts.Did you even read the article? Police in the region are exasperated at seizing millions of “dirty” money they made selling drugs. And the government handily laundered it and gave it back to help fix a problem the mob has a large hand in.
It’s Australian levels of corruption.
Yes. I read it a while ago. But here's some quotes..
"He says one officer has "likened it to the most successful money laundering scheme".
"But according to Cahill, officers he has spoken to aren't happy"
I would fully expect that some police officers aren't happy. Their viewpoint is different. Doesn't mean that they are the arbiters of what is correct nor does it mean that they fully understand the facts. In fact you could argue that they misunderstand them with quotes like that.
The funding will be going to an organisation with an ex gang member in it. Some of it will then be paid for use of land owned by a current gang member. Did you read the explanation that I posted? The one that lays out the official Police position and the facts around where the money goes? -
@Crucial hold the fuck on, money is going to be paid to a CURRENT gang member for the use of his land? What the fuck that's the most blatent money laundering you could imagine. It's going straight back into their hands as legitimate funds. Jesus.
-
@no-quarter said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial hold the fuck on, money is going to be paid to a CURRENT gang member for the use of his land? What the fuck that's the most blatent money laundering you could imagine. It's going straight back into their hands as legitimate funds. Jesus.
I don’t disagree that the way the Proceeds of crime thing works sometimes seems at odds with logic and personally I’m not sure I agree, but that’s the system for funding and as the article I linked explains this isn’t unusual.
For those screaming “leftie” at me this system and the potential for a money-go-round was brought in by a National government and used for similar programmes under Key.
I suppose that it is the programme itself that is the question, It doesn’t matter the origin of the money. The govt could just pocket confiscated proceeds and pay with the other hand.
Also it is important to acknowledge that their is no such thing as merely “a gang member “
They come in all forms. It is a far more diverse world than many imagine -
@crucial Mate, I don’t care whether or not you’re a leftie. But the attempts at whitewashing the gangs really gives us in the regions with the worst problems the absolute shits.
I am utterly sick of people who are far removed from the issue, whether they be politicians, journalists or police executives who haven’t done a day on the beat in decades, explaining to us that there is nothing to see here. There is. It’s disgusting that anyone in authority would give any sort of support to the gangs. It doesn’t matter what good things they say they are doing, they’re doing unconscionable shit alongside of it.
-
I'm just flabbergasted anyone would believe that this was a good idea given the undoubted involvement of the gangs in creating the problem, let alone an elected representative oblivious to the optics.
What's next, funding pimps to solve sexual exploitation and sex trafficking?
NZ Politics