Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
HackedOf (Manurewa)
Is this a way to scam more on the dbp? That Paula Bennit betta gt on 2 dis reel quik. Those lazy dpb mums dun need more excuse to not get a job. Who this Enistein fulla anyway? Sounds like a fag. -
Danielle, some of the YV contributors do actually know how to spell, and use punctuation. The problem with this thread is that the majority of "contributors" have language skills that are more familiar to professors of English :P
-
Bianca Count (Petone)
When will National fix this abomination? Labour had nine years, and they didn't do a thing. It's a total disgrace. I don't know if John Key is quite the right man for this, though. I think it's up to Sir Roger, fine, upstanding example of a man that he is, to free us from this arbitrary regulation. We should leave matters of mass and energy for the market to decide, rather than being constrained by the nonsense produced by some fourth-rate government bureaucrat. Did this Einstein fellow ever do anything worthwhile with his life, or did he just sponge off the poor, long-suffering taxpayer for the duration of his career? People like that make me sick, and the sooner Rodney, bless him, culls the waste from our system, the better. -
Then again, we could have a very public glow on for an Australian law to deal with a rather vapourous "gang crisis" when you've no idea whether it actually achieves a damn thing.
And really open up a big can of infringing-civil-liberties worms while we're at it. I wasn't too keen on Goff becoming leader of Labour, largely because the man is a closet fascist. His drooling over the thought of the kind of anti-association legislation that would be required to facilitate this just affirms that fear. We've got a conservative government peopled with the likes of McCully and Smith, and the opposition is lead by a man who quite likes the idea of disposing of civil liberties because they're a pesky nuisance. It's an awful combination.
Somehow I can't see Act opposing it either, even though it's precisely the kind of legislation that a truly social liberal party should be strongly against.
-
Hey let's start with a punishment, and work backwards to find an offence to fit it...
They already have several offences that'll fit just fine.
I'd say that s22A of the Land Transport Act 1998 covers things quite nicely. It's the general "boy racer" section. All they're doing is upping the punishment for things that are already against the law. They don't need to come up with some mystical new offences, there's quite the smorgasbord from which to select. -
Tom, put it down to having been to far too many serious/fatal car crashes resulting from dipshits (of varying ages) whose foot weight greatly exceeded their brain weight. I have no time for those people, and even less time for people whose lack of respect for the law and the police extends to actively seeking to harm police officers.
You're right, there is little that can be done to stop idiots being idiots. However, stopping them from inflicting their idiocy on others is a different story. If they want to be idiots, fine, that doesn't mean they're entitled to place the lives and well-being of others at risk.
Oh, and what makes you think CHC's racers are any more middle-class than the ones from Auckland and North Shore cities? Scanners can be had for a couple of hundred bucks, or less. Only takes a couple of people who have them to get the word onto the text grapevine and two minutes later everyone knows.
Emma, yes, they move on and the problem moves. They don't turn around and start attacking those who have vocalised or enforced the public's objections to their antics, they move on. CHC's racers appear to believe that they're above the law, since they don't feel that it's right for them to be tackled for their behaviour. I'm sure the racers at this end of the country get very shirty when arrested and fined for their carryings-on, but they don't congregate in large numbers and hunt cops. They don't track down the residences of the "offending" mayors and buzz them. They find other places to do their thing.
-
The best way to stop boy racers then is to hit them in the pocket - with compulsory third party insurance which is so high for modified vehicles driven by teens that they can't afford it.
And what will be done to them in the event that they have no such insurance? They've already demonstrated total contempt for laws such as vehicle licensing, driver licensing, and driver behaviour. Why would another law make any difference? Not that I disagree with the concept, I'm just pointing out that anyone who thinks it'll make a huge difference is overlooking the fact that criminals, by definition, break the law. Most of the young drivers who would be the targets of mandatory insurance are already breaking various laws on a regular basis.
The police don't need more things for which they can arrest these little shits, the courts need more penalties that can be applied. Vehicle crushing, with attendance not being merely an invitation but, rather, court-ordered and with the added "bonus" of being the person who pushes the button/pulls the lever to activate the crusher, should prove to be quite the disincentive. Compulsory payment orders would be another. Or make unpaid fines the IRD's problem: they're very effective at getting money out of people.
-
There's a huge amount of political point-scoring going on down here over boy racers. Since Sideshow Bob got in, he HAS made a difference, give him his due. Things have got worse all right, but the declaration of war was on HIS side.
This is not an issue, IMO, that can be fixed by policing. A wish to see sit downs and listening might make me a huge wet liberal, but treating them like vermin doesn't seem to be working.
Yes, you're "a huge wet liberal" :P
What makes CHC's "boy racers" special? Nowhere else in the country do they get to engage with the politicians. Nowhere else do they get any damned say at all, in fact. The pollies point, the police do their thing, and the racers move on. Auckland City, Manukau City, North Shore City, Tauranga, the list goes on. All have, or have had, problems with street racers. Manukau's got quite a lengthy list of streets that are forbidden to cars during various parts of various nights of the week, and it works. Why should the CHC racers get treated any differently to racers elsewhere?
I don't recall the racers targeting elected officials, never mind the cops, in any other town, either. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong. Any possible grounds that may have existed for trying to engage with the street racing community in CHC has been thoroughly tainted by the actions on Friday night. Openly hunting and attacking cops is a very big line to cross, and beyond it lies no chance of redemption. They are vermin, as demonstrated by their behaviour. If they wanted to be treated like adults, they could've behaved like adults. They didn't, and now are rightly deserving of whatever comes their way.
-
While I'm on the topic of blood-thirsty crazies, how about them Christchurch "boy racers"? Are they really as fucking stupid as they seem? Ambushing a cop, apparently with intent to do him some serious harm, is tantamount to a declaration of war. I'm pretty sure I've encountered retarded slugs that have greater cognisance of the word "consequences". One hopes that appropriately-delegated shift supervisors will be very liberal in their authorisation of firearms carrying for the near future.
-
Sic the ComCom onto them, Russell. That's totally not on. Or, better still, threaten them with the wine maker. Manufacturers tend to be quite precious about their brand, and if you let it be known that their wines are being retailed in an undrinkable state, with no recourse, they may well "have words". Nothing achieves results quite like financial penalties, which is a good part of the reason why the ComCom is so effective. Fines and the like aren't good for the bottom line.
As for Iraq, it's good to hear about the Blackwater ban. That's one seriously shady outfit, and it was very disconcerting to see the lengths the last US administration went to to protect them from the consequences of their fuckups. Comes back to the "shoot first, shoot again, shoot some more, and if someone asks a question shoot them too", mentality that seems to be associated with giving an American a firearm and telling them to go forth to "protect and defend" or whatever the nonsense is that they spout.