Oh come on. English didn't lie and didn't break the law. 

Wiggum:

 

 

 

I stand by that statement. The election results will tell. Most honest/hardworking Kiwis dont want a fraudster in charge of social development. What a disaster! The election results will be the proof. Happy to retract this statement and admit I got it wrong after elections.

 

Predict whatever you want, but don't presume to speak for all honest and hardworking Kiwis. You don't speak for me.

Wiggum:

 

She has admitted guilt. Therefore we CAN assume she has broken the law. It a different story if there were these allegations against her, but in this case she has admitted that she has committed benefit fraud.

 

Prosecution is normally very easy if the wrong doing is admitted.

 

How many people in NZ have driven an unregistered car, driven with expired licence, imported goods in a way to avoid border charges, done or purchased "cashies", been less than honest on an insurance claim? etc etc .Yes she did wronging not fully declaring possible chargeable income, it has yet to be shown if there is in fact a debt to the crown resulting. Taking the moral high is risky.

kryptonjohn:

 

Oh come on. English didn't lie and didn't break the law. 

 

He declared he didn't have any pecuniary interest in the family house, owned by his family trust, in which he and his family lived.

allio:

 

Wiggum:

 

I stand by that statement. The election results will tell. Most honest/hardworking Kiwis dont want a fraudster in charge of social development. What a disaster! The election results will be the proof. Happy to retract this statement and admit I got it wrong after elections.

 

 

Predict whatever you want, but don't presume to speak for all honest and hardworking Kiwis. You don't speak for me.

 

I did not speak on behalf of you.

I don't really get why she came out with this? Sure she may have gathered a lot of support for herself, and also lost a lot of honest/hardworking kiwi votes in the process.

Maybe you one of the few honest/hardworking one's that continues to support this fraud of a woman.

frankv:

 

kryptonjohn:

 

You can't just go around making personal declarations that the law is unjust to suit yourself. That's anarchy.

 

 

I agree. But it's only the "to suit yourself" that you introduced that makes that true. People can, and do, daily decide which laws are right and which aren't.

 

Pretty much everyone knows right from wrong, and also knows that the law only approximates the distinction. Sometimes what's legal is wrong, and what's illegal is right. An obvious back-and-white example is homosexuality; prior to 9 July 1986 it was illegal, after that it was legal. You can't tell me that homosexuality suddenly became "right" at that instant on 9 July 1986. So either the law was unjust before that instant, wrongly criminalising some moral people, or it was unjust after that instant, wrongly allowing people to do something immoral.

 

If you're going to castigate someone for "breaking the law", first you need to assure yourself that it was a just law.

 

 

 

Well, this is an interesting comment. Homosexuality was illegal prior to 1986, and the law was put in place as a result of the prevailing views and experiences and understanding at the time. Society is an ever changing beast and as time goes on, we seem to becoming more accepting of things that were previously unacceptable (which in some cases I disagree). I don't think you can go back and say the law was wrong based on the views you hold today, when those views may or may not have been relevant or considered at the time. If you don't agree with a law, lobby to change it, don't just flaunt it and then whine when you are punished for it. I disagree that the law should state I can only drive at 100 KMPH and if theoretically, I was to decide I didn't want to follow the law, I would be a the mercy of the law makers as to punishment. Abiding by the law is a choice. Not only did she fail to abide by it, she did so knowingly and is unrepentant for it.

First of all driving an unregistered car is not a crime.

The other items are and if you are caught you can go to jail so not sure what your point is - they are crimes! MT admits she committed a crime. It was so long ago that she cannot be prosecuted.

None of that matters now. What matters (to me) is her attitude. She is saying it is OK to break the law to suit yourself. Bugger that. She's unfit to be a minister with that attitude.

Wiggum:

 

 

 

I did not speak on behalf of you.

 

I don't really get why she came out with this? Sure she may have gathered a lot of support for herself, and also lost a lot of honest/hardworking kiwi votes in the process.

 

Maybe you one of the few honest/hardworking one's that continues to support this fraud of a woman.

 

I suppose I must be!

Look, you're entitled to hold and tout any opinion you want, but don't wrap yourself up with all hard working and honest New Zealanders. You speak for yourself only. I'm a hard working and honest New Zealander who happens to hold views which are virtually the complete opposite of yours.

You'd probably object if I declared that all New Zealanders who gave a damn about other people supported Metiria's actions - and rightly so.

Sure - it was a serious misfire - very poorly judged admission.

The timing of it - I'm only guessing - could have probably been more than coincidence, perhaps to draw attention to allegations (shut down by legal threats) made about the life of the present deputy PM when she was on a benefit.  The misfire that rather than direct attention to those allegations - it drew attention away.

TBH - I couldn't care a flying fig about what either did when on the DPB.  For both it was a long long time ago.

allio:

 

Wiggum:

 

 

 

I did not speak on behalf of you.

 

I don't really get why she came out with this? Sure she may have gathered a lot of support for herself, and also lost a lot of honest/hardworking kiwi votes in the process.

 

Maybe you one of the few honest/hardworking one's that continues to support this fraud of a woman.

 

 

I suppose I must be!

 

Look, you're entitled to hold and tout any opinion you want, but don't wrap yourself up with all hard working and honest New Zealanders. You speak for yourself only. I'm a hard working and honest New Zealander who happens to hold views which are virtually the complete opposite of yours.

 

You'd probably object if I declared that all New Zealanders who gave a damn about other people supported Metiria's actions - and rightly so.

 

I find it hard to marry up your assertion you are honest and hard-working with your support of MT. Is it just that YOU wouldn't do it, but you don't care if others break the law? I am not being sarcastic, but I just don't "get" it? Do you believe the ends justify the means? 

allio:

 

kryptonjohn:

 

Oh come on. English didn't lie and didn't break the law. 

 

 

He declared he didn't have any pecuniary interest in the family house, owned by his family trust, in which he and his family lived.

 

Based on advice from his lawyer.

If your house is owned by a trust then you don't own it. If he's a trustee or beneficiary it comes down to the wording of the deed.

Still waiting to see a shred of equivalence to knowingly committing fraud.

Fred99:

 

Sure - it was a serious misfire - very poorly judged admission.

 

The timing of it - I'm only guessing - could have probably been more than coincidence, perhaps to draw attention to allegations (shut down by legal threats) made about the life of the present deputy PM when she was on a benefit.  The misfire that rather than direct attention to those allegations - it drew attention away.

 

TBH - I couldn't care a flying fig about what either did when on the DPB.  For both it was a long long time ago.

 

The timing of it? She thought if she admitted it, people would feel sorry for her and she would get a bunch of political capital out of it. As if what she did originally wasn't bad enough, her motivations for announcing it like that, appalled me. 

Fred99:

 

TBH - I couldn't care a flying fig about what either did when on the DPB.  For both it was a long long time ago.

 

Yep, agree with you there.

I do give a flying fig, and more, about her current feelings about it all though. She's not remorseful and still considers it OK to lie about income in order to increase one's benefit. 

networkn:

 

Fred99:

 

Sure - it was a serious misfire - very poorly judged admission.

 

The timing of it - I'm only guessing - could have probably been more than coincidence, perhaps to draw attention to allegations (shut down by legal threats) made about the life of the present deputy PM when she was on a benefit.  The misfire that rather than direct attention to those allegations - it drew attention away.

 

TBH - I couldn't care a flying fig about what either did when on the DPB.  For both it was a long long time ago.

 

 

The timing of it? She thought if she admitted it, people would feel sorry for her and she would get a bunch of political capital out of it. As if what she did originally wasn't bad enough, her motivations for announcing it like that, appalled me. 

 

That's a wild stretch of imagination.  I don't think sympathy for her was the objective - sympathy for present beneficiaries was.

As I said - it was a serious misfire.  Beneficiary-bashing has been reinvigorated.

F&^$ I hate election year - it really brings out the worst in some people.

Fred99:

 

networkn:

 

Fred99:

 

Sure - it was a serious misfire - very poorly judged admission.

 

The timing of it - I'm only guessing - could have probably been more than coincidence, perhaps to draw attention to allegations (shut down by legal threats) made about the life of the present deputy PM when she was on a benefit.  The misfire that rather than direct attention to those allegations - it drew attention away.

 

TBH - I couldn't care a flying fig about what either did when on the DPB.  For both it was a long long time ago.

 

 

The timing of it? She thought if she admitted it, people would feel sorry for her and she would get a bunch of political capital out of it. As if what she did originally wasn't bad enough, her motivations for announcing it like that, appalled me. 

 

 

That's a wild stretch of imagination.  I don't think sympathy for her was the objective - sympathy for present beneficiaries was.

 

As I said - it was a serious misfire.  Beneficiary-bashing has been reinvigorated.

 

F&^$ I hate election year - it really brings out the worst in pepole.

 

Don't you think she announced it in an effort to gain political capital? 

Could you just opt not to partipate in political discussions online? /me shrugs.

For the record, I am not, nor do I see any, bashing here, except of MT. The two people people discussed are the guy who stole a trampoline and the women who stole taxpayers funds.