Police not issuing tickets to unlicensed Maori drivers

Forums › Off topic › Police not issuing tickets to unlicensed Maori drivers

1 | ... | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1327558 18-Jun-2015 21:57

DonGould: They have been given enough money not to be over represented. Why is it still the case?

Why is this race over represented in licensing issues?

Why do they not honour the terms of the treaty?

Maybe they haven't been given enough money. I'd like to see your evidence to support that it *is* enough.

As I said before, over-represented in licensing issues because they are over-represented in the poor, and licensing is expensive.

Honor the terms of the treaty? Could you explain that remark? AFAIK, the bulk of treaty deceptions and thievery were done by the British.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29768 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1327561 18-Jun-2015 22:15

Maoridom is well protected thanks to the treaty. In Australia, the Aborigines had no treaty, were mistreated for generations, and continue to be second class citizens.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1327562 18-Jun-2015 22:17

MikeB4:
Geektastic:
But they knew full well they should have had the licence already. That simple point seems to be missed here. They KNOWINGLY committed the offence in almost every case, since the number of people who do not genuinely know that a licence is required in advance of driving is infinitesimally small I would think.

Of course those on income support earning around $160 per week can pay the very expensive costs of obtaining a license after all food, clothing and a roof over the head are luxuries they can do with out whilst they do this. Yes it is wrong that they are unemployed, yes it is wrong
that they were driving with out a license but why add to the wrongs to feed your desire for judicial revenge.

The fundamental point is that unless and until they can afford to complete the legal requirements for driving, they should not drive.

I can't afford (well, more accurately, choose not to but it would still be blooming' expensive if I did) to get a helicopter licence, a Ship's Master's licence, a doctor's licence etc. That does not mean I feel in any way entitled to go and pretend I have them or that I would be surprised if the Rozzers felt my collar as a result and I found myself facing fines or whatever.

If I was banned from driving, I simply would not drive. Why? Because my parents raised me to obey the law. In 48 years I have probably no more than half a dozen camera speed fines and a few parking infringements to my name. I cannot conceive of living with the shame of actually being convicted of a crime.

We are far too willing to let things slide. A bit of short, sharp shock might be more effective.

Poverty does not cause crime because if it did, all poor people would be criminals, which they aren't. It's perfectly possible to have high moral values and be entirely law abiding at the same time as being poor.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1327563 18-Jun-2015 22:21

frankv:
DonGould: They have been given enough money not to be over represented. Why is it still the case?

Why is this race over represented in licensing issues?

Why do they not honour the terms of the treaty?

Maybe they haven't been given enough money. I'd like to see your evidence to support that it *is* enough.

As I said before, over-represented in licensing issues because they are over-represented in the poor, and licensing is expensive.

Honor the terms of the treaty? Could you explain that remark? AFAIK, the bulk of treaty deceptions and thievery were done by the British.

Assume land area A was genuinely and fairly worth say ten pounds in 1895 and the British gave the local chief that ten pounds.

How much of the ten pounds would be around in 2015, do you think?

Just a thought.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1327565 18-Jun-2015 22:21

Geektastic:
MikeB4:
Geektastic:
But they knew full well they should have had the licence already. That simple point seems to be missed here. They KNOWINGLY committed the offence in almost every case, since the number of people who do not genuinely know that a licence is required in advance of driving is infinitesimally small I would think.

Of course those on income support earning around $160 per week can pay the very expensive costs of obtaining a license after all food, clothing and a roof over the head are luxuries they can do with out whilst they do this. Yes it is wrong that they are unemployed, yes it is wrong
that they were driving with out a license but why add to the wrongs to feed your desire for judicial revenge.

The fundamental point is that unless and until they can afford to complete the legal requirements for driving, they should not drive.

I can't afford (well, more accurately, choose not to but it would still be blooming' expensive if I did) to get a helicopter licence, a Ship's Master's licence, a doctor's licence etc. That does not mean I feel in any way entitled to go and pretend I have them or that I would be surprised if the Rozzers felt my collar as a result and I found myself facing fines or whatever.

If I was banned from driving, I simply would not drive. Why? Because my parents raised me to obey the law. In 48 years I have probably no more than half a dozen camera speed fines and a few parking infringements to my name. I cannot conceive of living with the shame of actually being convicted of a crime.

We are far too willing to let things slide. A bit of short, sharp shock might be more effective.

Poverty does not cause crime because if it did, all poor people would be criminals, which they aren't. It's perfectly possible to have high moral values and be entirely law abiding at the same time as being poor.

I don't dispute that driving without a license is wrong. But it is how we deal with it when caught is important if we are to have a positive outcome. In addition to this initiative the Government could get proactive
and fund courses and licensing for those who meet a means test.

DonGould

3892 posts

Uber Geek

#1327578 18-Jun-2015 23:58

MikeB4: In addition to this initiative the Government could get proactive
and fund courses and licensing for those who meet a means test.

A better question is why don'tthe iwi?

Why aren't the Maori teaching each other to drive and then helping each other to gather the income to pay for the tests?

...and the answer is that they are.

What's more, the police are actively supporting the iwi by pushing anyone they catch at the iwi to get the training and over the line.

...and then we white people come along and bash the police in the media calling their attempt to fix the problem racist!

Why? So we can sell more advertising on our TVs.

Seems to me that this is a problem that was getting fixed and then the media got involved and just broke the system that may have been working!

Promote New Zealand - Get yourself a .kiwi.nz domain name!!!

Check out mine - i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz - don@i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1327648 19-Jun-2015 09:26

DonGould:
MikeB4: In addition to this initiative the Government could get proactive
and fund courses and licensing for those who meet a means test.

A better question is why don'tthe iwi?

Why aren't the Maori teaching each other to drive and then helping each other to gather the income to pay for the tests?

...and the answer is that they are.

What's more, the police are actively supporting the iwi by pushing anyone they catch at the iwi to get the training and over the line.

...and then we white people come along and bash the police in the media calling their attempt to fix the problem racist!

Why? So we can sell more advertising on our TVs.

Seems to me that this is a problem that was getting fixed and then the media got involved and just broke the system that may have been working!

A better question is why aren't they teaching each other not to break the law, but that is probably too wide for this discussion!

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

gzt

17140 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1328902 21-Jun-2015 22:57

: (

gzt

17140 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1329384 22-Jun-2015 17:22

Geektastic:
frankv:
DonGould: They have been given enough money not to be over represented. Why is it still the case?

Why is this race over represented in licensing issues?

Why do they not honour the terms of the treaty?

Maybe they haven't been given enough money. I'd like to see your evidence to support that it *is* enough.

As I said before, over-represented in licensing issues because they are over-represented in the poor, and licensing is expensive.

Honor the terms of the treaty? Could you explain that remark? AFAIK, the bulk of treaty deceptions and thievery were done by the British.

Assume land area A was genuinely and fairly worth say ten pounds in 1895 and the British gave the local chief that ten pounds.

How much of the ten pounds would be around in 2015, do you think?

Just a thought.

It appears to me you belive you know the answer to that already. There is a simple word for that. Prejudice.

Wikipedia: preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.

If a local chief gave a British person ten pounds for some land, how much of that ten pounds would be around in 2015?

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1329562 22-Jun-2015 21:45

gzt:
Geektastic:
frankv:
DonGould: They have been given enough money not to be over represented. Why is it still the case?

Why is this race over represented in licensing issues?

Why do they not honour the terms of the treaty?

Maybe they haven't been given enough money. I'd like to see your evidence to support that it *is* enough.

As I said before, over-represented in licensing issues because they are over-represented in the poor, and licensing is expensive.

Honor the terms of the treaty? Could you explain that remark? AFAIK, the bulk of treaty deceptions and thievery were done by the British.

Assume land area A was genuinely and fairly worth say ten pounds in 1895 and the British gave the local chief that ten pounds.

How much of the ten pounds would be around in 2015, do you think?

Just a thought.

It appears to me you belive you know the answer to that already. There is a simple word for that. Prejudice.

Wikipedia: preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.

If a local chief gave a British person ten pounds for some land, how much of that ten pounds would be around in 2015?

Ask the Duke of Westminster...

I know someone in the UK whose family still owns land granted to a predecessor in about 1080 by William The Conqueror. There is a school in India which still runs on the bequest from a British Army officer dead for over 100 years.

You also miss the point. The point is that if it was bought for full value then, it is highly unlikely any of that value would exist today. That is not prejudice at all, it is conjecture based on reasonable fact and comparison (e.g. the N American Indians were often paid for things and simply spent the money on guns or whatever - something very likely to have happened here in similar circumstances)

gzt

17140 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1329590 22-Jun-2015 22:34

Probably not guns in 1895. You can find these examples in any ethnicity. If you look for something more positive you will find that in history also.

1 | ... | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12