Occupy Together!!

Forums › Off topic › Occupy Together!!

1 | ... | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | ... | 41

4819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3934

Trusted

#538119 27-Oct-2011 12:29

Bee: And this is what happens when 2 crazy ideas collide...

John Minto - Spokesperson for the Mana Policy announcing policy and his speech starts by talking about the 1% that have ruled this country for the last 27 years.

"Labour and National policy for the past 27 years has been captured by the 1 per cent. And that 1 per cent in New Zealand has become obscenely wealthy while we have hundreds of thousands of kids living in poverty."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10762036]

You missed the best bit..

"Other policies include a $15 dollar minimum wage from April 1 next year and then pegging the minimum wage to two-thirds of the average wage from April 1, 2013, and making the first $27,000 of income would be tax free - which Mana said would give workers on minimum wage an extra $200 per week."

Yeah... Minimum wage set to be 2/3 of the average wage. That'll work. I think he's been vegetarian for far too long. (See my previous post)

Cheers - N

ps... hahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahhahaa... Just noticed he's having an April Fools joke... Look when the 2/3 minimum wage comes into effect... Nice one Mr Minto - you got me!

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

LookingUp

440 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 88

#538127 27-Oct-2011 12:45

.....

John Minto - Spokesperson for the Mana Policy announcing policy and his speech starts by talking about the 1% that have ruled this country for the last 27 years.

.....

I'd be kind of interested in any examples of countries where more than 1% of the population have "hands on" control of policy.

Things are LookingUp.... A photo from my back yard :-)

BurningBeard

1030 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 100

Trusted

#538128 27-Oct-2011 12:45

OMG did somebody just seriously bring up chemtrails again?

I despair.

My very metal Doctor Who theme

gzt

18689 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7828

Lifetime subscriber

#538140 27-Oct-2011 13:12

John2010:
codyc1515: There are different rights for police that they agree to when joining the police force compared to the average person.

If you wish to be taken seriously try answering my questions, instead of giving a non answer.

Otherwise, you will continue to come across as being very unworldly, perhaps just a teenager yet to mature, or as having the narrow views of an activist who considers their own rights to be superior to those of others and no one allowed to interfere with those. And on that latter point I have to agree with Tony Blair's observation in his autobiography of never trust activists.

Codyc1515 has previously argued against Occupy in this thread, it appears he is trying to make the "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" position. Really badly.

The 'police state' stuff is mostly silly. There are plenty of examples of police actions in free democratic societies where police have exceeded or tested their powers, without any corresponding police state structure being present. If codyc1515 is asserting this has occurred in a particular case, he will need to be very specific. Codyc1515 could consult that lawyer he was talking to earlier about what is required to make that case. A couple of photos with police standing next to traffic cones? I have not been able to make much sense of it.

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 28

#538142 27-Oct-2011 13:14

Bee: And this is what happens when 2 crazy ideas collide...

John Minto - ....
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10762036]

"To pay for the tax changes, Mana plan to introduce a financial transactions tax, which Minto said would recover the $15 billion of revenue lost through the removal of GST.While the party has not worked out the exact rate of the tax, Minto said it would be less than a per cent of transactions.
"Every year in New Zealand we have $93 trillion in speculation of money coming in and out of New Zealand through speculation on the New Zealand Dollar. A very small per centage of that would enable us to get rid of GST altogether.""

So he thinks that 93 trillion, should the figure be that as I have not checked, could be put within the jurisdiction of NZ's tax legislation? NZ tax revenue from all sources per annum is approximately $52 billion (source: NZ Treasury) which if Minto is correct we could just not pay any tax at all as a 0.06% transaction tax on his interpretation of the speculation money would replace it

.

He is a right regular idiot but I am sure many will get sucked in. Reminds me of some years back I was at a function where Jim Anderton was speaking, forgotten what it was all about now, but was talking authoratively about something that was based on NZ bank interest rates and comparison of those to ones overseas using figures that sounded all very plausible. Unfortunately, unknown to him, one of NZ's top bankers was present who disappeared off for a few minutes - when he came back he said he had just been on the phone to update himself exactly on all the interest rates Anderton had been quoting and it turned out dim Jim's claims, as is often the case, were all based on a pile of ignorant poo. But by that time he had already scarpered - "Have to catch a plane".

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 28

#538156 27-Oct-2011 14:03

John2010:
Bee: And this is what happens when 2 crazy ideas collide...

John Minto - ....
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10762036]

"To pay for the tax changes, Mana plan to introduce a financial transactions tax, which Minto said would recover the $15 billion of revenue lost through the removal of GST.While the party has not worked out the exact rate of the tax, Minto said it would be less than a per cent of transactions.
"Every year in New Zealand we have $93 trillion in speculation of money coming in and out of New Zealand through speculation on the New Zealand Dollar. A very small per centage of that would enable us to get rid of GST altogether.""

So he thinks that 93 trillion, should the figure be that as I have not checked, could be put within the jurisdiction of NZ's tax legislation? NZ tax revenue from all sources per annum is approximately $52 billion (source: NZ Treasury) which if Minto is correct we could just not pay any tax at all as a 0.06% transaction tax on his interpretation of the speculation money would replace it . ...

Have been looking at this bright idea of John Minto's a bit further - if we made the transaction tax on Minto's "speculation maney" just a measly 1% then not only could we not have to pay any other taxes but we could pay every person in NZ over $180,000 each year to live on. Wow, we would all have money for nothing and I suspect chicks for free too (apologies to Dire Straits)

.

Can I vote for him now or do I have to wait?

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

ScottStevensNZ

245 posts

Master Geek

#538159 27-Oct-2011 14:09

BurningBeard: OMG did somebody just seriously bring up chemtrails again?

I despair.

Yes, yes they did. But don't worry, the 12 Jewish bankers who control the world and I are on the case and warming up the black helicopter as we speak (Thanks to the RAND corporation).

Incidentally, what is peoples least favourite country, Spain or Italy? We feel like creating a run on someones banks...

Load & Performance Tester/PHP/JSP/C/PERL/MYSQL/LoadRunner8->11/HTML/CSS/XML/XSLT/2B|!2B/Cervelo Soloist/EMC Equip4/ Samsung Galaxy S /Darkys 10.2 Extreme

Do androids dream of electric sheep?
use strict;
my $sheepCount;

Yes, they can.

lyonrouge

1993 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 20

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#538176 27-Oct-2011 14:33

Is it still going? Where are they based? I hadn't seen it on the news and had thought it was cancelled.

Dratsab

3964 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1728

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#538400 27-Oct-2011 22:52

ScottStevensNZ:
BurningBeard: OMG did somebody just seriously bring up chemtrails again?

I despair.

Yes, yes they did. But don't worry, the 12 Jewish bankers who control the world and I are on the case and warming up the black helicopter as we speak (Thanks to the RAND corporation).

Incidentally, what is peoples least favourite country, Spain or Italy? We feel like creating a run on someones banks...

I thought the black helicopter was the exclusive domain of johnr?

codyc1515

1598 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#538420 27-Oct-2011 23:40

OK, managed to speak with my lawyer today. They mentioned that while I was (you might say) literally correct, there we're other things to factor in. The application of the "Rights" would have to be "reasonable", e.g. if there we're other similar protests where violence has occurred in (check), then it would be reasonable to assume that the same could happen here. Also, apparently local council bylaws can overrule the Bill of Rights. From that I interpreted that basically the Bill of Rights can effectively be used in a manner you wouldn't have expected at will, effectively making it useless (in my opinion). If we we're not in a "police state" then why do we have police constantly breaking the laws by videoing people without a warrant. Here we have a prime example of them trying to bring in a law to prosecute people for things that happened prior to the law being introduced. Thats like introducing a law saying that you we're required as of today to pay a 95% tax rate on all income, then telling everyone that they broke the law by not paying it in the past even though it never applied at the time! They even publicly admit that it was in breach of the Bill of Rights act: "We are surprised that the House received no report from the Attorney-General under section 7 of the Bill of Rights Act on the bill’s inconsistency with the Bill of Rights. We accept that this is consistent with officials’ advice, but we find it difficult to follow their reasoning.The Supreme Court found that existing video camera surveillance as an adjunct to a search warrant is illegal and in breach of section 21 of the Bill of Rights Act given the absence of express statutory authority to do so. The effect of the bill as it came to select committee overruled that, and did so retrospectively." This is now an Act of Law.

Dratsab:
codyc1515:
oxnsox: @Cody1515
A simple question for you chap....
How widely have you traveled??

I can see where this is going....

Dratsab:
codyc1515: There are different rights for police that they agree to when joining the police force compared to the average person.

Such as?

They must not subject anybody while on duty to an unreasonable search. At a peaceful protest, I would consider videoing everyone unreasonable.

I didn't ask you to incorrectly and partially paraphrase a section of the NZ Bill of Rights which, by the way, apply equally to everybody. You have said police have different rights to other people, I'm asking you what those different rights are.

For one thing, the Police must not subject people to unreasonable search and seizure. Considering the potential for violence to occur (as has happened in other similar protests), video taping protesters would probably be considered reasonable.

ScottStevensNZ:
codyc1515:
ScottStevensNZ:

I find it particularly funny that you all criticize my choice of vocabulary or my view on my and others rights but at no point actually try to point out what specifically I am wrong about, with evidence to back it up.

Interesting, so you beleive that the state has infringed your rights by preventing you from seeking legal advice from a lawyer in your employ, or for commenting on your beliefs in a public forum?

That was the point and the example I was attempting to make. By virtue of the fact that you can do those things freely seems to torpeedo your own argument.

What? I don't quite understand what you are saying here. I was saying basically that you are all criticizing me but don't actually provide any evidence to say that the Police are not breaching the Bill of Rights. I think its fairly clear what it says in the Bill of Rights and what is really happening.

Well, its quite simple. If we were living in a police state (as asserted) would you be able to obtain independent legal representation or advice, would you be able to critise the government or the 'system' , would you be able to vote for or found a political party that best represents your views? Given the fact that you are here, discussing your issues with the 'system' tends to make me believe that we are not in actual fact living in a police state.

Try and criticize something like CYFS and see what happens, you will find out soon enough (as have others)...

johnr:
oxnsox: @Cody1515
A simple question for you chap....
How widely have you traveled??

I would say to the local shopping mall

On occasion. Most of the time though I try to avoid exposing myself to the poisonous toxins spread via. the air from chemtrails authorized by John Key aka. Prime Sinister/Banking of the Illuminati. /sarcasm

Dratsab:
ScottStevensNZ:
BurningBeard: OMG did somebody just seriously bring up chemtrails again?

I despair.

Yes, yes they did. But don't worry, the 12 Jewish bankers who control the world and I are on the case and warming up the black helicopter as we speak (Thanks to the RAND corporation).

Incidentally, what is peoples least favourite country, Spain or Italy? We feel like creating a run on someones banks...

I thought the black helicopter was the exclusive domain of johnr?

That was my understanding also. :)

gzt

18689 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7828

Lifetime subscriber

#538518 28-Oct-2011 09:02

It is common practice for the police to record protests. The possibility of violence does not seem to come into it. No idea why, but it looks like an intelligence gathering exercise. No idea what they do with those recordings.

Does video recording really come under [edit:][the legal definition of] 'unreasonable search and seizure' though?

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

ScottStevensNZ

245 posts

Master Geek

#538532 28-Oct-2011 09:27

Well, its quite simple. If we were living in a police state (as asserted) would you be able to obtain independent legal representation or advice, would you be able to critise the government or the 'system' , would you be able to vote for or found a political party that best represents your views? Given the fact that you are here, discussing your issues with the 'system' tends to make me believe that we are not in actual fact living in a police state.
Try and criticize something like CYFS and see what happens, you will find out soon enough (as have others)...

Can you provide proof that CYFS for instance have engaged in activities consistant with those of a police state?

I critise government agencies, policies and departments with a high
degree of frequency and I am sure that I havn't been arrested and
imprisoned without trial ...
Mindyou - as previously stated I am in a bunker 500M below the surface of the earth with the 12 Jewish bankers who control the world, so I may be immune from prosecution. By the way - Greece, you're welcome, we decided over a few stiff drinks to let you off *this time*.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80658 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41072

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#538559 28-Oct-2011 10:07

Had to laugh at the Pundit Kitchen images:

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

Linuxluver

5833 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1639

Trusted

Subscriber

#538626 28-Oct-2011 11:51

LookingUp:
.....

John Minto - Spokesperson for the Mana Policy announcing policy and his speech starts by talking about the 1% that have ruled this country for the last 27 years.

.....

I'd be kind of interested in any examples of countries where more than 1% of the population have "hands on" control of policy.

That isn't the issue.

The issue is who benefits from the policies enacted.

Arguably, in the US in particular, the laws enacted have benefited very few to the cost of the many.

That is the issue. What allowed it to occur is an effective failure of democracy. This is the underlying cause of the issue.

Everything else flows from this.

In NZ, the economic policies enacted have been very similar to those in the US - broadly - and with similar effect: the rich get richer and everyone else faces lower wages and conditions over time...as well as fewer career opportunities as more and more jobs move offshore and don't come back.

But we have better social support systems, so the pain isn't as acute. This is mainly because we are a functional democracy......though if we get rid of MMP we will cease to be as effectively democratic and the 1% will have more power to pass those additional laws our greater degree of democracy under MMP has so far prevented them from enacting. FPP, PV and SM all contrive to give 100% of the power to one minority most people didn't vote for. That's the fastpath to the 1% screw-over.

Basically...if you want your kids to be poor, get rid of MMP.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

Dratsab

3964 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1728

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#538869 28-Oct-2011 20:15

codyc1515: OK, managed to speak with my lawyer today...

...Also, apparently local council bylaws can overrule the Bill of Rights. From that I interpreted that basically the Bill of Rights can effectively be used in a manner you wouldn't have expected at will...

You interpret incorrectly. Overriding a law is not "using it in a manner you wouldn't have expected" it's exactly what it says - overriding it.

codyc1515: If we we're not in a "police state" then why do we have police constantly breaking the laws by videoing people without a warrant.

If you're referring to publicly videoing people in a public place, no warrant is required. Anyone can do it. Some councils do it 24 hours a day, 7 days a week via the CCTV systems they've had put in place for city safety. Rv FRASER and R V GARDINER affirm the lawfulness of police videoing in public under common law.

Or are you talking about COVERT video in tandem with a warrant? - A totally different kettle of fish and addressed a bit further down...

codyc1515: Here we have a prime example of them trying to bring in a law to prosecute people for things that happened prior to the law being introduced.

Errm - no. They've been trying to introduce a law to allow the introduction of already gathered evidence which may otherwise be ruled as unlawful or improperly obtained. The laws under which people are being prosecuted already exist.

codyc1515: "We are surprised that the House received no report from the Attorney-General under section 7 of the Bill of Rights Act on the bill?s inconsistency with the Bill of Rights. We accept that this is consistent with officials? advice, but we find it difficult to follow their reasoning. The Supreme Court found that existing video camera surveillance as an adjunct to a search warrant is illegal and in breach of section 21 of the Bill of Rights Act given the absence of express statutory authority to do so. The effect of the bill as it came to select committee overruled that, and did so retrospectively."

Interesting quote (as it's wrong), where's it from?

The Supreme Court DID NOT at any stage state, or find, that the evidence obtained in relation to the events in the Urewera's was illegal. The Judges used the words "improperly obtained" and "unlawful". This is because s198 of the Evidence Act (which is what search warrants are issued under) does not cover the use of covert surveillance cameras.

In fact, no legislation does. This is an area the Judges want to see fixed through the enactment of further law - and they clearly spell this out in their judgement. The ruling of the Judges in this case is contained in R v HAMED. I suggest you obtain a copy and read it.

Oh - and don't jump on the word "unlawful" and try and equate it to illegal...

1 | ... | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | ... | 41