Back in 2014, a beneficiary became so frustrated with WINZ that he
killed an employee. That was of course inexcusable, but it did suggest
that perhaps some action needed to be taken to reduce the growing
level of frustration with the bureaucracy and niggling rules used to
deny benefits, or make it difficult to obtain entitlements
On Monday, 18 April 2016 22:39:36 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:them.
Back in 2014, a beneficiary became so frustrated with WINZ that he<snip>
killed an employee. That was of course inexcusable, but it did suggest
that perhaps some action needed to be taken to reduce the growing
level of frustration with the bureaucracy and niggling rules used to
deny benefits, or make it difficult to obtain entitlements
If anyone has any doubts that Dickbot is low life filth, that should end
Using the tragic deaths of innocents to start off a political whinge is thelowest thing I've ever seen in two decades here.
On Monday, 18 April 2016 22:39:36 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:This is the third time he has done soemthing this bad.
Back in 2014, a beneficiary became so frustrated with WINZ that he<snip>
killed an employee. That was of course inexcusable, but it did suggest
that perhaps some action needed to be taken to reduce the growing
level of frustration with the bureaucracy and niggling rules used to
deny benefits, or make it difficult to obtain entitlements
If anyone has any doubts that Dickbot is low life filth, that should end them.
Using the tragic deaths of innocents to start off a political whinge is the >lowest thing I've ever seen in two decades here.
On Monday, 18 April 2016 22:39:36 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:them.
Back in 2014, a beneficiary became so frustrated with WINZ that he<snip>
killed an employee. That was of course inexcusable, but it did suggest
that perhaps some action needed to be taken to reduce the growing
level of frustration with the bureaucracy and niggling rules used to
deny benefits, or make it difficult to obtain entitlements
If anyone has any doubts that Dickbot is low life filth, that should end
Using the tragic deaths of innocents to start off a political whinge is thelowest thing I've ever seen in two decades here.
Rich80105 wrote:
The government pinching our pennies has always cost us dearly. And some >people want them to pinch more!
On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 19:44:38 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
The government pinching our pennies has always cost us dearly. And some >>people want them to pinch more!
You have misunderstood my post, Allistar.
On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 22:14:48 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 19:44:38 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
The government pinching our pennies has always cost us dearly. And some
people want them to pinch more!
You have misunderstood my post, Allistar.
No Allistar is right.
What right has the state got to pillage from the productive.
to give to losers.
On 4/20/2016 11:34 PM, Liberty wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 22:14:48 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>And now we have petrol stations who want to discriminate as to who buys
On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 19:44:38 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
The government pinching our pennies has always cost us dearly. And some >>>> people want them to pinch more!
You have misunderstood my post, Allistar.
No Allistar is right.
What right has the state got to pillage from the productive.
to give to losers.
their overpriced fuels.
No doubt the rich is going in to bat for Z
On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 08:12:53 +1200, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
On 4/20/2016 11:34 PM, Liberty wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 22:14:48 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>And now we have petrol stations who want to discriminate as to who buys >>their overpriced fuels.
wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 19:44:38 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
The government pinching our pennies has always cost us dearly. And
some people want them to pinch more!
You have misunderstood my post, Allistar.
No Allistar is right.
What right has the state got to pillage from the productive.
to give to losers.
No doubt the rich is going in to bat for Z
Gosh, look over there! Time for a flag change, george? Anthying but
allow discussion on National's wasting of taxpayer dollars by their incompetence . . .
On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 19:44:38 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
The government pinching our pennies has always cost us dearly. And some >>people want them to pinch more!
You have misunderstood my post, Allistar. I was pointing out that
National's propensity to make life difficult for beneficiaries was
causing problems.
I appreciate that you don't like taxes - a good start to reducing
taxes would be to avoid wasting money that is raised from taxpayers.
Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 08:12:53 +1200, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
On 4/20/2016 11:34 PM, Liberty wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 22:14:48 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>And now we have petrol stations who want to discriminate as to who buys >>>their overpriced fuels.
wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 19:44:38 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
The government pinching our pennies has always cost us dearly. And >>>>>> some people want them to pinch more!
You have misunderstood my post, Allistar.
No Allistar is right.
What right has the state got to pillage from the productive.
to give to losers.
No doubt the rich is going in to bat for Z
Gosh, look over there! Time for a flag change, george? Anthying but
allow discussion on National's wasting of taxpayer dollars by their
incompetence . . .
If you want to discuss incompetence in the New Zealand political system why >are you straying any further than Labour? I mean really, do they seriously >think they're a strong contender? Gaffaw!
Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 08:12:53 +1200, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
On 4/20/2016 11:34 PM, Liberty wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 22:14:48 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>And now we have petrol stations who want to discriminate as to who buys
wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 19:44:38 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
The government pinching our pennies has always cost us dearly. And >>>>>> some people want them to pinch more!
You have misunderstood my post, Allistar.
No Allistar is right.
What right has the state got to pillage from the productive.
to give to losers.
their overpriced fuels.
No doubt the rich is going in to bat for Z
Gosh, look over there! Time for a flag change, george? Anthying but
allow discussion on National's wasting of taxpayer dollars by their
incompetence . . .
If you want to discuss incompetence in the New Zealand political system why are you straying any further than Labour? I mean really, do they seriously think they're a strong contender? Gaffaw!
On 4/21/2016 9:47 AM, Allistar wrote:"Gaffaw!"
Rich80105 wrote:Notice as to how rich is unable to reply to a post and unable to use a >spellchecker when he waffles
On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 08:12:53 +1200, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
On 4/20/2016 11:34 PM, Liberty wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 22:14:48 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>> wrote:And now we have petrol stations who want to discriminate as to who buys >>>> their overpriced fuels.
On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 19:44:38 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>> wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
The government pinching our pennies has always cost us dearly. And >>>>>>> some people want them to pinch more!
You have misunderstood my post, Allistar.
No Allistar is right.
What right has the state got to pillage from the productive.
to give to losers.
No doubt the rich is going in to bat for Z
Gosh, look over there! Time for a flag change, george? Anthying but
allow discussion on National's wasting of taxpayer dollars by their
incompetence . . .
If you want to discuss incompetence in the New Zealand political system why >> are you straying any further than Labour? I mean really, do they seriously >> think they're a strong contender? Gaffaw!
On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 10:44:58 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 19:44:38 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
The government pinching our pennies has always cost us dearly. And some >>>>people want them to pinch more!
You have misunderstood my post, Allistar. I was pointing out that
National's propensity to make life difficult for beneficiaries was
causing problems.
How exactly is giving money to people that have not earned it "making life >>difficult" for them? Surely it's making life easier!
Attacks on staff are undesirable, Allistar. I know you think of them
as slaves,
but public servants are people and deserve to be treated
properly.
setting up a system that encourages physical violence as the
only way of getting the law recognised may suit National's thinking,
but that does not make it right. National have wasted most of the $20
million by not providing a safe workplace, by not giving adequate
training, and yes pissing people off by minute tinkering with a
complex system top save chickenfeed in reduced entitlements.
The waste
of money should be of concern regardless of who you support
politically.
I appreciate that you don't like taxes - a good start to reducing
taxes would be to avoid wasting money that is raised from taxpayers.
Raised? That's a euphemism if ever I've seen one. You make it sound like >>the IRD is running a sausage sizzle.
IRD only collect money that is due - the implicit contract is between
the government and taxpayers
- the government sets the rates and basis
of taxation; IRD is merely the organisation set up to ensure
compliance with the law. National have raised some taxes and reduced
others - IRD don;t make those decisions.
Rich80105 wrote:Attacks on staff are undesirable, Allistar. I know you think of them
On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 19:44:38 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
The government pinching our pennies has always cost us dearly. And some >>>people want them to pinch more!
You have misunderstood my post, Allistar. I was pointing out that
National's propensity to make life difficult for beneficiaries was
causing problems.
How exactly is giving money to people that have not earned it "making life >difficult" for them? Surely it's making life easier!
IRD only collect money that is due - the implicit contract is betweenI appreciate that you don't like taxes - a good start to reducing
taxes would be to avoid wasting money that is raised from taxpayers.
Raised? That's a euphemism if ever I've seen one. You make it sound like the >IRD is running a sausage sizzle.
Back in 2014, a beneficiary became so frustrated with WINZ that he
killed an employee. That was of course inexcusable, but it did suggest
that perhaps some action needed to be taken to reduce the growing
level of frustration with the bureaucracy and niggling rules used to
deny benefits, or make it difficult to obtain entitlements
National of course defended their policies, and employed an army of
security guards for WINZ offices.
A while ago there was a public event where beneficiaries who were
having problems were able to get free advice - the advisers were
flooded, and hundreds were subsequently able to get entitlements they
had previously been denied.
Now the cost of the security has reached $20 million, and we have
this: >http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/78924680/beneficiaries-banned-from-dole-officers-as-msd-security-bill-passes-20m
There was talk about "compassionate Conservatism" a few years ago -
that's one phrase that now gets a wry laugh . . .
On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 22:39:49 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Back in 2014, a beneficiary became so frustrated with WINZ that heRich you are attempting to score political mileage from the actions of
killed an employee. That was of course inexcusable, but it did suggest
that perhaps some action needed to be taken to reduce the growing
level of frustration with the bureaucracy and niggling rules used to
deny benefits, or make it difficult to obtain entitlements
a murderer. No matter how frustrated applicants for benefits may
become, killing public servants in cold blood while they are working
can not ever be justified in any circumstances no matter what.
The death was just the extreme of many reactions in certain areas. TheNational of course defended their policies, and employed an army of >>security guards for WINZ offices.Your use of the tragedy in Ashburton to smear the National party is
totally contemptible. You have sunk to a new low in your
anti-National rhetoric. Quit now - you cant sink any lower.
A while ago there was a public event where beneficiaries who wereCite please.
having problems were able to get free advice - the advisers were
flooded, and hundreds were subsequently able to get entitlements they
had previously been denied.
Now the cost of the security has reached $20 million, and we have
this: >>http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/78924680/beneficiaries-banned-from-dole-officers-as-msd-security-bill-passes-20m
There was talk about "compassionate Conservatism" a few years ago -
that's one phrase that now gets a wry laugh . . .
It is indeed a tragedy that Health and Safety measures have reached
this state. If this money was not spent then potentially more public >servants would be murdered. That you see fit to use this scenario for >political point scoring is itself worthy of a 'wry laugh'. Not.
On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 22:11:23 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>What nonsense - there is no alternative to security when people attack staff. To suggest that it is the fault of the government is plain stupid - if the guards were removed and someone was attacked then what?
wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 22:39:49 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Back in 2014, a beneficiary became so frustrated with WINZ that heRich you are attempting to score political mileage from the actions of
killed an employee. That was of course inexcusable, but it did suggest >>>that perhaps some action needed to be taken to reduce the growing
level of frustration with the bureaucracy and niggling rules used to
deny benefits, or make it difficult to obtain entitlements
a murderer. No matter how frustrated applicants for benefits may
become, killing public servants in cold blood while they are working
can not ever be justified in any circumstances no matter what.
Recently a new Health and Safety regime was introduced by the
government. It calls for emplyers to assess risks to staff and
mitigate them. The attacks on public servants were unavveptable, and
putting security guards in where there was assessed to be sufficient
risk was appropriate as a short term measure, but even then staff were
saying that it was overkill. To still have security staff there as the
only response so many months later with no other changes is close to >deriliction of duty.
That was a very long time ago - the reason for removing the glass screens was actually much simpler than you suggest. I know that overseas experience was that if you have screens then any bank robber was likely to threated the bank's customers so the TAB removed their screens and at some stage most of the banks did also,The death was just the extreme of many reactions in certain areas. The >question that needs to be asked is what should the government haveNational of course defended their policies, and employed an army of >>>security guards for WINZ offices.Your use of the tragedy in Ashburton to smear the National party is
totally contemptible. You have sunk to a new low in your
anti-National rhetoric. Quit now - you cant sink any lower.
done.
Some years ago there were some deaths of bank tellers. The banks
introduced glass screens, but over time adjusted their way of
operating so that they are no longer universally used.
Now we have an attack on a police employee - and Nationals reaction isBullshit - you are lying again.
to close police branches (which just happens to save money, but od
course they wouldn't be doing it for that reason, would they?
Perhaps we should have an organisation in New Zealand that is capableWhat would you do? Yeah right!
of assessing risks of assault on public servants and helping both
reduce the risks through assisting the public sector avoid the matters
that are causing the assaults, and helping staff directly by better
training, better physical design of workplaces, and perhaps having an >organisation that can be avialble to arrest perpetrators and ensure
that they are properly dealt with by the justice system. What do you
think?
In the meantime, the bill for security guards getting bored 99% of the
time in every WINZ office continues - $20 m and climbing, with no
other changes to the workplaces or policies to reduce the risk to
staff.
Your inability to recognise that these employees deserve better is >contemptable - you have sunk to a new low in your anti-workerYou have several times used the death of someone to point score - you are beneath comtempt as many have pointed out.
rhetoric. Show some compassion - and also ask yourself why the health
and safety laws should not result in change for public servants as
well as other employees!
If you took the time to read Crash's posts you would see that he is not a National supporter (unless I read it wrong Crash?) but that is how his posts often read - in that respect he and I are similar. I can only speak for myself but the reason I so often respond to your appalling logic is because you, like the Labour party, seem incapable of acting like an opposition party which indicates to me that they would be a woeful government.A while ago there was a public event where beneficiaries who wereCite please.
having problems were able to get free advice - the advisers were
flooded, and hundreds were subsequently able to get entitlements they
had previously been denied.
Now the cost of the security has reached $20 million, and we have
this: >>>http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/78924680/beneficiaries-banned-from-dole-officers-as-msd-security-bill-passes-20m
There was talk about "compassionate Conservatism" a few years ago - >>>that's one phrase that now gets a wry laugh . . .
It is indeed a tragedy that Health and Safety measures have reached
this state. If this money was not spent then potentially more public >>servants would be murdered. That you see fit to use this scenario for >>political point scoring is itself worthy of a 'wry laugh'. Not.
You would be rightly upset if protestors and disgruntled clients
caused a closure of a private company, and you would expect them to do >something about it other than ban customers and close workplaces for >employees - why do you have a different standard for public sector
employees?
Your blind defence of anything National do has prevented you seeing
that they have responsibilities to ensure that public servants are
kept safe, and also that they do not waste money.
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The response of impoving security was necessary, but not adequate as
On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 22:11:23 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:What nonsense - there is no alternative to security when people attack staff. >To suggest that it is the fault of the government is plain stupid - if the >guards were removed and someone was attacked then what?
On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 22:39:49 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
Back in 2014, a beneficiary became so frustrated with WINZ that he >>>>killed an employee. That was of course inexcusable, but it did suggest >>>>that perhaps some action needed to be taken to reduce the growingRich you are attempting to score political mileage from the actions of
level of frustration with the bureaucracy and niggling rules used to >>>>deny benefits, or make it difficult to obtain entitlements
a murderer. No matter how frustrated applicants for benefits may
become, killing public servants in cold blood while they are working
can not ever be justified in any circumstances no matter what.
Recently a new Health and Safety regime was introduced by the
government. It calls for emplyers to assess risks to staff and
mitigate them. The attacks on public servants were unavveptable, and >>putting security guards in where there was assessed to be sufficient
risk was appropriate as a short term measure, but even then staff were >>saying that it was overkill. To still have security staff there as the
only response so many months later with no other changes is close to >>deriliction of duty.
The banks also changed the physical layout of branches, and instlledThat was a very long time ago - the reason for removing the glass screens was >actually much simpler than you suggest. I know that overseas experience was >that if you have screens then any bank robber was likely to threated the bank'sThe death was just the extreme of many reactions in certain areas. The >>question that needs to be asked is what should the government haveNational of course defended their policies, and employed an army of >>>>security guards for WINZ offices.Your use of the tragedy in Ashburton to smear the National party is >>>totally contemptible. You have sunk to a new low in your
anti-National rhetoric. Quit now - you cant sink any lower.
done.
Some years ago there were some deaths of bank tellers. The banks
introduced glass screens, but over time adjusted their way of
operating so that they are no longer universally used.
customers so the TAB removed their screens and at some stage most of the banks >did also,
Of course - unpopular decisions are never made by politicians - justNow we have an attack on a police employee - and Nationals reaction isBullshit - you are lying again.
to close police branches (which just happens to save money, but of
course they wouldn't be doing it for that reason, would they?
The decision was that of the Police Commissioner, not the government, who is >rightly concerned about the safety of non-sworn volunteers!
Perhaps we should have an organisation in New Zealand that is capableWhat would you do? Yeah right!
of assessing risks of assault on public servants and helping both
reduce the risks through assisting the public sector avoid the matters
that are causing the assaults, and helping staff directly by better >>training, better physical design of workplaces, and perhaps having an >>organisation that can be avialble to arrest perpetrators and ensure
that they are properly dealt with by the justice system. What do you
think?
In the meantime, the bill for security guards getting bored 99% of the
time in every WINZ office continues - $20 m and climbing, with no
other changes to the workplaces or policies to reduce the risk to
staff.
Your allegation is false, but you appear to believe that those thatYou have several times used the death of someone to point score - you are >beneath comtempt as many have pointed out.
Your inability to recognise that these employees deserve better is >>contemptable - you have sunk to a new low in your anti-worker
rhetoric. Show some compassion - and also ask yourself why the health
and safety laws should not result in change for public servants as
well as other employees!
If you took the time to read Crash's posts you would see that he is not a >National supporter (unless I read it wrong Crash?) but that is how his posts >often read - in that respect he and I are similar. I can only speak for myself >but the reason I so often respond to your appalling logic is because you, like >the Labour party, seem incapable of acting like an opposition party which >indicates to me that they would be a woeful government.
A while ago there was a public event where beneficiaries who were >>>>having problems were able to get free advice - the advisers were >>>>flooded, and hundreds were subsequently able to get entitlements they >>>>had previously been denied.Cite please.
Now the cost of the security has reached $20 million, and we have
this: >>>>http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/78924680/beneficiaries-banned-from-dole-officers-as-msd-security-bill-passes-20m
There was talk about "compassionate Conservatism" a few years ago - >>>>that's one phrase that now gets a wry laugh . . .
It is indeed a tragedy that Health and Safety measures have reached
this state. If this money was not spent then potentially more public >>>servants would be murdered. That you see fit to use this scenario for >>>political point scoring is itself worthy of a 'wry laugh'. Not.
You would be rightly upset if protestors and disgruntled clients
caused a closure of a private company, and you would expect them to do >>something about it other than ban customers and close workplaces for >>employees - why do you have a different standard for public sector >>employees?
Your blind defence of anything National do has prevented you seeing
that they have responsibilities to ensure that public servants are
kept safe, and also that they do not waste money.
Tony
On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 17:04:23 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netWhat nonsense. You are the one who cynically uses the appalling misfortunes of others for political gain. You have done so on at least three occasions that I can remember.
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The response of impoving security was necessary, but not adequate as
On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 22:11:23 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:What nonsense - there is no alternative to security when people attack staff. >>To suggest that it is the fault of the government is plain stupid - if the >>guards were removed and someone was attacked then what?
On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 22:39:49 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
Back in 2014, a beneficiary became so frustrated with WINZ that he >>>>>killed an employee. That was of course inexcusable, but it did suggest >>>>>that perhaps some action needed to be taken to reduce the growing >>>>>level of frustration with the bureaucracy and niggling rules used to >>>>>deny benefits, or make it difficult to obtain entitlementsRich you are attempting to score political mileage from the actions of >>>>a murderer. No matter how frustrated applicants for benefits may >>>>become, killing public servants in cold blood while they are working >>>>can not ever be justified in any circumstances no matter what.
Recently a new Health and Safety regime was introduced by the
government. It calls for emplyers to assess risks to staff and
mitigate them. The attacks on public servants were unavveptable, and >>>putting security guards in where there was assessed to be sufficient
risk was appropriate as a short term measure, but even then staff were >>>saying that it was overkill. To still have security staff there as the >>>only response so many months later with no other changes is close to >>>deriliction of duty.
the only response. You are deceptively re-interpreting my comments.
Cameras and alarms were present decades before the glass was installed let alone subsequently removed. WINZ have changed the layouts of their offices, have provided training to staff and taken other measures including some that I am sure neither you nor I know about (and neither should we) just like other organisations have done. You are clutching at an invisible straw - there is no political gain here for you and even if there was you would still be behaing disgracefully.The banks also changed the physical layout of branches, and instlledThat was a very long time ago - the reason for removing the glass screens was >>actually much simpler than you suggest. I know that overseas experience was >>that if you have screens then any bank robber was likely to threated the >>bank'sThe death was just the extreme of many reactions in certain areas. The >>>question that needs to be asked is what should the government haveNational of course defended their policies, and employed an army of >>>>>security guards for WINZ offices.Your use of the tragedy in Ashburton to smear the National party is >>>>totally contemptible. You have sunk to a new low in your
anti-National rhetoric. Quit now - you cant sink any lower.
done.
Some years ago there were some deaths of bank tellers. The banks >>>introduced glass screens, but over time adjusted their way of
operating so that they are no longer universally used.
customers so the TAB removed their screens and at some stage most of the >>banks
did also,
other measures such as cameras and alarms.
ACC is one organisation that had similar problems - they developed
interview areas so that discussions could take place in confidence,
but also instituted other measures, including staff training, to
mitigate problem clients. Insurance companies have taken similar
measures.
Meaningless drivel - the decison was made by the Poloice as you well know.Of course - unpopular decisions are never made by politicians - justNow we have an attack on a police employee - and Nationals reaction isBullshit - you are lying again.
to close police branches (which just happens to save money, but of
course they wouldn't be doing it for that reason, would they?
The decision was that of the Police Commissioner, not the government, who is >>rightly concerned about the safety of non-sworn volunteers!
look at the discussions about the granting of a contract in Niue!
No and I have not said that - see above.Perhaps we should have an organisation in New Zealand that is capableWhat would you do? Yeah right!
of assessing risks of assault on public servants and helping both
reduce the risks through assisting the public sector avoid the matters >>>that are causing the assaults, and helping staff directly by better >>>training, better physical design of workplaces, and perhaps having an >>>organisation that can be avialble to arrest perpetrators and ensure
that they are properly dealt with by the justice system. What do you >>>think?
In the meantime, the bill for security guards getting bored 99% of the >>>time in every WINZ office continues - $20 m and climbing, with no
other changes to the workplaces or policies to reduce the risk to
staff.
Follow best practice as demonstrated by other organisations? Then
address issues such as high turnover of staff, complexity of
ever-changing rules, etc. Do you think continuing with two security
guards for what should be a basic service organisation in many
locations in our community is the only response possible?
Again you are dishonest - of course I don't believe that but you clearly believe you can use such incidents for political gain - you are the dishonest one here.Your allegation is false, but you appear to believe that those thatYou have several times used the death of someone to point score - you are >>beneath comtempt as many have pointed out.
Your inability to recognise that these employees deserve better is >>>contemptable - you have sunk to a new low in your anti-worker
rhetoric. Show some compassion - and also ask yourself why the health
and safety laws should not result in change for public servants as
well as other employees!
ignore the lessons from attacks (including a death) should be immune
from criticism . . .
If you took the time to read Crash's posts you would see that he is not a >>National supporter (unless I read it wrong Crash?) but that is how his posts >>often read - in that respect he and I are similar. I can only speak for >>myself
A while ago there was a public event where beneficiaries who were >>>>>having problems were able to get free advice - the advisers were >>>>>flooded, and hundreds were subsequently able to get entitlements they >>>>>had previously been denied.Cite please.
Now the cost of the security has reached $20 million, and we have >>>>>this: >>>>>http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/78924680/beneficiaries-banned-from-dole-officers-as-msd-security-bill-passes-20m
There was talk about "compassionate Conservatism" a few years ago - >>>>>that's one phrase that now gets a wry laugh . . .
It is indeed a tragedy that Health and Safety measures have reached >>>>this state. If this money was not spent then potentially more public >>>>servants would be murdered. That you see fit to use this scenario for >>>>political point scoring is itself worthy of a 'wry laugh'. Not.
You would be rightly upset if protestors and disgruntled clients
caused a closure of a private company, and you would expect them to do >>>something about it other than ban customers and close workplaces for >>>employees - why do you have a different standard for public sector >>>employees?
Your blind defence of anything National do has prevented you seeing
that they have responsibilities to ensure that public servants are
kept safe, and also that they do not waste money.
but the reason I so often respond to your appalling logic is because you, >>like
the Labour party, seem incapable of acting like an opposition party which >>indicates to me that they would be a woeful government.
Tony
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Well tell us what you would do then - or do you believe that every
On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 17:04:23 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netWhat nonsense. You are the one who cynically uses the appalling misfortunes of >others for political gain. You have done so on at least three occasions that I >can remember.
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The response of impoving security was necessary, but not adequate as
On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 22:11:23 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:What nonsense - there is no alternative to security when people attack staff.
On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 22:39:49 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
Back in 2014, a beneficiary became so frustrated with WINZ that he >>>>>>killed an employee. That was of course inexcusable, but it did suggest >>>>>>that perhaps some action needed to be taken to reduce the growing >>>>>>level of frustration with the bureaucracy and niggling rules used to >>>>>>deny benefits, or make it difficult to obtain entitlementsRich you are attempting to score political mileage from the actions of >>>>>a murderer. No matter how frustrated applicants for benefits may >>>>>become, killing public servants in cold blood while they are working >>>>>can not ever be justified in any circumstances no matter what.
Recently a new Health and Safety regime was introduced by the >>>>government. It calls for emplyers to assess risks to staff and
mitigate them. The attacks on public servants were unavveptable, and >>>>putting security guards in where there was assessed to be sufficient >>>>risk was appropriate as a short term measure, but even then staff were >>>>saying that it was overkill. To still have security staff there as the >>>>only response so many months later with no other changes is close to >>>>deriliction of duty.
To suggest that it is the fault of the government is plain stupid - if the >>>guards were removed and someone was attacked then what?
the only response. You are deceptively re-interpreting my comments.
Cameras and alarms were present decades before the glass was installed let >alone subsequently removed. WINZ have changed the layouts of their offices, >have provided training to staff and taken other measures including some that I >am sure neither you nor I know about (and neither should we) just like other >organisations have done. You are clutching at an invisible straw - there is no >political gain here for you and even if there was you would still be behaing >disgracefully.
The banks also changed the physical layout of branches, and instlledThat was a very long time ago - the reason for removing the glass screens wasThe death was just the extreme of many reactions in certain areas. The >>>>question that needs to be asked is what should the government have >>>>done.National of course defended their policies, and employed an army of >>>>>>security guards for WINZ offices.Your use of the tragedy in Ashburton to smear the National party is >>>>>totally contemptible. You have sunk to a new low in your >>>>>anti-National rhetoric. Quit now - you cant sink any lower.
Some years ago there were some deaths of bank tellers. The banks >>>>introduced glass screens, but over time adjusted their way of
operating so that they are no longer universally used.
actually much simpler than you suggest. I know that overseas experience was >>>that if you have screens then any bank robber was likely to threated the >>>bank's
customers so the TAB removed their screens and at some stage most of the >>>banks
did also,
other measures such as cameras and alarms.
ACC is one organisation that had similar problems - they developed >>interview areas so that discussions could take place in confidence,
but also instituted other measures, including staff training, to
mitigate problem clients. Insurance companies have taken similar
measures.
No and I have not said that - see above.
Of course - unpopular decisions are never made by politicians - justNow we have an attack on a police employee - and Nationals reaction is >>>>to close police branches (which just happens to save money, but of >>>>course they wouldn't be doing it for that reason, would they?Bullshit - you are lying again.
The decision was that of the Police Commissioner, not the government, who is >>>rightly concerned about the safety of non-sworn volunteers!
look at the discussions about the granting of a contract in Niue! >Meaningless drivel - the decison was made by the Poloice as you well know.
Perhaps we should have an organisation in New Zealand that is capable >>>>of assessing risks of assault on public servants and helping both >>>>reduce the risks through assisting the public sector avoid the matters >>>>that are causing the assaults, and helping staff directly by better >>>>training, better physical design of workplaces, and perhaps having an >>>>organisation that can be avialble to arrest perpetrators and ensure >>>>that they are properly dealt with by the justice system. What do you >>>>think?What would you do? Yeah right!
In the meantime, the bill for security guards getting bored 99% of the >>>>time in every WINZ office continues - $20 m and climbing, with no
other changes to the workplaces or policies to reduce the risk to >>>>staff.
Follow best practice as demonstrated by other organisations? Then
address issues such as high turnover of staff, complexity of
ever-changing rules, etc. Do you think continuing with two security
guards for what should be a basic service organisation in many
locations in our community is the only response possible?
Political gain? You must be kidding - nz.general has no impact onAgain you are dishonest - of course I don't believe that but you clearly >believe you can use such incidents for political gain - you are the dishonest >one here.
Your allegation is false, but you appear to believe that those thatYou have several times used the death of someone to point score - you are >>>beneath comtempt as many have pointed out.
Your inability to recognise that these employees deserve better is >>>>contemptable - you have sunk to a new low in your anti-worker
rhetoric. Show some compassion - and also ask yourself why the health >>>>and safety laws should not result in change for public servants as
well as other employees!
ignore the lessons from attacks (including a death) should be immune
from criticism . . .
If you took the time to read Crash's posts you would see that he is not a >>>National supporter (unless I read it wrong Crash?) but that is how his posts >>>often read - in that respect he and I are similar. I can only speak for >>>myself
A while ago there was a public event where beneficiaries who were >>>>>>having problems were able to get free advice - the advisers were >>>>>>flooded, and hundreds were subsequently able to get entitlements they >>>>>>had previously been denied.Cite please.
Now the cost of the security has reached $20 million, and we have >>>>>>this: >>>>>>http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/78924680/beneficiaries-banned-from-dole-officers-as-msd-security-bill-passes-20m
There was talk about "compassionate Conservatism" a few years ago - >>>>>>that's one phrase that now gets a wry laugh . . .
It is indeed a tragedy that Health and Safety measures have reached >>>>>this state. If this money was not spent then potentially more public >>>>>servants would be murdered. That you see fit to use this scenario for >>>>>political point scoring is itself worthy of a 'wry laugh'. Not.
You would be rightly upset if protestors and disgruntled clients
caused a closure of a private company, and you would expect them to do >>>>something about it other than ban customers and close workplaces for >>>>employees - why do you have a different standard for public sector >>>>employees?
Your blind defence of anything National do has prevented you seeing >>>>that they have responsibilities to ensure that public servants are
kept safe, and also that they do not waste money.
but the reason I so often respond to your appalling logic is because you, >>>like
the Labour party, seem incapable of acting like an opposition party which >>>indicates to me that they would be a woeful government.
Tony
Tony
On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 22:35:20 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
Again you are dishonest - of course I don't believe that but you clearly >>believe you can use such incidents for political gain - you are the >>dishonest one here.Political gain? You must be kidding - nz.general has no impact on
political support. I am raising issues that I believ are worth talking
about. This is an issue of competence - I do not believe that either
National or Labour or any other political party really want to have to
keep emplopying a lot of security guards in WINZ offices - ideas are
needed. Another aspect is that of the cost - I prefer to see taxpayer
money used wisely and at the minimum level necessary - other things
being equal, efficiency results in lower taxes or higher service
levels - again efficiency is not a partisan political issue. If you do
not agree with continued use of security staff at their current level,
what alternatives do you propose - or do you think the current
arrangements are the best that can be achieved?
On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 22:35:20 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net<snip for brevity>
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
If necessary yes I would. You cannot compare WINZ with most other organisations - there are different dynamics involved. I believe there has been one security person in most offices for a very long time. There has now been an arguably necessary increase to two.Well tell us what you would do then - or do you believe that everyNo and I have not said that - see above.
Follow best practice as demonstrated by other organisations? Then
address issues such as high turnover of staff, complexity of >>>ever-changing rules, etc. Do you think continuing with two security >>>guards for what should be a basic service organisation in many
locations in our community is the only response possible?
WINZ office should have two security guards on duty forever?
As I have indicated above, the need may remain with us for a very long time . Of course you are being political - you cannot operate any other way as you have ably demonstrated over a very long time!Political gain? You must be kidding - nz.general has no impact onAgain you are dishonest - of course I don't believe that but you clearly >>believe you can use such incidents for political gain - you are the dishonest >>one here.
Your allegation is false, but you appear to believe that those that >>>ignore the lessons from attacks (including a death) should be immuneYou have several times used the death of someone to point score - you are >>>>beneath comtempt as many have pointed out.
Your inability to recognise that these employees deserve better is >>>>>contemptable - you have sunk to a new low in your anti-worker >>>>>rhetoric. Show some compassion - and also ask yourself why the health >>>>>and safety laws should not result in change for public servants as >>>>>well as other employees!
from criticism . . .
political support. I am raising issues that I believ are worth talking
about. This is an issue of competence - I do not believe that either
National or Labour or any other political party really want to have to
keep emplopying a lot of security guards in WINZ offices - ideas are
needed. Another aspect is that of the cost - I prefer to see taxpayer
money used wisely and at the minimum level necessary - other things
being equal, efficiency results in lower taxes or higher service
levels - again efficiency is not a partisan political issue. If you do
not agree with continued use of security staff at their current level,
what alternatives do you propose - or do you think the current
arrangements are the best that can be achieved?
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 22:11:23 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:What nonsense - there is no alternative to security when people attack staff. >To suggest that it is the fault of the government is plain stupid - if the >guards were removed and someone was attacked then what?
On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 22:39:49 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
Back in 2014, a beneficiary became so frustrated with WINZ that he >>>>killed an employee. That was of course inexcusable, but it did suggest >>>>that perhaps some action needed to be taken to reduce the growingRich you are attempting to score political mileage from the actions of
level of frustration with the bureaucracy and niggling rules used to >>>>deny benefits, or make it difficult to obtain entitlements
a murderer. No matter how frustrated applicants for benefits may
become, killing public servants in cold blood while they are working
can not ever be justified in any circumstances no matter what.
Recently a new Health and Safety regime was introduced by the
government. It calls for emplyers to assess risks to staff and
mitigate them. The attacks on public servants were unavveptable, and >>putting security guards in where there was assessed to be sufficient
risk was appropriate as a short term measure, but even then staff were >>saying that it was overkill. To still have security staff there as the
only response so many months later with no other changes is close to >>deriliction of duty.
That was a very long time ago - the reason for removing the glass screens was >actually much simpler than you suggest. I know that overseas experience was >that if you have screens then any bank robber was likely to threated the bank's
The death was just the extreme of many reactions in certain areas. The >>question that needs to be asked is what should the government haveNational of course defended their policies, and employed an army of >>>>security guards for WINZ offices.Your use of the tragedy in Ashburton to smear the National party is >>>totally contemptible. You have sunk to a new low in your
anti-National rhetoric. Quit now - you cant sink any lower.
done.
Some years ago there were some deaths of bank tellers. The banks
introduced glass screens, but over time adjusted their way of
operating so that they are no longer universally used.
customers so the TAB removed their screens and at some stage most of the banks >did also,
Bullshit - you are lying again.
Now we have an attack on a police employee - and Nationals reaction is
to close police branches (which just happens to save money, but od
course they wouldn't be doing it for that reason, would they?
The decision was that of the Police Commissioner, not the government, who is >rightly concerned about the safety of non-sworn volunteers!
What would you do? Yeah right!
Perhaps we should have an organisation in New Zealand that is capable
of assessing risks of assault on public servants and helping both
reduce the risks through assisting the public sector avoid the matters
that are causing the assaults, and helping staff directly by better >>training, better physical design of workplaces, and perhaps having an >>organisation that can be avialble to arrest perpetrators and ensure
that they are properly dealt with by the justice system. What do you
think?
In the meantime, the bill for security guards getting bored 99% of the
time in every WINZ office continues - $20 m and climbing, with no
other changes to the workplaces or policies to reduce the risk to
staff.
You have several times used the death of someone to point score - you are >beneath comtempt as many have pointed out.
Your inability to recognise that these employees deserve better is >>contemptable - you have sunk to a new low in your anti-worker
rhetoric. Show some compassion - and also ask yourself why the health
and safety laws should not result in change for public servants as
well as other employees!
A while ago there was a public event where beneficiaries who were >>>>having problems were able to get free advice - the advisers were >>>>flooded, and hundreds were subsequently able to get entitlements they >>>>had previously been denied.Cite please.
Now the cost of the security has reached $20 million, and we have
this: >>>>http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/78924680/beneficiaries-banned-from-dole-officers-as-msd-security-bill-passes-20m
There was talk about "compassionate Conservatism" a few years ago - >>>>that's one phrase that now gets a wry laugh . . .
It is indeed a tragedy that Health and Safety measures have reached
this state. If this money was not spent then potentially more public >>>servants would be murdered. That you see fit to use this scenario for >>>political point scoring is itself worthy of a 'wry laugh'. Not.
You would be rightly upset if protestors and disgruntled clients
caused a closure of a private company, and you would expect them to do >>something about it other than ban customers and close workplaces for >>employees - why do you have a different standard for public sector >>employees?
Your blind defence of anything National do has prevented you seeing
that they have responsibilities to ensure that public servants are
kept safe, and also that they do not waste money.
If you took the time to read Crash's posts you would see that he is not a >National supporter (unless I read it wrong Crash?) but that is how his posts >often read - in that respect he and I are similar. I can only speak for myself >but the reason I so often respond to your appalling logic is because you, like >the Labour party, seem incapable of acting like an opposition party which >indicates to me that they would be a woeful government.
On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 17:04:23 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 22:11:23 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:What nonsense - there is no alternative to security when people attack staff. >>To suggest that it is the fault of the government is plain stupid - if the >>guards were removed and someone was attacked then what?
On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 22:39:49 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
Back in 2014, a beneficiary became so frustrated with WINZ that he >>>>>killed an employee. That was of course inexcusable, but it did suggest >>>>>that perhaps some action needed to be taken to reduce the growing >>>>>level of frustration with the bureaucracy and niggling rules used to >>>>>deny benefits, or make it difficult to obtain entitlementsRich you are attempting to score political mileage from the actions of >>>>a murderer. No matter how frustrated applicants for benefits may >>>>become, killing public servants in cold blood while they are working >>>>can not ever be justified in any circumstances no matter what.
Recently a new Health and Safety regime was introduced by the
government. It calls for emplyers to assess risks to staff and
mitigate them. The attacks on public servants were unavveptable, and >>>putting security guards in where there was assessed to be sufficient
risk was appropriate as a short term measure, but even then staff were >>>saying that it was overkill. To still have security staff there as the >>>only response so many months later with no other changes is close to >>>deriliction of duty.
That was a very long time ago - the reason for removing the glass screens was >>actually much simpler than you suggest. I know that overseas experience was >>that if you have screens then any bank robber was likely to threated the >>bank's
The death was just the extreme of many reactions in certain areas. The >>>question that needs to be asked is what should the government haveNational of course defended their policies, and employed an army of >>>>>security guards for WINZ offices.Your use of the tragedy in Ashburton to smear the National party is >>>>totally contemptible. You have sunk to a new low in your
anti-National rhetoric. Quit now - you cant sink any lower.
done.
Some years ago there were some deaths of bank tellers. The banks >>>introduced glass screens, but over time adjusted their way of
operating so that they are no longer universally used.
customers so the TAB removed their screens and at some stage most of the >>banks
did also,
Bullshit - you are lying again.
Now we have an attack on a police employee - and Nationals reaction is
to close police branches (which just happens to save money, but od
course they wouldn't be doing it for that reason, would they?
The decision was that of the Police Commissioner, not the government, who is >>rightly concerned about the safety of non-sworn volunteers!
What would you do? Yeah right!
Perhaps we should have an organisation in New Zealand that is capable
of assessing risks of assault on public servants and helping both
reduce the risks through assisting the public sector avoid the matters >>>that are causing the assaults, and helping staff directly by better >>>training, better physical design of workplaces, and perhaps having an >>>organisation that can be avialble to arrest perpetrators and ensure
that they are properly dealt with by the justice system. What do you >>>think?
In the meantime, the bill for security guards getting bored 99% of the >>>time in every WINZ office continues - $20 m and climbing, with no
other changes to the workplaces or policies to reduce the risk to
staff.
You have several times used the death of someone to point score - you are >>beneath comtempt as many have pointed out.
Your inability to recognise that these employees deserve better is >>>contemptable - you have sunk to a new low in your anti-worker
rhetoric. Show some compassion - and also ask yourself why the health
and safety laws should not result in change for public servants as
well as other employees!
A while ago there was a public event where beneficiaries who were >>>>>having problems were able to get free advice - the advisers were >>>>>flooded, and hundreds were subsequently able to get entitlements they >>>>>had previously been denied.Cite please.
Now the cost of the security has reached $20 million, and we have >>>>>this: >>>>>http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/78924680/beneficiaries-banned-from-dole-officers-as-msd-security-bill-passes-20m
There was talk about "compassionate Conservatism" a few years ago - >>>>>that's one phrase that now gets a wry laugh . . .
It is indeed a tragedy that Health and Safety measures have reached >>>>this state. If this money was not spent then potentially more public >>>>servants would be murdered. That you see fit to use this scenario for >>>>political point scoring is itself worthy of a 'wry laugh'. Not.
You would be rightly upset if protestors and disgruntled clients
caused a closure of a private company, and you would expect them to do >>>something about it other than ban customers and close workplaces for >>>employees - why do you have a different standard for public sector >>>employees?
Your blind defence of anything National do has prevented you seeing
that they have responsibilities to ensure that public servants are
kept safe, and also that they do not waste money.
Rich I do not, and have never, 'blindly defended' National. Unlike
you with Labour, I have from time to time criticised National and I
have said many times that I have not voted for a National party
candidate since the 70s. Your original post in this thread was
clearly an attack on National Party policies as the cause of the
murder of WINZ staff in Ashburton - re-read your original post and see
how you referenced National policies.
I merely called you on your despicable use of murders to advance a
political viewpoint.
If you took the time to read Crash's posts you would see that he is not a >>National supporter (unless I read it wrong Crash?) but that is how his posts >>often read - in that respect he and I are similar. I can only speak for >>myself
but the reason I so often respond to your appalling logic is because you, >>like
the Labour party, seem incapable of acting like an opposition party which >>indicates to me that they would be a woeful government.
Thanks Tony - very well put and I appreciate your support here.
--Crash
Crash McBash
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 17:04:23 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netCrash
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 22:11:23 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:What nonsense - there is no alternative to security when people attack staff.
On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 22:39:49 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
Back in 2014, a beneficiary became so frustrated with WINZ that he >>>>>>killed an employee. That was of course inexcusable, but it did suggest >>>>>>that perhaps some action needed to be taken to reduce the growing >>>>>>level of frustration with the bureaucracy and niggling rules used to >>>>>>deny benefits, or make it difficult to obtain entitlementsRich you are attempting to score political mileage from the actions of >>>>>a murderer. No matter how frustrated applicants for benefits may >>>>>become, killing public servants in cold blood while they are working >>>>>can not ever be justified in any circumstances no matter what.
Recently a new Health and Safety regime was introduced by the >>>>government. It calls for emplyers to assess risks to staff and
mitigate them. The attacks on public servants were unavveptable, and >>>>putting security guards in where there was assessed to be sufficient >>>>risk was appropriate as a short term measure, but even then staff were >>>>saying that it was overkill. To still have security staff there as the >>>>only response so many months later with no other changes is close to >>>>deriliction of duty.
To suggest that it is the fault of the government is plain stupid - if the >>>guards were removed and someone was attacked then what?
That was a very long time ago - the reason for removing the glass screens was
The death was just the extreme of many reactions in certain areas. The >>>>question that needs to be asked is what should the government have >>>>done.National of course defended their policies, and employed an army of >>>>>>security guards for WINZ offices.Your use of the tragedy in Ashburton to smear the National party is >>>>>totally contemptible. You have sunk to a new low in your >>>>>anti-National rhetoric. Quit now - you cant sink any lower.
Some years ago there were some deaths of bank tellers. The banks >>>>introduced glass screens, but over time adjusted their way of
operating so that they are no longer universally used.
actually much simpler than you suggest. I know that overseas experience was >>>that if you have screens then any bank robber was likely to threated the >>>bank's
customers so the TAB removed their screens and at some stage most of the >>>banks
did also,
Bullshit - you are lying again.
Now we have an attack on a police employee - and Nationals reaction is >>>>to close police branches (which just happens to save money, but od >>>>course they wouldn't be doing it for that reason, would they?
The decision was that of the Police Commissioner, not the government, who is >>>rightly concerned about the safety of non-sworn volunteers!
What would you do? Yeah right!
Perhaps we should have an organisation in New Zealand that is capable >>>>of assessing risks of assault on public servants and helping both >>>>reduce the risks through assisting the public sector avoid the matters >>>>that are causing the assaults, and helping staff directly by better >>>>training, better physical design of workplaces, and perhaps having an >>>>organisation that can be avialble to arrest perpetrators and ensure >>>>that they are properly dealt with by the justice system. What do you >>>>think?
In the meantime, the bill for security guards getting bored 99% of the >>>>time in every WINZ office continues - $20 m and climbing, with no
other changes to the workplaces or policies to reduce the risk to >>>>staff.
You have several times used the death of someone to point score - you are >>>beneath comtempt as many have pointed out.
Your inability to recognise that these employees deserve better is >>>>contemptable - you have sunk to a new low in your anti-worker
rhetoric. Show some compassion - and also ask yourself why the health >>>>and safety laws should not result in change for public servants as
well as other employees!
A while ago there was a public event where beneficiaries who were >>>>>>having problems were able to get free advice - the advisers were >>>>>>flooded, and hundreds were subsequently able to get entitlements they >>>>>>had previously been denied.Cite please.
Now the cost of the security has reached $20 million, and we have >>>>>>this: >>>>>>http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/78924680/beneficiaries-banned-from-dole-officers-as-msd-security-bill-passes-20m
There was talk about "compassionate Conservatism" a few years ago - >>>>>>that's one phrase that now gets a wry laugh . . .
It is indeed a tragedy that Health and Safety measures have reached >>>>>this state. If this money was not spent then potentially more public >>>>>servants would be murdered. That you see fit to use this scenario for >>>>>political point scoring is itself worthy of a 'wry laugh'. Not.
You would be rightly upset if protestors and disgruntled clients
caused a closure of a private company, and you would expect them to do >>>>something about it other than ban customers and close workplaces for >>>>employees - why do you have a different standard for public sector >>>>employees?
Your blind defence of anything National do has prevented you seeing >>>>that they have responsibilities to ensure that public servants are
kept safe, and also that they do not waste money.
Rich I do not, and have never, 'blindly defended' National. Unlike
you with Labour, I have from time to time criticised National and I
have said many times that I have not voted for a National party
candidate since the 70s. Your original post in this thread was
clearly an attack on National Party policies as the cause of the
murder of WINZ staff in Ashburton - re-read your original post and see
how you referenced National policies.
I merely called you on your despicable use of murders to advance a >>political viewpoint.
If you took the time to read Crash's posts you would see that he is not a >>>National supporter (unless I read it wrong Crash?) but that is how his posts >>>often read - in that respect he and I are similar. I can only speak for >>>myself
but the reason I so often respond to your appalling logic is because you, >>>like
the Labour party, seem incapable of acting like an opposition party which >>>indicates to me that they would be a woeful government.
Thanks Tony - very well put and I appreciate your support here.
--
Crash McBash
I used to try to debate with Rich but he got meaner and meaner and more and >more despaerate as Labour failed to get traction. My patience ran out several >months ago, I no longer see him as credible, just mean and spiteful. I have >voted National on occasion in the last 30 years and I have also voted for two >different Labour candidates since MMP was introduced, neither were successful >because they were up againsta National minister with a large majority - even >though the result was inevitable I voted for the person I thought would do my >family and the community the most good. I don't see that changing much.
Tony
On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 22:38:04 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netThere are a lot of intelligent voters in this country, so no surprise.
dot nz> wrote:
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 17:04:23 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netCrash
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 22:11:23 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:What nonsense - there is no alternative to security when people attack >>>>staff.
On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 22:39:49 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
Back in 2014, a beneficiary became so frustrated with WINZ that he >>>>>>>killed an employee. That was of course inexcusable, but it did suggest >>>>>>>that perhaps some action needed to be taken to reduce the growing >>>>>>>level of frustration with the bureaucracy and niggling rules used to >>>>>>>deny benefits, or make it difficult to obtain entitlementsRich you are attempting to score political mileage from the actions of >>>>>>a murderer. No matter how frustrated applicants for benefits may >>>>>>become, killing public servants in cold blood while they are working >>>>>>can not ever be justified in any circumstances no matter what.
Recently a new Health and Safety regime was introduced by the >>>>>government. It calls for emplyers to assess risks to staff and >>>>>mitigate them. The attacks on public servants were unavveptable, and >>>>>putting security guards in where there was assessed to be sufficient >>>>>risk was appropriate as a short term measure, but even then staff were >>>>>saying that it was overkill. To still have security staff there as the >>>>>only response so many months later with no other changes is close to >>>>>deriliction of duty.
To suggest that it is the fault of the government is plain stupid - if the >>>>guards were removed and someone was attacked then what?
That was a very long time ago - the reason for removing the glass screens >>>>was
The death was just the extreme of many reactions in certain areas. The >>>>>question that needs to be asked is what should the government have >>>>>done.National of course defended their policies, and employed an army of >>>>>>>security guards for WINZ offices.Your use of the tragedy in Ashburton to smear the National party is >>>>>>totally contemptible. You have sunk to a new low in your >>>>>>anti-National rhetoric. Quit now - you cant sink any lower.
Some years ago there were some deaths of bank tellers. The banks >>>>>introduced glass screens, but over time adjusted their way of >>>>>operating so that they are no longer universally used.
actually much simpler than you suggest. I know that overseas experience was >>>>that if you have screens then any bank robber was likely to threated the >>>>bank's
customers so the TAB removed their screens and at some stage most of the >>>>banks
did also,
Bullshit - you are lying again.
Now we have an attack on a police employee - and Nationals reaction is >>>>>to close police branches (which just happens to save money, but od >>>>>course they wouldn't be doing it for that reason, would they?
The decision was that of the Police Commissioner, not the government, who >>>>is
rightly concerned about the safety of non-sworn volunteers!
What would you do? Yeah right!
Perhaps we should have an organisation in New Zealand that is capable >>>>>of assessing risks of assault on public servants and helping both >>>>>reduce the risks through assisting the public sector avoid the matters >>>>>that are causing the assaults, and helping staff directly by better >>>>>training, better physical design of workplaces, and perhaps having an >>>>>organisation that can be avialble to arrest perpetrators and ensure >>>>>that they are properly dealt with by the justice system. What do you >>>>>think?
In the meantime, the bill for security guards getting bored 99% of the >>>>>time in every WINZ office continues - $20 m and climbing, with no >>>>>other changes to the workplaces or policies to reduce the risk to >>>>>staff.
You have several times used the death of someone to point score - you are >>>>beneath comtempt as many have pointed out.
Your inability to recognise that these employees deserve better is >>>>>contemptable - you have sunk to a new low in your anti-worker >>>>>rhetoric. Show some compassion - and also ask yourself why the health >>>>>and safety laws should not result in change for public servants as >>>>>well as other employees!
A while ago there was a public event where beneficiaries who were >>>>>>>having problems were able to get free advice - the advisers were >>>>>>>flooded, and hundreds were subsequently able to get entitlements they >>>>>>>had previously been denied.Cite please.
Now the cost of the security has reached $20 million, and we have >>>>>>>this: >>>>>>>http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/78924680/beneficiaries-banned-from-dole-officers-as-msd-security-bill-passes-20m
There was talk about "compassionate Conservatism" a few years ago - >>>>>>>that's one phrase that now gets a wry laugh . . .
It is indeed a tragedy that Health and Safety measures have reached >>>>>>this state. If this money was not spent then potentially more public >>>>>>servants would be murdered. That you see fit to use this scenario for >>>>>>political point scoring is itself worthy of a 'wry laugh'. Not.
You would be rightly upset if protestors and disgruntled clients >>>>>caused a closure of a private company, and you would expect them to do >>>>>something about it other than ban customers and close workplaces for >>>>>employees - why do you have a different standard for public sector >>>>>employees?
Your blind defence of anything National do has prevented you seeing >>>>>that they have responsibilities to ensure that public servants are >>>>>kept safe, and also that they do not waste money.
Rich I do not, and have never, 'blindly defended' National. Unlike
you with Labour, I have from time to time criticised National and I
have said many times that I have not voted for a National party
candidate since the 70s. Your original post in this thread was
clearly an attack on National Party policies as the cause of the
murder of WINZ staff in Ashburton - re-read your original post and see >>>how you referenced National policies.
I merely called you on your despicable use of murders to advance a >>>political viewpoint.
If you took the time to read Crash's posts you would see that he is not a >>>>National supporter (unless I read it wrong Crash?) but that is how his >>>>posts
often read - in that respect he and I are similar. I can only speak for >>>>myself
but the reason I so often respond to your appalling logic is because you, >>>>like
the Labour party, seem incapable of acting like an opposition party which >>>>indicates to me that they would be a woeful government.
Thanks Tony - very well put and I appreciate your support here.
--
Crash McBash
I used to try to debate with Rich but he got meaner and meaner and more and >>more despaerate as Labour failed to get traction. My patience ran out several >>months ago, I no longer see him as credible, just mean and spiteful. I have >>voted National on occasion in the last 30 years and I have also voted for two >>different Labour candidates since MMP was introduced, neither were successful >>because they were up againsta National minister with a large majority - even >>though the result was inevitable I voted for the person I thought would do my >>family and the community the most good. I don't see that changing much. >>Tony
Many people vote in the way that you do, Tony.
Contrary to what manyWhat you fail to understand is that many vote for a person they think will do well for those that the voter cares about - an old but still valid way of voting. If enough do it they get the electorate MP of their choice. It is really simple Rich!
think, the electorate vote make little diffference to which party or
parties form a government - except in special cases such as Epsom and
Ohariu where a party has an MP elected with a lower number of votes
than required to elect a list member from that party. It is the party
vote that largely determines the form of government, and even when the >electorate MP has a large majority, it can still affect election
results if a party vote is given to a different party.
I reject many of your unsupported accusations - you and others lookYou cannot support any of that!
for the worst possible interpretation of anything, while failing to
post positively as you claim others should.
Crash
--
Crash McBash
I used to try to debate with Rich but he got meaner and meaner and more and >>more despaerate as Labour failed to get traction. My patience ran out several >>months ago, I no longer see him as credible, just mean and spiteful. I have >>voted National on occasion in the last 30 years and I have also voted for two >>different Labour candidates since MMP was introduced, neither were successful >>because they were up againsta National minister with a large majority - even >>though the result was inevitable I voted for the person I thought would do my >>family and the community the most good. I don't see that changing much. >>Tony
Many people vote in the way that you do, Tony. Contrary to what many
think, the electorate vote make little diffference to which party or
parties form a government - except in special cases such as Epsom and
Ohariu where a party has an MP elected with a lower number of votes
than required to elect a list member from that party. It is the party
vote that largely determines the form of government, and even when the >electorate MP has a large majority, it can still affect election
results if a party vote is given to a different party.
I reject many of your unsupported accusations
You cannot support any of that!integrity
You can reject anything you want, you are still someone with limited
and you will still not care what harm you do in making your unremarkablepoints.
Tony
On 4/24/2016 6:50 PM, Tony wrote:
You cannot support any of that!Killfile it.
You can reject anything you want, you are still someone with limited
integrity and you will still not care what harm you do in making your
unremarkable points.
Tony
There are more important things to do in the world
On 4/24/2016 6:50 PM, Tony wrote:
You cannot support any of that!Killfile it.
You can reject anything you want, you are still someone with limited
integrity
and you will still not care what harm you do in making your unremarkable
points.
Tony
There are more important things to do in the world
On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 22:38:04 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 17:04:23 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netCrash
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 22:11:23 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:What nonsense - there is no alternative to security when people attack >>>>staff.
On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 22:39:49 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
Back in 2014, a beneficiary became so frustrated with WINZ that he >>>>>>>killed an employee. That was of course inexcusable, but it did >>>>>>>suggestRich you are attempting to score political mileage from the actions of >>>>>>a murderer. No matter how frustrated applicants for benefits may >>>>>>become, killing public servants in cold blood while they are working >>>>>>can not ever be justified in any circumstances no matter what.
that perhaps some action needed to be taken to reduce the growing >>>>>>>level of frustration with the bureaucracy and niggling rules used to >>>>>>>deny benefits, or make it difficult to obtain entitlements
Recently a new Health and Safety regime was introduced by the >>>>>government. It calls for emplyers to assess risks to staff and >>>>>mitigate them. The attacks on public servants were unavveptable, and >>>>>putting security guards in where there was assessed to be sufficient >>>>>risk was appropriate as a short term measure, but even then staff were >>>>>saying that it was overkill. To still have security staff there as the >>>>>only response so many months later with no other changes is close to >>>>>deriliction of duty.
To suggest that it is the fault of the government is plain stupid - if >>>>the
guards were removed and someone was attacked then what?
That was a very long time ago - the reason for removing the glass >>>>screens was
The death was just the extreme of many reactions in certain areas. The >>>>>question that needs to be asked is what should the government have >>>>>done.National of course defended their policies, and employed an army of >>>>>>>security guards for WINZ offices.Your use of the tragedy in Ashburton to smear the National party is >>>>>>totally contemptible. You have sunk to a new low in your >>>>>>anti-National rhetoric. Quit now - you cant sink any lower.
Some years ago there were some deaths of bank tellers. The banks >>>>>introduced glass screens, but over time adjusted their way of >>>>>operating so that they are no longer universally used.
actually much simpler than you suggest. I know that overseas experience >>>>was
that if you have screens then any bank robber was likely to threated the >>>>bank's
customers so the TAB removed their screens and at some stage most of the >>>>banks
did also,
Bullshit - you are lying again.
Now we have an attack on a police employee - and Nationals reaction is >>>>>to close police branches (which just happens to save money, but od >>>>>course they wouldn't be doing it for that reason, would they?
The decision was that of the Police Commissioner, not the government, >>>>who is
rightly concerned about the safety of non-sworn volunteers!
What would you do? Yeah right!
Perhaps we should have an organisation in New Zealand that is capable >>>>>of assessing risks of assault on public servants and helping both >>>>>reduce the risks through assisting the public sector avoid the matters >>>>>that are causing the assaults, and helping staff directly by better >>>>>training, better physical design of workplaces, and perhaps having an >>>>>organisation that can be avialble to arrest perpetrators and ensure >>>>>that they are properly dealt with by the justice system. What do you >>>>>think?
In the meantime, the bill for security guards getting bored 99% of the >>>>>time in every WINZ office continues - $20 m and climbing, with no >>>>>other changes to the workplaces or policies to reduce the risk to >>>>>staff.
You have several times used the death of someone to point score - you >>>>are
Your inability to recognise that these employees deserve better is >>>>>contemptable - you have sunk to a new low in your anti-worker >>>>>rhetoric. Show some compassion - and also ask yourself why the health >>>>>and safety laws should not result in change for public servants as >>>>>well as other employees!
beneath comtempt as many have pointed out.
A while ago there was a public event where beneficiaries who were >>>>>>>having problems were able to get free advice - the advisers were >>>>>>>flooded, and hundreds were subsequently able to get entitlements they >>>>>>>had previously been denied.Cite please.
Now the cost of the security has reached $20 million, and we have >>>>>>>this: >>>>>>>http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/78924680/beneficiaries-banned-from-dole-officers-as-msd-security-bill-passes-20m
There was talk about "compassionate Conservatism" a few years ago - >>>>>>>that's one phrase that now gets a wry laugh . . .
It is indeed a tragedy that Health and Safety measures have reached >>>>>>this state. If this money was not spent then potentially more public >>>>>>servants would be murdered. That you see fit to use this scenario for >>>>>>political point scoring is itself worthy of a 'wry laugh'. Not.
You would be rightly upset if protestors and disgruntled clients >>>>>caused a closure of a private company, and you would expect them to do >>>>>something about it other than ban customers and close workplaces for >>>>>employees - why do you have a different standard for public sector >>>>>employees?
Your blind defence of anything National do has prevented you seeing >>>>>that they have responsibilities to ensure that public servants are >>>>>kept safe, and also that they do not waste money.
Rich I do not, and have never, 'blindly defended' National. Unlike
you with Labour, I have from time to time criticised National and I
have said many times that I have not voted for a National party
candidate since the 70s. Your original post in this thread was
clearly an attack on National Party policies as the cause of the
murder of WINZ staff in Ashburton - re-read your original post and see >>>how you referenced National policies.
I merely called you on your despicable use of murders to advance a >>>political viewpoint.
If you took the time to read Crash's posts you would see that he is not >>>>a
National supporter (unless I read it wrong Crash?) but that is how his >>>>posts
often read - in that respect he and I are similar. I can only speak for >>>>myself
but the reason I so often respond to your appalling logic is because >>>>you,
like
the Labour party, seem incapable of acting like an opposition party >>>>which
indicates to me that they would be a woeful government.
Thanks Tony - very well put and I appreciate your support here.
--
Crash McBash
I used to try to debate with Rich but he got meaner and meaner and more
and
more despaerate as Labour failed to get traction. My patience ran out >>several
months ago, I no longer see him as credible, just mean and spiteful. I
have
voted National on occasion in the last 30 years and I have also voted for >>two
different Labour candidates since MMP was introduced, neither were >>successful
because they were up againsta National minister with a large majority - >>even
though the result was inevitable I voted for the person I thought would do >>my
family and the community the most good. I don't see that changing much. >>Tony
Many people vote in the way that you do, Tony. Contrary to what many
think, the electorate vote make little diffference to which party or
parties form a government - except in special cases such as Epsom and
Ohariu where a party has an MP elected with a lower number of votes
than required to elect a list member from that party. It is the party
vote that largely determines the form of government, and even when the electorate MP has a large majority, it can still affect election
results if a party vote is given to a different party.
I reject many of your unsupported accusations - you and others look
for the worst possible interpretation of anything, while failing to
post positively as you claim others should.
On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 09:47:53 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 08:12:53 +1200, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
On 4/20/2016 11:34 PM, Liberty wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 22:14:48 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>> wrote:And now we have petrol stations who want to discriminate as to who buys >>>>their overpriced fuels.
On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 19:44:38 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>> wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
The government pinching our pennies has always cost us dearly. And >>>>>>> some people want them to pinch more!
You have misunderstood my post, Allistar.
No Allistar is right.
What right has the state got to pillage from the productive.
to give to losers.
No doubt the rich is going in to bat for Z
Gosh, look over there! Time for a flag change, george? Anthying but
allow discussion on National's wasting of taxpayer dollars by their
incompetence . . .
If you want to discuss incompetence in the New Zealand political system
why
are you straying any further than Labour? I mean really, do they seriously >>think they're a strong contender? Gaffaw!
It is not Labour that have spent $20 million on security guards, with complaints and problems increasing instead of decreasing, Allistar.
But if you want waste compared with Labour, try the comparison
regarding debt.
Look first here:
http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/newzealand
It is currently showing the cost to New Zealand each year to be $5,390 million each year - and the amount of debt is increasing all the time.
Effectively our current government is not only not repaying debt, it
is not living within ourmeans an is incurring extra debt - just
looking at the changing number, it is about $165 per second, or about
$100 million a week. Now I don't know how accurate that is, but you
could look at Treasury reports to see how much it has grown between
recent reports.
The interest rate also appears higher than current rates - there may
be a margin for the cost of currency protection, but mostly it would
be because much of it was borrowed a while ago.
If we take an amount of additional debt of $100 million at say 2%,
that gives and additional cost that needs to be paid in the next year
is $2 million. Are you happy with the government requiring an extra $2 million of taxes each year, and doing that every week without repaying
the capital?
I leave it to you to compare with the incompetence of Labour - you may
find the difference instructive . . . Just to give another example,
there were referendums during Labour's term - from memory they were
linked to other elections, reducing the cost by about $10 million for
each referendum. Whether you wanted a flag change or not, were you
happy with the government wasting $26 million on the two flag
referendums?
On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 19:44:38 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
The government pinching our pennies has always cost us dearly. And some >>people want them to pinch more!
You have misunderstood my post, Allistar. I was pointing out that
National's propensity to make life difficult for beneficiaries was
causing problems. The attacvk on a staff member was inexcusable, , but
there were sufficient other complaints and 'incidents' that security
staff were employed - with the cost of those measures now being over
$20 million, and now:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/78924680/beneficiaries-banned-from-dole-officers-as-msd-security-bill-passes-20m
I was talking to public sector employee with some knowledge of the
sutiation. Part of the issue is that staff are now required to conduct interviews in open plan offices where other staff nad applicants may
be able to hear personal detials. In another department dealing with difficult customers, staff had training in how to deal with possible difficult customers, special rooms are available that give both
privacy and some protection to staff, and most importantly staff werre
helped to understand how to explain complex entitlenets, and to deal
with people both in accordance with the laaw and with empathy.
High turnover makes it diffucult for staff to ucersstand benefit entitlements, and they are also under pressure to reduce costs to the government. A meeting with voluntary advisers helped a large number of
people get entitlements that they could not get though visiting the department.
Rather than addressing the issues, the government is putting the
ambualance at the bottom of the cliff by employing people to prevent
physical violence, rather than addressing the causes. In the long run
they are paying more (and hence needing more money from taxpayers to
pay for it all) than if they had done a competent job in the first
place.
I appreciate that you don't like taxes - a good start to reducing
taxes would be to avoid wasting money that is raised from taxpayers.
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 31 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 228:45:20 |
| Calls: | 2,088 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 11,140 |
| Messages: | 948,518 |