http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936job.
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll never have a
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
On Tue, 24 May 2016 01:46:13 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936'She said her partner worked as a builder until the family was evicted, but then stopped work to support her."
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll never have a job.
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
So the family were getting a wage plus family support*8
Which would have paid rent . Instead they suck of the state tit
On Tue, 24 May 2016 21:39:37 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 01:46:13 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936'She said her partner worked as a builder until the family was evicted,
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll never >>>have a job.
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
but then stopped work to support her."
So the family were getting a wage plus family support*8
Which would have paid rent . Instead they suck of the state tit
Instead of just spouting personal abuse, how about telling us your
view of how it could have been handled more effectively, "Liberty"?
On Tue, 24 May 2016 21:39:37 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>a job.
wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 01:46:13 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote: >>
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll never have
'She said her partner worked as a builder until the family was evicted, but then stopped work to support her."
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
So the family were getting a wage plus family support*8
Which would have paid rent . Instead they suck of the state tit
Instead of just spouting personal abuse, how about telling us your
view of how it could have been handled more effectively, "Liberty"?
On Tue, 24 May 2016 22:52:41 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 21:39:37 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 01:46:13 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote: >>>
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936'She said her partner worked as a builder until the family was evicted, but then stopped work to support her."
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll never have a job.
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
So the family were getting a wage plus family support*8
Which would have paid rent . Instead they suck of the state tit
Instead of just spouting personal abuse, how about telling us your
view of how it could have been handled more effectively, "Liberty"?
Don't breed 8 kids when you financially cant. Husband should of stayed working.
On Tue, 24 May 2016 01:46:13 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:a job.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll never have
then stopped work to support her."'She said her partner worked as a builder until the family was evicted, but
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
So the family were getting a wage plus family support*8
Which would have paid rent . Instead they suck of the state tit
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936a job.
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll never have
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
On 5/24/2016 9:39 PM, Liberty wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 01:46:13 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936'She said her partner worked as a builder until the family was
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll
never have a job.
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
evicted, but then stopped work to support her."
So the family were getting a wage plus family support*8
Which would have paid rent . Instead they suck of the state tit
Husband cant make a decent wage as a chippie???????????
In this day and age ??????????
Rich80105 wrote:What option did they have?
On Tue, 24 May 2016 23:45:53 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 22:52:41 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 21:39:37 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 01:46:13 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
'She said her partner worked as a builder until the family was evicted, >>>>>but then stopped work to support her.""Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll never >>>>>>have a job.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936 >>>>>>
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
So the family were getting a wage plus family support*8
Which would have paid rent . Instead they suck of the state tit
Instead of just spouting personal abuse, how about telling us your
view of how it could have been handled more effectively, "Liberty"?
Don't breed 8 kids when you financially cant. Husband should of stayed >>>working.
Aah - the nasty "should of"(sic) argument! If a tourist was lost and
asked for directions you would probably tell them they should never
have left home to get lost!
Our government "lent" them $60,000 of taxpayer money, almost certainly
unrecoverable - even if the "borrowers" (who it could be claimed were
coerced into an onerous lending contract).
Coerced? Do you mean someone forced them to take a loan out? Hardly. They >were lucky the money was made available. It shouldn't have been.
I am suggesting that there was little effort to get a "corporatedo not file for bankruptcy
to "clarify" the government position. Still a motel owner somewhere
has possibly benefitted - apparetnly they can charge what the market
will bear for "difficult" families . . .
?? Are you suggesting that a motel owner should be somehow forced to charge >less for more needy cases?
And having made those decisions, what should have been done byNow some people are horrified at the actions of the government -
instead of just criticising the recipients of charity for needing it,
how about telling us your view of how it could have been handled more
effectively, "Liberty"
The family shouldn't have gotten them into this position in the first place. >It was in their control and they made bad decisions.
How does that resolve the issues, Allistar?What do you think the government should have
done to avoid spending $60,000 on this family?
Er, not paid them the money.
On Wed, 25 May 2016 10:00:45 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 23:45:53 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 22:52:41 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 21:39:37 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 01:46:13 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
'She said her partner worked as a builder until the family was >>>>>>evicted, but then stopped work to support her.""Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll >>>>>>>never have a job.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936 >>>>>>>
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
So the family were getting a wage plus family support*8
Which would have paid rent . Instead they suck of the state tit
Instead of just spouting personal abuse, how about telling us your >>>>>view of how it could have been handled more effectively, "Liberty"?
Don't breed 8 kids when you financially cant. Husband should of stayed >>>>working.
Aah - the nasty "should of"(sic) argument! If a tourist was lost and
asked for directions you would probably tell them they should never
have left home to get lost!
Our government "lent" them $60,000 of taxpayer money, almost certainly
unrecoverable - even if the "borrowers" (who it could be claimed were
coerced into an onerous lending contract).
Coerced? Do you mean someone forced them to take a loan out? Hardly. They >>were lucky the money was made available. It shouldn't have been.
What option did they have?
do not file for bankruptcy
to "clarify" the government position. Still a motel owner somewhere
has possibly benefitted - apparetnly they can charge what the market
will bear for "difficult" families . . .
?? Are you suggesting that a motel owner should be somehow forced to
charge less for more needy cases?
I am suggesting that there was little effort to get a "corporate
discount for bulk purchasing. Journalists who have seen the
accomodation and know the local market regard it as expensive for what
was provided,
Now some people are horrified at the actions of the government -
instead of just criticising the recipients of charity for needing it,
how about telling us your view of how it could have been handled more
effectively, "Liberty"
The family shouldn't have gotten them into this position in the first >>place. It was in their control and they made bad decisions.
And having made those decisions, what should have been done by
government to resolve the issues?
What do you think the government should have
done to avoid spending $60,000 on this family?
Er, not paid them the money.
How does that resolve the issues, Allistar?
On Tue, 24 May 2016 23:45:53 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 22:52:41 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 21:39:37 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 01:46:13 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>wrote:
'She said her partner worked as a builder until the family was evicted, >>>>but then stopped work to support her.""Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll never >>>>>have a job.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936 >>>>>
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
So the family were getting a wage plus family support*8
Which would have paid rent . Instead they suck of the state tit
Instead of just spouting personal abuse, how about telling us your
view of how it could have been handled more effectively, "Liberty"?
Don't breed 8 kids when you financially cant. Husband should of stayed >>working.
Aah - the nasty "should of"(sic) argument! If a tourist was lost and
asked for directions you would probably tell them they should never
have left home to get lost!
Our government "lent" them $60,000 of taxpayer money, almost certainly unrecoverable - even if the "borrowers" (who it could be claimed were
coerced into an onerous lending contract).
do not file for bankruptcy
to "clarify" the government position. Still a motel owner somewhere
has possibly benefitted - apparetnly they can charge what the market
will bear for "difficult" families . . .
Now some people are horrified at the actions of the government -
instead of just criticising the recipients of charity for needing it,
how about telling us your view of how it could have been handled more effectively, "Liberty"
What do you think the government should have
done to avoid spending $60,000 on this family?
On 24/05/2016 8:46 p.m., JohnO wrote:a job.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll never have
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
If they carry on as per their track record and turn the motel unit into
a P lab, who does the motel owner sue? Almost certainly the govt. who
booked the unit in the knowledge of their trail of destruction to date.
On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 10:09:22 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:expensive for what was provided.
On Wed, 25 May 2016 10:00:45 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:What option did they have?
On Tue, 24 May 2016 23:45:53 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 22:52:41 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 21:39:37 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 01:46:13 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >> >>>>>wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936 >> >>>>>>'She said her partner worked as a builder until the family was evicted, >> >>>>>but then stopped work to support her."
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll never
have a job.
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
So the family were getting a wage plus family support*8
Which would have paid rent . Instead they suck of the state tit
Instead of just spouting personal abuse, how about telling us your
view of how it could have been handled more effectively, "Liberty"?
Don't breed 8 kids when you financially cant. Husband should of stayed >> >>>working.
Aah - the nasty "should of"(sic) argument! If a tourist was lost and
asked for directions you would probably tell them they should never
have left home to get lost!
Our government "lent" them $60,000 of taxpayer money, almost certainly
unrecoverable - even if the "borrowers" (who it could be claimed were
coerced into an onerous lending contract).
Coerced? Do you mean someone forced them to take a loan out? Hardly. They >> >were lucky the money was made available. It shouldn't have been.
I am suggesting that there was little effort to get a "corporate
do not file for bankruptcy
to "clarify" the government position. Still a motel owner somewhere
has possibly benefitted - apparetnly they can charge what the market
will bear for "difficult" families . . .
?? Are you suggesting that a motel owner should be somehow forced to charge >> >less for more needy cases?
discount for bulk purchasing.
Bullshit. As the artcle stated, the bill was reduced from $1700 to $1200.
What kind of Auckland motel can you get for TEN people Dickbot, for less than $240 a night?
Journalists who have seen the
accomodation and know the local market regard it as expensive for what
was provided,
Dickbot you are telling lies. There's no suggestion in the article that it was
And having made those decisions, what should have been done by
Now some people are horrified at the actions of the government -
instead of just criticising the recipients of charity for needing it,
how about telling us your view of how it could have been handled more
effectively, "Liberty"
The family shouldn't have gotten them into this position in the first place.
It was in their control and they made bad decisions.
government to resolve the issues?
Foster the children out to responsible families and cut the benefit to the mother until she shows she can be responsible and keep her legs together.
How does that resolve the issues, Allistar?What do you think the government should have
done to avoid spending $60,000 on this family?
Er, not paid them the money.
Removes incentive to keep pumping out benefit enablement.
On Wed, 25 May 2016 10:00:45 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 23:45:53 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 22:52:41 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 21:39:37 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com> >>>>wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 01:46:13 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
'She said her partner worked as a builder until the family was evicted, >>>>>but then stopped work to support her.""Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll never >>>>>>have a job.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936 >>>>>>
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
So the family were getting a wage plus family support*8
Which would have paid rent . Instead they suck of the state tit
Instead of just spouting personal abuse, how about telling us your >>>>view of how it could have been handled more effectively, "Liberty"?
Don't breed 8 kids when you financially cant. Husband should of stayed >>>working.
Aah - the nasty "should of"(sic) argument! If a tourist was lost and
asked for directions you would probably tell them they should never
have left home to get lost!
Our government "lent" them $60,000 of taxpayer money, almost certainly
unrecoverable - even if the "borrowers" (who it could be claimed were
coerced into an onerous lending contract).
Coerced? Do you mean someone forced them to take a loan out? Hardly. They >were lucky the money was made available. It shouldn't have been.What option did they have?
do not file for bankruptcy
to "clarify" the government position. Still a motel owner somewhere
has possibly benefitted - apparetnly they can charge what the market
will bear for "difficult" families . . .
?? Are you suggesting that a motel owner should be somehow forced to charge >less for more needy cases?I am suggesting that there was little effort to get a "corporate
discount for bulk purchasing.
Journalists who have seen the
accomodation and know the local market regard it as expensive for what
was provided,
Now some people are horrified at the actions of the government -
instead of just criticising the recipients of charity for needing it,
how about telling us your view of how it could have been handled more
effectively, "Liberty"
The family shouldn't have gotten them into this position in the first place. >It was in their control and they made bad decisions.And having made those decisions, what should have been done by
government to resolve the issues?
What do you think the government should have
done to avoid spending $60,000 on this family?
Er, not paid them the money.How does that resolve the issues, Allistar?
On 25/05/2016 7:28 a.m., george152 wrote:
On 5/24/2016 9:39 PM, Liberty wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 01:46:13 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936 >>>>'She said her partner worked as a builder until the family was
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll
never have a job.
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
evicted, but then stopped work to support her."
So the family were getting a wage plus family support*8
Which would have paid rent . Instead they suck of the state tit
Husband cant make a decent wage as a chippie???????????
In this day and age ??????????
Probably unable to work a full day as high chance of suffering shagger's >back.
On Wed, 25 May 2016 10:03:32 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 25/05/2016 7:28 a.m., george152 wrote:
On 5/24/2016 9:39 PM, Liberty wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 01:46:13 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936 >>>>>'She said her partner worked as a builder until the family was
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll
never have a job.
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
evicted, but then stopped work to support her."
So the family were getting a wage plus family support*8
Which would have paid rent . Instead they suck of the state tit
Husband cant make a decent wage as a chippie???????????
In this day and age ??????????
Probably unable to work a full day as high chance of suffering shagger's
back.
So you're saying there is a medical issue?
Does that change your view of what the government should have done?
On Wed, 25 May 2016 10:06:43 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 24/05/2016 8:46 p.m., JohnO wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll never have a job.
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
If they carry on as per their track record and turn the motel unit into
a P lab, who does the motel owner sue? Almost certainly the govt. who
booked the unit in the knowledge of their trail of destruction to date.
Of course they would sue the government - as you say they made the
booking, and they paid the bill, and the tenant has no money! I'm
fairly sure there would never be a court case - that would be
embarrassing to the Minister, so they would probably settle early (and
pay for the room until it was fixed). If it happens in a Housing
Corporation house they would have to pay; unless they are paying
additional rent to get out of liability, of course the government is
liable.
On 25/05/2016 10:44 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 10:06:43 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:Which makesit a strange decision to put them in a motel block. That
On 24/05/2016 8:46 p.m., JohnO wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936 >>>>
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll never >>>> have a job.
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
If they carry on as per their track record and turn the motel unit into
a P lab, who does the motel owner sue? Almost certainly the govt. who
booked the unit in the knowledge of their trail of destruction to date.
Of course they would sue the government - as you say they made the
booking, and they paid the bill, and the tenant has no money! I'm
fairly sure there would never be a court case - that would be
embarrassing to the Minister, so they would probably settle early (and
pay for the room until it was fixed). If it happens in a Housing
Corporation house they would have to pay; unless they are paying
additional rent to get out of liability, of course the government is
liable.
could be a lot more expensive than just giving them another house to
wreck.
On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 07:57:32 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 23:45:53 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 22:52:41 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 21:39:37 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 01:46:13 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936
'She said her partner worked as a builder until the family was
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll
never have a job.
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
evicted, but then stopped work to support her."
So the family were getting a wage plus family support*8
Which would have paid rent . Instead they suck of the state tit
Instead of just spouting personal abuse, how about telling us your
view of how it could have been handled more effectively, "Liberty"?
Don't breed 8 kids when you financially cant. Husband should of stayed
working.
Aah - the nasty "should of"(sic) argument! If a tourist was lost and
asked for directions you would probably tell them they should never
have left home to get lost!
Our government "lent" them $60,000 of taxpayer money, almost certainly
unrecoverable - even if the "borrowers" (who it could be claimed were
coerced into an onerous lending contract). do not file for bankruptcy
to "clarify" the government position. Still a motel owner somewhere
has possibly benefitted - apparetnly they can charge what the market
will bear for "difficult" families . . .
Now some people are horrified at the actions of the government -
instead of just criticising the recipients of charity for needing it,
how about telling us your view of how it could have been handled more
effectively, "Liberty" What do you think the government should have
done to avoid spending $60,000 on this family? (or if you prefer
Nat-speak, "should-of"!)
This useless woman has admitted to using meth in three previous state
houses, yet expects us to believe that the last one, which she got banned from, had meth that was not from her own activities? Yeah, right.
She is a meth user with 8 children from 11 to 5 months. It seems
inevitable she will be pregnant again shortly. These children will be
damaged from meth exposure during and after pregnancy. After all, living
with 6 or seven kids in a motel room hasn't slowed her breeding rate one
bit.
She needs to be sterilised and the kids fostered out for their own good. A meth house with unfit parents is no place for children.
There's your solution, Dickbot.
On Tue, 24 May 2016 23:45:53 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 22:52:41 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 21:39:37 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 01:46:13 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
have a job."Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll neverhttp://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936 >>>>
but then stopped work to support her."'She said her partner worked as a builder until the family was evicted,
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
working.
So the family were getting a wage plus family support*8
Which would have paid rent . Instead they suck of the state tit
Instead of just spouting personal abuse, how about telling us your
view of how it could have been handled more effectively, "Liberty"?
Don't breed 8 kids when you financially cant. Husband should of stayed
Aah - the nasty "should of"(sic) argument! If a tourist was lost and
asked for directions you would probably tell them they should never
have left home to get lost!
Our government "lent" them $60,000 of taxpayer money, almost certainly unrecoverable - even if the "borrowers" (who it could be claimed were
coerced into an onerous lending contract). do not file for bankruptcy
to "clarify" the government position. Still a motel owner somewhere
has possibly benefitted - apparetnly they can charge what the market
will bear for "difficult" families . . .
Now some people are horrified at the actions of the government -
instead of just criticising the recipients of charity for needing it,
how about telling us your view of how it could have been handled more effectively, "Liberty" What do you think the government should have
done to avoid spending $60,000 on this family? (or if you prefer
Nat-speak, "should-of"!)
Buy them a tent. Farm their kids off to responsible adults.
On Tue, 24 May 2016 23:45:53 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>then stopped work to support her."
wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 22:52:41 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>
On Tue, 24 May 2016 21:39:37 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 01:46:13 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:
'She said her partner worked as a builder until the family was evicted, but"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll never have a job.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936 >>>>>
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
WTF are you going on about
So the family were getting a wage plus family support*8
Which would have paid rent . Instead they suck of the state tit
Instead of just spouting personal abuse, how about telling us your
view of how it could have been handled more effectively, "Liberty"?
Don't breed 8 kids when you financially cant. Husband should of stayed working.
Aah - the nasty "should of"(sic) argument! If a tourist was lost and
asked for directions you would probably tell them they should never
have left home to get lost!
Our government "lent" them $60,000 of taxpayer money,
unrecoverable - even if the "borrowers" (who it could be claimed were
coerced into an onerous lending contract). do not file for bankruptcy
to "clarify" the government position. Still a motel owner somewhere
has possibly benefitted - apparetnly they can charge what the market
will bear for "difficult" families . . .
On 25/05/2016 10:39 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 10:03:32 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 25/05/2016 7:28 a.m., george152 wrote:
On 5/24/2016 9:39 PM, Liberty wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 01:46:13 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936 >>>>>>'She said her partner worked as a builder until the family was
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll
never have a job.
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
evicted, but then stopped work to support her."
So the family were getting a wage plus family support*8
Which would have paid rent . Instead they suck of the state tit
Husband cant make a decent wage as a chippie???????????
In this day and age ??????????
Probably unable to work a full day as high chance of suffering shagger's >>> back.
So you're saying there is a medical issue?
Does that change your view of what the government should have done?
No. Society has to wear this one unfortunately.
Fred wrote:
On 25/05/2016 10:44 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 10:06:43 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:Which makesit a strange decision to put them in a motel block. That
On 24/05/2016 8:46 p.m., JohnO wrote:Of course they would sue the government - as you say they made the
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936 >>>>>
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll never >>>>> have a job.
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
If they carry on as per their track record and turn the motel unit into >>>> a P lab, who does the motel owner sue? Almost certainly the govt. who
booked the unit in the knowledge of their trail of destruction to date. >>>
booking, and they paid the bill, and the tenant has no money! I'm
fairly sure there would never be a court case - that would be
embarrassing to the Minister, so they would probably settle early (and
pay for the room until it was fixed). If it happens in a Housing
Corporation house they would have to pay; unless they are paying
additional rent to get out of liability, of course the government is
liable.
could be a lot more expensive than just giving them another house to
wreck.
Buy them a tent. Farm their kids off to responsible adults.
On Wed, 25 May 2016 11:16:32 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936
wrote:
Fred wrote:
On 25/05/2016 10:44 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 10:06:43 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 24/05/2016 8:46 p.m., JohnO wrote:
Which makesit a strange decision to put them in a motel block. That
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll
never have a job.
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
If they carry on as per their track record and turn the motel unit
into a P lab, who does the motel owner sue? Almost certainly the govt. >>>>> who booked the unit in the knowledge of their trail of destruction to >>>>> date.
Of course they would sue the government - as you say they made the
booking, and they paid the bill, and the tenant has no money! I'm
fairly sure there would never be a court case - that would be
embarrassing to the Minister, so they would probably settle early (and >>>> pay for the room until it was fixed). If it happens in a Housing
Corporation house they would have to pay; unless they are paying
additional rent to get out of liability, of course the government is
liable.
could be a lot more expensive than just giving them another house to
wreck.
Buy them a tent. Farm their kids off to responsible adults.
What responsible adults?
There is a nationwide critical shortage of
foster parents for either short or long term care. Where would you put
the tent?
You would probably just shift the cost on to the local DHB
- in the end the taxpayer would pay more, but I guess that doesn;t
worry you
On Wed, 25 May 2016 07:57:36 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Its a bit hard to take children back once they have been conceived or
On Tue, 24 May 2016 23:45:53 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>WTF are you going on about
wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 22:52:41 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>
On Tue, 24 May 2016 21:39:37 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 01:46:13 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:
'She said her partner worked as a builder until the family was evicted, but then stopped work to support her.""Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll never have a job.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936 >>>>>>
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
So the family were getting a wage plus family support*8
Which would have paid rent . Instead they suck of the state tit
Instead of just spouting personal abuse, how about telling us your
view of how it could have been handled more effectively, "Liberty"?
Don't breed 8 kids when you financially cant. Husband should of stayed working.
Aah - the nasty "should of"(sic) argument! If a tourist was lost and
asked for directions you would probably tell them they should never
have left home to get lost!
The Department only spends money in accordance with governm,ent
Our government "lent" them $60,000 of taxpayer money,
The client/parasite didn't get a loan of the government.
But it did get a loan of a government department.
There is a difference.
The Government allocates funds to Departments who waste it.
almost certainly
unrecoverable - even if the "borrowers" (who it could be claimed were >>coerced into an onerous lending contract). do not file for bankruptcy
to "clarify" the government position. Still a motel owner somewhere
has possibly benefitted - apparetnly they can charge what the market
will bear for "difficult" families . . .
The motel owner would have benefited. He has rented out a room.
That is the whole point of owning a motel.
On Wed, 25 May 2016 10:48:31 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 25/05/2016 10:44 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 10:06:43 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:Which makesit a strange decision to put them in a motel block. That
On 24/05/2016 8:46 p.m., JohnO wrote:Of course they would sue the government - as you say they made the
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936 >>>>>
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll
never have a job.
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
If they carry on as per their track record and turn the motel unit into >>>> a P lab, who does the motel owner sue? Almost certainly the govt. who
booked the unit in the knowledge of their trail of destruction to date. >>>
booking, and they paid the bill, and the tenant has no money! I'm
fairly sure there would never be a court case - that would be
embarrassing to the Minister, so they would probably settle early (and
pay for the room until it was fixed). If it happens in a Housing
Corporation house they would have to pay; unless they are paying
additional rent to get out of liability, of course the government is
liable.
could be a lot more expensive than just giving them another house to
wreck.
It is soemthing that National didn't think through in implementing
their deliberate poilicy to run down housing New Zealand stock in
favour of private organisations taking oin the provision of social
housing. This is not the government being out of touch, it is that all
they wanted to touch was making government smaller and pushing money
and responsibility to the private sector. The last thing they want
when making decisions on the basis of blind ideology is propoer
planning and analysis of likely results - or of public consultation
and an honest communication of what they have been doing. They play
word games to talk about the numbers of houses that are being built or
are available, but don't say how many of those are not yet started
being built, or will not be built this year, or which have been sold
to private providers and cannot be relied on to be avaialble
inemergency cases.
The reality is that they could not give them another house to wreck
because they don't have any available. Yes what is happening is
"strange"; it is also a direct result of deliberate government policy.
On Wed, 25 May 2016 12:34:38 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 07:57:36 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 23:45:53 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>WTF are you going on about
wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 22:52:41 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 21:39:37 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 01:46:13 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
'She said her partner worked as a builder until the family was >>>>>>evicted, but then stopped work to support her.""Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll >>>>>>>never have a job.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936 >>>>>>>
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
So the family were getting a wage plus family support*8
Which would have paid rent . Instead they suck of the state tit
Instead of just spouting personal abuse, how about telling us your >>>>>view of how it could have been handled more effectively, "Liberty"?
Don't breed 8 kids when you financially cant. Husband should of stayed >>>>working.
Aah - the nasty "should of"(sic) argument! If a tourist was lost and >>>asked for directions you would probably tell them they should never
have left home to get lost!
Its a bit hard to take children back once they have been conceived or
born, Liberty. Or were you advocating that some bueaucrat decides
whether a pregnant mother is allowed to carry a baby to term? Not even
the authoritarian Nats would have that one on.
Our government "lent" them $60,000 of taxpayer money,
The client/parasite didn't get a loan of the government.
But it did get a loan of a government department.
There is a difference.
The Government allocates funds to Departments who waste it.
The Department only spends money in accordance with governm,ent
policies - the Minister has defended the actions of the department as
being government policy.
almost certainly
unrecoverable - even if the "borrowers" (who it could be claimed were >>>coerced into an onerous lending contract). do not file for bankruptcy
to "clarify" the government position. Still a motel owner somewhere
has possibly benefitted - apparetnly they can charge what the market
will bear for "difficult" families . . .
The motel owner would have benefited. He has rented out a room.
That is the whole point of owning a motel.
Well I guess prfit for a motel owner makes the whole policy and
situation OK in your eyes, does it Liberty?
On Wed, 25 May 2016 12:34:38 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 07:57:36 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 23:45:53 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 22:52:41 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 21:39:37 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com> >>>>wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 01:46:13 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
have a job."Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll neverhttp://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936 >>>>>>
but then stopped work to support her."'She said her partner worked as a builder until the family was evicted,
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
working.
So the family were getting a wage plus family support*8
Which would have paid rent . Instead they suck of the state tit
Instead of just spouting personal abuse, how about telling us your >>>>view of how it could have been handled more effectively, "Liberty"?
Don't breed 8 kids when you financially cant. Husband should of stayed
Its a bit hard to take children back once they have been conceived orWTF are you going on about
Aah - the nasty "should of"(sic) argument! If a tourist was lost and >>asked for directions you would probably tell them they should never
have left home to get lost!
born, Liberty. Or were you advocating that some bueaucrat decides
whether a pregnant mother is allowed to carry a baby to term? Not even
the authoritarian Nats would have that one on.
Our government "lent" them $60,000 of taxpayer money,
The client/parasite didn't get a loan of the government.The Department only spends money in accordance with governm,ent
But it did get a loan of a government department.
There is a difference.
The Government allocates funds to Departments who waste it.
policies - the Minister has defended the actions of the department as
being government policy.
almost certainly
unrecoverable - even if the "borrowers" (who it could be claimed were >>coerced into an onerous lending contract). do not file for bankruptcy
to "clarify" the government position. Still a motel owner somewhere
has possibly benefitted - apparetnly they can charge what the market
will bear for "difficult" families . . .
The motel owner would have benefited. He has rented out a room.
That is the whole point of owning a motel.
Well I guess prfit for a motel owner makes the whole policy and
situation OK in your eyes, does it Liberty?
On 25/05/2016 10:44 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 10:06:43 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:Which makesit a strange decision to put them in a motel block. That
On 24/05/2016 8:46 p.m., JohnO wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936 >>>>
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll never have a job.
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
If they carry on as per their track record and turn the motel unit into
a P lab, who does the motel owner sue? Almost certainly the govt. who
booked the unit in the knowledge of their trail of destruction to date.
Of course they would sue the government - as you say they made the
booking, and they paid the bill, and the tenant has no money! I'm
fairly sure there would never be a court case - that would be
embarrassing to the Minister, so they would probably settle early (and
pay for the room until it was fixed). If it happens in a Housing
Corporation house they would have to pay; unless they are paying
additional rent to get out of liability, of course the government is
liable.
could be a lot more expensive than just giving them another house to wreck.
Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 12:34:38 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 07:57:36 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 23:45:53 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>WTF are you going on about
wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 22:52:41 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 21:39:37 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com> >>>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 01:46:13 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:
'She said her partner worked as a builder until the family was >>>>>>>evicted, but then stopped work to support her.""Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll >>>>>>>>never have a job.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936 >>>>>>>>
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
So the family were getting a wage plus family support*8
Which would have paid rent . Instead they suck of the state tit
Instead of just spouting personal abuse, how about telling us your >>>>>>view of how it could have been handled more effectively, "Liberty"?
Don't breed 8 kids when you financially cant. Husband should of stayed >>>>>working.
Aah - the nasty "should of"(sic) argument! If a tourist was lost and >>>>asked for directions you would probably tell them they should never >>>>have left home to get lost!
Its a bit hard to take children back once they have been conceived or
born, Liberty. Or were you advocating that some bueaucrat decides
whether a pregnant mother is allowed to carry a baby to term? Not even
the authoritarian Nats would have that one on.
If a mother is a meth head while pregnant I think it's fully justified for >this child abusers baby be taken from her. To poison another person on >purpose? That's disgusting.
P.S. I don't think you know what authoritarian means.No I am not. Teh governm,ent has said that they will take care of
Our government "lent" them $60,000 of taxpayer money,
The client/parasite didn't get a loan of the government.
But it did get a loan of a government department.
There is a difference.
The Government allocates funds to Departments who waste it.
The Department only spends money in accordance with government
policies - the Minister has defended the actions of the department as
being government policy.
Again, you seem to be making out like these parents are victims.
almost certainly
unrecoverable - even if the "borrowers" (who it could be claimed were >>>>coerced into an onerous lending contract). do not file for bankruptcy >>>>to "clarify" the government position. Still a motel owner somewhere
has possibly benefitted - apparetnly they can charge what the market >>>>will bear for "difficult" families . . .
The motel owner would have benefited. He has rented out a room.
That is the whole point of owning a motel.
Well I guess prfit for a motel owner makes the whole policy and
situation OK in your eyes, does it Liberty?
What situation? That a family needed accommodation and a motel provided it >for them at market rates? They are in business to make a profit, what's the >issue again? Are you suggesting that the motel somehow be forced to make a >loss?
On Wed, 25 May 2016 10:48:31 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 25/05/2016 10:44 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 10:06:43 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:Which makesit a strange decision to put them in a motel block. That
On 24/05/2016 8:46 p.m., JohnO wrote:Of course they would sue the government - as you say they made the
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936 >>>>>
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll never have a job.
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
If they carry on as per their track record and turn the motel unit into >>>> a P lab, who does the motel owner sue? Almost certainly the govt. who
booked the unit in the knowledge of their trail of destruction to date. >>>
booking, and they paid the bill, and the tenant has no money! I'm
fairly sure there would never be a court case - that would be
embarrassing to the Minister, so they would probably settle early (and
pay for the room until it was fixed). If it happens in a Housing
Corporation house they would have to pay; unless they are paying
additional rent to get out of liability, of course the government is
liable.
could be a lot more expensive than just giving them another house to wreck.
It is soemthing that National didn't think through in implementing
their deliberate poilicy to run down housing New Zealand stock in
favour of private organisations taking oin the provision of social
housing. This is not the government being out of touch, it is that all
they wanted to touch was making government smaller and pushing money
and responsibility to the private sector. The last thing they want
when making decisions on the basis of blind ideology is propoer
planning and analysis of likely results - or of public consultation
and an honest communication of what they have been doing. They play
word games to talk about the numbers of houses that are being built or
are available, but don't say how many of those are not yet started
being built, or will not be built this year, or which have been sold
to private providers and cannot be relied on to be avaialble
inemergency cases.
The reality is that they could not give them another house to wreck
because they don't have any available. Yes what is happening is
"strange"; it is also a direct result of deliberate government policy.
Rich80105 wrote:And of course there isn't, but it is a reality that many people are
On Wed, 25 May 2016 10:48:31 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 25/05/2016 10:44 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 10:06:43 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:Which makesit a strange decision to put them in a motel block. That
On 24/05/2016 8:46 p.m., JohnO wrote:Of course they would sue the government - as you say they made the
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936 >>>>>>
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll
never have a job.
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
If they carry on as per their track record and turn the motel unit into >>>>> a P lab, who does the motel owner sue? Almost certainly the govt. who >>>>> booked the unit in the knowledge of their trail of destruction to date. >>>>
booking, and they paid the bill, and the tenant has no money! I'm
fairly sure there would never be a court case - that would be
embarrassing to the Minister, so they would probably settle early (and >>>> pay for the room until it was fixed). If it happens in a Housing
Corporation house they would have to pay; unless they are paying
additional rent to get out of liability, of course the government is
liable.
could be a lot more expensive than just giving them another house to >>>wreck.
It is soemthing that National didn't think through in implementing
their deliberate poilicy to run down housing New Zealand stock in
favour of private organisations taking oin the provision of social
housing. This is not the government being out of touch, it is that all
they wanted to touch was making government smaller and pushing money
and responsibility to the private sector. The last thing they want
when making decisions on the basis of blind ideology is propoer
planning and analysis of likely results - or of public consultation
and an honest communication of what they have been doing. They play
word games to talk about the numbers of houses that are being built or
are available, but don't say how many of those are not yet started
being built, or will not be built this year, or which have been sold
to private providers and cannot be relied on to be avaialble
inemergency cases.
The reality is that they could not give them another house to wreck
because they don't have any available. Yes what is happening is
"strange"; it is also a direct result of deliberate government policy.
I wasn't aware there is a government policy for you to have more kids than >you can afford.
To waste money that's not yours on things you don't need. ToNo-one is condoning either of those - the question is whether
wreck someone else's house to an extent that you get booted out.
Stop treating the adults in this family like they are victims. TheirI have not claimed that anyone is blameless, but I agree that the
children are, but the adults most certainly are not.
On 25/05/2016 2:42 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 10:48:31 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:Of course. It's the gummint's fault. I completely forgot - silly me.
On 25/05/2016 10:44 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:It is soemthing that National didn't think through in implementing
On Wed, 25 May 2016 10:06:43 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:Which makesit a strange decision to put them in a motel block. That
On 24/05/2016 8:46 p.m., JohnO wrote:Of course they would sue the government - as you say they made the
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936 >>>>>>
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll never have a job.
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
If they carry on as per their track record and turn the motel unit into >>>>> a P lab, who does the motel owner sue? Almost certainly the govt. who >>>>> booked the unit in the knowledge of their trail of destruction to date. >>>>
booking, and they paid the bill, and the tenant has no money! I'm
fairly sure there would never be a court case - that would be
embarrassing to the Minister, so they would probably settle early (and >>>> pay for the room until it was fixed). If it happens in a Housing
Corporation house they would have to pay; unless they are paying
additional rent to get out of liability, of course the government is
liable.
could be a lot more expensive than just giving them another house to wreck. >>
their deliberate poilicy to run down housing New Zealand stock in
favour of private organisations taking oin the provision of social
housing. This is not the government being out of touch, it is that all
they wanted to touch was making government smaller and pushing money
and responsibility to the private sector. The last thing they want
when making decisions on the basis of blind ideology is propoer
planning and analysis of likely results - or of public consultation
and an honest communication of what they have been doing. They play
word games to talk about the numbers of houses that are being built or
are available, but don't say how many of those are not yet started
being built, or will not be built this year, or which have been sold
to private providers and cannot be relied on to be avaialble
inemergency cases.
The reality is that they could not give them another house to wreck
because they don't have any available. Yes what is happening is
"strange"; it is also a direct result of deliberate government policy.
On Wed, 25 May 2016 12:34:38 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 07:57:36 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>Its a bit hard to take children back once they have been conceived or
On Tue, 24 May 2016 23:45:53 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>WTF are you going on about
wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 22:52:41 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On Tue, 24 May 2016 21:39:37 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 01:46:13 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:
'She said her partner worked as a builder until the family was evicted, but then stopped work to support her.""Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll never have a job.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936 >>>>>>>
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
So the family were getting a wage plus family support*8
Which would have paid rent . Instead they suck of the state tit
Instead of just spouting personal abuse, how about telling us your >>>>>view of how it could have been handled more effectively, "Liberty"?
Don't breed 8 kids when you financially cant. Husband should of stayed working.
Aah - the nasty "should of"(sic) argument! If a tourist was lost and >>>asked for directions you would probably tell them they should never
have left home to get lost!
born, Liberty. Or were you advocating that some bueaucrat decides
whether a pregnant mother is allowed to carry a baby to term? Not even
the authoritarian Nats would have that one on.
Rich80105 wrote:Really? What do you think the government should be doing about that?
On Wed, 25 May 2016 11:16:32 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936
wrote:
Fred wrote:
On 25/05/2016 10:44 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 10:06:43 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 24/05/2016 8:46 p.m., JohnO wrote:
Which makesit a strange decision to put them in a motel block. That
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll >>>>>>> never have a job.
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
If they carry on as per their track record and turn the motel unit >>>>>> into a P lab, who does the motel owner sue? Almost certainly the govt. >>>>>> who booked the unit in the knowledge of their trail of destruction to >>>>>> date.
Of course they would sue the government - as you say they made the
booking, and they paid the bill, and the tenant has no money! I'm
fairly sure there would never be a court case - that would be
embarrassing to the Minister, so they would probably settle early (and >>>>> pay for the room until it was fixed). If it happens in a Housing
Corporation house they would have to pay; unless they are paying
additional rent to get out of liability, of course the government is >>>>> liable.
could be a lot more expensive than just giving them another house to
wreck.
Buy them a tent. Farm their kids off to responsible adults.
What responsible adults?
Certainly not the parents. They have shown themselves to be very >irresponsible.
There is a nationwide critical shortage of
foster parents for either short or long term care. Where would you put
the tent?
To be honest what happens to the parents isn't my concern, nor is it yours. >The fate of the children most definitely is our concern.
How would that help? Or are you saying that the government should justYou would probably just shift the cost on to the local DHB
- in the end the taxpayer would pay more, but I guess that doesn;t
worry you
This is another reason to favour private healthcare.
On 25/05/2016 2:42 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 10:48:31 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:Of course. It's the gummint's fault. I completely forgot - silly me.
On 25/05/2016 10:44 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 10:06:43 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:Which makesit a strange decision to put them in a motel block. That
On 24/05/2016 8:46 p.m., JohnO wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936 >>>>>>
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll
never have a job.
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
If they carry on as per their track record and turn the motel unit
into
a P lab, who does the motel owner sue? Almost certainly the govt. who >>>>> booked the unit in the knowledge of their trail of destruction to
date.
Of course they would sue the government - as you say they made the
booking, and they paid the bill, and the tenant has no money! I'm
fairly sure there would never be a court case - that would be
embarrassing to the Minister, so they would probably settle early (and >>>> pay for the room until it was fixed). If it happens in a Housing
Corporation house they would have to pay; unless they are paying
additional rent to get out of liability, of course the government is
liable.
could be a lot more expensive than just giving them another house to
wreck.
It is soemthing that National didn't think through in implementing
their deliberate poilicy to run down housing New Zealand stock in
favour of private organisations taking oin the provision of social
housing. This is not the government being out of touch, it is that all
they wanted to touch was making government smaller and pushing money
and responsibility to the private sector. The last thing they want
when making decisions on the basis of blind ideology is propoer
planning and analysis of likely results - or of public consultation
and an honest communication of what they have been doing. They play
word games to talk about the numbers of houses that are being built or
are available, but don't say how many of those are not yet started
being built, or will not be built this year, or which have been sold
to private providers and cannot be relied on to be avaialble
inemergency cases.
The reality is that they could not give them another house to wreck
because they don't have any available. Yes what is happening is
"strange"; it is also a direct result of deliberate government policy.
On Wed, 25 May 2016 15:00:10 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 12:34:38 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 07:57:36 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 23:45:53 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com> >>>>wrote:WTF are you going on about
On Tue, 24 May 2016 22:52:41 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 21:39:37 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com> >>>>>>wrote:Don't breed 8 kids when you financially cant. Husband should of stayed >>>>>working.
On Tue, 24 May 2016 01:46:13 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:
'She said her partner worked as a builder until the family was >>>>>>>evicted, but then stopped work to support her."http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll >>>>>>>>never have a job.
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS. >>>>>>>>
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
So the family were getting a wage plus family support*8
Which would have paid rent . Instead they suck of the state tit
Instead of just spouting personal abuse, how about telling us your >>>>>>view of how it could have been handled more effectively, "Liberty"? >>>>>
Aah - the nasty "should of"(sic) argument! If a tourist was lost and >>>>asked for directions you would probably tell them they should never >>>>have left home to get lost!
Its a bit hard to take children back once they have been conceived or
born, Liberty. Or were you advocating that some bueaucrat decides
whether a pregnant mother is allowed to carry a baby to term? Not even
the authoritarian Nats would have that one on.
If a mother is a meth head while pregnant I think it's fully justified for >this child abusers baby be taken from her. To poison another person on >purpose? That's disgusting.
Do you know that the mother was a "meth-head" while pregnant? And
what are you proposing that the government do with the children?
P.S. I don't think you know what authoritarian means.
Our government "lent" them $60,000 of taxpayer money,
The client/parasite didn't get a loan of the government.
But it did get a loan of a government department.
There is a difference.
The Government allocates funds to Departments who waste it.
The Department only spends money in accordance with government
policies - the Minister has defended the actions of the department as
being government policy.
Again, you seem to be making out like these parents are victims.No I am not. Teh governm,ent has said that they will take care of
people that do not have anywhere to live - and both the Prime
Miniister and Paula Bennett have repeated that in recent times. In
this case they are paying for a motel, and charging the parents for
the costs arranged by the government
almost certainly
unrecoverable - even if the "borrowers" (who it could be claimed were >>>>coerced into an onerous lending contract). do not file for bankruptcy >>>>to "clarify" the government position. Still a motel owner somewhere >>>>has possibly benefitted - apparetnly they can charge what the market >>>>will bear for "difficult" families . . .
The motel owner would have benefited. He has rented out a room.
That is the whole point of owning a motel.
Well I guess prfit for a motel owner makes the whole policy and
situation OK in your eyes, does it Liberty?
What situation? That a family needed accommodation and a motel provided it >for them at market rates? They are in business to make a profit, what's the >issue again? Are you suggesting that the motel somehow be forced to make a >loss?
No, many are however suggesting that the government is wasting money
by having reduced its own capacity to deal with such predictable
family circumstances
On Wed, 25 May 2016 14:53:23 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:have a job.
On Wed, 25 May 2016 12:34:38 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 07:57:36 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>
On Tue, 24 May 2016 23:45:53 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 22:52:41 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 21:39:37 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com> >>>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 01:46:13 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll neverhttp://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936 >>>>>>>>
Well the father and mother may well be, but we don;t have anyIts a bit hard to take children back once they have been conceived orWTF are you going on about'She said her partner worked as a builder until the family was evicted, but then stopped work to support her."
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
So the family were getting a wage plus family support*8
Which would have paid rent . Instead they suck of the state tit
Instead of just spouting personal abuse, how about telling us your >>>>>>view of how it could have been handled more effectively, "Liberty"?
Don't breed 8 kids when you financially cant. Husband should of stayed working.
Aah - the nasty "should of"(sic) argument! If a tourist was lost and >>>>asked for directions you would probably tell them they should never >>>>have left home to get lost!
born, Liberty. Or were you advocating that some bueaucrat decides
whether a pregnant mother is allowed to carry a baby to term? Not even
the authoritarian Nats would have that one on.
Stupid boy
Contraception has been around for years.Indeed it has.
Yet this simple couple are breeding like rabbits.So? What do you want to do about it?
Reminds me of a film
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myhnAZFR1po
"Rich80105" wrote in message >news:bt7akbh03ve05bb245ehilinmo1dn0nh7f@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 May 2016 15:32:37 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 25/05/2016 2:42 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 10:48:31 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:Of course. It's the gummint's fault. I completely forgot - silly me.
On 25/05/2016 10:44 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 10:06:43 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>Which makesit a strange decision to put them in a motel block. That
On 24/05/2016 8:46 p.m., JohnO wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936 >>>>>>>
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll >>>>>>> never have a job.
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
If they carry on as per their track record and turn the motel unit >>>>>> into
a P lab, who does the motel owner sue? Almost certainly the govt. who >>>>>> booked the unit in the knowledge of their trail of destruction to
date.
Of course they would sue the government - as you say they made the
booking, and they paid the bill, and the tenant has no money! I'm
fairly sure there would never be a court case - that would be
embarrassing to the Minister, so they would probably settle early (and >>>>> pay for the room until it was fixed). If it happens in a Housing
Corporation house they would have to pay; unless they are paying
additional rent to get out of liability, of course the government is >>>>> liable.
could be a lot more expensive than just giving them another house to
wreck.
It is soemthing that National didn't think through in implementing
their deliberate poilicy to run down housing New Zealand stock in
favour of private organisations taking oin the provision of social
housing. This is not the government being out of touch, it is that all
they wanted to touch was making government smaller and pushing money
and responsibility to the private sector. The last thing they want
when making decisions on the basis of blind ideology is propoer
planning and analysis of likely results - or of public consultation
and an honest communication of what they have been doing. They play
word games to talk about the numbers of houses that are being built or
are available, but don't say how many of those are not yet started
being built, or will not be built this year, or which have been sold
to private providers and cannot be relied on to be avaialble
inemergency cases.
The reality is that they could not give them another house to wreck
because they don't have any available. Yes what is happening is
"strange"; it is also a direct result of deliberate government policy.
Not completely Fred - the parents are of course "responsible" for
their poor behaviour and poor decisions. The government do however
know that if it wasn't this family it would be another - and the
inability to meet governmetn promises due to the government
deliberately reducing their capacity to respond cannot be sheeted home
to anyone but the government.
Quite a few people think National should be doing more: >http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/80320513/john-key-defends-govt-housing-action-rules-out-misplaced-housebuilding-programme
and there are other cases: >http://www.maoritelevision.com/news/regional/paeroa-whanau-dreading-eviction-and-homelessness
We know that the start of current problems stems from actions in
previous years: >http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/69375321/housing-new-zealand-lost-millions-on-state-houses-sales--labour
but the extent of sell-offs has now had such serious impact that it
can only be seen as reckless on the part of the government.
..............
Has she been offered sterilization? If she agrees, it should be available as >quickly as possible.
But in a civilized country, it cannot be made compulsory.
On Wed, 25 May 2016 14:46:56 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 10:48:31 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 25/05/2016 10:44 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 10:06:43 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 24/05/2016 8:46 p.m., JohnO wrote:
Which makesit a strange decision to put them in a motel block. That >>>>could be a lot more expensive than just giving them another house to >>>>wreck.
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll >>>>>>> never have a job.
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
If they carry on as per their track record and turn the motel unit >>>>>> into a P lab, who does the motel owner sue? Almost certainly the
govt. who booked the unit in the knowledge of their trail of
destruction to date.
Of course they would sue the government - as you say they made the
booking, and they paid the bill, and the tenant has no money! I'm
fairly sure there would never be a court case - that would be
embarrassing to the Minister, so they would probably settle early (and >>>>> pay for the room until it was fixed). If it happens in a Housing
Corporation house they would have to pay; unless they are paying
additional rent to get out of liability, of course the government is >>>>> liable.
It is soemthing that National didn't think through in implementing
their deliberate poilicy to run down housing New Zealand stock in
favour of private organisations taking oin the provision of social
housing. This is not the government being out of touch, it is that all
they wanted to touch was making government smaller and pushing money
and responsibility to the private sector. The last thing they want
when making decisions on the basis of blind ideology is propoer
planning and analysis of likely results - or of public consultation
and an honest communication of what they have been doing. They play
word games to talk about the numbers of houses that are being built or
are available, but don't say how many of those are not yet started
being built, or will not be built this year, or which have been sold
to private providers and cannot be relied on to be avaialble
inemergency cases.
The reality is that they could not give them another house to wreck
because they don't have any available. Yes what is happening is
"strange"; it is also a direct result of deliberate government policy.
I wasn't aware there is a government policy for you to have more kids than >>you can afford.
And of course there isn't, but it is a reality that many people are
one emergency away from not being able to support themselves, and
family cicumstamces can change -
for the better or for the worse. For
government policy to ignore that reality is of course wrong, but we
have a government that has ignored such issues n determining to rid
itself of houses or it appears any means of dealing adequately with
such difficult circumstances.
To waste money that's not yours on things you don't need. To
wreck someone else's house to an extent that you get booted out.
No-one is condoning either of those - the question is whether
government policies should be able to deal with such unfortunate but predictable realities.
Stop treating the adults in this family like they are victims. Their >>children are, but the adults most certainly are not.
I have not claimed that anyone is blameless, but I agree that the
children should not suffer from the faults of others.
John Key says that anyone without a place to love should contact WINZ,--
but most people know that is not enough http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/80320513/john-key-defends-govt-housing-action-rules-out-misplaced-housebuilding-programme
On Wed, 25 May 2016 16:30:42 +1200, "geopelia" <geopelia@nowhere.com>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936
wrote:
"Rich80105" wrote in message >>news:bt7akbh03ve05bb245ehilinmo1dn0nh7f@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 May 2016 15:32:37 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 25/05/2016 2:42 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 10:48:31 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 25/05/2016 10:44 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 10:06:43 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On 24/05/2016 8:46 p.m., JohnO wrote:
Of course. It's the gummint's fault. I completely forgot - silly me.Which makesit a strange decision to put them in a motel block. That
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll >>>>>>>> never have a job.
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS. >>>>>>>>
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
If they carry on as per their track record and turn the motel unit >>>>>>> into
a P lab, who does the motel owner sue? Almost certainly the govt. >>>>>>> who booked the unit in the knowledge of their trail of destruction >>>>>>> to date.
Of course they would sue the government - as you say they made the >>>>>> booking, and they paid the bill, and the tenant has no money! I'm
fairly sure there would never be a court case - that would be
embarrassing to the Minister, so they would probably settle early
(and pay for the room until it was fixed). If it happens in a Housing >>>>>> Corporation house they would have to pay; unless they are paying
additional rent to get out of liability, of course the government is >>>>>> liable.
could be a lot more expensive than just giving them another house to >>>>> wreck.
It is soemthing that National didn't think through in implementing
their deliberate poilicy to run down housing New Zealand stock in
favour of private organisations taking oin the provision of social
housing. This is not the government being out of touch, it is that all >>>> they wanted to touch was making government smaller and pushing money
and responsibility to the private sector. The last thing they want
when making decisions on the basis of blind ideology is propoer
planning and analysis of likely results - or of public consultation
and an honest communication of what they have been doing. They play
word games to talk about the numbers of houses that are being built or >>>> are available, but don't say how many of those are not yet started
being built, or will not be built this year, or which have been sold
to private providers and cannot be relied on to be avaialble
inemergency cases.
The reality is that they could not give them another house to wreck
because they don't have any available. Yes what is happening is
"strange"; it is also a direct result of deliberate government policy. >>>>
Not completely Fred - the parents are of course "responsible" for
their poor behaviour and poor decisions. The government do however
know that if it wasn't this family it would be another - and the
inability to meet governmetn promises due to the government
deliberately reducing their capacity to respond cannot be sheeted home
to anyone but the government.
Quite a few people think National should be doing more: >>http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/80320513/john-key-defends-govt-housing-action-rules-out-misplaced-housebuilding-programme
and there are other cases: >>http://www.maoritelevision.com/news/regional/paeroa-whanau-dreading-eviction-and-homelessness
We know that the start of current problems stems from actions in
previous years: >>http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/69375321/housing-new-zealand-lost-millions-on-state-houses-sales--labour
but the extent of sell-offs has now had such serious impact that it
can only be seen as reckless on the part of the government.
..............
Has she been offered sterilization? If she agrees, it should be available >>as quickly as possible.
But in a civilized country, it cannot be made compulsory.
Nice to hear from you Geopelia.
I agree, but the welfare agencies could not tell us if they have
offered advice, and let us hope that our basic freedoms are not taken
away from us as some appear to be suggesting.
I am sad for a generation that looks like not ever being able to
afford a house, and for those most in need (even if it is through
their own poor decisions) who the government promises to help,
but--
finds that through it having sold off too many state houses that the
promises are not able to be met - and they think selling more will be
OK!.
On Wed, 25 May 2016 14:48:45 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 11:16:32 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Fred wrote:
On 25/05/2016 10:44 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 10:06:43 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>Which makesit a strange decision to put them in a motel block. That
On 24/05/2016 8:46 p.m., JohnO wrote:
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll >>>>>>>> never have a job.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936 >>>>>>>>
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS. >>>>>>>>
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
If they carry on as per their track record and turn the motel unit >>>>>>> into a P lab, who does the motel owner sue? Almost certainly the >>>>>>> govt. who booked the unit in the knowledge of their trail of
destruction to date.
Of course they would sue the government - as you say they made the >>>>>> booking, and they paid the bill, and the tenant has no money! I'm
fairly sure there would never be a court case - that would be
embarrassing to the Minister, so they would probably settle early
(and pay for the room until it was fixed). If it happens in a Housing >>>>>> Corporation house they would have to pay; unless they are paying
additional rent to get out of liability, of course the government is >>>>>> liable.
could be a lot more expensive than just giving them another house to >>>>> wreck.
Buy them a tent. Farm their kids off to responsible adults.
What responsible adults?
Certainly not the parents. They have shown themselves to be very >>irresponsible.
There is a nationwide critical shortage of
foster parents for either short or long term care. Where would you put
the tent?
To be honest what happens to the parents isn't my concern, nor is it
yours. The fate of the children most definitely is our concern.
Really? What do you think the government should be doing about that?
You would probably just shift the cost on to the local DHB
- in the end the taxpayer would pay more, but I guess that doesn;t
worry you
This is another reason to favour private healthcare.
How would that help? Or are you saying that the government should just
let them die if they cannot afford private health care?
On Wed, 25 May 2016 15:00:10 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 12:34:38 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 07:57:36 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 23:45:53 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com> >>>>>wrote:WTF are you going on about
On Tue, 24 May 2016 22:52:41 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 21:39:37 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com> >>>>>>>wrote:Don't breed 8 kids when you financially cant. Husband should of >>>>>>stayed working.
On Tue, 24 May 2016 01:46:13 -0700 (PDT), JohnO >>>>>>>><johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:
'She said her partner worked as a builder until the family was >>>>>>>>evicted, but then stopped work to support her.""Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll >>>>>>>>>never have a job.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936 >>>>>>>>>
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS. >>>>>>>>>
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
So the family were getting a wage plus family support*8
Which would have paid rent . Instead they suck of the state tit
Instead of just spouting personal abuse, how about telling us your >>>>>>>view of how it could have been handled more effectively, "Liberty"? >>>>>>
Aah - the nasty "should of"(sic) argument! If a tourist was lost and >>>>>asked for directions you would probably tell them they should never >>>>>have left home to get lost!
Its a bit hard to take children back once they have been conceived or
born, Liberty. Or were you advocating that some bueaucrat decides
whether a pregnant mother is allowed to carry a baby to term? Not even
the authoritarian Nats would have that one on.
If a mother is a meth head while pregnant I think it's fully justified for >>this child abusers baby be taken from her. To poison another person on >>purpose? That's disgusting.
Do you know that the mother was a "meth-head" while pregnant?
And
what are you proposing that the government do with the children?
P.S. I don't think you know what authoritarian means.
Our government "lent" them $60,000 of taxpayer money,
The client/parasite didn't get a loan of the government.
But it did get a loan of a government department.
There is a difference.
The Government allocates funds to Departments who waste it.
The Department only spends money in accordance with government
policies - the Minister has defended the actions of the department as
being government policy.
Again, you seem to be making out like these parents are victims.
No I am not. Teh governm,ent has said that they will take care of
people that do not have anywhere to live - and both the Prime
Miniister and Paula Bennett have repeated that in recent times. In
this case they are paying for a motel, and charging the parents for
the costs arranged by the government
almost certainly
unrecoverable - even if the "borrowers" (who it could be claimed were >>>>>coerced into an onerous lending contract). do not file for bankruptcy >>>>>to "clarify" the government position. Still a motel owner somewhere >>>>>has possibly benefitted - apparetnly they can charge what the market >>>>>will bear for "difficult" families . . .
The motel owner would have benefited. He has rented out a room.
That is the whole point of owning a motel.
Well I guess prfit for a motel owner makes the whole policy and
situation OK in your eyes, does it Liberty?
What situation? That a family needed accommodation and a motel provided it >>for them at market rates? They are in business to make a profit, what's
the issue again? Are you suggesting that the motel somehow be forced to >>make a loss?
No, many are however suggesting that the government is wasting money
by having reduced its own capacity to deal with such predictable
family circumstances
These family circumstances are extraordinary, not predictable. And yes, the government is wasting money. But then, that's what they do.
On 5/26/2016 12:23 AM, Allistar wrote:
These family circumstances are extraordinary, not predictable. And yes, the >> government is wasting money. But then, that's what they do.
Now watch the BS excuses since the offer that they get $5000 and a move
to a country town and State House instead of being the MSM's houseless >victims living in cars..
Not that people living in their cars in NZ is anything new. It's justThe perception from those invovled that the problem has moved from the traditionally homeless to working families - they sleep in the car and
another MSM 'Get rid of Key' attempt
Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 14:48:45 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 11:16:32 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Fred wrote:
On 25/05/2016 10:44 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 10:06:43 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>Which makesit a strange decision to put them in a motel block. That >>>>>> could be a lot more expensive than just giving them another house to >>>>>> wreck.
On 24/05/2016 8:46 p.m., JohnO wrote:
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll >>>>>>>>> never have a job.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936 >>>>>>>>>
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS. >>>>>>>>>
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
If they carry on as per their track record and turn the motel unit >>>>>>>> into a P lab, who does the motel owner sue? Almost certainly the >>>>>>>> govt. who booked the unit in the knowledge of their trail of
destruction to date.
Of course they would sue the government - as you say they made the >>>>>>> booking, and they paid the bill, and the tenant has no money! I'm >>>>>>> fairly sure there would never be a court case - that would be
embarrassing to the Minister, so they would probably settle early >>>>>>> (and pay for the room until it was fixed). If it happens in a Housing >>>>>>> Corporation house they would have to pay; unless they are paying >>>>>>> additional rent to get out of liability, of course the government is >>>>>>> liable.
Buy them a tent. Farm their kids off to responsible adults.
What responsible adults?
Certainly not the parents. They have shown themselves to be very >>>irresponsible.
There is a nationwide critical shortage of
foster parents for either short or long term care. Where would you put >>>> the tent?
To be honest what happens to the parents isn't my concern, nor is it >>>yours. The fate of the children most definitely is our concern.
Really? What do you think the government should be doing about that?
Placing them in the care of people who are capabler of providing for them.
You would probably just shift the cost on to the local DHB
- in the end the taxpayer would pay more, but I guess that doesn;t
worry you
This is another reason to favour private healthcare.
How would that help? Or are you saying that the government should just
let them die if they cannot afford private health care?
If they were left to die it wouldn't be the government's fault, it would be >the community's. The problem is that the government pretends to be the sole >organisation that need worry about these issues but they cannot help people >in an ethical way - it's impossible no matter who pulls the levers of >control.
And in the meantime those that read the news are going "tsk tsk, the >government is doing a bad job" while those same people are doing diddly- >squat to help. The current system provides an excuse for people to abdicate >their social responsibilities.
What's the real solution to this problem? Compassion through charity. But >that will never happen while there is a sole organisation that pretends to
be all that's needed. They're not and can never be.
Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2016 00:20:49 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:So you would be happy for a public servant to look at your parenting
On Wed, 25 May 2016 14:48:45 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 11:16:32 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>> wrote:
Fred wrote:
On 25/05/2016 10:44 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 10:06:43 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:Which makesit a strange decision to put them in a motel block. That >>>>>>>> could be a lot more expensive than just giving them another house to >>>>>>>> wreck.
On 24/05/2016 8:46 p.m., JohnO wrote:
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll >>>>>>>>>>> never have a job.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936 >>>>>>>>>>>
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS. >>>>>>>>>>>
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
If they carry on as per their track record and turn the motel unit >>>>>>>>>> into a P lab, who does the motel owner sue? Almost certainly the >>>>>>>>>> govt. who booked the unit in the knowledge of their trail of >>>>>>>>>> destruction to date.
Of course they would sue the government - as you say they made the >>>>>>>>> booking, and they paid the bill, and the tenant has no money! I'm >>>>>>>>> fairly sure there would never be a court case - that would be >>>>>>>>> embarrassing to the Minister, so they would probably settle early >>>>>>>>> (and pay for the room until it was fixed). If it happens in a >>>>>>>>> Housing Corporation house they would have to pay; unless they are >>>>>>>>> paying additional rent to get out of liability, of course the >>>>>>>>> government is liable.
Buy them a tent. Farm their kids off to responsible adults.
What responsible adults?
Certainly not the parents. They have shown themselves to be very >>>>>irresponsible.
There is a nationwide critical shortage of
foster parents for either short or long term care. Where would you put >>>>>> the tent?
To be honest what happens to the parents isn't my concern, nor is it >>>>>yours. The fate of the children most definitely is our concern.
Really? What do you think the government should be doing about that?
Placing them in the care of people who are capabler of providing for them. >>
skills and determine that your children deserve better, and then by
government authority remove them from your care?
In cases where child abuse is apparent the correct course of action is to >prevent further abuse.
There are
established procedures for doing just that, but as I am sure you would
agree, there are careful limits on the ability to remove children from
a parent or parents. We do not know the extent that the children are
disadvantages - I would prefer actions to bebased on evidence, rather
than red-neck reaction to a news article, wouldn;t you?
And yet red-neck reactions seem to be all you're providing.
It's apparent that these children are seriously disadvantaged by the actions >of their parents.
Then of course there is the difficulty of having someone to do the
assessment, and to look after the children. Social workers and
professionals needed for such an assessment are scarce - and foster
parents even scarcer. Neither role is easy, and funding cuts have made
them even more difficult.
Funding cuts? You shouldn't need to be funded to be a foster parent. Anyone >doing it for money shouldn't qualify.
Possibly - the pernicious problem with the process is that the current government uses the complexity to gradually reduce the level ofYou would probably just shift the cost on to the local DHB
- in the end the taxpayer would pay more, but I guess that doesn;t >>>>>> worry you
This is another reason to favour private healthcare.
How would that help? Or are you saying that the government should just >>>> let them die if they cannot afford private health care?
If they were left to die it wouldn't be the government's fault, it would >>>be the community's. The problem is that the government pretends to be the >>>sole organisation that need worry about these issues but they cannot help >>>people in an ethical way - it's impossible no matter who pulls the levers >>>of control.
Actually our current government likes to make promises about support
but then 'delegate' the task of providing that support to many
charities that are in fact largely funded by government - with
government holding funding as a threat against criticism of government
policies. It provides a 'cut out' for visible problems, but also leads
to a fragmented and inconsistent level of service, that probably costs
more than necessary.
You're supporting my position. Thanks.
No-one, but what then is your reson for favouring private hospitals?But you did not answer my query about your claim that their is a
reason to favour private healthcare. I am not aware of any private
hospital that is a charity and does not charge for its services -
Who said anything about private hospitals not charging for services?
Not at all - you are free to use the services of a private hospital -international comparisons show that a privatised system is
significantly more expensive that a well funded state run system - but
you possibly favour that result as it provides a return on capital to
private investors instead of returning benfits solely to our community
through a government owned system. Higher taxes are OK for some people
if they line private pockets . . . I prefer efficiency myself.
Your efficiency diminishes our liberties.
And in the meantime those that read the news are going "tsk tsk, the >>>government is doing a bad job" while those same people are doing diddly- >>>squat to help. The current system provides an excuse for people to >>>abdicate their social responsibilities.
What's the real solution to this problem? Compassion through charity. But >>>that will never happen while there is a sole organisation that pretends to >>>be all that's needed. They're not and can never be.
On Thu, 26 May 2016 00:20:49 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 14:48:45 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 11:16:32 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Fred wrote:
On 25/05/2016 10:44 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 10:06:43 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com>Which makesit a strange decision to put them in a motel block. That >>>>>>> could be a lot more expensive than just giving them another house to >>>>>>> wreck.
wrote:
On 24/05/2016 8:46 p.m., JohnO wrote:
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll >>>>>>>>>> never have a job.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936 >>>>>>>>>>
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS. >>>>>>>>>>
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
If they carry on as per their track record and turn the motel unit >>>>>>>>> into a P lab, who does the motel owner sue? Almost certainly the >>>>>>>>> govt. who booked the unit in the knowledge of their trail of >>>>>>>>> destruction to date.
Of course they would sue the government - as you say they made the >>>>>>>> booking, and they paid the bill, and the tenant has no money! I'm >>>>>>>> fairly sure there would never be a court case - that would be
embarrassing to the Minister, so they would probably settle early >>>>>>>> (and pay for the room until it was fixed). If it happens in a
Housing Corporation house they would have to pay; unless they are >>>>>>>> paying additional rent to get out of liability, of course the
government is liable.
Buy them a tent. Farm their kids off to responsible adults.
What responsible adults?
Certainly not the parents. They have shown themselves to be very >>>>irresponsible.
There is a nationwide critical shortage of
foster parents for either short or long term care. Where would you put >>>>> the tent?
To be honest what happens to the parents isn't my concern, nor is it >>>>yours. The fate of the children most definitely is our concern.
Really? What do you think the government should be doing about that?
Placing them in the care of people who are capabler of providing for them.
So you would be happy for a public servant to look at your parenting
skills and determine that your children deserve better, and then by government authority remove them from your care?
There are
established procedures for doing just that, but as I am sure you would
agree, there are careful limits on the ability to remove children from
a parent or parents. We do not know the extent that the children are disadvantages - I would prefer actions to bebased on evidence, rather
than red-neck reaction to a news article, wouldn;t you?
Then of course there is the difficulty of having someone to do the assessment, and to look after the children. Social workers and
professionals needed for such an assessment are scarce - and foster
parents even scarcer. Neither role is easy, and funding cuts have made
them even more difficult.
You would probably just shift the cost on to the local DHB
- in the end the taxpayer would pay more, but I guess that doesn;t
worry you
This is another reason to favour private healthcare.
How would that help? Or are you saying that the government should just
let them die if they cannot afford private health care?
If they were left to die it wouldn't be the government's fault, it would
be the community's. The problem is that the government pretends to be the >>sole organisation that need worry about these issues but they cannot help >>people in an ethical way - it's impossible no matter who pulls the levers >>of control.
Actually our current government likes to make promises about support
but then 'delegate' the task of providing that support to many
charities that are in fact largely funded by government - with
government holding funding as a threat against criticism of government policies. It provides a 'cut out' for visible problems, but also leads
to a fragmented and inconsistent level of service, that probably costs
more than necessary.
But you did not answer my query about your claim that their is a
reason to favour provate healthcare. I am not aware of any provate
hospital that is a charity and does not charge for its services -
international comparisons show that a privatised system is
significantly more expensive that a well funded state run system - but
you possibly favour that result as it provides a return on capital to
private investors instead of returning benfits solely to our community through a government owned system. Higher taxes are OK for some people
if they line private pockets . . . I prefer efficiency myself.
--And in the meantime those that read the news are going "tsk tsk, the >>government is doing a bad job" while those same people are doing diddly- >>squat to help. The current system provides an excuse for people to
abdicate their social responsibilities.
What's the real solution to this problem? Compassion through charity. But >>that will never happen while there is a sole organisation that pretends to >>be all that's needed. They're not and can never be.
On Thu, 26 May 2016 13:25:44 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2016 00:20:49 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 14:48:45 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 11:16:32 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
Fred wrote:
On 25/05/2016 10:44 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 10:06:43 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:Which makesit a strange decision to put them in a motel block. >>>>>>>>> That could be a lot more expensive than just giving them another >>>>>>>>> house to wreck.
On 24/05/2016 8:46 p.m., JohnO wrote:
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - >>>>>>>>>>>> she'll never have a job.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936 >>>>>>>>>>>>
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
If they carry on as per their track record and turn the motel >>>>>>>>>>> unit into a P lab, who does the motel owner sue? Almost
certainly the govt. who booked the unit in the knowledge of >>>>>>>>>>> their trail of destruction to date.
Of course they would sue the government - as you say they made >>>>>>>>>> the booking, and they paid the bill, and the tenant has no money! >>>>>>>>>> I'm fairly sure there would never be a court case - that would be >>>>>>>>>> embarrassing to the Minister, so they would probably settle early >>>>>>>>>> (and pay for the room until it was fixed). If it happens in a >>>>>>>>>> Housing Corporation house they would have to pay; unless they are >>>>>>>>>> paying additional rent to get out of liability, of course the >>>>>>>>>> government is liable.
Buy them a tent. Farm their kids off to responsible adults.
What responsible adults?
Certainly not the parents. They have shown themselves to be very >>>>>>irresponsible.
There is a nationwide critical shortage of
foster parents for either short or long term care. Where would you >>>>>>> put the tent?
To be honest what happens to the parents isn't my concern, nor is it >>>>>>yours. The fate of the children most definitely is our concern.
Really? What do you think the government should be doing about that?
Placing them in the care of people who are capabler of providing for >>>>them.
So you would be happy for a public servant to look at your parenting
skills and determine that your children deserve better, and then by
government authority remove them from your care?
In cases where child abuse is apparent the correct course of action is to >>prevent further abuse.
There are
established procedures for doing just that, but as I am sure you would
agree, there are careful limits on the ability to remove children from
a parent or parents. We do not know the extent that the children are
disadvantages - I would prefer actions to bebased on evidence, rather
than red-neck reaction to a news article, wouldn;t you?
And yet red-neck reactions seem to be all you're providing.
It's apparent that these children are seriously disadvantaged by the >>actions of their parents.
Can you give a cite for that?
Even the claim that these people contaminated their state house with
meth may not be true: https://dimpost.wordpress.com/2016/05/26/notes-on-p-contamination/#comments (See the first comment)
Then of course there is the difficulty of having someone to do the
assessment, and to look after the children. Social workers and
professionals needed for such an assessment are scarce - and foster
parents even scarcer. Neither role is easy, and funding cuts have made
them even more difficult.
Funding cuts? You shouldn't need to be funded to be a foster parent.
Anyone doing it for money shouldn't qualify.
Which may be the reason that in many areas of New Zealand there are no
foster parents available to take children - they often end up staying
with police or just not picked up until there is a place. I am
surprised that you would begrudge individuals being paid for
substantial work to asssit the government with implementation of
policy.
You would probably just shift the cost on to the local DHB
- in the end the taxpayer would pay more, but I guess that doesn;t >>>>>>> worry you
This is another reason to favour private healthcare.
How would that help? Or are you saying that the government should just >>>>> let them die if they cannot afford private health care?
If they were left to die it wouldn't be the government's fault, it would >>>>be the community's. The problem is that the government pretends to be >>>>the sole organisation that need worry about these issues but they cannot >>>>help people in an ethical way - it's impossible no matter who pulls the >>>>levers of control.
Actually our current government likes to make promises about support
but then 'delegate' the task of providing that support to many
charities that are in fact largely funded by government - with
government holding funding as a threat against criticism of government
policies. It provides a 'cut out' for visible problems, but also leads
to a fragmented and inconsistent level of service, that probably costs
more than necessary.
You're supporting my position. Thanks.
Possibly - the pernicious problem with the process is that the current government uses the complexity to gradually reduce the level of
services . . .
But you did not answer my query about your claim that their is a
reason to favour private healthcare. I am not aware of any private
hospital that is a charity and does not charge for its services -
Who said anything about private hospitals not charging for services?
No-one, but what then is your reson for favouring private hospitals?
international comparisons show that a privatised system is
significantly more expensive that a well funded state run system - but
you possibly favour that result as it provides a return on capital to
private investors instead of returning benfits solely to our community
through a government owned system. Higher taxes are OK for some people
if they line private pockets . . . I prefer efficiency myself.
Your efficiency diminishes our liberties.
Not at all - you are free to use the services of a private hospital - although you should be awarethat they choose not to provide all
medical aservices.
--And in the meantime those that read the news are going "tsk tsk, the >>>>government is doing a bad job" while those same people are doing diddly- >>>>squat to help. The current system provides an excuse for people to >>>>abdicate their social responsibilities.
What's the real solution to this problem? Compassion through charity. >>>>But that will never happen while there is a sole organisation that >>>>pretends to be all that's needed. They're not and can never be.
Rich80105 wrote:Its still your choice. Allowing cherry-picking on costs would
On Thu, 26 May 2016 13:25:44 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2016 00:20:49 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 14:48:45 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>> wrote:Placing them in the care of people who are capabler of providing for >>>>>them.
Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 11:16:32 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
Fred wrote:
On 25/05/2016 10:44 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 10:06:43 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Which makesit a strange decision to put them in a motel block. >>>>>>>>>> That could be a lot more expensive than just giving them another >>>>>>>>>> house to wreck.
On 24/05/2016 8:46 p.m., JohnO wrote:
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - >>>>>>>>>>>>> she'll never have a job.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936 >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
If they carry on as per their track record and turn the motel >>>>>>>>>>>> unit into a P lab, who does the motel owner sue? Almost >>>>>>>>>>>> certainly the govt. who booked the unit in the knowledge of >>>>>>>>>>>> their trail of destruction to date.
Of course they would sue the government - as you say they made >>>>>>>>>>> the booking, and they paid the bill, and the tenant has no money! >>>>>>>>>>> I'm fairly sure there would never be a court case - that would be >>>>>>>>>>> embarrassing to the Minister, so they would probably settle early >>>>>>>>>>> (and pay for the room until it was fixed). If it happens in a >>>>>>>>>>> Housing Corporation house they would have to pay; unless they are >>>>>>>>>>> paying additional rent to get out of liability, of course the >>>>>>>>>>> government is liable.
Buy them a tent. Farm their kids off to responsible adults.
What responsible adults?
Certainly not the parents. They have shown themselves to be very >>>>>>>irresponsible.
There is a nationwide critical shortage of
foster parents for either short or long term care. Where would you >>>>>>>> put the tent?
To be honest what happens to the parents isn't my concern, nor is it >>>>>>>yours. The fate of the children most definitely is our concern.
Really? What do you think the government should be doing about that? >>>>>
So you would be happy for a public servant to look at your parenting
skills and determine that your children deserve better, and then by
government authority remove them from your care?
In cases where child abuse is apparent the correct course of action is to >>>prevent further abuse.
There are
established procedures for doing just that, but as I am sure you would >>>> agree, there are careful limits on the ability to remove children from >>>> a parent or parents. We do not know the extent that the children are
disadvantages - I would prefer actions to bebased on evidence, rather
than red-neck reaction to a news article, wouldn;t you?
And yet red-neck reactions seem to be all you're providing.
It's apparent that these children are seriously disadvantaged by the >>>actions of their parents.
Can you give a cite for that?
8 kids living in a Motel because their parents can't afford accommodation? >That's sounds like disadvantage to me.
Even the claim that these people contaminated their state house with
meth may not be true:
https://dimpost.wordpress.com/2016/05/26/notes-on-p-contamination/#comments >> (See the first comment)
Then of course there is the difficulty of having someone to do the
assessment, and to look after the children. Social workers and
professionals needed for such an assessment are scarce - and foster
parents even scarcer. Neither role is easy, and funding cuts have made >>>> them even more difficult.
Funding cuts? You shouldn't need to be funded to be a foster parent. >>>Anyone doing it for money shouldn't qualify.
Which may be the reason that in many areas of New Zealand there are no
foster parents available to take children - they often end up staying
with police or just not picked up until there is a place. I am
surprised that you would begrudge individuals being paid for
substantial work to asssit the government with implementation of
policy.
They aren't assisting the government, they're assisting society. That point >seems to continuously escape you.
You would probably just shift the cost on to the local DHB
- in the end the taxpayer would pay more, but I guess that doesn;t >>>>>>>> worry you
This is another reason to favour private healthcare.
How would that help? Or are you saying that the government should just >>>>>> let them die if they cannot afford private health care?
If they were left to die it wouldn't be the government's fault, it would >>>>>be the community's. The problem is that the government pretends to be >>>>>the sole organisation that need worry about these issues but they cannot >>>>>help people in an ethical way - it's impossible no matter who pulls the >>>>>levers of control.
Actually our current government likes to make promises about support
but then 'delegate' the task of providing that support to many
charities that are in fact largely funded by government - with
government holding funding as a threat against criticism of government >>>> policies. It provides a 'cut out' for visible problems, but also leads >>>> to a fragmented and inconsistent level of service, that probably costs >>>> more than necessary.
You're supporting my position. Thanks.
Possibly - the pernicious problem with the process is that the current
government uses the complexity to gradually reduce the level of
services . . .
Services that should not be provided by the government.
But you did not answer my query about your claim that their is a
reason to favour private healthcare. I am not aware of any private
hospital that is a charity and does not charge for its services -
Who said anything about private hospitals not charging for services?
No-one, but what then is your reson for favouring private hospitals?
Because having to pay for your own health care via self funding or insurance >will encourage people to be responsible with their health. Because forcing >one person to pay for the health care of another using threats of violence
is unethical.
international comparisons show that a privatised system is
significantly more expensive that a well funded state run system - but >>>> you possibly favour that result as it provides a return on capital to
private investors instead of returning benfits solely to our community >>>> through a government owned system. Higher taxes are OK for some people >>>> if they line private pockets . . . I prefer efficiency myself.
Your efficiency diminishes our liberties.
Not at all - you are free to use the services of a private hospital -
although you should be awarethat they choose not to provide all
medical aservices.
I am not free to not pay the portion of my taxes that are for public >healthcare.
And in the meantime those that read the news are going "tsk tsk, the >>>>>government is doing a bad job" while those same people are doing diddly- >>>>>squat to help. The current system provides an excuse for people to >>>>>abdicate their social responsibilities.
What's the real solution to this problem? Compassion through charity. >>>>>But that will never happen while there is a sole organisation that >>>>>pretends to be all that's needed. They're not and can never be.
On Thu, 26 May 2016 20:26:52 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:Its still your choice. Allowing cherry-picking on costs would
On Thu, 26 May 2016 13:25:44 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2016 00:20:49 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 14:48:45 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>>> wrote:Placing them in the care of people who are capabler of providing for >>>>>>them.
Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 11:16:32 +1200, Allistar
<me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
Fred wrote:
On 25/05/2016 10:44 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 10:06:43 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Which makesit a strange decision to put them in a motel block. >>>>>>>>>>> That could be a lot more expensive than just giving them another >>>>>>>>>>> house to wreck.
On 24/05/2016 8:46 p.m., JohnO wrote:
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - >>>>>>>>>>>>>> she'll never have a job.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - >>>>>>>>>>>>>> FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If they carry on as per their track record and turn the motel >>>>>>>>>>>>> unit into a P lab, who does the motel owner sue? Almost >>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly the govt. who booked the unit in the knowledge of >>>>>>>>>>>>> their trail of destruction to date.
Of course they would sue the government - as you say they made >>>>>>>>>>>> the booking, and they paid the bill, and the tenant has no >>>>>>>>>>>> money! I'm fairly sure there would never be a court case - that >>>>>>>>>>>> would be embarrassing to the Minister, so they would probably >>>>>>>>>>>> settle early (and pay for the room until it was fixed). If it >>>>>>>>>>>> happens in a Housing Corporation house they would have to pay; >>>>>>>>>>>> unless they are paying additional rent to get out of liability, >>>>>>>>>>>> of course the government is liable.
Buy them a tent. Farm their kids off to responsible adults.
What responsible adults?
Certainly not the parents. They have shown themselves to be very >>>>>>>>irresponsible.
There is a nationwide critical shortage of
foster parents for either short or long term care. Where would you >>>>>>>>> put the tent?
To be honest what happens to the parents isn't my concern, nor is it >>>>>>>>yours. The fate of the children most definitely is our concern.
Really? What do you think the government should be doing about that? >>>>>>
So you would be happy for a public servant to look at your parenting >>>>> skills and determine that your children deserve better, and then by
government authority remove them from your care?
In cases where child abuse is apparent the correct course of action is >>>>to prevent further abuse.
There are
established procedures for doing just that, but as I am sure you would >>>>> agree, there are careful limits on the ability to remove children from >>>>> a parent or parents. We do not know the extent that the children are >>>>> disadvantages - I would prefer actions to bebased on evidence, rather >>>>> than red-neck reaction to a news article, wouldn;t you?
And yet red-neck reactions seem to be all you're providing.
It's apparent that these children are seriously disadvantaged by the >>>>actions of their parents.
Can you give a cite for that?
8 kids living in a Motel because their parents can't afford accommodation? >>That's sounds like disadvantage to me.
Even the claim that these people contaminated their state house with
meth may not be true:
https://dimpost.wordpress.com/2016/05/26/notes-on-p-contamination/#comments >>> (See the first comment)
Then of course there is the difficulty of having someone to do the
assessment, and to look after the children. Social workers and
professionals needed for such an assessment are scarce - and foster
parents even scarcer. Neither role is easy, and funding cuts have made >>>>> them even more difficult.
Funding cuts? You shouldn't need to be funded to be a foster parent. >>>>Anyone doing it for money shouldn't qualify.
Which may be the reason that in many areas of New Zealand there are no
foster parents available to take children - they often end up staying
with police or just not picked up until there is a place. I am
surprised that you would begrudge individuals being paid for
substantial work to asssit the government with implementation of
policy.
They aren't assisting the government, they're assisting society. That
point seems to continuously escape you.
You would probably just shift the cost on to the local DHB
- in the end the taxpayer would pay more, but I guess that doesn;t >>>>>>>>> worry you
This is another reason to favour private healthcare.
How would that help? Or are you saying that the government should >>>>>>> just let them die if they cannot afford private health care?
If they were left to die it wouldn't be the government's fault, it >>>>>>would be the community's. The problem is that the government pretends >>>>>>to be the sole organisation that need worry about these issues but >>>>>>they cannot help people in an ethical way - it's impossible no matter >>>>>>who pulls the levers of control.
Actually our current government likes to make promises about support >>>>> but then 'delegate' the task of providing that support to many
charities that are in fact largely funded by government - with
government holding funding as a threat against criticism of government >>>>> policies. It provides a 'cut out' for visible problems, but also leads >>>>> to a fragmented and inconsistent level of service, that probably costs >>>>> more than necessary.
You're supporting my position. Thanks.
Possibly - the pernicious problem with the process is that the current
government uses the complexity to gradually reduce the level of
services . . .
Services that should not be provided by the government.
But you did not answer my query about your claim that their is a
reason to favour private healthcare. I am not aware of any private
hospital that is a charity and does not charge for its services -
Who said anything about private hospitals not charging for services?
No-one, but what then is your reson for favouring private hospitals?
Because having to pay for your own health care via self funding or >>insurance will encourage people to be responsible with their health. >>Because forcing one person to pay for the health care of another using >>threats of violence is unethical.
international comparisons show that a privatised system is
significantly more expensive that a well funded state run system - but >>>>> you possibly favour that result as it provides a return on capital to >>>>> private investors instead of returning benfits solely to our community >>>>> through a government owned system. Higher taxes are OK for some people >>>>> if they line private pockets . . . I prefer efficiency myself.
Your efficiency diminishes our liberties.
Not at all - you are free to use the services of a private hospital -
although you should be awarethat they choose not to provide all
medical aservices.
I am not free to not pay the portion of my taxes that are for public >>healthcare.
increase costs for everyone.
Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2016 20:26:52 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:Its still your choice. Allowing cherry-picking on costs would
On Thu, 26 May 2016 13:25:44 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2016 00:20:49 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>> wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 14:48:45 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:Placing them in the care of people who are capabler of providing for >>>>>>>them.
Rich80105 wrote:Really? What do you think the government should be doing about that? >>>>>>>
On Wed, 25 May 2016 11:16:32 +1200, Allistar
<me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
Fred wrote:What responsible adults?
On 25/05/2016 10:44 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 10:06:43 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Which makesit a strange decision to put them in a motel block. >>>>>>>>>>>> That could be a lot more expensive than just giving them another >>>>>>>>>>>> house to wreck.
On 24/05/2016 8:46 p.m., JohnO wrote:
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> she'll never have a job.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If they carry on as per their track record and turn the motel >>>>>>>>>>>>>> unit into a P lab, who does the motel owner sue? Almost >>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly the govt. who booked the unit in the knowledge of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> their trail of destruction to date.
Of course they would sue the government - as you say they made >>>>>>>>>>>>> the booking, and they paid the bill, and the tenant has no >>>>>>>>>>>>> money! I'm fairly sure there would never be a court case - that >>>>>>>>>>>>> would be embarrassing to the Minister, so they would probably >>>>>>>>>>>>> settle early (and pay for the room until it was fixed). If it >>>>>>>>>>>>> happens in a Housing Corporation house they would have to pay; >>>>>>>>>>>>> unless they are paying additional rent to get out of liability, >>>>>>>>>>>>> of course the government is liable.
Buy them a tent. Farm their kids off to responsible adults. >>>>>>>>>>
Certainly not the parents. They have shown themselves to be very >>>>>>>>>irresponsible.
There is a nationwide critical shortage of
foster parents for either short or long term care. Where would you >>>>>>>>>> put the tent?
To be honest what happens to the parents isn't my concern, nor is it >>>>>>>>>yours. The fate of the children most definitely is our concern. >>>>>>>
So you would be happy for a public servant to look at your parenting >>>>>> skills and determine that your children deserve better, and then by >>>>>> government authority remove them from your care?
In cases where child abuse is apparent the correct course of action is >>>>>to prevent further abuse.
There are
established procedures for doing just that, but as I am sure you would >>>>>> agree, there are careful limits on the ability to remove children from >>>>>> a parent or parents. We do not know the extent that the children are >>>>>> disadvantages - I would prefer actions to bebased on evidence, rather >>>>>> than red-neck reaction to a news article, wouldn;t you?
And yet red-neck reactions seem to be all you're providing.
It's apparent that these children are seriously disadvantaged by the >>>>>actions of their parents.
Can you give a cite for that?
8 kids living in a Motel because their parents can't afford accommodation? >>>That's sounds like disadvantage to me.
Even the claim that these people contaminated their state house with
meth may not be true:
https://dimpost.wordpress.com/2016/05/26/notes-on-p-contamination/#comments
(See the first comment)
Then of course there is the difficulty of having someone to do the >>>>>> assessment, and to look after the children. Social workers and
professionals needed for such an assessment are scarce - and foster >>>>>> parents even scarcer. Neither role is easy, and funding cuts have made >>>>>> them even more difficult.
Funding cuts? You shouldn't need to be funded to be a foster parent. >>>>>Anyone doing it for money shouldn't qualify.
Which may be the reason that in many areas of New Zealand there are no >>>> foster parents available to take children - they often end up staying
with police or just not picked up until there is a place. I am
surprised that you would begrudge individuals being paid for
substantial work to asssit the government with implementation of
policy.
They aren't assisting the government, they're assisting society. That >>>point seems to continuously escape you.
You would probably just shift the cost on to the local DHB >>>>>>>>>> - in the end the taxpayer would pay more, but I guess that doesn;t >>>>>>>>>> worry you
This is another reason to favour private healthcare.
How would that help? Or are you saying that the government should >>>>>>>> just let them die if they cannot afford private health care?
If they were left to die it wouldn't be the government's fault, it >>>>>>>would be the community's. The problem is that the government pretends >>>>>>>to be the sole organisation that need worry about these issues but >>>>>>>they cannot help people in an ethical way - it's impossible no matter >>>>>>>who pulls the levers of control.
Actually our current government likes to make promises about support >>>>>> but then 'delegate' the task of providing that support to many
charities that are in fact largely funded by government - with
government holding funding as a threat against criticism of government >>>>>> policies. It provides a 'cut out' for visible problems, but also leads >>>>>> to a fragmented and inconsistent level of service, that probably costs >>>>>> more than necessary.
You're supporting my position. Thanks.
Possibly - the pernicious problem with the process is that the current >>>> government uses the complexity to gradually reduce the level of
services . . .
Services that should not be provided by the government.
But you did not answer my query about your claim that their is a
reason to favour private healthcare. I am not aware of any private >>>>>> hospital that is a charity and does not charge for its services -
Who said anything about private hospitals not charging for services?
No-one, but what then is your reson for favouring private hospitals?
Because having to pay for your own health care via self funding or >>>insurance will encourage people to be responsible with their health. >>>Because forcing one person to pay for the health care of another using >>>threats of violence is unethical.
international comparisons show that a privatised system is
significantly more expensive that a well funded state run system - but >>>>>> you possibly favour that result as it provides a return on capital to >>>>>> private investors instead of returning benfits solely to our community >>>>>> through a government owned system. Higher taxes are OK for some people >>>>>> if they line private pockets . . . I prefer efficiency myself.
Your efficiency diminishes our liberties.
Not at all - you are free to use the services of a private hospital -
although you should be awarethat they choose not to provide all
medical aservices.
I am not free to not pay the portion of my taxes that are for public >>>healthcare.
increase costs for everyone.
So our basic human rights are abrogated because of convenience. It's >disgusting.
On Fri, 27 May 2016 09:59:01 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2016 20:26:52 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:Its still your choice. Allowing cherry-picking on costs would
On Thu, 26 May 2016 13:25:44 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2016 00:20:49 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 14:48:45 +1200, Allistar
<me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:Really? What do you think the government should be doing about >>>>>>>>> that?
On Wed, 25 May 2016 11:16:32 +1200, Allistar
<me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
Fred wrote:What responsible adults?
On 25/05/2016 10:44 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 10:06:43 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Which makesit a strange decision to put them in a motel block. >>>>>>>>>>>>> That could be a lot more expensive than just giving them >>>>>>>>>>>>> another house to wreck.
On 24/05/2016 8:46 p.m., JohnO wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> she'll never have a job.
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If they carry on as per their track record and turn the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motel unit into a P lab, who does the motel owner sue? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost certainly the govt. who booked the unit in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge of their trail of destruction to date.
Of course they would sue the government - as you say they >>>>>>>>>>>>>> made the booking, and they paid the bill, and the tenant has >>>>>>>>>>>>>> no money! I'm fairly sure there would never be a court case - >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that would be embarrassing to the Minister, so they would >>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably settle early (and pay for the room until it was >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixed). If it happens in a Housing Corporation house they >>>>>>>>>>>>>> would have to pay; unless they are paying additional rent to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> get out of liability, of course the government is liable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Buy them a tent. Farm their kids off to responsible adults. >>>>>>>>>>>
Certainly not the parents. They have shown themselves to be very >>>>>>>>>>irresponsible.
There is a nationwide critical shortage of
foster parents for either short or long term care. Where would >>>>>>>>>>> you put the tent?
To be honest what happens to the parents isn't my concern, nor is >>>>>>>>>>it yours. The fate of the children most definitely is our concern. >>>>>>>>
Placing them in the care of people who are capabler of providing for >>>>>>>>them.
So you would be happy for a public servant to look at your parenting >>>>>>> skills and determine that your children deserve better, and then by >>>>>>> government authority remove them from your care?
In cases where child abuse is apparent the correct course of action is >>>>>>to prevent further abuse.
There are
established procedures for doing just that, but as I am sure you >>>>>>> would agree, there are careful limits on the ability to remove
children from a parent or parents. We do not know the extent that >>>>>>> the children are disadvantages - I would prefer actions to bebased >>>>>>> on evidence, rather
than red-neck reaction to a news article, wouldn;t you?
And yet red-neck reactions seem to be all you're providing.
It's apparent that these children are seriously disadvantaged by the >>>>>>actions of their parents.
Can you give a cite for that?
8 kids living in a Motel because their parents can't afford >>>>accommodation? That's sounds like disadvantage to me.
Even the claim that these people contaminated their state house with >>>>> meth may not be true:
https://dimpost.wordpress.com/2016/05/26/notes-on-p-contamination/#comments
(See the first comment)
Then of course there is the difficulty of having someone to do the >>>>>>> assessment, and to look after the children. Social workers and
professionals needed for such an assessment are scarce - and foster >>>>>>> parents even scarcer. Neither role is easy, and funding cuts have >>>>>>> made them even more difficult.
Funding cuts? You shouldn't need to be funded to be a foster parent. >>>>>>Anyone doing it for money shouldn't qualify.
Which may be the reason that in many areas of New Zealand there are no >>>>> foster parents available to take children - they often end up staying >>>>> with police or just not picked up until there is a place. I am
surprised that you would begrudge individuals being paid for
substantial work to asssit the government with implementation of
policy.
They aren't assisting the government, they're assisting society. That >>>>point seems to continuously escape you.
You would probably just shift the cost on to the local DHB >>>>>>>>>>> - in the end the taxpayer would pay more, but I guess that >>>>>>>>>>> doesn;t worry you
This is another reason to favour private healthcare.
How would that help? Or are you saying that the government should >>>>>>>>> just let them die if they cannot afford private health care?
If they were left to die it wouldn't be the government's fault, it >>>>>>>>would be the community's. The problem is that the government >>>>>>>>pretends to be the sole organisation that need worry about these >>>>>>>>issues but they cannot help people in an ethical way - it's >>>>>>>>impossible no matter who pulls the levers of control.
Actually our current government likes to make promises about support >>>>>>> but then 'delegate' the task of providing that support to many
charities that are in fact largely funded by government - with
government holding funding as a threat against criticism of
government policies. It provides a 'cut out' for visible problems, >>>>>>> but also leads to a fragmented and inconsistent level of service, >>>>>>> that probably costs more than necessary.
You're supporting my position. Thanks.
Possibly - the pernicious problem with the process is that the current >>>>> government uses the complexity to gradually reduce the level of
services . . .
Services that should not be provided by the government.
But you did not answer my query about your claim that their is a >>>>>>> reason to favour private healthcare. I am not aware of any private >>>>>>> hospital that is a charity and does not charge for its services - >>>>>>Who said anything about private hospitals not charging for services?
No-one, but what then is your reson for favouring private hospitals?
Because having to pay for your own health care via self funding or >>>>insurance will encourage people to be responsible with their health. >>>>Because forcing one person to pay for the health care of another using >>>>threats of violence is unethical.
international comparisons show that a privatised system is
significantly more expensive that a well funded state run system - >>>>>>> but you possibly favour that result as it provides a return on
capital to private investors instead of returning benfits solely to >>>>>>> our community through a government owned system. Higher taxes are OK >>>>>>> for some people if they line private pockets . . . I prefer
efficiency myself.
Your efficiency diminishes our liberties.
Not at all - you are free to use the services of a private hospital - >>>>> although you should be awarethat they choose not to provide all
medical aservices.
I am not free to not pay the portion of my taxes that are for public >>>>healthcare.
increase costs for everyone.
So our basic human rights are abrogated because of convenience. It's >>disgusting.
What human right is being abrogated?
You are still able to spend more
money to use a private hospital - and by cutting back on health
spending by cutting the budget in real terms, National are making
private health insurance more deisrable - enabling you to spend even
more money!
Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 14:48:45 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 11:16:32 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Fred wrote:
On 25/05/2016 10:44 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 10:06:43 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>Which makesit a strange decision to put them in a motel block. That >>>>>> could be a lot more expensive than just giving them another house to >>>>>> wreck.
On 24/05/2016 8:46 p.m., JohnO wrote:
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll >>>>>>>>> never have a job.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936 >>>>>>>>>
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS. >>>>>>>>>
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
If they carry on as per their track record and turn the motel unit >>>>>>>> into a P lab, who does the motel owner sue? Almost certainly the >>>>>>>> govt. who booked the unit in the knowledge of their trail of
destruction to date.
Of course they would sue the government - as you say they made the >>>>>>> booking, and they paid the bill, and the tenant has no money! I'm >>>>>>> fairly sure there would never be a court case - that would be
embarrassing to the Minister, so they would probably settle early >>>>>>> (and pay for the room until it was fixed). If it happens in a Housing >>>>>>> Corporation house they would have to pay; unless they are paying >>>>>>> additional rent to get out of liability, of course the government is >>>>>>> liable.
Buy them a tent. Farm their kids off to responsible adults.
What responsible adults?
Certainly not the parents. They have shown themselves to be very >>>irresponsible.
There is a nationwide critical shortage of
foster parents for either short or long term care. Where would you put >>>> the tent?
To be honest what happens to the parents isn't my concern, nor is it >>>yours. The fate of the children most definitely is our concern.
Really? What do you think the government should be doing about that?
Placing them in the care of people who are capabler of providing for them.
You would probably just shift the cost on to the local DHB
- in the end the taxpayer would pay more, but I guess that doesn;t
worry you
This is another reason to favour private healthcare.
How would that help? Or are you saying that the government should just
let them die if they cannot afford private health care?
If they were left to die it wouldn't be the government's fault, it would be >the community's. The problem is that the government pretends to be the sole >organisation that need worry about these issues but they cannot help people >in an ethical way - it's impossible no matter who pulls the levers of >control.
And in the meantime those that read the news are going "tsk tsk, the >government is doing a bad job" while those same people are doing diddly- >squat to help. The current system provides an excuse for people to abdicate >their social responsibilities.
What's the real solution to this problem? Compassion through charity. But >that will never happen while there is a sole organisation that pretends to
be all that's needed. They're not and can never be.
On Thu, 26 May 2016 00:20:49 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 14:48:45 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 11:16:32 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Fred wrote:
On 25/05/2016 10:44 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 10:06:43 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com>Which makesit a strange decision to put them in a motel block. That >>>>>>> could be a lot more expensive than just giving them another house to >>>>>>> wreck.
wrote:
On 24/05/2016 8:46 p.m., JohnO wrote:
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll >>>>>>>>>> never have a job.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936 >>>>>>>>>>
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS. >>>>>>>>>>
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
If they carry on as per their track record and turn the motel unit >>>>>>>>> into a P lab, who does the motel owner sue? Almost certainly the >>>>>>>>> govt. who booked the unit in the knowledge of their trail of >>>>>>>>> destruction to date.
Of course they would sue the government - as you say they made the >>>>>>>> booking, and they paid the bill, and the tenant has no money! I'm >>>>>>>> fairly sure there would never be a court case - that would be
embarrassing to the Minister, so they would probably settle early >>>>>>>> (and pay for the room until it was fixed). If it happens in a
Housing Corporation house they would have to pay; unless they are >>>>>>>> paying additional rent to get out of liability, of course the
government is liable.
Buy them a tent. Farm their kids off to responsible adults.
What responsible adults?
Certainly not the parents. They have shown themselves to be very >>>>irresponsible.
There is a nationwide critical shortage of
foster parents for either short or long term care. Where would you put >>>>> the tent?
To be honest what happens to the parents isn't my concern, nor is it >>>>yours. The fate of the children most definitely is our concern.
Really? What do you think the government should be doing about that?
Placing them in the care of people who are capabler of providing for them.
You would probably just shift the cost on to the local DHB
- in the end the taxpayer would pay more, but I guess that doesn;t
worry you
This is another reason to favour private healthcare.
How would that help? Or are you saying that the government should just
let them die if they cannot afford private health care?
If they were left to die it wouldn't be the government's fault, it would
be the community's. The problem is that the government pretends to be the >>sole organisation that need worry about these issues but they cannot help >>people in an ethical way - it's impossible no matter who pulls the levers >>of control.
And in the meantime those that read the news are going "tsk tsk, the >>government is doing a bad job" while those same people are doing diddly- >>squat to help. The current system provides an excuse for people to
abdicate their social responsibilities.
What's the real solution to this problem? Compassion through charity. But >>that will never happen while there is a sole organisation that pretends to >>be all that's needed. They're not and can never be.
So how many needy offspring of others are you currently hosting while
not being in it for the money?
Feudalism, which, if you did but know it, you implicitly espouse,
always incorporated the philosophy known as Noblesse Oblige. In fact, society required it of its overlords who knew full well they would not survive without observing this form of charity.
Since then, feudalism has been supplanted by national governments
voted into power by the populace, but this has not meant the poor and
needy are not still with us. So governments today continue to observe
and apply Noblesse Oblige **in your name** as a quintessential social imperative, Not to do so would ultimately result in revolution and overthrow, their having been foolish and selfish enough to abdicate
their social obligations to those they lord it over - e.g. France 1879
and Russia circa 100 years ago.
Ultimately, its about national security and stability.
Newsman wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2016 00:20:49 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 14:48:45 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 11:16:32 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>> wrote:
Fred wrote:
On 25/05/2016 10:44 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 10:06:43 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:Which makesit a strange decision to put them in a motel block. That >>>>>>>> could be a lot more expensive than just giving them another house to >>>>>>>> wreck.
On 24/05/2016 8:46 p.m., JohnO wrote:
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll >>>>>>>>>>> never have a job.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936 >>>>>>>>>>>
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS. >>>>>>>>>>>
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
If they carry on as per their track record and turn the motel unit >>>>>>>>>> into a P lab, who does the motel owner sue? Almost certainly the >>>>>>>>>> govt. who booked the unit in the knowledge of their trail of >>>>>>>>>> destruction to date.
Of course they would sue the government - as you say they made the >>>>>>>>> booking, and they paid the bill, and the tenant has no money! I'm >>>>>>>>> fairly sure there would never be a court case - that would be >>>>>>>>> embarrassing to the Minister, so they would probably settle early >>>>>>>>> (and pay for the room until it was fixed). If it happens in a >>>>>>>>> Housing Corporation house they would have to pay; unless they are >>>>>>>>> paying additional rent to get out of liability, of course the >>>>>>>>> government is liable.
Buy them a tent. Farm their kids off to responsible adults.
What responsible adults?
Certainly not the parents. They have shown themselves to be very >>>>>irresponsible.
There is a nationwide critical shortage of
foster parents for either short or long term care. Where would you put >>>>>> the tent?
To be honest what happens to the parents isn't my concern, nor is it >>>>>yours. The fate of the children most definitely is our concern.
Really? What do you think the government should be doing about that?
Placing them in the care of people who are capabler of providing for them. >>>
You would probably just shift the cost on to the local DHB
- in the end the taxpayer would pay more, but I guess that doesn;t >>>>>> worry you
This is another reason to favour private healthcare.
How would that help? Or are you saying that the government should just >>>> let them die if they cannot afford private health care?
If they were left to die it wouldn't be the government's fault, it would >>>be the community's. The problem is that the government pretends to be the >>>sole organisation that need worry about these issues but they cannot help >>>people in an ethical way - it's impossible no matter who pulls the levers >>>of control.
And in the meantime those that read the news are going "tsk tsk, the >>>government is doing a bad job" while those same people are doing diddly- >>>squat to help. The current system provides an excuse for people to >>>abdicate their social responsibilities.
What's the real solution to this problem? Compassion through charity. But >>>that will never happen while there is a sole organisation that pretends to >>>be all that's needed. They're not and can never be.
So how many needy offspring of others are you currently hosting while
not being in it for the money?
None. But then, I'm not one of those people that are blaming the government >for this situation.
Feudalism, which, if you did but know it, you implicitly espouse,
always incorporated the philosophy known as Noblesse Oblige. In fact,
society required it of its overlords who knew full well they would not
survive without observing this form of charity.
Since then, feudalism has been supplanted by national governments
voted into power by the populace, but this has not meant the poor and
needy are not still with us. So governments today continue to observe
and apply Noblesse Oblige **in your name** as a quintessential social
imperative, Not to do so would ultimately result in revolution and
overthrow, their having been foolish and selfish enough to abdicate
their social obligations to those they lord it over - e.g. France 1879
and Russia circa 100 years ago.
Ultimately, its about national security and stability.
We are no longer in the nineteenth century. It is preferable for such issues >to be dealt with via compassion. That is not possible while the government >pretends to take responsibility.
Rich80105 wrote:If you are fearful perhaps you need to talk to the police - or a
On Fri, 27 May 2016 09:59:01 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2016 20:26:52 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:Its still your choice. Allowing cherry-picking on costs would
On Thu, 26 May 2016 13:25:44 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>> wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2016 00:20:49 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 14:48:45 +1200, Allistar
<me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:Really? What do you think the government should be doing about >>>>>>>>>> that?
On Wed, 25 May 2016 11:16:32 +1200, Allistar
<me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
Fred wrote:What responsible adults?
On 25/05/2016 10:44 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 10:06:43 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Which makesit a strange decision to put them in a motel block. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That could be a lot more expensive than just giving them >>>>>>>>>>>>>> another house to wreck.
On 24/05/2016 8:46 p.m., JohnO wrote:Of course they would sue the government - as you say they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made the booking, and they paid the bill, and the tenant has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no money! I'm fairly sure there would never be a court case - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that would be embarrassing to the Minister, so they would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably settle early (and pay for the room until it was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixed). If it happens in a Housing Corporation house they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would have to pay; unless they are paying additional rent to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get out of liability, of course the government is liable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> she'll never have a job.
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If they carry on as per their track record and turn the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motel unit into a P lab, who does the motel owner sue? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost certainly the govt. who booked the unit in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge of their trail of destruction to date. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Buy them a tent. Farm their kids off to responsible adults. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Certainly not the parents. They have shown themselves to be very >>>>>>>>>>>irresponsible.
There is a nationwide critical shortage of
foster parents for either short or long term care. Where would >>>>>>>>>>>> you put the tent?
To be honest what happens to the parents isn't my concern, nor is >>>>>>>>>>>it yours. The fate of the children most definitely is our concern. >>>>>>>>>
Placing them in the care of people who are capabler of providing for >>>>>>>>>them.
So you would be happy for a public servant to look at your parenting >>>>>>>> skills and determine that your children deserve better, and then by >>>>>>>> government authority remove them from your care?
In cases where child abuse is apparent the correct course of action is >>>>>>>to prevent further abuse.
There are
established procedures for doing just that, but as I am sure you >>>>>>>> would agree, there are careful limits on the ability to remove >>>>>>>> children from a parent or parents. We do not know the extent that >>>>>>>> the children are disadvantages - I would prefer actions to bebased >>>>>>>> on evidence, rather
than red-neck reaction to a news article, wouldn;t you?
And yet red-neck reactions seem to be all you're providing.
It's apparent that these children are seriously disadvantaged by the >>>>>>>actions of their parents.
Can you give a cite for that?
8 kids living in a Motel because their parents can't afford >>>>>accommodation? That's sounds like disadvantage to me.
Even the claim that these people contaminated their state house with >>>>>> meth may not be true:
https://dimpost.wordpress.com/2016/05/26/notes-on-p-contamination/#comments
(See the first comment)
Then of course there is the difficulty of having someone to do the >>>>>>>> assessment, and to look after the children. Social workers and >>>>>>>> professionals needed for such an assessment are scarce - and foster >>>>>>>> parents even scarcer. Neither role is easy, and funding cuts have >>>>>>>> made them even more difficult.
Funding cuts? You shouldn't need to be funded to be a foster parent. >>>>>>>Anyone doing it for money shouldn't qualify.
Which may be the reason that in many areas of New Zealand there are no >>>>>> foster parents available to take children - they often end up staying >>>>>> with police or just not picked up until there is a place. I am
surprised that you would begrudge individuals being paid for
substantial work to asssit the government with implementation of
policy.
They aren't assisting the government, they're assisting society. That >>>>>point seems to continuously escape you.
If they were left to die it wouldn't be the government's fault, it >>>>>>>>>would be the community's. The problem is that the government >>>>>>>>>pretends to be the sole organisation that need worry about these >>>>>>>>>issues but they cannot help people in an ethical way - it's >>>>>>>>>impossible no matter who pulls the levers of control.You would probably just shift the cost on to the local DHB >>>>>>>>>>>> - in the end the taxpayer would pay more, but I guess that >>>>>>>>>>>> doesn;t worry you
This is another reason to favour private healthcare.
How would that help? Or are you saying that the government should >>>>>>>>>> just let them die if they cannot afford private health care? >>>>>>>>>
Actually our current government likes to make promises about support >>>>>>>> but then 'delegate' the task of providing that support to many >>>>>>>> charities that are in fact largely funded by government - with >>>>>>>> government holding funding as a threat against criticism of
government policies. It provides a 'cut out' for visible problems, >>>>>>>> but also leads to a fragmented and inconsistent level of service, >>>>>>>> that probably costs more than necessary.
You're supporting my position. Thanks.
Possibly - the pernicious problem with the process is that the current >>>>>> government uses the complexity to gradually reduce the level of
services . . .
Services that should not be provided by the government.
Because having to pay for your own health care via self funding or >>>>>insurance will encourage people to be responsible with their health. >>>>>Because forcing one person to pay for the health care of another using >>>>>threats of violence is unethical.No-one, but what then is your reson for favouring private hospitals? >>>>>But you did not answer my query about your claim that their is a >>>>>>>> reason to favour private healthcare. I am not aware of any private >>>>>>>> hospital that is a charity and does not charge for its services - >>>>>>>Who said anything about private hospitals not charging for services? >>>>>
international comparisons show that a privatised system is
significantly more expensive that a well funded state run system - >>>>>>>> but you possibly favour that result as it provides a return on >>>>>>>> capital to private investors instead of returning benfits solely to >>>>>>>> our community through a government owned system. Higher taxes are OK >>>>>>>> for some people if they line private pockets . . . I prefer
efficiency myself.
Your efficiency diminishes our liberties.
Not at all - you are free to use the services of a private hospital - >>>>>> although you should be awarethat they choose not to provide all
medical aservices.
I am not free to not pay the portion of my taxes that are for public >>>>>healthcare.
increase costs for everyone.
So our basic human rights are abrogated because of convenience. It's >>>disgusting.
What human right is being abrogated?
The right to own property without fear of it being confiscated.
That would require your government to stop bribes to SaudiYou are still able to spend more
money to use a private hospital - and by cutting back on health
spending by cutting the budget in real terms, National are making
private health insurance more deisrable - enabling you to spend even
more money!
That would be all well and good if taxes dropped as a consequence.
On Thu, 26 May 2016 00:20:49 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 14:48:45 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 11:16:32 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Fred wrote:
On 25/05/2016 10:44 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 10:06:43 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>Which makesit a strange decision to put them in a motel block. That >>>>>>> could be a lot more expensive than just giving them another house to >>>>>>> wreck.
On 24/05/2016 8:46 p.m., JohnO wrote:
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll >>>>>>>>>> never have a job.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936 >>>>>>>>>>
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS. >>>>>>>>>>
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
If they carry on as per their track record and turn the motel unit >>>>>>>>> into a P lab, who does the motel owner sue? Almost certainly the >>>>>>>>> govt. who booked the unit in the knowledge of their trail of >>>>>>>>> destruction to date.
Of course they would sue the government - as you say they made the >>>>>>>> booking, and they paid the bill, and the tenant has no money! I'm >>>>>>>> fairly sure there would never be a court case - that would be
embarrassing to the Minister, so they would probably settle early >>>>>>>> (and pay for the room until it was fixed). If it happens in a Housing >>>>>>>> Corporation house they would have to pay; unless they are paying >>>>>>>> additional rent to get out of liability, of course the government is >>>>>>>> liable.
Buy them a tent. Farm their kids off to responsible adults.
What responsible adults?
Certainly not the parents. They have shown themselves to be very >>>>irresponsible.
There is a nationwide critical shortage of
foster parents for either short or long term care. Where would you put >>>>> the tent?
To be honest what happens to the parents isn't my concern, nor is it >>>>yours. The fate of the children most definitely is our concern.
Really? What do you think the government should be doing about that?
Placing them in the care of people who are capabler of providing for them.
You would probably just shift the cost on to the local DHB
- in the end the taxpayer would pay more, but I guess that doesn;t
worry you
This is another reason to favour private healthcare.
How would that help? Or are you saying that the government should just
let them die if they cannot afford private health care?
If they were left to die it wouldn't be the government's fault, it would be >>the community's. The problem is that the government pretends to be the sole >>organisation that need worry about these issues but they cannot help people >>in an ethical way - it's impossible no matter who pulls the levers of >>control.
And in the meantime those that read the news are going "tsk tsk, the >>government is doing a bad job" while those same people are doing diddly- >>squat to help. The current system provides an excuse for people to abdicate >>their social responsibilities.
What's the real solution to this problem? Compassion through charity. But >>that will never happen while there is a sole organisation that pretends to >>be all that's needed. They're not and can never be.
So how many needy offspring of others are you currently hosting while
not being in it for the money?
Feudalism, which, if you did but know it, you implicitly espouse,
always incorporated the philosophy known as Noblesse Oblige. In fact, >society required it of its overlords who knew full well they would not >survive without observing this form of charity.
Since then, feudalism has been supplanted by national governments
voted into power by the populace, but this has not meant the poor and
needy are not still with us. So governments today continue to observe
and apply Noblesse Oblige **in your name** as a quintessential social >imperative, Not to do so would ultimately result in revolution and >overthrow, their having been foolish and selfish enough to abdicate
their social obligations to those they lord it over - e.g. France 1879
and Russia circa 100 years ago.
Ultimately, its about national security and stability.
On Tue, 24 May 2016 21:39:37 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 01:46:13 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936'She said her partner worked as a builder until the family was evicted,
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll never >>>have a job.
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
but then stopped work to support her."
So the family were getting a wage plus family support*8
Which would have paid rent . Instead they suck of the state tit
Instead of just spouting personal abuse, how about telling us your
view of how it could have been handled more effectively, "Liberty"?
On Tue, 24 May 2016 23:45:53 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 22:52:41 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 21:39:37 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 01:46:13 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>wrote:
'She said her partner worked as a builder until the family was evicted, >>>>but then stopped work to support her.""Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll never >>>>>have a job.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936 >>>>>
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
So the family were getting a wage plus family support*8
Which would have paid rent . Instead they suck of the state tit
Instead of just spouting personal abuse, how about telling us your
view of how it could have been handled more effectively, "Liberty"?
Don't breed 8 kids when you financially cant. Husband should of stayed >>working.
Aah - the nasty "should of"(sic) argument! If a tourist was lost and
asked for directions you would probably tell them they should never
have left home to get lost!
Our government "lent" them $60,000 of taxpayer money, almost certainly unrecoverable - even if the "borrowers" (who it could be claimed were
coerced into an onerous lending contract). do not file for bankruptcy
to "clarify" the government position. Still a motel owner somewhere
has possibly benefitted - apparetnly they can charge what the market
will bear for "difficult" families . . .
Now some people are horrified at the actions of the government -
instead of just criticising the recipients of charity for needing it,
how about telling us your view of how it could have been handled more effectively, "Liberty" What do you think the government should have
done to avoid spending $60,000 on this family? (or if you prefer
Nat-speak, "should-of"!)
On Thu, 26 May 2016 00:20:49 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
Placing them in the care of people who are capabler of providing for them.
You would probably just shift the cost on to the local DHB
- in the end the taxpayer would pay more, but I guess that doesn;t
worry you
This is another reason to favour private healthcare.
How would that help? Or are you saying that the government should just
let them die if they cannot afford private health care?
If they were left to die it wouldn't be the government's fault, it would be >> the community's. The problem is that the government pretends to be the sole >> organisation that need worry about these issues but they cannot help people >> in an ethical way - it's impossible no matter who pulls the levers of
control.
And in the meantime those that read the news are going "tsk tsk, the
government is doing a bad job" while those same people are doing diddly-
squat to help. The current system provides an excuse for people to abdicate >> their social responsibilities.
What's the real solution to this problem? Compassion through charity. But
that will never happen while there is a sole organisation that pretends to >> be all that's needed. They're not and can never be.
So how many needy offspring of others are you currently hosting while
not being in it for the money?
Feudalism, which, if you did but know it, you implicitly espouse,
always incorporated the philosophy known as Noblesse Oblige. In fact, society required it of its overlords who knew full well they would not survive without observing this form of charity.
Since then, feudalism has been supplanted by national governments
voted into power by the populace, but this has not meant the poor and
needy are not still with us. So governments today continue to observe
and apply Noblesse Oblige **in your name** as a quintessential social imperative, Not to do so would ultimately result in revolution and overthrow, their having been foolish and selfish enough to abdicate
their social obligations to those they lord it over - e.g. France 1879
and Russia circa 100 years ago.
Ultimately, its about national security and stability.
On Tue, 24 May 2016 21:39:37 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 01:46:13 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936'She said her partner worked as a builder until the family was evicted,
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll never >>>have a job.
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
but then stopped work to support her."
So the family were getting a wage plus family support*8
Which would have paid rent . Instead they suck of the state tit
Instead of just spouting personal abuse, how about telling us your
view of how it could have been handled more effectively, "Liberty"?
"Pooh" wrote in message news:ni9gv6$cga$1@dont-email.me...
"Rich80105" <rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:hic8kbtg3q0g10cus0p6g9vo8fivba8cqs@4ax.com...
On Tue, 24 May 2016 21:39:37 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 01:46:13 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936 >>>>'She said her partner worked as a builder until the family was
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll
never have a job.
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
evicted, but then stopped work to support her."
So the family were getting a wage plus family support*8
Which would have paid rent . Instead they suck of the state tit
Instead of just spouting personal abuse, how about telling us your
view of how it could have been handled more effectively, "Liberty"?
Perfectly legit question Rich. How does someone stopping work help
support a
family? Only a stupid trolling Trotsky twat like you Rich can't see how stupid that action is. Apart from that why did the dumb bastards keep
having
babys? Couldn't they afford condoms or were they just to stupid to go down
to the local STD/Family planning clinic and get free condoms?
They would appear to be as idiotic as you are Rich. Obviously good Labour party supporters like you Rich.
Pooh
..................
Is there any provision for a too large family? Perhaps foster care?
In the old days, children were a blessing.
They started work at a young age, and older children helped raise the
younger ones.
Now women must work outside the home, managing more than two children
could be a problem.
These days families are frequently limited to one or two children.
How can people with too many be helped?
On Wed, 25 May 2016 14:53:23 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 12:34:38 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 07:57:36 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:Its a bit hard to take children back once they have been conceived or
On Tue, 24 May 2016 23:45:53 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>WTF are you going on about
wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 22:52:41 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 21:39:37 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com> >>>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 01:46:13 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:
'She said her partner worked as a builder until the family was >>>>>>>evicted, but then stopped work to support her.""Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll >>>>>>>>never have a job.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936 >>>>>>>>
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
So the family were getting a wage plus family support*8
Which would have paid rent . Instead they suck of the state tit
Instead of just spouting personal abuse, how about telling us your >>>>>>view of how it could have been handled more effectively, "Liberty"?
Don't breed 8 kids when you financially cant. Husband should of stayed >>>>>working.
Aah - the nasty "should of"(sic) argument! If a tourist was lost and >>>>asked for directions you would probably tell them they should never >>>>have left home to get lost!
born, Liberty. Or were you advocating that some bueaucrat decides
whether a pregnant mother is allowed to carry a baby to term? Not even
the authoritarian Nats would have that one on.
Stupid boy
Contraception has been around for years.
Yet this simple couple are breeding like rabbits.
Reminds me of a film
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myhnAZFR1po
On Wed, 25 May 2016 12:34:38 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 07:57:36 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>Its a bit hard to take children back once they have been conceived or
wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 23:45:53 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>WTF are you going on about
wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 22:52:41 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 21:39:37 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 01:46:13 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
'She said her partner worked as a builder until the family was >>>>>>evicted, but then stopped work to support her.""Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll >>>>>>>never have a job.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936 >>>>>>>
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
So the family were getting a wage plus family support*8
Which would have paid rent . Instead they suck of the state tit
Instead of just spouting personal abuse, how about telling us your >>>>>view of how it could have been handled more effectively, "Liberty"?
Don't breed 8 kids when you financially cant. Husband should of stayed >>>>working.
Aah - the nasty "should of"(sic) argument! If a tourist was lost and >>>asked for directions you would probably tell them they should never
have left home to get lost!
born, Liberty. Or were you advocating that some bueaucrat decides
whether a pregnant mother is allowed to carry a baby to term? Not even
the authoritarian Nats would have that one on.
The Department only spends money in accordance with governm,ent
Our government "lent" them $60,000 of taxpayer money,
The client/parasite didn't get a loan of the government.
But it did get a loan of a government department.
There is a difference.
The Government allocates funds to Departments who waste it.
policies - the Minister has defended the actions of the department as
being government policy.
almost certainly
unrecoverable - even if the "borrowers" (who it could be claimed were >>>coerced into an onerous lending contract). do not file for bankruptcy
to "clarify" the government position. Still a motel owner somewhere
has possibly benefitted - apparetnly they can charge what the market
will bear for "difficult" families . . .
The motel owner would have benefited. He has rented out a room.
That is the whole point of owning a motel.
Well I guess prfit for a motel owner makes the whole policy and
situation OK in your eyes, does it Liberty?
On Wed, 25 May 2016 10:46:33 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 25/05/2016 10:39 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 10:03:32 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 25/05/2016 7:28 a.m., george152 wrote:
On 5/24/2016 9:39 PM, Liberty wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 01:46:13 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936 >>>>>>>'She said her partner worked as a builder until the family was
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll >>>>>>> never have a job.
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
evicted, but then stopped work to support her."
So the family were getting a wage plus family support*8
Which would have paid rent . Instead they suck of the state tit
Husband cant make a decent wage as a chippie???????????
In this day and age ??????????
Probably unable to work a full day as high chance of suffering
shagger's
back.
So you're saying there is a medical issue?
Does that change your view of what the government should have done?
No. Society has to wear this one unfortunately.
Society is wearing it, but National are attempting to hide that - the
"loan" gets treated as an asset by the government, so it keeps
government expenses down which, with similar treatment of other
spending, they hope will be enought that they can record a
"surplus"before the almost certainty that it will have to be written
off forced a write-down - which National will hope falls in the next parliament.
Creative accounting and spin being put ahead of honesty about the increasingly concerning housing and social welfare crisis.
"Pooh" wrote in message news:ni9gv6$cga$1@dont-email.me...
"Rich80105" <rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:hic8kbtg3q0g10cus0p6g9vo8fivba8cqs@4ax.com...
On Tue, 24 May 2016 21:39:37 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 01:46:13 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936'She said her partner worked as a builder until the family was evicted, >>>but then stopped work to support her."
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll never >>>>have a job.
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
So the family were getting a wage plus family support*8
Which would have paid rent . Instead they suck of the state tit
Instead of just spouting personal abuse, how about telling us your
view of how it could have been handled more effectively, "Liberty"?
Perfectly legit question Rich. How does someone stopping work help support
a
family? Only a stupid trolling Trotsky twat like you Rich can't see how stupid that action is. Apart from that why did the dumb bastards keep
having
babys? Couldn't they afford condoms or were they just to stupid to go down
to the local STD/Family planning clinic and get free condoms?
They would appear to be as idiotic as you are Rich. Obviously good Labour party supporters like you Rich.
Pooh
..................
Is there any provision for a too large family? Perhaps foster care?
In the old days, children were a blessing.
They started work at a young age, and older children helped raise the
younger ones.
Now women must work outside the home, managing more than two children
could be a problem.
These days families are frequently limited to one or two children.
How can people with too many be helped?
On 6/1/2016 5:16 PM, geopelia wrote:
"Pooh" wrote in message news:ni9gv6$cga$1@dont-email.me...
"Rich80105" <rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hic8kbtg3q0g10cus0p6g9vo8fivba8cqs@4ax.com...
On Tue, 24 May 2016 21:39:37 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 01:46:13 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936 >>>>>'She said her partner worked as a builder until the family was
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll
never have a job.
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
evicted, but then stopped work to support her."
So the family were getting a wage plus family support*8
Which would have paid rent . Instead they suck of the state tit
Instead of just spouting personal abuse, how about telling us your
view of how it could have been handled more effectively, "Liberty"?
Perfectly legit question Rich. How does someone stopping work help
support a
family? Only a stupid trolling Trotsky twat like you Rich can't see how
stupid that action is. Apart from that why did the dumb bastards keep
having
babys? Couldn't they afford condoms or were they just to stupid to go
down
to the local STD/Family planning clinic and get free condoms?
They would appear to be as idiotic as you are Rich. Obviously good Labour
party supporters like you Rich.
Pooh
..................
Is there any provision for a too large family? Perhaps foster care?
In the old days, children were a blessing.
They started work at a young age, and older children helped raise the
younger ones.
Now women must work outside the home, managing more than two children
could be a problem.
These days families are frequently limited to one or two children.
How can people with too many be helped?
Families (as you wrote) looked after every-one the oldest caring for the youngest....
There's something odd about that case and the claims.
No name. The publicist has an agenda.
And the father who left work in the building industry?
Really ?????
To help care for the family on the various benefits available???
Must be a bob in child care
On 24/05/2016 8:46 p.m., JohnO wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936
"Lent" $60k. What a sick joke. That will never be repaid - she'll never
have a job.
Social welfare "loan" used to purchase a "game station" - FFS.
Probably pregnant again already.
No doubt all the fault of white middle class males.
If they carry on as per their track record and turn the motel unit into a
P lab, who does the motel owner sue? Almost certainly the govt. who booked the unit in the knowledge of their trail of destruction to date.
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 31 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 47:44:04 |
| Calls: | 2,096 |
| Files: | 11,143 |
| Messages: | 950,025 |