Letter from Nix Myth

[Bend-it]

You would have got it too if you put in a submission... (attached below)

I'm even more pissed off now than if they hadn't replied... and what a bloody pathetic email address to send it from... Temp1.Smith@parliament.govt.nz

My reply, with cc to John Key, or whichever bod reads it
---------------------------------------------------

Lies lies lies lies.

WEEKS after those numbers have been debunked, you're still flinging them around.

Honorable Nick Smith, my arse.

You have no integrity as a public servant, basing your arguments on bare-faced lies and intentional mis-information.

Your mother would be ashamed of you. I voted blue at the last election, and I'm ashamed to have done so. You can be sure that you have pushed me and thousands of others into the other camp.

Yours Sincerely,
Kevin

[Hanne]

Interesting, I did not get one...
Was it emailed to you or snail mail?

[YellowDog]

Waffle & Bollox

[sammcj]

Waffle & Bollox

Indeed.

Just got mine, typical - put it in a PDF a horrid, proprietary file format, makes it harder to copy and paste too.

[flyingcrocodile46]

WEEKS after those numbers have been debunked, you're still flinging them around.

Honorable Nick Smith, my arse.


You are soooo right. a good chunk of it was cut and pasted from his press statement 17/11/09.

The fuckers are so arrogant that they are recycling previously debunked bullshit. :tugger:

btw, I haven't received mine yet either

[Ixion]

Interestingly, it's dated 20th November. Wonder where it's been since then

[ManDownUnder]

Interestingly, it's dated 20th November. Wonder where it's been since then

Does it smell like poo? I have an idea where someone may have stuck it...

[Voltaire]

ACC seems to have determined that there is a difference between small bikes ( light weight) and big bikes ( very heavy indeed).

In the world of cars is there a similar relationship?

Do smaller ( light) cars have less accidents than more powerful ( heavy) cars?

Obvioulsy not as ACC would levy them differently......
*****************************************

Taken from the ACC guide to working things out:

light/small = not much power
Heavy/big = lots of power
Car= good
Motorcyle= bad
Taxpayer= free
Motorcyclist= user pay
Happy to answer your question= don't expect an answer
Submission= junk mail
there are lots of others....

[GOONR]

Just got my letter,

How does he think he can carry on spouting the same old bullshit figures, does he really think that no one else has been looking at the stats, what a fucking clown.

[MSTRS]

Oooo...just got mine too.
My reply?

The 'Hon Nick Smith? I don't think so. I'm glad no paper was used in sending his response. I don't like to think of the waste that would be.
To his reply, I merely respond with BULLSHIT!! Perhaps he has an understanding of what that means. I know he's heard it before.

[NighthawkNZ]

ACC lost 2.4 billion in 2007/2008 and another 4.8 billion

How can one loose 4.8 billion and still make a profit of 1 billion... I know my math is bad but... ummm



Motorcycle accidents claims have have risen from 871 in 1998 to 5044 in 2008

Where the fuck did 5044 come from ACC say its one 3173????


Even with the levy increase every car owner is subsiding $77

age old arguement, as 90% are subsidsiding themselfs 2 or 3 times... and this is new even after the increase of leavy (not counting mopeds) So we will take and average of the 500 dollars for motorcycles and 2009 fleet numbers since this is for next year

$77 x 2,681,461.00 cars in 2009 = $206,472,497

101,457 x $500 = $50,728,500 (of course we know they won't get this)

$50,728,500 + $206,472,497 = $257,200,997

But but but... :scratch:

[mikeey01]

O I wrote to the foolish one steering this too.
Nic the dick smith is who I addressed and sent my e-mail to.
It was very simple, two facts that I was asking for his comment on.

Is he stuipd? Can he not read? :scratch:

My facts were simple enough,
Motorcyclist -accidents, levies collected $x figure (now X is what ever acc has put on their web site this week)
Cyclists -accidents, levies collected $x figure (X is same as above, what ever ACC has on their web site this week)

Then I asked for his comments on those figures, nice and short like, right.

He didn't answer, nor did he even comment, bastard I tell ya! :angry2:

Instead I got a reply from this bloke called temp1.smith. Dated 20 November 2009. It's two pages of bollocks that I don't understand. :bash:

I'm smelling something here and it ain't roses fellas! :shake:

[Okey Dokey]

I wrote him an old fasioned snail mail letter- no reply thus far. If I get a letter back, I will advise if it is any different to your email reply.

[MSTRS]

Can I suggest that all who get one of those BULLSHIT pdf's...if you respond (as many of us have already) it would be a good idea to send your response to n.smith@ministers.govt.nz <n.smith@ministers.govt.nz> instead of the TEMP1 addy. I'd say that all replies to the temp1 will be automatically binned.

[ManDownUnder]

Can I suggest that all who get one of those BULLSHIT pdf's...if you respond (as many of us have already) it would be a good idea to send your response to n.smith@ministers.govt.nz <N.SMITH@MINISTERS.GOVT.NZ>instead of the TEMP1 addy. I'd say that all replies to the temp1 will be automatically binned.

And copy Phil Goff so he has a count of the responses that get ignored... perhaps bcc him...

[MSTRS]

And copy Phil Goff so he has a count of the responses that get ignored... perhaps bcc him...

Excellent idea!!

[GerryAttrick]

My reply from Nick Smith.

I think the message is getting through but whether they will act on it remains to be seen.

I guess we need to keep up (step up) the protests.

To my mind the message needs to be "The level of increases is not fair (to anyone - not just bikers)"

Personally I think it needs to be added to fuel costs (whatever the level) the more you ride/drive the more you pay, the bigger and thirstier your transport is the more you pay and if you don't use your transport you don't pay(for those who have more than one bike or car - you don't pay when its not being used!)

[MSTRS]

Same as everyone else... http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=114190
Treat it with the contempt it deserves.

[phred]

If we get 2 the same we can shout Snap!

[drummer]

Personally I think it needs to be added to fuel costs (whatever the level) the more you ride/drive the more you pay, the bigger and thirstier your transport is the more you pay and if you don't use your transport you don't pay(for those who have more than one bike or car - you don't pay when its not being used!) Thats one of the ideas given at the Bronz meeting but I disagree... it still is unfair... big bikes use more fuel but are they inherently unsafe...? Surely the most "at risk/cost of medical expenses vs ACC levies" are the large number of scooter riders who have never had any two wheel training... If the levy is on fuel these riders get off scott free and become almost like bicycle riders who pay NO levy... 50cc fourstroke scooters use a thimble of fuel a week.. hence no ACC levy to speak of!

Plus does anyone know if scooter accidents are "Motorcycle"? Surely, as at the moment they pay only $70.00 per year, bikers have been subsidising them for years... if Smith says we must pay for the sins of the past (Smith Meeting 30th Nov) then scooter riders MUST be charged a huge amount... which in it's self is as unfair as the current stupid proposal is...

ACC levies should be the same across the board for motor vehicles OR IF indeed ACC is an insurance company as John Judge says it is then we pay individual levy amounts based on risk.. that means someone who is a safe long term rider would pay less.. and a new rider who is more at risk would pay more.

Unfortunately for Judge and Smith ACC stands for Accident Compensation COMMISSION!! It isn't ACIC (Accident compensation insurance company) and how can a commission be a company!

Peter

[Subike]

I cant see any change at all in that letter to the attitude of the government.
Its the same bullshit they have been spouting all along since this started.
We are asked to believe their stats without question, yet we can refute those stats with facts and they dont listen.
Whatever the outcome of this whole thing with ACC, I think that the national party put the rope around their own neck, then Nick Smith opened the trap door.
I think the worst is yet to come, but sadly far too many mainstream Kiwis will just sit back and let it happen....."she'll be right mate"

[Ms Piggy]

My reply from Nick Smith.
Snap! Looks like all of us got them same. I only got mine Saturday but it's dated 20th Nov. 09...took a wee while in the post!

[nothingflash]

Snap! Looks like all of us got them same. I only got mine Saturday but it's dated 20th Nov. 09...took a wee while in the post!

Yep - mine too!

[MSTRS]

Oooo...just got mine too.
My reply?

What is with this prick? An emailed pdf, and then a paper copy in the mail. And right after I said...
The 'Hon Nick Smith? I don't think so. I'm glad no paper was used in sending his response. I don't like to think of the waste that would be.
To his reply, I merely respond with BULLSHIT!! Perhaps he has an understanding of what that means. I know he's heard it before.
Is he just trying to let me know that 'they' know where I live? *looks around to see who's watching the house*

[nothingflash]

Interestingly, it's dated 20th November. Wonder where it's been since then

Yep mine was dated 20th too and arrived on Saturday

[Kiwi Graham]

My reply from Nick Smith.

I think the message is getting through but whether they will act on it remains to be seen.

I guess we need to keep up (step up) the protests.

To my mind the message needs to be "The level of increases is not fair (to anyone - not just bikers)"

Personally I think it needs to be added to fuel costs (whatever the level) the more you ride/drive the more you pay, the bigger and thirstier your transport is the more you pay and if you don't use your transport you don't pay(for those who have more than one bike or car - you don't pay when its not being used!)


Snap! Looks like all of us got them same. I only got mine Saturday but it's dated 20th Nov. 09...took a wee while in the post!


Yep - mine too!


What is with this prick? An emailed pdf, and then a paper copy in the mail. And right after I said...
Is he just trying to let me know that 'they' know where I live? *looks around to see who's watching the house*


Yep mine was dated 20th too and arrived on Saturday

Got mine today too dated 29th Nov, Also has some sort of code number top left mine is 09 2158?

[nothingflash]

Got mine today too dated 20th Nov, Also has some sort of code number top left mine is 09 2158?

Mine is 09 2427

[Footless]

I also received letter, via snail mail, I have never received an email response. Maybe didnt want me to reply?
Be I do, maybe not in writing, maybe actions ???????????????
They dont seem to want to listen, maybe our voice isnt loud enough, maybe I need to yell!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Maybe I need to draw the dumb fuckers a picture

[Dan Mapp]

Same as mine

[PrincessBandit]

Interesting, I did not get one...
Was it emailed to you or snail mail?

Mine only arrived today in the snail mail. Snail slime in the snail mail.

[gwigs]

Received mine today only read enough to piss me off,considered using it for toilet paper but realized it was already covered in shit..:angry2:

[BMWST?]

the bigger and thirstier your transport is the more you pay

why?.Isnt this exactly the same reasoning behind 1000cc bikes costing more than 600?/Just cos my old 6 cylinder car is not fuel efficient why should i be penalised