PC brigade already on the offensive at police chases [Archive]

PrincessBandit

6th January 2011, 17:32

I was cooking dinner tonight while listening to the news (yes, shock, I do cook, and I do listen to the news) and heard this woman bleating on about the police having to be responsible for their part in the fatal crash of the young boy driving a stolen car at high speed. Ooops, make that "allegedly driving an allegedly stolen car at allegedly high speed". [oops, quick edit, I know she didn't say those words, it's not a quote, they're my speech marks]. Had to put the knife down and do some slow breathing as my blood pressure got higher and higher...

What the hell is wrong with these people who go on and on about Police causing these things to happen when the bloody offenders choose to do a runner?

I can understand the boy's family being distressed but to be angry at the Police because "you can replace a car but you can't replace a person" (quote from the family), well...would they still be saying the same if their son/grandson/nephew had caused a fatal crash with some other poor innocent who happened to be in his way? (particularly if the police had chosen earlier not to persue). The police called off the pursuit but obviously any length of pursuit is unacceptable to some people.

It makes my blood boil that they believe their little theiving offspring should be able to go about their unlawful business at their leisure because the police have no right to attempt to catch them.

Aaaaaarrrrggggggh. Yes death is usually a tragedy, and I guess no one "deserves" to die in a car chase, but what the hell do these people want? Police to leave them to their own devices then cause a fatal through their actions or try and apprehend them before they become a cause. Aaaaaarrrrrrggggggh.

Hitcher

6th January 2011, 17:37

Gremlin

6th January 2011, 17:49

They're pathetic (the PC brigade).

Driver chose to run... driver accepts the consequences of their decision

Usarka

6th January 2011, 17:50

Who was the women on TV? Knowing our media I bet it was either a family member or some non-expert person who's pet pig is related to the news producers fat-arsed wife and therefore is either extremely subjective and/or sensationalist journalism at it's finest.

Having said that, some of us non-PC brigade are a little sceptical that these chases are always called off "20 seconds before the crash". :sherlock:

oldrider

6th January 2011, 18:01

PrincessBandit

6th January 2011, 18:03

Who was the women on TV?

She was from the Candor Trust (whatever that is).

Fatt Max

6th January 2011, 18:12

Myself and Mrs Max had this very same discussion last night.

Yes, it is a tragedy that someone died in these circumstances especially bearing in mind that this was a very young person (15 I think..?)

However, they were old enough to get behind a wheel and do something like 180kmh + on the Southern motorway. Cut to the family on their way home or whatever, minding their own business and this person smashes into the back of them. Are we being told that we have to accept that people break the law and the police have to back off and let them?

Its totally fucked. The UK has gone this way as well. Please not here in NZ although I fear PC has already taken a firm grip.

The only reason political correctness is in any society is because we have allowed it to be so, and that is the biggest tragedy of all. It rules our schools, workplaces, health system, law and order, everything.

PB, you are right to sound off abouty this as is all you other fine people, this kind of shite simply cannot be allowed and these people that spout it need to be shut down.

As long as we dont let NZ go as far as the UK whereby 'Christmas' is considered offensive to non christians, flying an English flag outside your house during the world cup is banned as it is racist and....worst of all....you still cant get a decent fucking pie....

Serious though, shut these PC twats down, say what you like, write what you like, have your opinion. As long as you are nice to people....

Fatt Max

6th January 2011, 18:15

I was cooking dinner tonight .

Sorry, meant to ask, what were you cooking?

Oh, and what were you wearing while you were cooking it...?

Kickaha

6th January 2011, 18:18

She was from the Candor Trust (whatever that is).

Ask this person (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/member.php/7344-candor)

yachtie10

6th January 2011, 18:20

personally i think the PC brigade have more to answer for than the police

our offenders now know if they drive fast like an idiot the police have to let them go

So guess what thats what they do

Now if they knew they would be chased and probably caught would they have run at all?

(not that im condoneing zealotry by the police but they have a job to do)

JimO

6th January 2011, 18:25

(not that im condoneing and zealotry by the police but they have a job to do)

unless they are looking for your stolen motorcycle

yachtie10

6th January 2011, 18:28

unless they are looking for your stolen motorcycle

absolutely
but id prefer they didnt get it back if its going to be crashed in a high speed pursuit

but but they can be as zealous as they like when they catch him

scumdog

6th January 2011, 18:35

The so-called "PC brigade" are saying it's OK for people to avoid Police detention. They are idiots and should be ignored.

But will the media ignore them??? - nooo...

Genestho

6th January 2011, 18:35

Original discussion thread (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/127916-Invite-2nd-protest-against-police-pursuits-today?highlight=2nd+protest)

The comment that bothered me most was "They (those that have cars stolen) can always get another car, but we can't get our loved ones back" :violin:

That's the attitude! :blink::facepalm: Hello!? It's not Rocket Science~! Maybe someone should've thought of teaching respect for other peoples property and the consequences when it all goes pear shaped!!

EDIT: Absolute empathy for the innocent lives taken by those who choose to flee, but, even families of those innocent lives lost want to see the onus on the offender.

phill-k

6th January 2011, 18:42

Clark usurped parental authority but let them retain responsibility causing clear accountability to be the big casualty!

All we have now is is a mish mash of confusion amongst the populace as to just who is responsible and accountable for our kids behaviour!

Unfortunately the National lead coalition has simply carried Clark's social policies on as if they were their own!

I had hoped for more decisive action on "law and order" from this government!

Words, words, words and lots of smoke and mirrors but no bloody action on the real issues, I am not well impressed with Key and his cohorts so far! :oi-grr:

what a load of shit mate, its got nothing to do with NZ society or government which ever one, its all about parental responsibility and their up bringing of their kids to respect the rest of NZ society. Stop trying to bring politics into what is a parents responsibility.
Kid got exactly what he deserved the passenger hopefully will die as well, and with a bit of luck the other stolen cars occupants will be found chased and kill themselves as well.

Swoop

6th January 2011, 18:53

what a load of shit mate, its got nothing to do with NZ society or government which ever one,

Fucking bullshit. Labour has been social engineering for years, removing personal freedoms and replacing them with gubbinment instigated regulations, including "systems" which are to be blamed rather than individuals.

its all about parental responsibility and their up bringing of their kids to respect the rest of NZ society. Stop trying to bring politics into what is a parents responsibility.
Where is Sue Badshaw when you need a good cunt to kick?:facepalm:

Fatt Max

6th January 2011, 18:59

Where is Sue Badshaw when you need a good cunt to kick?:facepalm:

There simply is not enough words to describe how loud and hard I laughed at that comment, classic stuff and a T Shirt for the new decade meethinks....

phill-k

6th January 2011, 19:02

Fucking bullshit. Labour has been social engineering for years, removing personal freedoms and replacing them with gubbinment instigated regulations, including "systems" which are to be blamed rather than individuals.

Where is Sue Badshaw when you need a good cunt to kick?:facepalm:

You ably demonstrate just what is wrong with NZ today.
You want to blame everyone else for your own fuckups.

The parents of that fucking waste of shitspace are directly responsible for the little shit being in town with the tools to break into cars, no one else.
He is the product of his parents no one else, just a bloody shame the whole lot of them weren't in the car with them.

You are a bloody sad case if you think the police, the government or anyone else is responsible for the shitheads decisions in life.

This is bought to you buy Wolf Blass Eaglehawke Shiraz Merlot Cabernet:yes:

Toaster

6th January 2011, 19:05

What the hell is wrong with these people who go on and on about Police causing these things to happen when the bloody offenders choose to do a runner?

People that do runners are fools, but considering that they already broke the law anyway to attract the police attention in the first place, its a little obvious that they are stupid.

How about we all go hug a tree and let people just commit any crime or offence they like?

Criminals need to know they wont get away with it. End of story.

Fatt Max

6th January 2011, 19:06

You ably demonstrate just what is wrong with NZ today.
You want to blame everyone else for your own fuckups.

The parents of that fucking waste of shitspace are directly responsible for the little shit being in town with the tools to break into cars, no one else.
He is the product of his parents no one else, just a bloody shame the whole lot of them weren't in the car with them.

You are a bloody sad case if you think the police, the government or anyone else is responsible for the shitheads decisions in life.

This is bought to you buy Wolf Blass Eaglehawke Shiraz Merlot Cabernet:yes:

Still, had a laugh about the Sue Bradshaw comment eh.....you know, every cloud.....

Fatt Max

6th January 2011, 19:07

How about we all go hug a tree and let people just commit any crime or offence they like?.

We do......we let Georgie Pie go, thats a fucking crime if ever I heard one

MadDuck

6th January 2011, 19:08

This is bought to you buy Wolf Blass Eaglehawke Shiraz Merlot Cabernet:yes:

Nice drop :sunny:

Toaster

6th January 2011, 19:10

We do......we let Georgie Pie go, thats a fucking crime if ever I heard one

I miss my dollar pies and the desert pies with ice cream..........

mashman

6th January 2011, 19:11

You ably demonstrate just what is wrong with NZ today.
You want to blame everyone else for your own fuckups.

The parents of that fucking waste of shitspace are directly responsible for the little shit being in town with the tools to break into cars, no one else.
He is the product of his parents no one else, just a bloody shame the whole lot of them weren't in the car with them.

You are a bloody sad case if you think the police, the government or anyone else is responsible for the shitheads decisions in life.

This is bought to you buy Wolf Blass Eaglehawke Shiraz Merlot Cabernet:yes:

If they showed him how to hot wire a car, then I agree... that not being the case, Pot Kettle Black :)... and i'd rather the passenger lives and learns a lesson from it.

Fatt Max

6th January 2011, 19:12

I miss my dollar pies and the desert pies with ice cream..........

I hear you bruvva.....I feel your pain......

Fatt Max

6th January 2011, 19:12

Nice drop :sunny:

Always knew you was a piss head

phill-k

6th January 2011, 19:17

If they showed him how to hot wire a car, then I agree... that not being the case, Pot Kettle Black :)... and i'd rather the passenger lives and learns a lesson from it.

Sorry Man its about time NZ parents took responsibility for what there offspring are up to, after all the punk was 15 in Ak possessed tools to steal cars, if you believe that this is not directly the responsibility of the parents you also join the ranks of the members of the Darwinian club.

Clean_up

6th January 2011, 19:25

I have no sympathy for people who steal cars, run fon the police, crash, and in doing so maime or kill themselves, I do however feel sorry for their family, even though it is their fault the little shits weren't raised properly in the first place to know right from wrong and respect other peoples property.
Sadly their are people out there who think that our society should do the whole "oh poor little kid, it's not their fault" thing, where in reality we should lock the twats up for as long as we can. Harsh consequences will deter tossers from being tossers.

Fatt Max

6th January 2011, 19:26

My parents were responsible for me.

Mind you, England won the World Cup in 1966 and I was born 9 months later, so I suppose Geoff Hurst, Bobby Moore, Gordon Banks and the Charlton Brothers are sort of responsible as well.

Hurst was'nt the only man to score that day.....

PrincessBandit

6th January 2011, 19:30

How about we all go hug a tree and let people just commit any crime or offence they like?

Nah, not hug: tie 'em naked facing a cactus.

We do......we let Georgie Pie go, thats a fucking crime if ever I heard one

Funny you should say that, Balu was just having a wee moan about Georgie Pie not being around only the other day. Great minds think alike (you too Cam!)

Fatt Max

6th January 2011, 19:35

Nah, not hug: tie 'em naked facing a cactus.

Funny you should say that, Balu was just having a wee moan about Georgie Pie not being around only the other day. Great minds think alike (you too Cam!)

Yeah yeah yeah, blah blah blah, but you aint answered my questions yet noodles....

What were were you cooking and what were you wearing when you were cooking it?

Indoo

6th January 2011, 19:36

Yep saw her blathering on about how chases had only become an issue in the past few years because of the boyracer laws.

Clearly this guy and his mates in another stolen car were only running so they didn't get their cars impounded....If you look at all the fatalities in 2010 almost all of them were criminals who were running because they were either disqualified, drunk, in a stolen car, had warrants to arrest or had just comitted a crime.

Another interesting thing is that over the past decade as chase criteria and control have been drastically tightened, and rules to abandon become far more strict and rigid, pursuits have actually increased by some 300%. More restrictions can encourage more people to run because they have a higher chance of escaping and the worst part about it is that they then try and hit whatever criteria they think will force the chase to be abandoned.

mashman

6th January 2011, 19:39

SMOKEU

6th January 2011, 19:41

If someone steals a car then crashes it, killing themself then I have no sympathy at all for that person.

I do however feel sorry for the family of the deceased.

phill-k

6th January 2011, 19:46

If someone steals a car then crashes it, killing themself then I have no sympathy at all for that person.

I do however feel sorry for the family of the deceased.

Your sympathy for the parents is exactly why we as a society seem to almost condone this.
If the parents were ostracised, the boy was only 15 and made to pay emotionally if not financially then perhaps we could all move forward as a society that takes personal responsibility rather tan blaming society or the government for our moral decay.

Kendog

6th January 2011, 19:51

If someone steals a car then crashes it, killing themself then I have no sympathy at all for that person.

I do however feel sorry for the family of the deceased.

I have more sympathy for the people that own the stolen car than the parents.

Especially these parents that are already looking to blame the police rather than the person that committed the crime and crashed the car. I guess that would mean they would have to take some responsibility as well, can't have that now can we.

As harsh as it seems I often feel like this is the best possible runner outcome. I just wish others would see this in the news and not repeat the same thing themselves.

mattian

6th January 2011, 19:58

Its always someone elses fault. The parents will blame the police for the death of their son before they ever admit that they're just bad parents.
Did they even know what he was up to that night? He was fucking 15 years old for christs sake! He probably told them he was having a pyjama party at his mates house.
Im just thankful that no innocent by-stander was hurt or killed.

oldrider

6th January 2011, 20:00

what a load of shit mate, its got nothing to do with NZ society or government which ever one, its all about parental responsibility and their up bringing of their kids to respect the rest of NZ society. Stop trying to bring politics into what is a parents responsibility.
Kid got exactly what he deserved the passenger hopefully will die as well, and with a bit of luck the other stolen cars occupants will be found chased and kill themselves as well.

FFS open your bloody eyes man, socialists (most of NZ) believe that children belong to the State and as a consequence the State has gradually usurped parents rights of control over their children!

Social engineering (Legislative tinkering) by successive (mainly socialist) MMP governments has set the ground rules for the situation we find ourselves in right now!

PC fuckwits blaming the police for interfering with these dumb undisciplined kiddies rights while they steal some poor hard working bastards car!

Now you want to hold the parents accountable for the result!

Parents are like boxers being sent into the ring with their hands tied behind their backs and then being held accountable for not winning!

National has done nothing to change this and their current term is almost up, so who "is" going to turn it around in the future!

So far it looks like it is only going to get worse before it gets better! :facepalm:

SMOKEU

6th January 2011, 20:02

The government really should start cracking down on crime a lot harder, especially on young offenders. I have serious doubts that the offender in this case was a good Christian™ boy who made a once off, silly mistake. It is more than likely that he had commited prior serious offences, and if the government had done something about his offending earlier, then this crash may not have happened. It is pure luck alone that no one else was killed in this event.

My neighbours house got broken into and the offenders were caught. The stolen property was found in their possession, their fingerprints were all over the house and they even admitted to burgling the house. Since the offenders were only 14, nothing was done about it. Is this really the message we should be sending out to the youth of this country?

PrincessBandit

6th January 2011, 20:03

Yeah yeah yeah, blah blah blah, but you aint answered my questions yet noodles....

What were were you cooking and what were you wearing when you were cooking it?

Well, I was using the frying pan so naked wasn't an option...

phill-k

6th January 2011, 20:04

Maha

6th January 2011, 20:05

Its only one persons fault that one person is now dead as a result of that car chase.
And that person is dead.
Its his fault....fuck em'

FJRider

6th January 2011, 20:06

Well, I was using the frying pan so naked wasn't an option...

We're not evil people :no:

.... we would allow an apron :yes:

.... if pic's were taken ... :innocent:

KiwiRat

6th January 2011, 20:36

Its only one persons fault that one person is now dead as a result of that car chase.
And that person is dead.
Its his fault....fuck em'

That kid should be given a posthumous medal for his contribution to the economy.

No future dole payments or cost to the taxpayer for any future imprisonment(s).

No future DPB payments to any future girlfriend(s).

He's saved the taxpayer thousands.

Good lad.

Indoo

6th January 2011, 20:45

Now you want to hold the parents accountable for the result!

Parents are like boxers being sent into the ring with their hands tied behind their backs and then being held accountable for not winning!
:

Tbh mate, chances are his parents wouldn't even know which party was in power, let alone know of or give a crap about any laws limiting parental rights.

The kid deserves sympathy, chances are he didn't have much of a shot in life, the family that created and failed him, don't.

Latte

6th January 2011, 20:49

SPman

6th January 2011, 20:49

Christ - this place gets more like talk back radio, all the time..........

SMOKEU

6th January 2011, 21:00

Their parents should have kicked their arses. Literally. I had a very good understanding of the boundaries, and a very clear (well, red and welted) view of what hapened when I crossed them from an early age.

Thanks to the Labour party, that is assault!

nosebleed

6th January 2011, 21:04

Daffyd

6th January 2011, 21:09

Did they even know what he was up to that night? He was fucking 15 years old for christs sake! He probably told them he was having a pyjama party at his mates house.

I'd be surprised if he told them anything. They were prolly too pissed to ask or be interested. Only when the shit hits the fan do they show any interest.

Edbear

6th January 2011, 21:54

I miss my dollar pies and the desert pies with ice cream..........

Stop it! You're making me nostalgically hungry!

HQfiend

6th January 2011, 22:02

Bring back flogging, thumb hanging, public shaming, the stocks, and capital punishment!

In regards to the statistics climbing even though police chases are more tightly regulated, that just goes to show that the violent video games, and TV car chases are having the educational effect that the PC crowd were on about 20 years ago. Silly though it sounds maybe they were right about censorship being too relaxed?

Also yes parents need to firstly set boundaries and be role models for their kids and yes the social engineering experiments of the socialists have meant that the parents have stopped being the role models and have allowed the state regulations to guide their kids. And I'm sure at some stage the lack of belief in the omnipotent imaginary friend to all will be mentioned as a root cause in societies down fall as well.

Lets just say that its all screwed up, so how do we fix it? Do we leap to the other end of the spectrum with extreme punishments meted out for the smallest infraction or do we remind the masses that personal responsibility is the ultimate in an evolved society?

Not saying I've got the answers but I could do with more money, more power and less shit from you people!

Berries

6th January 2011, 23:02

The kid deserves sympathy, chances are he didn't have much of a shot in life, the family that created and failed him, don't.
You are right. I find myself agreeing with everything phill-k has said about parents. Bringing politics in to it is just a cop out. (Unless that is the new term for abandoning a Police pursuit).

Hurst was'nt the only man to score that day.....
I think he was dude, I've seen your photo.

oldrider

6th January 2011, 23:09

Fuck are you taking the piss or what:shit:

No!

Almost every day somewhere in this country the same conversations as we are having on here, are taking place out in the community!

Same story line different actors same results, same ol' same ol' but nothing changes positively!

The responsibility (I think as you stated) is "ours", we all want to change it, we think we go through the motions of change but still nothing actually happens! :facepalm:

If I knew exactly what to do or how to begin the process I would say so but like most people, I don't!

What I have expressed is just my opinion of where I think the problem began!

I had hoped for more action on restoring individual parental authority, responsibility and accountability from the current government!

Unfortunately they appear to be no different from their predecessors on that score!

Meanwhile, the only real influence "I" have is with my own family and so far so good, that is working out OK but it is a thin line sometimes and government legislative tinkering certainly is more of a hindrance than a help!

I rate rectification of this situation very highly on the political agenda and look for those who will make a stand and take action, not just give it lip service for vote catching!

firefighter

6th January 2011, 23:19

Yes death is usually a tragedy

In this instance it was by far the best outcome for the rest of society. Saves us a lot of money that would have been spent on future crimes and grief for future victims the little oxygen thief would have caused.....

I have no sympathy for him and i'm quite pleased at the outcome. It saved the future pit of death comments that his future crimes would have had me say.....

I do have sympathy for his family.

Berries

6th January 2011, 23:28

Meanwhile, the only real influence "I" have is with my own family and so far so good, that is working out OK but it is a thin line sometimes and government legislative tinkering certainly is more of a hindrance than a help!
If everybody influenced their family in a positive way then the world would be a much better place. I think what some are saying is that some people are not influenced by their parents, or at least not positively, and if you don't have that then the kids may be in for a rough ride.

I've got two kids but I have no idea what government hindrance you refer to. The government is irrelevant to the way I am bringing them up, or indeed to the way they end up turning out.

Spearfish

7th January 2011, 00:05

If everybody influenced their family in a positive way then the world would be a much better place. I think what some are saying is that some people are not influenced by their parents, or at least not positively, and if you don't have that then the kids may be in for a rough ride.

I've got two kids but I have no idea what government hindrance you refer to. The government is irrelevant to the way I am bringing them up, or indeed to the way they end up turning out.

If your kids go to public school then the government is bringing your kids up, up in a way they will challenge your authority one day. Kids have hour long class explaining what rights they have over you and what the police can and cant do to them.

Kids are taught more about their rights than their responsibilities, in the current framework the law supports it and teachers encourage it.

Just before the last election there was a bit story how scientists discovered that the brains of youth have not developed in the areas of empathy diminishing their ability to make good decisions, therefore teen drivers were at risk so they suggested putting the age up..guess what the knit your own sandals brigade the greens said to that...Ah, well, no we don't want to punish teen drivers by putting the age up in fact if the research is true then they shouldn't be charged because it not their fault. Little wonder kids do what ever they want, when ever they want.
Tail wagging the dog.

gammaguy

7th January 2011, 01:26

The Police surely have a right to deal with alleged law breakers. If those alleged law breakers choose to resist Police detention and kill themselves or others in the process, then they are still law breakers.

I have little sympathy with runners. If they kill me or people I love, I shall have even less sympathy for them.

The so-called "PC brigade" are saying it's OK for people to avoid Police detention. They are idiots and should be ignored.

its existentialism taken to its extreme

wonder what they would say if their mother/sister/son/daughter was run over by a stolen car being driven by a driver who was reckless and speeding

my money is on them changing their tune real fast

oldrider

7th January 2011, 09:03

If your kids go to public school then the government is bringing your kids up, up in a way they will challenge your authority one day. Kids have hour long class explaining what rights they have over you and what the police can and cant do to them.

Kids are taught more about their rights than their responsibilities, in the current framework the law supports it and teachers encourage it.

Little wonder kids do what ever they want, when ever they want.

Tail wagging the dog.

Exactly!

The Beatles song "All you have is love, love is all you have" is all you have got!

Once that breaks down and you're kid goes a bit off the tracks and challenges your "authority", it's game over for you and if it comes to their attention, the State agencies "will" take over!

Read some of the tragic (State agency) cases if you don't believe me, there are broken hearted parents all over this country!

But of course there are none so blind as those who will not see! :facepalm:

There is nothing like being out of work and falling on hard times that puts pressure onto parents and families!

Temptations to stray from the family influence abound for the kids, especially while the parents are distracted, trying to hold them together!

The State wolf is always waiting to tear your family apart at the first mistake you and your kids make!

Could never happen to you! ..... Yeah right! ...... Tui anyone?

Pascal

7th January 2011, 09:31

Sorry Man its about time NZ parents took responsibility for what there offspring are up to, after all the punk was 15 in Ak possessed tools to steal cars, if you believe that this is not directly the responsibility of the parents you also join the ranks of the members of the Darwinian club.

Agreed, it is the responsiblity of the parents.

However, think of the influence recent New Zealand governments have had on the malleable minds of some. From free health care, pies out of school tuckshops, the whole thing. The last two decades of governments have been out to remove as much responsibility and accountabiltiy from the average New Zealander and to place that responsibiltiy in their own hands.

I wonder how much of an impact all the handouts, help, assistance, law changes and power over individuals' lives the governments have taken have actually shaped the thinking of some of the parents.

As to police chases. Don't stop them. Take the fuckers down with spikes, helicopters, Tobasco sauce and cheese graters. And pink poodles. But do not give criminals their freedom simply by driving dangerously. The fuckers need to learn that if they do a runner they're going to be butt fucked with a splintered baton, not have the chase called off.

vifferman

7th January 2011, 09:35

The kid deserves sympathy, chances are he didn't have much of a shot in life, the family that created and failed him, don't.
I don't buy that. You're forgetting that he still had freedom of choice, regardless of circumstances, upbringing, the phases of the moon, or whatever. Don't tell me a 15 year old can't distinguish right and wrong. If he didn't know it was wrong to take a car, he wouldn't have chosen to run for it.
We have three sons, all bright, all brought up in the same environment. We've done the very best we can for them, and yet the middle one chooses to break the law. He's not stupid, not unaware of consequences, but despite what we (or anyone esle) says or does, he still sometimes deliberately makes choices that suit him even thouhg they're against the law. Yes, we still feel responsible, but even with the benefit of hindsight, I'm not sure that having changed our parenting would've made any difference.

vifferman

7th January 2011, 09:37

The last two decades of governments have been out to remove as much responsibility and accountabiltiy from the average New Zealander and to place that responsibiltiy in their own hands.
I think it goes back further than that, and is more widespread.

Ronin

7th January 2011, 09:57

MSTRS

7th January 2011, 10:03

It's perfectly acceptable to blame those that came before for all the ills in today's society. It must be, because the govt sponsors a very big industry in NZ based on that...

PrincessBandit

7th January 2011, 10:03

Christ - this place gets more like talk back radio, all the time..........

hehehehe, but here at least you don't have to listen to my high pitched nasaly whining voice...:shit:

Yep saw her blathering on about how chases had only become an issue in the past few years because of the boyracer laws.

yeah, and what was it she added to that? oh right, something along the lines of "the cure is worse than the disease". I so wanted to smack her one, despite not really being a violent person :innocent:

PrincessBandit

7th January 2011, 10:05

Well, I think some good came of the little tosspot crashing. My son was sitting next to me when I read the report so I turned to him and said, "Mate, I don't care what you have done, how much trouble you think you are in or what anyone else tells you to do, if a cop wants you to stop... Then stop"

Who knows. He may even listen to me.

you must spread the love blah blah blah....(i'll try and remember this comment and send some your way once I've done some more green spreading).

mashman

7th January 2011, 10:06

Agreed, it is the responsiblity of the parents.

No it's not. This dickhead crashed a car and killed himself off his own back. You're dreamin' if you think a 15 year old, or some 11 or 12 year olds, would follow their parents wishes/teachings over those of their "mates". Kids aren't stupid and they know how to play/get around their parents, fake sleepovers, the "it's my life, fuck off" conversation etc... It is the responsibility of society, (they're out on the roads and streets without parental supervision :killingme) to help keep the fuckers on the straight and narrow... and you WON'T save them all, Accidents happen, especially preventable ones :shifty: :facepalm:

As to police chases. Don't stop them. Take the fuckers down with spikes, helicopters, Tobasco sauce and cheese graters. And pink poodles. But do not give criminals their freedom simply by driving dangerously. The fuckers need to learn that if they do a runner they're going to be butt fucked with a splintered baton, not have the chase called off.

Agreed, apart from the splintered baton thing ya kinky freak...

Pascal

7th January 2011, 10:11

This dickhead crashed a car and killed himself off his own back.

And somehow, despite a relatively misspent youth and all the exhuberance that came with growing up, discovering hormones and boobies and all that, I never managed to crash a car and kill myself.

Last time I checked anyway.

I suspect a large part of that is because my parents taught me, sometimes at the end of a large freaking spoon or a spatula, that if I fuck up I should accept responsibility for my actions and take my punishment. And, even more importantly, to know what would be a fuck up and how to avoid it.

Kinky? I should tell you about last night. I could feel both my wife's hands on me when a third hand grabbed my foot. Faaaaa ... rk.

2wheeldrifter

7th January 2011, 10:15

Sorry, meant to ask, what were you cooking?

Oh, and what were you wearing while you were cooking it...?

Yes photo's please.........

mashman

7th January 2011, 10:39

And somehow, despite a relatively misspent youth and all the exhuberance that came with growing up, discovering hormones and boobies and all that, I never managed to crash a car and kill myself.

Last time I checked anyway.

I suspect a large part of that is because my parents taught me, sometimes at the end of a large freaking spoon or a spatula, that if I fuck up I should accept responsibility for my actions and take my punishment. And, even more importantly, to know what would be a fuck up and how to avoid it.

Kinky? I should tell you about last night. I could feel both my wife's hands on me when a third hand grabbed my foot. Faaaaa ... rk.

That makes at least two of us then... Although I did try to Darwinise myself on many occassions, flying a land rover throiugh the air on to it's roof caving in the cab, sliding my parents car (whilst they were on holiday) down the road sideways (not by design)... and there are a few other instances of me being a complete and utter fucktard (yes yes, some things never change :)) that could have resulted in my death and potentially the death of others... I somehow doubt that i'm unique in those regards and my parents where A1, they have a successful daughter. Both of us from the same household, both brought up equally, what was the difference? we're an unpredicatble bunch, however some of us are lucky enough to be able to look back and shake our heads at the shit we pulled, the kid in the OP won't.

Irrespective of the belt or studded clog or whatever "punishment" tool was handy, it didn't stop me from breaking the law, or treating people like shit because I could and it certainly wasn;t the fault of my parents.

I understand why you married the woman :)

slowpoke

7th January 2011, 10:51

I'm not sure....no, that's wrong.....I'm actually very sure this is not an argument about political correctness or government involvment.

I don't really have too big a problem with "political correctness" (whatever the fuck it is) as to me it usually seems to involve trying to do the theoretically right thing, even if it's practically extremely difficult or unpopular. But in this case wouldn't the "PC" thing be trying to follow the rule book exactly as it is now? By my own internal (probably wonky) definition the current offender apprehension strategy is the "politically correct" solution: in theory someone breaks the law and the police apprehend them.

Some folks can't resist doing Don Quixote's and tilting at windmills/enemies and making "connections" that just don't exist. When did letting offenders run free become "politically correct"? When did governments "forcibly" remove personal responsibility?

The arguments complaining about governments devolving personal responsibility are self defeating. We, as a community lament the fact Big Brother has stolen responsibility, yet there is nothing stopping us assuming it. We can choose to be responsible if we wish....or we can duck and dive and claim it's someone elses fault as seems to be the increasingly popular.

The police chase strategy has nothing to do with the above though. People are simply trying to decide how to control a situation in which people are going to die no matter which tack they take. How many, offender or bystander, risk to police/offender/public, deterrent/encouragement effect etc etc.

God help the person/people in charge of that decision, people are going to die no matter what and every time it happens one side or the other will say "I fuckin' told you so!"

scumdog

7th January 2011, 10:58

God help the person/people in charge of that decision, people are going to die no matter what and every time it happens one side or the other will say "I fuckin' told you so!"

If they're that smart you would think they would contact Police at the time to tell them how the situation SHOULD be handled.......but nooo, being a 'Monday morning quarter-back' is so much easier - and you're never wrong!

Indoo

7th January 2011, 12:14

Don't tell me a 15 year old can't distinguish right and wrong.

Difference with these kids typically though is that they are abused rather than nurtured, ignored and brought up in horribly dysfunctional broken families. The morals they learn growing up and the opportunities they are given are the exact opposite of how you would have raised your boy, he has complete free choice, whereas the path these kids take is alot more predetermined.

The family are getting all the sympathy, when they should be bearing the brunt of the blame.

Swoop

7th January 2011, 13:05

You want to blame everyone else for your own fuckups.

The parents of that fucking waste of shitspace are directly responsible for the little shit.
He is the product of his parents no one else.

You are a bloody sad case if you think the police, the government or anyone else is responsible for the shitheads decisions in life.
The person responsible is the person doing "the crime". Parents have to instill the "right" into the child, but they have their hands tied behind their back (as stated previously in this thread) if they do not abide by the gubbinments way of thinking.

it's society that needs to take the responsibility
Tui advert time?
The individual needs to take responsibility, noy "society" or "the gubbinment".

the boy was only 15 and made to pay emotionally if not financially
48hrs in the Town Hall stocks would sort that shit out.

FFS open your bloody eyes man, socialists (most of NZ) believe that children belong to the State and as a consequence the State has gradually usurped parents rights of control over their children!

Social engineering (Legislative tinkering) by successive (mainly socialist) MMP governments has set the ground rules for the situation we find ourselves in right now!

PC fuckwits blaming the police for interfering with these dumb undisciplined kiddies rights while they steal some poor hard working bastards car!

Now you want to hold the parents accountable for the result!

Parents are like boxers being sent into the ring with their hands tied behind their backs and then being held accountable for not winning!
Well said!

The government really should start cracking down on crime a lot harder, especially on young offenders.
My neighbours house got broken into and the offenders were caught. Since the offenders were only 14, nothing was done about it. Is this really the message we should be sending out to the youth of this country?
48 hrs in The Town Hall Stocks...

I've got two kids but I have no idea what government hindrance you refer to. The government is irrelevant to the way I am bringing them up, or indeed to the way they end up turning out.
Irrelevant if you give them a clip around the ear or a wallop on the backside?

The last two decades of governments have been out to remove as much responsibility and accountabiltiy from the average New Zealander and to place that responsibiltiy in their own hands.
Thank fuck someone else gets it.

red mermaid

7th January 2011, 13:13

I blame them giving woman the right to vote in 1896 and letting them wear long trousers in public.

If it wasn't for those 2 decisions, everything would be fine.

Scootbubba

7th January 2011, 13:14

The morals they learn growing up and the opportunities they are given are the exact opposite of how you would have raised your boy,
The family are getting all the sympathy, when they should be bearing the brunt of the blame.

Blaming and shaming mourners won't alter the result. It is a bomb blast personal loss, however badly they may have parented the lad. What's to say he wouldn't have become a productive worker, as I know many turn round after bad starts.

Mean comments about oxygen theft are about as decent (at this time) as saying bikers deserve death just for being fool enough to ride. Irreverence rules here?

In my opinion everyone has polar opposite ideas about how to get the best result, but why knock 'em unless you offer superior ideas. A tolL of 20 is nothing to crow about, and suggests room for improvement in approaches of ALL involved - aye or nay. It's not about cops or robbers or right or wrong, it's a community problem. Far too much attention is going onto politicians and cops and lobbyists views, as opposed to community driven change.

Do KB pillions advise their rider they do not consent to being taken hostage should their buddy flee cops, before mounting? Do KBs kids know to only use trusted drivers when cruising with teen mates and dates?

Pascal

7th January 2011, 13:27

I blame them giving woman the right to vote in 1896

Yeah. I have no idea how they decided which one actually got the vote.

mashman

7th January 2011, 13:52

Tui advert time?
The individual needs to take responsibility, noy "society" or "the gubbinment".

Bullshit. Individuals can choose not to take responsibility (even grown up politicians), the don't NEED to do anything :facepalm:. Try forcing someone to take responsibility for anything they don't see as their "fault". You then enforce Societies "morals"/"laws" upon the individual as a lesson. Therefore, and by default, it is then left to Society where the parents cannot "control" the impulses of their children. If they ain't being bad, Society has done a decent enough job, not just the parents...

It takes a Village to raise a child.

Dave Lobster

7th January 2011, 14:11

Blaming and shaming mourners won't alter the result. It is a bomb blast personal loss, however badly they may have parented the lad. What's to say he wouldn't have become a productive worker, as I know many turn round after bad starts.
And how many that didn't?

Mean comments about oxygen theft are about as decent (at this time) as saying bikers deserve death just for being fool enough to ride. Irreverence rules here?

Riding is not foolish. Riding in a manner that will get you killed is. Riding a stolen bike at high speed, running from the police is foolish, and I'd happily wish death on all bike thieves.

It's not about cops or robbers or right or wrong, it's a community problem. Far too much attention is going onto politicians and cops and lobbyists views, as opposed to community driven change.

It is not a community problem. It's a shit people problem. The way other people raise their ferel/warrior gened offspring is nothing to do with me.

Scootbubba

7th January 2011, 14:29

Dat you Michael bro?

Pascal

7th January 2011, 14:30

It takes a Village to raise a child.

It's all small building blocks. You need to start with a cohesive, happy family unit. Once the house is happy, mommy and daddy or daddy and daddy or mommy and mommy (Pix plx) is happy and loving eachother that unit is good. Expand that to knowing your neighbours, watering their garden while they're out, having the odd barbeque together and just being part of that community. Spread that out a bit to the neighbourhood and eventually all these little connected units of happiness will be a good, productive village all taking care and helping each-other.

Of course, that's idealistic. Is it still possible for that type of village community to exist?

mashman

7th January 2011, 14:41

It's all small building blocks. You need to start with a cohesive, happy family unit. Once the house is happy, mommy and daddy or daddy and daddy or mommy and mommy (Pix plx) is happy and loving eachother that unit is good. Expand that to knowing your neighbours, watering their garden while they're out, having the odd barbeque together and just being part of that community. Spread that out a bit to the neighbourhood and eventually all these little connected units of happiness will be a good, productive village all taking care and helping each-other.

Of course, that's idealistic. Is it still possible for that type of village community to exist?

You don't need a happy family unit to have happy, well adjusted kids :). But i understand what you mean and i'm sure it helps.

Those communities exist all over the planet... I've lived in a few and i'm pretty damned sure there are plenty of places like that in NZ... plus i bet they're a damn site less PC about life in general...

slowpoke

7th January 2011, 14:43

FFS open your bloody eyes man, socialists (most of NZ) believe that children belong to the State and as a consequence the State has gradually usurped parents rights of control over their children!

Social engineering (Legislative tinkering) by successive (mainly socialist) MMP governments has set the ground rules for the situation we find ourselves in right now!

PC fuckwits blaming the police for interfering with these dumb undisciplined kiddies rights while they steal some poor hard working bastards car!

Now you want to hold the parents accountable for the result!

Parents are like boxers being sent into the ring with their hands tied behind their backs and then being held accountable for not winning!

National has done nothing to change this and their current term is almost up, so who "is" going to turn it around in the future!

So far it looks like it is only going to get worse before it gets better! :facepalm:

The person responsible is the person doing "the crime". Parents have to instill the "right" into the child, but they have their hands tied behind their back (as stated previously in this thread) if they do not abide by the gubbinments way of thinking.

Tui advert time?
The individual needs to take responsibility, noy "society" or "the gubbinment".

48hrs in the Town Hall stocks would sort that shit out.

Well said!

48 hrs in The Town Hall Stocks...

Irrelevant if you give them a clip around the ear or a wallop on the backside?

Thank fuck someone else gets it.

Sorry, don't agree.

There is no public servant parked in your lounge room 24/7 so exactly how have governments removed the ability of parents to influence their children?

Exactly what is it that the government and the rest of us "Socialists" are stopping parents from doing that would make all the difference? Exactly how are parents hands tied? These things must be written somewhere, where do I find them?

Sorry, but parents can still talk to their kids, can still set an example, can still involve/encourage/assist them in sports and/or education, can still choose who they decide to let into their house, can stop sub-10 year olds from cruising the streets at crazy hours, can teach respect for people/property/animals etc etc etc etc.

Nup, personal/parental responsibility is not something a government can take away, it's something you choose to relinquish.

Genestho

7th January 2011, 14:48

Of course, that's idealistic. Is it still possible for that type of village community to exist?

Yes it is possible, and yes it does exist. It is up to the community to make it happen, not standby and fantasize.

My street is part of a few thousand wide neighbourhood support watch scheme, we officially started two years ago. But unofficially nothing changed, the only difference was we were given stickers for our doors.
We know when a stranger walks or drives down the street, look out for each others homes when we're away, water the gardens, tell kids off when they're upto mischief and send them home to their parents with the full true story - just like the old days. We have a sign asking drivers to "go slow, children playing", xmas street parties to introduce new families..

We are all able to still live private lives, it's not an intrusive lifestyle - but we are all concerned young families and we are a community that looks out for each other.

Pascal

7th January 2011, 15:08

There is no public servant parked in your lounge room 24/7 so exactly how have governments removed the ability of parents to influence their children?

I don't think it is entirely about removal of the ability to influence children. For me it is in the government taking responsiblity for so many aspects of people's lives that the attitude, in general, has become one of "She'll be alright mate, the govt will take care of it."

You don't need retirement savings, because there is Superannuation.
You don't need health insurance, because there is free health-care.
You don't need income protection, because there is welfare.
You don't need to work, because there is welfare.
You don't need insurance, because there is ACC.
You don't need to take of your children, because there is free child-care.
You don't need to work harder or smarter, because there is Working for Families.
You don't need to improve yourself, because the government will take care of you.
Everybody needs to be equal - let's redistribute income to make it so.
There are no winners or losers.
You can't eat pies because they make you fat - let's take them out of tuckshops.
You can't do this.
You can't do that.

It goes on and on and on. I'm painting in very broad strokes, but I do believe those types of things which "socialists" generally paint as taking care of people are actually removing their desire to take care of themselves.

Why would somebody work to improve themselves when they know they can get a top-up on their income from Working for Families?

Why would a family save for their children's education when they can get interest free student loans?

I'm not taking shots at those items specifically. There is good in a lot of that. But I also think it has helped to breed generations of people who are slowly losing their independance from their government. And that fucking terrifies me.

Yes it is, and yes it does.

Without giving away too much, whereabouts in the country is that?

Genestho

7th January 2011, 15:14

Without giving away too much, whereabouts in the country is that?

Tauranga. The reason we did this is because there were three severe and significant incidences down our street that impacted on young families (EDIT: actually make that 4, a new family moved in recently that had been home invaded last xmas day) and a few of us got together and discussed what could we do, one of our neighbours volunteers for night owls, and then we got behind neighbourhood watch support. I think I read we are one of the biggest suburban groups in NZ :)

PrincessBandit

7th January 2011, 15:42

Yeah yeah yeah, blah blah blah, but you aint answered my questions yet noodles....

What were were you cooking and what were you wearing when you were cooking it?

Yes photo's please.........

Oh ok, just 'cos you asked so nicely.

small print: some details might differ from that shown!
228068

Hey, the hair colour is the same though...:wings:

mashman

7th January 2011, 15:47

Nup, personal/parental responsibility is not something a government can take away, it's something you choose to relinquish.

Can CYFS serve orders to have children removed from happy homes (sometimes the information is wrong, or the "argument" has been greatly exaggerated)? Do you know what an ASBO is? Just 2 examples of personal and parental responsibility being removed by the govt. And that's just 2 that I know of.

I'm sure there are some parents that are glad to see the back of their kids and happily relinquish the responsibility. Hardly surprising when you look around at some of the kids these days, attacking policemen, vandalising, general thuggery etc... the list of their talents is endless. Some people can't handle it. The govt washes their hands too... they just give the kids a house and a few bucks each week and they've done their bit. Then people wonder why society is shit, it must be the parents.

I disagree that the govt is not responsible. It may not be wholly responsible, but they're taking over the parenting role, giving the kid a roof and money for food and play etc... What then? Kid on his own. Money in his pocket, system to abuse... Game on.

PrincessBandit

7th January 2011, 15:51

[QUOTE=Pascal;1129949744]............ in general, has become one of "She'll be alright mate, the govt will take care of it."

You don't need retirement savings, because there is Superannuation.
...............................
Everybody needs to be equal - let's redistribute income to make it so.
There are no winners or losers.
You can't eat pies because they make you fat - let's take them out of tuckshops.
You can't do this.
You can't do that.

It goes on and on and on.

There really is no incentive for individual responsibility - those who display it generally hold it as an intrinsic value within themselves. Lots of people know they could get way ahead in life if they were prepared to rort the system but won't. Others screw the system for everything they can and play the game counting on the PC brigade to inadvertantly (or otherwise) defend them.

While there has been lots of speculation as to the type of upbringing this young boy might have had, there just are some kids who no matter what their parents try to do for them just have to cause their folks grief and heartache.

Scootbubba

7th January 2011, 15:53

Necessitating the new housing projects like Springhill.

Scouse

7th January 2011, 15:56

Scouse

7th January 2011, 15:58

She was from the Candor Trust (whatever that is).She is a member of this site look up Candor in the members list

2wheeldrifter

7th January 2011, 15:58

Yes it is possible, standby and fantasize.

Yes it is indeed possible..........

Oh ok, just 'cos you asked so nicely.

small print: some details might differ from that shown!
228068

Hey, the hair colour is the same though...:wings:

Thank you PB

Scouse

7th January 2011, 16:22

Yeah yeah yeah, blah blah blah, but you aint answered my questions yet noodles....

What were were you cooking and what were you wearing when you were cooking it?Lets paint our own picture eh. I say nekid except for a PVC apron and a pair of stiletto shoes and the menu consisted of oysters (dont worry Max im gettin to the important bit) in a pie

Swoop

7th January 2011, 16:35

Individuals can choose not to take responsibility
They get the opportunity to take their own responsibility when they stand in the "accused's" box in the courtroom. The light hopefully comes on at that stage.:bye:

Everything comes down to the individual. How they are raised by the parents and the moral standards set for them. Let parents do their job, without the interference of the government's (agenda-driven) agencies. Instill PERSONAL responsibility into every child.

Scouse

7th January 2011, 16:48

If the family want my sympathy they can start by paying for the power pole.
And thanking the guys who were dragged away from their families in the wee small hours to clean up the mess this fucktard made.If the family want sympathy they should go and look it up in the dictionary they will find it somewhere between shit and syphilis

Maha

7th January 2011, 16:55

I know it almost like these people aprove of their useless scumsucking offspring being thieves

Correct Steve, a thief is a thief, a dead one only means that there is one less thief around to make someones life a complete misery.

slowpoke

7th January 2011, 17:28

I don't think it is entirely about removal of the ability to influence children. For me it is in the government taking responsiblity for so many aspects of people's lives that the attitude, in general, has become one of "She'll be alright mate, the govt will take care of it."

You don't need retirement savings, because there is Superannuation.
You don't need health insurance, because there is free health-care.
You don't need income protection, because there is welfare.
You don't need to work, because there is welfare.
You don't need insurance, because there is ACC.
You don't need to take of your children, because there is free child-care.
You don't need to work harder or smarter, because there is Working for Families.
You don't need to improve yourself, because the government will take care of you.
Everybody needs to be equal - let's redistribute income to make it so.
There are no winners or losers.
You can't eat pies because they make you fat - let's take them out of tuckshops.
You can't do this.
You can't do that.

It goes on and on and on. I'm painting in very broad strokes, but I do believe those types of things which "socialists" generally paint as taking care of people are actually removing their desire to take care of themselves.

Why would somebody work to improve themselves when they know they can get a top-up on their income from Working for Families?

Why would a family save for their children's education when they can get interest free student loans?

I'm not taking shots at those items specifically. There is good in a lot of that. But I also think it has helped to breed generations of people who are slowly losing their independance from their government. And that fucking terrifies me.

I can kinda see your reasoning but I'm not convinced.

And what's the alternative?

Are we gonna just say "sorry, you're on your own" to the poor old buggers who lost their life savings to another folding finance company? Same to the young bloke knocked off his bike through no fault of his own? Or the meatworkers laid off with falling lamb prices? How do these people look after themselves?

You are living in a bubble if you don't think we are living in an aspirational society. Everybody wants more/better/newer/shinier/faster something or other. There's no-way you can afford any of that shit we never knew we always needed living on the subsistence welfare payments you are talking about......hence you go and steal it instead.

I really don't see the problem with any of the above examples in principle. Aren't governments supposed to help/educate/service/protect/secure it's people? If not, then what do you see as their role?

Can CYFS serve orders to have children removed from happy homes (sometimes the information is wrong, or the "argument" has been greatly exaggerated)? Do you know what an ASBO is? Just 2 examples of personal and parental responsibility being removed by the govt. And that's just 2 that I know of.

I'm sure there are some parents that are glad to see the back of their kids and happily relinquish the responsibility. Hardly surprising when you look around at some of the kids these days, attacking policemen, vandalising, general thuggery etc... the list of their talents is endless. Some people can't handle it. The govt washes their hands too... they just give the kids a house and a few bucks each week and they've done their bit. Then people wonder why society is shit, it must be the parents.

I disagree that the govt is not responsible. It may not be wholly responsible, but they're taking over the parenting role, giving the kid a roof and money for food and play etc... What then? Kid on his own. Money in his pocket, system to abuse... Game on.

Again, what is the alternative? CYF are damned if they do, damned if they don't intervene. For every headline of an interferring CYF, there's half a dozen regarding why they didn't do something sooner.

But by and large there is nothing preventing average well adjusted parents from raising well adjusted kids, least of all government interference. Trouble is when things don't go to plan a lot of folks tend to look at themselves last rather than first. I'm not saying it's all parents fault, but despite all the socialist conspiracy theory's to the contrary they have the biggest responsibility and most influence with their developing children, like it or not.

JimO

7th January 2011, 18:43

the cause of this problem goes further than young crims stealing cars, it starts with the paying money to people to have children, usually the people who can least handle the responsibility of rasing ONE child end up with many children. These people dont give a shit what the kids get up to, its a self perpetuating formula the kids make more kids for the money. I adopted a pup from the spca before xmas they came and checked my property to make sure i had suitable accommodation, they checked with the local council to make sure i hadnt been in trouble with them with other dogs, i can have as many kids as i want . The problem is the same as the child abuse problem its over represented with maori and i feel its time the maori leaders stood up and took ownership of the havoc being caused by their young people, pour the treaty money into education for their young. Im sick of hearing that the education system is failing maori. Its not normal behavior for a 15 year old to steal cars and its not normal to run from the cops. Personally i couldnt care less if all the car theifs killed themselves as long as no innocent person is injured

AD345

7th January 2011, 19:16

Jesus Christ, there's some reactionary bullshit on this thread.

Too feckin hot to type out my reply now.

So I'll just say that having raised 2 kids and now watchng 3 grandkids grow up I'm pretty happy that it took place in this society and I'm equally confident that all 5 of them are going to continue to carry on living in peace and contentment.

The usual travails of life will come and go but I have no fears for the future

Flip

7th January 2011, 19:35

I think that he was just an ignorant child, he made a mistake and has paid the price. It was not his parents fault, it was not the Police's fault and it sure as hell was not the governments fault. Society without exception does have a responsibility to care for its young but there is a big difference between responsibility and blame.

A certain number of every new generation rebel and every generation is concerned about the behavior of its children, it was so for Plato in 350 BC, it was so for Winston Churchill and it is so now for me/us.

I believe the virtue is knowledge, knowledge is gained by experience. So without experience it is difficult if not impossible to have virtue.

When I was a kid I did stupid things, never stole a car but several of my friends and family did and they have without exception turned out OK (after 40 years). I actually feel sorry for the youth of today, there is so much more scrutiny of the youth these days than there was when I was a young punk.

FJRider

7th January 2011, 19:54

Perhaps a return to personal responsibility for one's actions ... is this a case a disrespect for the law in general ... or just a disrespect for the laws we find "inconvenient" ... (more than a few on site are guilty of that)

Decisions we make often tend to bite us in the ass later ... or kill us !!!

Blame is for those that won't admit THEY made wrong decisions ... or those that NEVER made wrong decisions ...

If ... when/after making ANY decision ... you ask yourself, whats the worst thing that could happen ??? and if the answer is ... you may die ... think again about your decision ...

and you may live ... to think on it some more ...

oldrider

8th January 2011, 12:17

Sorry, don't agree.

There is no public servant parked in your lounge room 24/7 so exactly how have governments removed the ability of parents to influence their children?

Exactly what is it that the government and the rest of us "Socialists" are stopping parents from doing that would make all the difference? Exactly how are parents hands tied? These things must be written somewhere, where do I find them?

Sorry, but parents can still talk to their kids, can still set an example, can still involve/encourage/assist them in sports and/or education, can still choose who they decide to let into their house, can stop sub-10 year olds from cruising the streets at crazy hours, can teach respect for people/property/animals etc etc etc etc.

Nup, personal/parental responsibility is not something a government can take away, it's something you choose to relinquish.

Not true any more, it used to be like that!

Government legislation "is" present in your lounge 24/7 and all of the parental rights you have listed have been legislated out of existence!

As a parent "all you have is love" and when that fails you are in deep doo doo and if the child wishes to proceed to challenge your love further, the government (State) departments will step in and support the Child!

I hope you never ever have to test the system but if you do, you will find it is designed for you (the parents) to lose!

mashman

8th January 2011, 12:24

Not true any more, it used to be like that!

Government legislation "is" present in your lounge 24/7 and all of the parental rights you have listed have been legislated out of existence!

As a parent "all you have is love" and when that fails you are in deep doo doo and if the child wishes to proceed to challenge your love further, the government (State) departments will step in and support the Child!

I hope you never ever have to test the system but if you do, you will find it is designed for you (the parents) to lose!

nae bling to give.

And don't an awful lot of the youth of today know it :)

trustme

8th January 2011, 13:33

When I was a kid I did stupid things, never stole a car but several of my friends and family did and they have without exception turned out OK (after 40 years). I actually feel sorry for the youth of today, there is so much more scrutiny of the youth these days than there was when I was a young punk.

The scrutiny has always been there. The modern world has removed the discretionary powers of those in authority. Dealing with kids doing dumb shit used to be in many circumstances an ' off the record ' matter, unfortunately that is no longer possible.
Kids have always pushed the limits, kids today get away with so much more than we did. Some just don't recognise where the limits are.

candor

9th January 2011, 11:47

Virago

9th January 2011, 12:09

The wonders of tv. They had the Policeman say "runners must take responsibility" then cut to me saying "that's absolutely insane - they're irrational". Anyone take the time to wonder what question I was actually answering with that? Well it wasn't a response to the Cop saying the runners are responsible. However entertaining + inflammatory the editing was at my expense, it's all good fun how tv can bend reality to create drama and conflict where none exists, exciting viewers. Now I have Ministers of religion writing to me about the PC corruption of moral values when people aren't required to take responsibility - which I NEVER said/meant, but clever editing suggested.

Ah - so you're the Candor Trust front person...?

If what you say above is true, you need to lay a complaint with the Broadcasting Standards Authority - you need to nail them to the wall for that.

I'm a little puzzled as to who exactly the Candor Trust is, and why they are now the public face of the anti-police-chase movement? From what I understand, the Candor Trust started as an anti-drug-driving movement, but the focus seems to have changed to denouncing "violence" on our roads, with a primary focus on police chases?

PrincessBandit

9th January 2011, 12:24

The wonders of tv. They had the Policeman say "runners must take responsibility" then cut to me saying "that's absolutely insane - they're irrational". Anyone take the time to wonder what question I was actually answering with that? Well it wasn't a response to the Cop saying the runners are responsible. However entertaining + inflammatory the editing was at my expense, it's all good fun how tv can bend reality to create drama and conflict where none exists, exciting viewers. Now I have Ministers of religion writing to me about the PC corruption of moral values when people aren't required to take responsibility - which I NEVER said/meant, but clever editing suggested.

My apologies then if the item was the result of twisted editing. However I do get fed up with a general inference that people who do runners bear little or no responsibility for the mayhem they cause. Cops are damned if they do and damned it they don't. Personal responsibility must be instilled and stop blaming every tom dick and harry for offenders actions.

candor

9th January 2011, 13:29

My apologies then if the item was the result of twisted editing. However I do get fed up with a general inference that people who do runners bear little or no responsibility for the mayhem they cause. Cops are damned if they do and damned it they don't. Personal responsibility must be instilled and stop blaming every tom dick and harry for offenders actions.

Twisted by editing and oversimplification to the point my heart sped up. I've had 30 abusive e-mls! It goes with the turf though. In essence the report represented our view that chases need to ease up, and it's got debate going so is a success that way imo. But I'm not into complaining unless an item is vindictively false because media enemies aren't desirable, plus I think they just oversimplified to an extreme as canm happen with tv media, and tried to create drama.

Why is Candor Trust focussed on chases - actualy its not our main activity, just the one media picks up on most. Because our Trust deed says we're active on promoting measures to reduce substance impaired driving trauma. The research is clear that pursuits when policy makes them regular occurrances increase it.

About one in 300 pursuits here end in death after a suspect impaired drivers was pursued (& the real concern is that half the time it's not the fleeing driver themself killed).

Global research shows the chance of an impaired driving trip ending in death when there is no pursuit occurring is something like 500x lower, just from memory. HIGH SPEED chasing of impaired drivers is irrational on the math (like pouring petrol on the fire) with predictably bad human consequences so that explains our interest in these events, hopefully.

My own Mother was killed by a repeat drink and drug driver. She had a chance at life though as his speed was only 90Kph when he crossed the centreline - but had he been pursued at the time he erred the physics clearly says she'd have been;
1) more likely to have been hit full-stop as pursued drivers are MUCH more reckless
2) gone instantly (no show) due to a catastrophic speed impact - which is perhaps more humane... but not so good for toll stats!

The chance of any drunk or drugged trip leading to tragedy though much higher than for a non impaird driver is low on absolute probabilities (you could drive drunk or drugged for years before crashing seriously based on crash risk odds). Pursuits when high speed however are inherently off the scale in risks. Science says so and all the traffic safety experts, and as a Trust we have to go with the complex boring evidence - whether thats popular or not! No way we're trying to ban pursuits - just reduce the need, improve delivery etc.

Getting stuck on who to blame doesn't bring back or protect innocent lives, and Govt spinners are trying to create a roadblock to further analysis of solutions by saying well it's not OUR fault so WE needn't try and seriously find ways to cut harm.

Quite different to the more adult approach taken overseas where the State does seek to do what it can and is in its power to defuse the danger - regardless who "started it".
A deflecting & don't care attitude to road safety from atop generally is why we fail.
IMO Police are dealt a bad hand - they are in a kind of road safety house of policy horror, with a lack of supportive laws and initiatives and no critical reflection and evaluation whenever new policies are tried or ones become outdated.

MSTRS

9th January 2011, 15:24

... if the child wishes to proceed to challenge your love further, the government (State) departments will step in and support the Child!

...

And don't an awful lot of the youth of today know it :)

They did 20 year ago too...
'Independent Youth Benefit' my arse. And then DSW as they were then wanted 'maintenance'. Ha!! Good luck with that, said we. The teen in question could live at home and be supported if they followed the rules, but if not then damned if we were gonna be raped so they could have that ridiculously named benefit.
We weren't about to let the child's rights impinge on our's, the parents.
Not sure we'd get away with that these days tho.

mashman

9th January 2011, 15:51

They did 20 year ago too...
'Independent Youth Benefit' my arse. And then DSW as they were then wanted 'maintenance'. Ha!! Good luck with that, said we. The teen in question could live at home and be supported if they followed the rules, but if not then damned if we were gonna be raped so they could have that ridiculously named benefit.
We weren't about to let the child's rights impinge on our's, the parents.
Not sure we'd get away with that these days tho.

Yeah, shame the PC brigade have a sympathetic legal system... i mean, you have to be "legally" in need to get said benefits don't ya. Which means the rest of us have no choice/say in the matter because it has already been resolved. Trying the rehabilitation path, which i'd like to see (they aren't completely unreasonable), costs too much money. Much cheaper to just pay the kid. :facepalm: Weeeee're doooooooomed...

Virago

9th January 2011, 16:33

...Why is Candor Trust focussed on chases - actualy its not our main activity, just the one media picks up on most. Because our Trust deed says we're active on promoting measures to reduce substance impaired driving trauma. The research is clear that pursuits when policy makes them regular occurrances increase it...

Thanks for explaining the Candor Trust's position.

Can you please point us in the direction of clear and unbiased research statistics that support such claims?

The problem is that others claim that a blanket policy of abandoning high-speed pursuits actually encourages fleeing culprits to drive dangerously. So who is right?

Being wise in hindsight is very easy - groups like Candor gain little credibility by triumphantly saying "I told you so" after each pursuit death.

The reality is that deaths will always result from people fleeing police. The only way to stop that is for the police to refrain from traffic stops altogether - "just in case...".

FJRider

9th January 2011, 16:43

More police roadblocks in place ... maybe ... ???

http://www.lolcars.com/images/crazy-police-roadblock.jpg

JimO

9th January 2011, 17:13

Twisted by editing and oversimplification to the point my heart sped up. I've had 30 abusive e-mls! It goes with the turf though. In essence the report represented our view that chases need to ease up, and it's got debate going so is a success that way imo. But I'm not into complaining unless an item is vindictively false because media enemies aren't desirable, plus I think they just oversimplified to an extreme as canm happen with tv media, and tried to create drama.

Why is Candor Trust focussed on chases - actualy its not our main activity, just the one media picks up on most. Because our Trust deed says we're active on promoting measures to reduce substance impaired driving trauma. The research is clear that pursuits when policy makes them regular occurrances increase it.

About one in 300 pursuits here end in death after a suspect impaired drivers was pursued (& the real concern is that half the time it's not the fleeing driver themself killed).

Global research shows the chance of an impaired driving trip ending in death when there is no pursuit occurring is something like 500x lower, just from memory. HIGH SPEED chasing of impaired drivers is irrational on the math (like pouring petrol on the fire) with predictably bad human consequences so that explains our interest in these events, hopefully.

My own Mother was killed by a repeat drink and drug driver. She had a chance at life though as his speed was only 90Kph when he crossed the centreline - but had he been pursued at the time he erred the physics clearly says she'd have been;
1) more likely to have been hit full-stop as pursued drivers are MUCH more reckless
2) gone instantly (no show) due to a catastrophic speed impact - which is perhaps more humane... but not so good for toll stats!

The chance of any drunk or drugged trip leading to tragedy though much higher than for a non impaird driver is low on absolute probabilities (you could drive drunk or drugged for years before crashing seriously based on crash risk odds). Pursuits when high speed however are inherently off the scale in risks. Science says so and all the traffic safety experts, and as a Trust we have to go with the complex boring evidence - whether thats popular or not! No way we're trying to ban pursuits - just reduce the need, improve delivery etc.

Getting stuck on who to blame doesn't bring back or protect innocent lives, and Govt spinners are trying to create a roadblock to further analysis of solutions by saying well it's not OUR fault so WE needn't try and seriously find ways to cut harm.

Quite different to the more adult approach taken overseas where the State does seek to do what it can and is in its power to defuse the danger - regardless who "started it".
A deflecting & don't care attitude to road safety from atop generally is why we fail.
IMO Police are dealt a bad hand - they are in a kind of road safety house of policy horror, with a lack of supportive laws and initiatives and no critical reflection and evaluation whenever new policies are tried or ones become outdated.

why dont you stand up and say that stealing cars and running from the police are unacceptable and that the people who indulge in these behaviors need to accept the responsibility of their actions instead of blaming the police for doing their job

PrincessBandit

9th January 2011, 17:16

The reality is that deaths will always result from people fleeing police. The only way to stop that is for the police to refrain from traffic stops altogether - "just in case...".

I think that might be the goal/intent...

slowpoke

9th January 2011, 17:19

Twisted by editing and oversimplification to the point my heart sped up. I've had 30 abusive e-mls! It goes with the turf though. In essence the report represented our view that chases need to ease up, and it's got debate going so is a success that way imo. But I'm not into complaining unless an item is vindictively false because media enemies aren't desirable, plus I think they just oversimplified to an extreme as canm happen with tv media, and tried to create drama.

Why is Candor Trust focussed on chases - actualy its not our main activity, just the one media picks up on most. Because our Trust deed says we're active on promoting measures to reduce substance impaired driving trauma. The research is clear that pursuits when policy makes them regular occurrances increase it.

About one in 300 pursuits here end in death after a suspect impaired drivers was pursued (& the real concern is that half the time it's not the fleeing driver themself killed).

Global research shows the chance of an impaired driving trip ending in death when there is no pursuit occurring is something like 500x lower, just from memory. HIGH SPEED chasing of impaired drivers is irrational on the math (like pouring petrol on the fire) with predictably bad human consequences so that explains our interest in these events, hopefully.

My own Mother was killed by a repeat drink and drug driver. She had a chance at life though as his speed was only 90Kph when he crossed the centreline - but had he been pursued at the time he erred the physics clearly says she'd have been;
1) more likely to have been hit full-stop as pursued drivers are MUCH more reckless
2) gone instantly (no show) due to a catastrophic speed impact - which is perhaps more humane... but not so good for toll stats!

The chance of any drunk or drugged trip leading to tragedy though much higher than for a non impaird driver is low on absolute probabilities (you could drive drunk or drugged for years before crashing seriously based on crash risk odds). Pursuits when high speed however are inherently off the scale in risks. Science says so and all the traffic safety experts, and as a Trust we have to go with the complex boring evidence - whether thats popular or not! No way we're trying to ban pursuits - just reduce the need, improve delivery etc.

Getting stuck on who to blame doesn't bring back or protect innocent lives, and Govt spinners are trying to create a roadblock to further analysis of solutions by saying well it's not OUR fault so WE needn't try and seriously find ways to cut harm.

Quite different to the more adult approach taken overseas where the State does seek to do what it can and is in its power to defuse the danger - regardless who "started it".
A deflecting & don't care attitude to road safety from atop generally is why we fail.
IMO Police are dealt a bad hand - they are in a kind of road safety house of policy horror, with a lack of supportive laws and initiatives and no critical reflection and evaluation whenever new policies are tried or ones become outdated.

Thanks for the informative and reasoned response. I think a lot of folks struggle with the innate response that the runner must be punished. But that old saying "better 10 criminals go free than an innocent man be put to death" (excuse paraphrase) regarding capital punishment could equally apply to this issue.

I dunno, I freely admit I don't know the facts here in NZ let alone in places around the world with a different policy and I'll keep an open mind about it. I read an interesting article regarding the motivation behind the kids who do this sort of thing and the sheer fact that they do get chased is a large part of why they do it.

By and large we make our decisions based on a Newspaper headline, a 30sec news clip or which ever knee has jerked first. The government agencies on the other hand have to justify their decisions, hence it's important we get involved in politics and elect worthy representatives to drive those departments. Unfortunately we spend more time reading the sports/gossip pages than we do matters that actually affect our lives and apply the same headline/30sec/knee jerk decision making process come election time and wonder why we end up with a bunch of crooks, charismatic goobers and populist posturers in power.

98tls

9th January 2011, 17:25

phill-k

9th January 2011, 17:31

Twisted by editing and oversimplification to the point my heart sped up. I've had 30 abusive e-mls! It goes with the turf though. In essence the report represented our view that chases need to ease up, and it's got debate going so is a success that way imo. But I'm not into complaining unless an item is vindictively false because media enemies aren't desirable, plus I think they just oversimplified to an extreme as canm happen with tv media, and tried to create drama.

Why is Candor Trust focussed on chases - actualy its not our main activity, just the one media picks up on most. Because our Trust deed says we're active on promoting measures to reduce substance impaired driving trauma. The research is clear that pursuits when policy makes them regular occurrances increase it.

About one in 300 pursuits here end in death after a suspect impaired drivers was pursued (& the real concern is that half the time it's not the fleeing driver themself killed).

Global research shows the chance of an impaired driving trip ending in death when there is no pursuit occurring is something like 500x lower, just from memory. HIGH SPEED chasing of impaired drivers is irrational on the math (like pouring petrol on the fire) with predictably bad human consequences so that explains our interest in these events, hopefully.

My own Mother was killed by a repeat drink and drug driver. She had a chance at life though as his speed was only 90Kph when he crossed the centreline - but had he been pursued at the time he erred the physics clearly says she'd have been;
1) more likely to have been hit full-stop as pursued drivers are MUCH more reckless
2) gone instantly (no show) due to a catastrophic speed impact - which is perhaps more humane... but not so good for toll stats!

The chance of any drunk or drugged trip leading to tragedy though much higher than for a non impaird driver is low on absolute probabilities (you could drive drunk or drugged for years before crashing seriously based on crash risk odds). Pursuits when high speed however are inherently off the scale in risks. Science says so and all the traffic safety experts, and as a Trust we have to go with the complex boring evidence - whether thats popular or not! No way we're trying to ban pursuits - just reduce the need, improve delivery etc.

Getting stuck on who to blame doesn't bring back or protect innocent lives, and Govt spinners are trying to create a roadblock to further analysis of solutions by saying well it's not OUR fault so WE needn't try and seriously find ways to cut harm.

Quite different to the more adult approach taken overseas where the State does seek to do what it can and is in its power to defuse the danger - regardless who "started it".
A deflecting & don't care attitude to road safety from atop generally is why we fail.
IMO Police are dealt a bad hand - they are in a kind of road safety house of policy horror, with a lack of supportive laws and initiatives and no critical reflection and evaluation whenever new policies are tried or ones become outdated.

Not only is your survey biased, but the crap written above shows how fucking stupid you are, why don't you just campaign for drunk driving to be legalised so long as you don't drive over 20kms an hour. The above is PC going wrong in the extreme, to try and link your mothers circumstances to being lucky through it not being a police chase is pure crap!!! - I stopped reading at that point. and i never use colour, bought to you by Hardeys Cab Sav

slowpoke

9th January 2011, 17:35

Edit: no point

candor

9th January 2011, 17:38

why dont you stand up and say that stealing cars and running from the police are unacceptable and that the people who indulge in these behaviors need to accept the responsibility of their actions instead of blaming the police for doing their job

Umm because we do say offenders need to take responsibility and do blame them but it can't stop there not for one minute (or the 100 years National would like it to)as that does not save lives, asking the Police to use best evidence backed policies is hardly blaming them - it is seeking better responses on the behalf of future inniocent victims or fugitives whose actions are not BEST managed.

Visitors - back later to address other post

tri boy

9th January 2011, 17:41

The kid found out there is no "reset" button on the big playstation game of life.
Meh. I'm still alive. He isn't.
Next..........

Latte

9th January 2011, 19:56

You've taken it upon yourself to do something about it, which is commendable, but it's my opinion (and it seems others here) you're trying to fix the symptoms, and not the disease.

Runners/police chases are the result of a lack of respect for police/authority, and an increase of people using/abusing substances that impair their judgement (I've no evidence of this, but I'm making what I beleive a fairly reasonable assumption).

Taking away the consequences of doing a runner isn't going to fix the problem, merely shift it somewhere else....... or worse (if all I have to do is drive erratically to get away in my stolen car and I know the police have to abandon the pursuit, what happens if I shoot that guy in the corner dairy for $200, and then drive erratically in my stolen car).

Do I have the answer? No , but I can see this isn't going to help. Again, any effort is better than none, and at least your doing something about what you belive in.

pritch

9th January 2011, 21:30

Thanks to the Labour party, that is assault!

Actually it was Sue Bradford's bill and she was a Green I think...

Fatt Max

10th January 2011, 06:55

Actually it was Sue Bradford's bill and she was a Green I think...

Correction my friend, she is a thick twat...

Pascal

10th January 2011, 08:24

Aren't governments supposed to help/educate/service/protect/secure it's people? If not, then what do you see as their role?

From my perspective the government is there to own, maintain and manage the infrastructure required for the country such as roading, railroads and so forth. They are there to act as a representative of New Zealand on the international stage and to manage the external defense force and internal security force of the country as required.

Beyond that I do not believe a government should have a role in the lives of it's people.

Are we gonna just say "sorry, you're on your own" to the poor old buggers who lost their life savings to another folding finance company? Same to the young bloke knocked off his bike through no fault of his own? Or the meatworkers laid off with falling lamb prices? How do these people look after themselves?

My personal feeling is that it is the responsibility of the individual, their household, their family units, etc.

If you have placed all your life savings into one finance company (Eggs in one basket) and it folds, it is not my responsiblity or the governments' responsibility to help you out.

If you have an accident and you do not have medical insurance / regular insurance, it is not my responsiblity or that of the rest of society to fund and care for you.

Laid off? That is one of the risks of employment. You can cover yourself by having income protection insurance to cover the time between you lose your job and when you find another one. Or create another one for yourself.

Now that seems harsh, as if I do not care about the plight of the people you mentioned in the example. I do, but I do not believe it is the role of the government to help everybody. That role can be better fulfilled by society. I would much rather donate the money the government takes off me by force to organisations that I know will use it efficiently and effectively to help people.

You are living in a bubble if you don't think we are living in an aspirational society.

I think we're living in a consumerist, brand and image driven society where people want things to fit their image, but are unable to afford them. They end up in the 30 month interest free deals and sucking up a lifetime of debt.

Getting a bit off topic though.

As to the lady from the Candor Trust. Once police have abandoned any attempt at stopping vehicles driven erratically, speeding through suburban streets or even drunk drivers - what do you think will happen? And realistically - given your ideals they would have to abandon ANY traffic stop to elliminate the need for a pursuit.

Unless, of course, they're allowed to signal that somebody should stop, but if that person ignores them they should ignore them right back. And unfriend them on Facebook. And maybe send them a hate tweet.

davebullet

10th January 2011, 13:55

mashman

10th January 2011, 14:09

I still can't think of a good reason the police need to chase and cause someone to drive / ride recklessly on public roads, 2 vehicles at high and dangerous speeds careering through the public.

If you have the guys license plate - done.
If the car is stolen - prints and done.
Radio ahead - done
If he owns the car - remove license for 2 years and put him in jail - done.

I must be just too simple.

You can't handle the reasons :shifty:... it'd be like ringing a dinner bell. If people know that the Police won't chase them, what's the likely outcome gonna be? If i'm about to get pulled for speeding and I know the cops can't chase me and have no real idea of who i am, I'd pin it. If they can chase me, I won't.

Tis a lose lose for the cops and a win win for everyone else... p[ointless giving cops Holdens to drive around in, they may as well be driving people carriers...

SPman

10th January 2011, 15:03

Correction my friend, she is a thick twat...She may have a ..........oh forget it!

scumdog

10th January 2011, 15:47

I still can't think of a good reason the police need to chase and cause someone to drive / ride recklessly on public roads, 2 vehicles at high and dangerous speeds careering through the public.

If you have the guys license plate - done.
If the car is stolen - prints and done.
Radio ahead - done
If he owns the car - remove license for 2 years and put him in jail - done.

I must be just too simple.

Stolen/false/altered plate? - gone
Stolen car torched/wiped of prints - gone
Not enough other patrol cars in area/tied up with domestic etc - gone
Claim car was stolen - gone

My scenarios happen all the time. :yes:

Pascal

10th January 2011, 15:52

Stolen car torched/wiped of prints - gone

How does NZ build up a database of fingerprints? In South Africa, you give your fingerprints whenever you get an ID document or a passport.

I remember fondly when we needed fingerprints done here and going to the Ashurst constabulatory and the blank looks. I think they had to dust off the ink pad and wipe the spiderwebs off it.

scumdog

10th January 2011, 15:56

How does NZ build up a database of fingerprints? In South Africa, you give your fingerprints whenever you get an ID document or a passport.

I remember fondly when we needed fingerprints done here and going to the Ashurst constabulatory and the blank looks. I think they had to dust off the ink pad and wipe the spiderwebs off it.

If you've been arrested and charge? = fingerprinted.

phill-k

10th January 2011, 16:03

StoneY

10th January 2011, 16:15

She was from the Candor Trust (whatever that is).

Of ffs they've been a worm in my ear since BRONZ Wellington opened

It was them under the logon of 'Candor' here on KB that tried whipping up a fenzy about enforcement policies being based on world bank financial plans etc etc.....

Wasted hours and hours of our time with 'smoking gun' documents that when fully read through, merely showed Police believed a certain level of enforcement required (as Patrick and Scumdog have explained in lighthearted quips and well proven to be bullshit)
Just coz an ecconomist was used to help crunch various numbers these guys in Candor Trust were screaming the 'Quota was responsible for our road toll'...

Hysterical dribble IMO
The Yanks get this one right.... IMO

Oh btw this is MY personal opnion y'all
Rednecks rule!

candor

10th January 2011, 22:30

Well ya' can't please them all and I'm not gonna try to. Stoney what you're trying to do shows, and you've misinterpreted these docs bigtime... perhaps due to allegiances to some politicos who'd not benefit from a full "outing" via the Royal Commission into road safety we and others have called for (Dom Post/Paul Henry/RNZ etc).
Or to your crews lack of PhDs, given it took a PhD to report back on the RAM docs before me and my colleagues were even able to make head nor tail - as I have let you know before, the PhDs down at the AA analysed them and did find an exploded gun. The AA has produced several documents trying to have the formula dropped since eg "saving ourselves", Topshelf productions was even doing a doco about our documents with planning well advanced, but NZ On Air declined funding after 3 full on meetings where the AWARD WINNING producer argued for it with a full treatment ie script etc ("too hot").
... there has been no bigger topic in the road safety policy community since these Documents obtained by the Akilla Foundations principle Martin Jenkins (BCom & BEng) were exposed, resulting in a few MoT staff being sent down the road. These docs have caused a large ruckus but you'd need to be working full on in the area to know that.

Re chases - there's lots of views, lots of considerations - no f'n idea why some people are so insistent we have reached the pinnacle of policy perfection. Results say not. Media people tell me they come to us on some subjects because we do our homework and they pass on others because they don't - it's that simple, no magic formula. They also go to experts like Dr Geoff Alpert and extremely educated veteran campaigners like Candy Priano - just maybe because theyknow their pursuit subject. Odd how all these guys agree, & we concur.

Have said and backed up my bit on it on the old chase thread - so any Q's pitched to me on this thread seeking back up for my views re chases, pleeeeez refer that thread (especially post 60). Only thing I'd like to clarify is that no-one, not me, not Candor, not SUPP (which has much bigger guns than Candor involved) is suggesting banning chases for a minute. That's nothing but media dramatisation. RESTRICT - get the balance of interventions right.

Signing out on tiresome chase subject now, in expectation the next generation will get it right :woohoo:. Anyone's welcome to contact me (Rachael) through Candor Trust if want to discuss evidence more with me or other staff - we are overloaded with mail and there are some pretty :facepalm: survey responses eg Maori should not be given licences as the solution. :facepalm: So proud to be Kiwi today:sick:!

candor

10th January 2011, 23:21

Just coz an ecconomist was used to help crunch various numbers these guys in Candor Trust were screaming the 'Quota was responsible for our road toll'...

Not just us - it's what the PHDs made of this formula, and the statement by it's co inventor with the World Bank Economist down at the MOT wasa made that the higher the dose of the formula the higher the road toll bangs up. So MoT started these accusations against their methos, not us, yet you shoot the messenger about the formula f*** up.
Rendered in plain English as "road toll equals existing risk on network minus assumed impact of speed, drink drive and seatbelt tickets issued". Below is one of MoTs quota revisions from 2005 I think. First they sent Akilla sleep safety Foundation 100 pages of computer language that the principle incredulously forwarded me, after MoT earlier denying its existence - 2 years and Ombudsmen involvement later they released the real McCoy, and the notes showing its a dud.

228560
Source - MoT National Road Safety Committee appendix to meeting minutes, stored at NZTA, Chews Lane. We read all 7000 odd pages and copied heaps for release soon.

StoneY

11th January 2011, 06:24

Not just us - it's what the PHDs made of this formula, and the statement by it's co inventor with the World Bank Economist down at the MOT wasa made .............

Here we go again

Same rhetoric you used last time, same conspiracy, and again spurious reference to 'the PHD's...'

I name my sources Rachel, names, facts and documents and this time I dont wanna see crap from the 'safer journeys web forum' being posed as 'facts' or 'government documents'

Even the OIA docs you passed us were nothing like you described, there was no 'smoking gun' there was no indication our Police force does anything like you accuse them of.

We went over your doc's very carefully, (and there were more than 3 degree's in our team that did the examination) add to that, one of our committee examines forensic documents for a living!!!.
What we found was nothing but the daily workings of several government departments processing their daily workloads

So what that an economist that went on later to work for the World Bank was involved, its called Career progression and you may be surprised just how many Kiwi's have made their way into high powered international roles.

Be warned fellow KB'ers this is a looong and windy garden path if you let this lot suck you in....

Brent

davebullet

11th January 2011, 09:49

Stolen/false/altered plate? - gone
Stolen car torched/wiped of prints - gone
Not enough other patrol cars in area/tied up with domestic etc - gone
Claim car was stolen - gone

My scenarios happen all the time. :yes:

I know the media has pet topics and sensationalises things. I would like to know some stats comparing "happy ending" chases with those with serious injury or death. Maybe the odd death is warranted when there is 100 successful chases?

If a car is stolen - the person driving it if chased will either go until:
a) they get away
b) they crash

I would assume drivers who steal cars do not have enough skill to get away. I would police drivers would have more skill than the pursuer. Therefore I would expect b) to be the ultimate result of a pursuit of a stolen vehicle. Someone is going to get seriously injured or die.

If it's a traffic misdemeanor, then a single police car will begin the pursuit. If a bank robbery or high profile chase (murder suspect), then I would expect the police will throw all and sundry at it.

the thing with chases is - you have to ask the question on whether it more important to apprehend the person for what they've done, compared to further loss of life (whether the driver or innocent public).

I'm sure in 100 years or less, we'll have GPS based immobilisation. Stolen vehicle or not, make, model and radius would be sufficient.

candor

11th January 2011, 09:59

No here we don't go again Stoney - I deal with enough PROFESSIONAL type groups who intreract in a professional manner not to bother with Bronz Wellington. And have plenty of support on this forum for the formula issue outside the Bronz Wellington by PMs etc - not bully boys see but reasonable people. I'm afraid BW is in a minority in just not "getting it" and very weird and paranoid in its repeated false denial I've not provided sources. Oh yeah - as I told you some of our PhDs don't want their work put on this forum - it's not a normal way to have a meeting or good faith to demand public publication in an environment off hostility from YOU - I offered to present the needed other bits OF INFO EG THE
pHdS stuff at a physical meeting, you said ok then no follow up. I haven't experienced such slackness in other business dealings. I can't take Welly Bronz seriously, just based on my experience sorry. Your loss and lack of appreciation - not mine.

As for chases - what really puzzles me is how the Police Minister and her followers can have the temerity to ignore the experts advice. Not including myself as an expert of course as I'm just one of several messengers. Would they think they know enoug to fly the plane when traveling or to operate on their relatives cancer? Then why do they presume to know better than experts re best chase policies. Gordon Campbell dida great column in the Hutt news over xmas full of common sense saying whats wrong with NZ that we're not up with the play on techy alternatives to chases. It's a golden opportunity for Labour to have a go, but only the Greens have said boo on this.

Pascal

11th January 2011, 10:16

the thing with chases is - you have to ask the question on whether it more important to apprehend the person for what they've done, compared to further loss of life (whether the driver or innocent public).

During a routine traffic stop somebody decides to do a runner. The cop has just parked behind the vehicle, so all he has is the back of the person's head,a license plate and nothing more.

Why did he do a runner?

Because he is missing a rego? His warrant has expired? He's got his boss in a few black plastic bags in the boot? Is the car stolen, or will they be able to track that plate back to his home address?

I'd rather not cut the polices' balls off when it comes to dealing with criminals. We're already molly coddling those who turn against our society enough.

It's a golden opportunity for Labour to have a go, but only the Greens have said boo on this.

You are pushing an emotional agenda, mixing it with politics and I'm afraid of the shit you're spewing as if it's gospel. You had an opportunity here to actually respond to Stoney with facts and instead you responded with marketing speech.

If you have so many well researched documents, conclusions, etc. why don't you post them up? Back up your claims. Link to them if they are already online.

candor

11th January 2011, 10:22

Pascal

11th January 2011, 10:37

candor

11th January 2011, 10:41

phill-k

11th January 2011, 10:51

Mayb because this thread is not about quotas but is about chases. That topic has been well covered in the past. Lets stay on thread topic. He raised that other subject not me - I'm not interested in debating it - especially as he has made clear he isn't - so what would be the point. If you are interested enough there will be some stuff coming available on the issue through a book we're writing - it's not free (:

Oh did you mean re chases not re quotas Pascal...?

You come on here in a previous post and state your mother was involved in an accident with a drunk driver and thankfully said driver was only doing 90kph because he wasn't being pursued by the police for his crime.
You also come on here and without providing any proof of your argument such as links to said documentary proof use similar analogies to the above about your mother and want all of us to take you seriously - fuck off you tosser.
You make a completely stupid statement about Collins and co not acting on the supposed advice of "experts" but they don't fly planes and carry out operations because they don't have the skill sets, did you ever consider that Collins and co can identify the lunatic fringe when they are presented with the shit you talk and thus use their intellectual abilities to ignore shit that needs to be ignored?

The reason society has a police force empowered to interfere with the rights of the citizens of said society is because a small minority of members of said society choose also to interfere with the rights of the majority. You are attempting to blame some supposedly scientifically proved piece of research for our road toll, when in fact the simple truth is the road toll is a causation of a combination of Technology, arrogance, criminal behaviour, stupidity, and very occasionally just plain bad luck.
If the small minority simply also abide by the rules or norms of society the police would not have much work to do, they or policy are not the cause of our road toll as you would have us believe, therefore your research is flawed, start again and look at the environment surrounding the deaths on our roads and you will discover the causes as I have stated above adding to that the generally poor standard of driving we have in NZ. None of this can be blamed on the police!

UKDave S

11th January 2011, 11:04

1/ It has everything to do with society and government when they wont let you parent properly, Sociologically and psychologically growing up is about pushing boundaries and a clip round the ear is the most effective way of finding the boundary ( I do not condone child beating or brutality) and it worked well for me.
2/ The powers that be in the UK are now starting to admit that “PC” has perhaps gone to far as people have been afraid to speak out or even silenced particularly on race issues, that could and should have come to light back in 2004 and were ‘politically’ silenced ( check out young Asian men and sexual grooming / abuse of under age white girls) having been left to develop and fester for 7 years are now reaching epidemic proportions. Allegedly according to recent reports

PrincessBandit

11th January 2011, 11:21

2/ The powers that be in the UK are now starting to admit that “PC” has perhaps gone to far as people have been afraid to speak out or even silenced particularly on race issues, that could and should have come to light back in 2004 and were ‘politically’ silenced ( check out young Asian men and sexual grooming / abuse of under age white girls) having been left to develop and fester for 7 years are now reaching epidemic proportions. Allegedly according to recent reports

mmm, off op topic here, but your last point has been recently aired with muslims being angered by suggestions that their young men see white girls as sexually inferior therefore targets for abuse (this in Britain).

Back on topic, I understand that "youth will be youth, boys will be boys, young people will always push boundaries" etc. You are right - I too was from an era when a smacked backside or clip 'round the ears was the norm for dealing with naughty behaviour. I learnt the lessons and did not grow up "damaged" or unbalanced etc. Molly coddling has a lot to answer for in terms of the escalation of what people indulge in, knowing that tptb will either feel sorry for them due to their "hard" upbringing (:rolleyes:) or the pc brigade will come down like a ton of bricks on anyone trying to bring them to accountability.

Pascal

11th January 2011, 11:38

Maybe if you read my posts you would se I said we have done this already on the police chase thread - you will find info of the sort you seek in post 60 of that thread and others - why duplicate. I don't want RSI!

Do you know what a hyperlink is? I've checked the most recent threads this year and one does not go beyond 33 posts and the other one has a post of mine as post 60.

I did find an online policy review of their pursuit policy where they noted that 24 deaths and 91 received serious injuries.

The 24 deaths are broken down as follows:

1. 14 drivers of pursued vehicles (The offender)
2. 6 passengers in pursued vehicles (The accomplice)
3. 3 innocent members of the public.
4. 1 police officer.

The 91 serious injuries are broken down as follows:

1. 33 drivers of pursued vehicles (The offender)
2. 40 passengers in pursued vehicles (The accomplice)
3. 18 innocent members of the public.

So ... 22 people out of an estimated recorded 8279 pursuits. They do note that pursuit statistics prior to 2002 may be questionable as pursuits that do end in crashes may go unrecorded (Payne & Fenske, 1996). This may even still be carrying on, so the actual pursuit statistics could be higher.

What percentage is 22 of 8279?

Even if you are overly concerned for the criminals, what percentage is 137 of 8279?

I think you are letting your feelings for a lost family member cloud your thinking on what is best for New Zealand as a whole. Because those numbers certainly do not justify the type of changes you are calling for.

Virago

11th January 2011, 12:18

Maybe if you read my posts you would se I said we have done this already on the police chase thread - you will find info of the sort you seek in post 60 of that thread and others - why duplicate. I don't want RSI!

Providing a link will hardly involve RSI.

I've already asked several questions regarding Candor, which have not been answered.

Candor (Campaign Against Drugs On Roads) was set up as a charitable trust, with the Trust Deed specifying Candor's purpose as working on education and lobbying over the Drug Impaired Driver issue. Why has Candor's focus shifted entirely to that of Police Chase activism, with so-called "educational" messages being based on hysterical conspiracy theories about "World Bank Police Control"?

Further, Candor's Trust Deed clearly specifies that "The activities of the Trust will be limited to New Zealand". Why are you talking about going to the US to participate in their deliberations?

The Police Chase "Survey" you have promoted is proported to be organised by a mysterious Facebook Group called SUPP (Stop Unnecessary Police Pursuits). This group was set up quite literally only hours before you posted the survey link. Who are they? What are their qualifications and what is their operational brief?

It is of great concern when Charitable Trusts (funded by donation) appear to be veering away from their stated and documented purpose. And even greater concern that their modus operandi is becoming increasingly subversive and secretive, with questionable agendas over-riding common sense.

It may be time to take a step back and a couple of deep breaths - your credibility is taking a battering.

davebullet

11th January 2011, 13:33

Based on the above stats, the Police get a what is a very difficult and risky job right nearly all the time.

What I wondered is how many deaths would have been casued if pursuits had not occurred? Could well be more if the offender is the violent sort and goes on to commit more crime.

imdying

11th January 2011, 13:57

Meh, another full of shit tax dodger.

SPman

11th January 2011, 14:16

So, the general consensus on here seems to be......
As has been amply demonstrated by comments in recent days, there are many who believe that the answer to an ineffective deterrent is more deterrent; that leaving in place the likelihood that fleeing from a police car will result in your death is somehow discouraging an unknown number of drivers from fleeing. At least that’s the obvious conclusion to be drawn from claims that to reserve high speed pursuits only for situations in which the danger of permitting the offender to continue on the road clearly outweighed the danger of chasing them would result in “anarchy”. Unless the state wields the biggest possible stick – ideally studded with a few nails – the argument seems to go, criminality will flourish and the streets will run red with the blood of innocents.Would that be right?????
:scooter: :woohoo: :Police: :nono: :buggerd:

Pascal

11th January 2011, 14:25

Based on the above stats, the Police get a what is a very difficult and risky job right nearly all the time.

I found the data here (http://www.ipca.govt.nz/Site/media/2009/2009-Oct13-Pursuits-Review.aspx)

I think they get it right as well, particularly based off the data. And if you gloss over that document you can get the impression the IPCA is recommending a change to the pursuit policy.

Now if you read page 10 sections 29 through to 33 you'll see how well their policy is formulated with regards to public safety - the overriding principle for conduct and management of pursuits.

There is a driving training programme for the police; implemented since 2004 with 6415 staff members trained to gold standard. (Does that mean they get a star :) )

It goes on then to describe the data from page 18 onwards. There are some good examples of pursuit case studies from page 45 onwards and there is some discussion about how well the police apply their current policy.

The major thrust of it seems to be that the guidelines must be clearer for the police although they do go on to say that police should base their decision to pursue on known facts at the time the offender is stopped. Instead of on speculation as to why the driver flees.

It is not a bad document overall. The numbers still bug me though.

scumdog

11th January 2011, 15:41

Candor (Campaign Against Drugs On Roads) was set up as a charitable trust, with the Trust Deed specifying Candor's purpose as working on education and lobbying over the Drug Impaired Driver issue. Why has Candor's focus shifted entirely to that of Police Chase activism, with so-called "educational" messages being based on hysterical conspiracy theories about "World Bank Police Control"?

Further, Candor's Trust Deed clearly specifies that "The activities of the Trust will be limited to New Zealand". Why are you talking about going to the US to participate in their deliberations?

I looked up the CANDOR site.

I may have got it wrong (again?) but on the front page they want all these death causing pursuits to cease.

But on the same page they wonder why the G'ovt is dragging the chain regarding roadside impairment testing & legislation. ('Drugged drivers')

So if they DID implement increased drug-impairment testing at the side of the road would you not expect said impaired drivers to do even more runners?

And would you not expect the fuzz to pursue those drivers to test them?

Or does CANDOR want those laws - but not want pursuits involving suspected 'drugged-drivers'?

I'm :scratch::confused:

FJRider

11th January 2011, 16:27

Perhaps more use of 9mm "pursuit equipment" ... :devil2: :chase:

StoneY

11th January 2011, 17:00

No here we don't go again Stoney - I deal with enough PROFESSIONAL type groups who intreract in a professional manner not to bother with Bronz Wellington. .

LOL thats almost comical, especially to those who know the truth, and looking at the replies on here...thats EVERYONE :yes:

PROFESSIONAL groups now Rachel? Thought you were a non profit trust?

This is not a pissing contest Rachel and no one here is stupid enough to swallow your bait again
BRONZ has real credibilty whatever you may think, say or believe.
Thats why ACC asked us to participate in the formation of the MSL governance structure, so BIKERS (remember this is a BIKERS website) got a say in how the funds ripped from OUR wallets gets used.
What steering groups have Candor been involved with?

Its tragic you have suffered family losses at hands of drunk drivers and all, but your insistence on these conspiricies, the way you present emotional dribble as researched facts and fail to provide evidence, you really think these people are going to buy into it?
Name one 'professional style' group then. Just one, and a name to verify they give you ANY credibility.

Fool me once................... you know the rest

MY opinion on Police Chases for the sake of returning to topic

Some ballance between the UK model and the US model would suit my ideal world
WRX driving specialists to take over dangerous persuits, and bull bars on every day patrol cars to pit manouver the asswipes.
No persuit ends, until it ends

There would be exceptions of course,(maybe schools etc? and that should be NON public policies so no one knows where to run and hide) but thats how I see the way to convince the criminals and mere fools who abuse the law and Police persuit policies............ that its JUST NOT WORTH IT YOU WILL BE CAUGHT because WE WONT QUIT!

My $0.02 (again LOL)

candor

11th January 2011, 17:32

LOL thats almost comical, especially to those who know the truth, and looking at the replies on here...thats EVERYONE :yes:

PROFESSIONAL groups now Rachel? Thought you were a non profit trust?

This is not a pissing contest Rachel What steering groups have Candor been involved with?

MY opinion on Police Chases for the sake of returning to topic

Some ballance between the UK model and the US model would suit my ideal world
WRX driving specialists to take over dangerous persuits, and bull bars on every day patrol cars to pit manouver the asswipes.
No persuit ends, until it ends

There would be exceptions of course,(maybe schools etc? and that should be NON public policies so no one knows where to run and hide) but thats how I see the way to convince the criminals and mere fools who abuse the law and Police persuit policies............ that its JUST NOT WORTH IT YOU WILL BE CAUGHT because WE WONT QUIT!

My $0.02 (again LOL)

Ha ha Stoney we've been in at ground level on many consultations - helping before the consult document even goes out, so piss away. Trust deeds usually require as Professional an approach and advice to be followed as can be afforded. So yeah we seek that out.

Yes who will die because "we won't quit" - might not always be who you would hope. Like the pro arms Senator never expected to get shot did she, but each to their own.

Providing a link will hardly involve RSI.

I've already asked several questions regarding Candor, which have not been answered.

Candor (Campaign Against Drugs On Roads) was set up as a charitable trust, with the Trust Deed specifying Candor's purpose as working on education and lobbying over the Drug Impaired Driver issue. Why has Candor's focus shifted entirely to that of Police Chase activism, with so-called "educational" messages being based on hysterical conspiracy theories about "World Bank Police Control"?

Further, Candor's Trust Deed clearly specifies that "The activities of the Trust will be limited to New Zealand". Why are you talking about going to the US to participate in their deliberations?

The Police Chase "Survey" you have promoted is proported to be organised by a mysterious Facebook Group called SUPP (Stop Unnecessary Police Pursuits). This group was set up quite literally only hours before you posted the survey link. Who are they? What are their qualifications and what is their operational brief?

It is of great concern when Charitable Trusts (funded by donation) appear to be veering away from their stated and documented purpose. And even greater concern that their modus operandi is becoming increasingly subversive and secretive, with questionable agendas over-riding common sense.

It may be time to take a step back and a couple of deep breaths - your credibility is taking a battering.God is everyone an armchair critic.

1. Link to prior thread on subject as requested - http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/127916-Invite-2nd-protest-against-police-pursuits-today?highlight=protest+police+pursuits

2. Response to hysteical ill informed post by Virago
A) Stop being a drama queen - Candors activity is drug driving (including drink) and chases are highly relevant as 45% of the injury ones the lasat 5 years were triggered by suspected impaired driving - as I explained earlier in the thread. We are lobbying and educating to reduce such carnage, entirely within the Trust brief.
B) I wasn't aware that a teleconference involved travel to the USA, and we are not being active OVERSEAS but we are engaging in mutual knowledge exchange (alongside SUPP) as our Trust Deed requires us to be up with the play and work cooperatively with like minded orgs.
C) If you think our activism/work is solely on Police chases you're sadly mistaken. It is a tiny portion, but we'll go into any area where lives can be saved from DUI, whether it's a popular move or not. Public health specifically road safety is our bizzo, and that can involve consciousness raising.
D) not even addressing your "hysterical conspiracy theory" allegation - too ridiculous, if that was the case that our materials and conclusions were in question we'd not be consulted as a resource by many different parties all the time. The World Bank influences policy here - in the case of road safety adversely - if you don't believe this is possible let alone fact (as it is) you really need broader horizons.
E) Who are SUPP - check out the members; Uni academics, students, human rights/treaty lawyers, emergency workers, driver education people. Enough info for ya?

Secret subversive M.O.!!!! Now who's the conspiracy theorist. All interests etc are declared. We are completely entitled to network, support other groups etc just as they do us. This is the real world. Sheesh we held a drug driving conference well attended by Police and others just before Xmas. Pretty subversive that was I tell ya' - they were so worried we're nuts and about to pull guns on themselves as Bama worshipping world bank lackeys that I just know they had a sniper with a gun trained on me on the balcony. This site is like talk back, oh the drama.

Now to the question on whether we've got conflicting agendas. I don't think so. Yes drug testing might result in more fleeing cops - but then it might also result in less doing so, especially if it was to be made known cops will not pursue minor drug possession charges and searches so long as the driver is responsibly not smashed. As fewer would be wasted given the added deterrence fewer bad decisions to flee?
Random tests don't seem to have increased chases in Oz after an initial upsurge (perhaps unrelated) I believe, and regular tests in Europe (not random but after most bad driving) have created no such problem.

When we say we're after an end to lethal pursuits we don't mean a ban - we do mean modernisation of policy regarding high speed ones to best maximise public safety, to get that pursuit toll to a bare minimum.
Trying to keep it simple... this can mean looking at the whole philosophy - at fewer indications for chasing (ie persistence at speed if someone hasn't quit in a short time) being allowed, employing alternative ways to catch people more, and adopting the norms used in safer realms eg no high speed pursuits outside schools. There are many ways our policy differs from best practice, as the experts have told our media in recent months. The devil is in the detail.

Some here obviously think the policy is "just so" but it can't be as our trauma rate is way high. This is not just a prob for offenders - anyone can be affected. Obviously it needs a holistic look - not just at pursuit policy but at all the things triggering or enabling impaired drivers to do a bolt. As suspecte impaired drivers are half the ones who crash harmfully, are offenders and Police set up by an unsafe system? I'd say so given the ease repeat offenders get relicenced and retain vehicles.

The point is lets look at it in a serious way (Government and community) - just sensationalising it with dumb down headlines, as Pollies pose, achieves nought.

I don't think I'm emotive about it at all, just trying to see ways for improvement. It's more like people flip their lids and get emotive at the suggestion improvements are poss - even seeming to take personal umbrage themselves on behalf of "the Police". Odd that, as Candor supports Police in the good work they do and is well aware of many of their high commitment to safety, but all the policy set for them isn't primo. On holiday now.... hopefully no more curious cats.

Virago

11th January 2011, 17:51

...not even addressing your "hysterical conspiracy theory" allegation - too ridiculous, if that was the case that our materials and conclusions were in question we'd not be consulted as a resource by many different parties all the time. The World Bank influences policy here - in the case of road safety adversely - if you don't believe this is possible let alone fact (as it is) you really need to grow up a bit...

Unfortunately, like all conspiracy nutters, you cannot accept that your fanciful world views can be anything other than fact. Until you step back and see that for what it is, you'll never have serious credibility. Shame, but...

98tls

11th January 2011, 17:54

candor

11th January 2011, 18:01

Virago there is little more ridiculous than making strong comments on something about which you know nothing. My cred is no prob spo theres nothing to be sad about - I assure you, I'm very effective in road safety advocacy, but before you ask I've no need to lay out the achievements for you - plenty of people know about them FWIW.

Back on topis as really it shouldn't be all about me even if the OP started that. How many Judges impose sensible sentences though 98? The full quid? We'll soon have better maximums for drink drive - but minimums? Even this tough on crime Govt is pretty much all window dressers.

scumdog

11th January 2011, 18:03

98tls

11th January 2011, 18:13

The max. fine allowed for first time drink-driver?

$4,500.

But most times the fine = what the guilty blows, +-

So they blow 680mgm?

Fine will be close to $650 or so.

Wow, get that sort of fine every 5 years or so and it will teach you a lesson!! - pffft!

My thoughts???

For first time up?

Crush the car ( regardless of who owns it unless it was stolen) & 12 months disqually AND $3,000 fine minimum.

I bet THAT would make them sit up and notice!

Whats the deal with someone that does a runner T,lets say for example bloke has the disco lights light up behind him thinks fuck it and takes off to give it up a few kms down the road?what sort of licence loss etc

scumdog

11th January 2011, 18:22

Whats the deal with someone that does a runner T,lets say for example bloke has the disco lights light up behind him thinks fuck it and takes off to give it up a few kms down the road?what sort of licence loss etc

With the way Courts work?

Fuck-all.

Even IF it's:
"Fails to keep Left"
"Fails to Indicate"
"Fails to Stop For Blue & Red Flashing Lights"
"Fails to Stop at Stop Sign"
"Careless Use"
"Learner Driver Failed to Display 'L' Plates"
" Used Smoooth Tyres"

etc...etc

It's better to give them tickets.

Easy to give them enough tickets to get their demerits up to 120+

And THAT gets their licence plucked.

AND the $1,000s worth of fines gets 'em P.D.s

AND they may do somehtign to get their car impounded...BONUS!!

Virago

11th January 2011, 18:25

Virago there is little more ridiculous than making strong comments on something about which you know nothing. My cred is no prob spo theres nothing to be sad about - I assure you, I'm very effective in road safety advocacy, but before you ask I've no need to lay out the achievements for you - plenty of people know about them FWIW...

Alas, there is no substitute for common sense.

Fact - the increase in deaths caused by police pursuit is NOT driven by any change in pursuit policy driven by World Bank directives - it is caused by an increase in people doing runners. It ain't rocket science...

There is little credibility in circulating an incredibly silly and unbalanced "survey", to back up your distortions.

98tls

11th January 2011, 18:37

With the way Courts work?

Fuck-all.

Even IF it's:
"Fails to keep Left"
"Fails to Indicate"
"Fails to Stop For Blue & Red Flashing Lights"
"Fails to Stop at Stop Sign"
"Careless Use"
"Learner Driver Failed to Display 'L' Plates"
" Used Smoooth Tyres"

etc...etc

It's better to give them tickets.

Easy to give them enough tickets to get their demerits up to 120+

And THAT gets their licence plucked.

AND the $1,000s worth of fines gets 'em P.D.s

AND they may do somehtign to get their car impounded...BONUS!!

Why do you think theres such reluctance on the part of our so called lawmakers etc to do anything about it,Coppers deal with the problems as they come across them ending up with a day in court where the whole system falls flat on its face,its so bloody obvious but nothing changes,just a few promises come election time.

Genestho

11th January 2011, 18:57

It's because Judges have to consider circumstances at sentencing, offenders/lawyers sell a pretty picture and the Judges role is to believe it - there's no perjury in court right? :eek:

This is due to the Aggravating and Mitigating Factors required and considered in Sentencing (http://www.corrections.govt.nz/policy-and-legislation/cpps-operations-manual/volume-1/ii.-pre-sentence-reports/1.-about-pre-sentence-processes/aggravating-and-mitigating-factors.html)and Bill of Rights and various other bits of legislation. As an example; To start if you talk sentencing to jail - 25% off time for pleading early guilt. Proven Hardship...regarding fines and other sanctions..

It's a constant uphill battle and, believe it or not there's been changes, although not consistant - but alot, actually if you're in the know.

I've had low key chats with people and I'll protect their privacy by not mentioning whom, and there's a general unwillingness to dramatically rewrite legislation, which in some cases is what's needed, in most we just need to enforce the law, of course at that point it becomes circular again to what the Judge considers at sentencing.

Indoo

11th January 2011, 19:41

Virago there is little more ridiculous than making strong comments on something about which you know nothing. .

You mean like how you immediately jumped on your soapbox after this latest pursuit before knowing any of the facts or full circumstances, and emotively ranted on about how police were insane chasing impaired drivers at 200kmh and insinuating it was all their fault..And then rounded it all off by stating that chases had only become a problem since the boyracer legislation in 2003.

C'mon.

slowpoke

11th January 2011, 19:41

Fwiw possibly imposing punishments that actually deter people from doing shit may be a start,personally i cant fucking believe the ongoing inability of those that impose punishments ie Judges to impose them,pick up any court day newspaper in the country and have a read,pathetic is an understatement even more so when it comes to the drink driving thing.What is it in this country that everyone knows what the problems are but nobody steps up and sorts it come court day,drink driving,drivers doing a runner etc its all part of the same problem and for my money the problem is come time to pay the piper its a joke.Fuck all the surveys/discussion blah blah,simply impose a punishment that deters.

I hear ya.....I'm just not sure that the common or garden variety punishment that deters you and I (heavy fine, loss of license, jail time etc) is something these joy riding kids are scared of. Playing with the cops is all part of their game, and being caught is nothing to be scared of. They have no money or assests so a fine means bugger all, same for the license. Even jail time isn't a deterrent as they go away for a while, hang with their mates, make some good connections, and come back with "instant" cred/rep/mana that stands them in good stead within their peer group/community. Besides we have to pay for their jail time so surely there's something smarter we can come up with than just doubling/tripling the penalties and shooting ourselves in the foot.

I'm all for an effective deterrent but just not sure what it is. Yeah, I can hear a few folks wailing for capital punishment, but if it doesn't happen for murder/rape it isn't gonna happen for pinching a car, so best you think of something else constructive.

98tls

11th January 2011, 19:56

I hear ya.....I'm just not sure that the common or garden variety punishment that deters you and I (heavy fine, loss of license, jail time etc) is something these joy riding kids are scared of. Playing with the cops is all part of their game, and being caught is nothing to be scared of. They have no money or assests so a fine means bugger all, same for the license. Even jail time isn't a deterrent as they go away for a while, hang with their mates, make some good connections, and come back with "instant" cred/rep/mana that stands them in good stead within their peer group/community. Besides we have to pay for their jail time so surely there's something smarter we can come up with than just doubling/tripling the penalties and shooting ourselves in the foot.

I'm all for an effective deterrent but just not sure what it is. Yeah, I can hear a few folks wailing for capital punishment, but if it doesn't happen for murder/rape it isn't gonna happen for pinching a car, so best you think of something else constructive.

Not so sure on the jail thing mate,methinks plenty of them would scream like babies when confronted with a stint in the big house,sure not all but methinks the majority would shit there pants and actually learn something.That aside and on the drink driving thing i am sure many would be put off some if instead of wasting everyones time (inclusive of theres) there was a mandatory 6-12 month sentence for your 1ST conviction (all the PD and bullshit teaches nothing to 1st timers or 5th timers),losing a job means for many losing a house etc therefore affecting the people or things they actually give a fuck about in life family/possesions etc ie hurt them where they hurt most or at least hurt.Simply no ifs buts and we dont give a shit about your old mans drinking problem etc just go to jail,a year or 2 of that would deter many i am sure and deter both the ones starting out on that road and the ones way down it that are continually babied by our fucked up court system.

slowpoke

11th January 2011, 20:20

Not so sure on the jail thing mate,methinks plenty of them would scream like babies when confronted with a stint in the big house,sure not all but methinks the majority would shit there pants and actually learn something.That aside and on the drink driving thing i am sure many would be put off some if instead of wasting everyones time (inclusive of theres) there was a mandatory 6-12 month sentence for your 1ST conviction (all the PD and bullshit teaches nothing to 1st timers or 5th timers),losing a job means for many losing a house etc therefore affecting the people or things they actually give a fuck about in life family/possesions etc ie hurt them where they hurt most or at least hurt.Simply no ifs buts and we dont give a shit about your old mans drinking problem etc just go to jail,a year or 2 of that would deter many i am sure and deter both the ones starting out on that road and the ones way down it that are continually babied by our fucked up court system.

You could well be right, especially regarding the drink driving.

While you're on here........can you please, I mean PLEEEEAAASE change your avatar?! For an ol' fulla I get an embrrassing amount of wood when I see those lovely things...then lust sets in.....soon followed by reality....then depression. It's just a nasty cycle I tell ya.

98tls

11th January 2011, 20:36

You could well be right, especially regarding the drink driving.

While you're on here........can you please, I mean PLEEEEAAASE change your avatar?! For an ol' fulla I get an embrrassing amount of wood when I see those lovely things...then lust sets in.....soon followed by reality....then depression. It's just a nasty cycle I tell ya.

The thing with PD/Community work etc is that it becomes a gathering of likeminded fuck heads come Saturday morning,ok they waste a Saturday but hey at least they garnish some "im a bad boy" stigma out of it.To many of these wannabies a trip to the big house would be better than the smack in the face they should have got from there old man back whenever,Scare the shit out of someone = i wont do that again/i dont want to be a wannabie= in many (not all) cases problem solved lets get on with life.As for the avatar mate,will set about changing it for ya regardless of the fact that ive been having bread and dripping sammies since buying em:msn-wink:

scumdog

11th January 2011, 20:39

As for the avatar mate,will set about changing it for ya regardless of the fact that ive been having bread and dripping sammies since buying em:msn-wink:

And fending off a most displeased doris....:whistle:

ya comin south and teaming up with me for a ride to the woodstock??

98tls

11th January 2011, 20:51

And fending off a most displeased doris....:whistle:

ya comin south and teaming up with me for a ride to the woodstock??

Mate i would love to,really enjoyed the last time we were over that way,jesus that was a while ago eh.Remember waking up in the morning in Haast? after forgetting to pull the mesh covered window shut:weird:and being a mosquitos smorgasboard.With the extra weeks holiday enforced on us over xmas ive run out and will have to go over Saturday.

scumdog

11th January 2011, 21:25

Mate i would love to,really enjoyed the last time we were over that way,jesus that was a while ago eh.Remember waking up in the morning in Haast? after forgetting to pull the mesh covered window shut:weird:and being a mosquitos smorgasboard.With the extra weeks holiday enforced on us over xmas ive run out and will have to go over Saturday.

Well, so we're heading there via Haast?

Great, that last time was a doozy, them non-attenders don't know what they're mising, 'specially them Norf-Islanders..

Tell yer doris I'll look after you and all will be sweet!!

\hwq

98tls

11th January 2011, 21:29

Well, so we're heading there via Haast?

Great, that last time was a doozy, them non-attenders don't know what they're mising, 'specially them Norf-Islanders..

Tell yer doris I'll look after you and all will be sweet!!

\hwq

Mate that would mean i would have to on Saturday morning ride down to the Riveria then we set off.

Pascal

12th January 2011, 07:33

Some here obviously think the policy is "just so" but it can't be as our trauma rate is way high.

...

I don't think I'm emotive about it at all, just trying to see ways for improvement.

There were 137 deaths and serious injuries over the course of 8279 pursuits. The one deals with people, the other with incidents. So, let's take the bare minimum and say there are two people involved in the pursuit. The one driving the fleeing car. And the one pursuing.

Now you and I both know there are more people involved. Passengers. Innocent bystanders. But let's stick with the minimum.

So of the 16558 people involved in pursuits over 5 years, 137 were killed or injured. That is ...

0.82%

Now to be honest, I couldn't care two tosses about the idiots that flee. In my mind they are already criminals and any harm they inflict ON THEMSELVES is their own fault. So let's take them out of the equation.

Of the 16558 people involved in pursuits over 5 years, 22 who were not fleeing from police were killed or injured. And that is ...

0.13%

Really? Is our trauma rate really really really really really too high?

MSTRS

12th January 2011, 08:24

Get a new calculator.
0.0827% and 0.0133% respectively...

candor

12th January 2011, 09:38

mashman

12th January 2011, 10:07

The brigade of PC sacked a teacher (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20110111/tuk-teacher-fired-for-letting-pupils-go-45dbed5.html) (UK) for taking pupils sledding :facepalm: fucksake, it ain't like kids don't go sledging without supervision when they're outta school...

Pascal

12th January 2011, 10:13

Get a new calculator.
0.0827% and 0.0133% respectively...

Okay, so I needed coffee and nicotine before getting out of bed this morning it seems. Which just makes this whole campaign even more ridiculous.

What are they trying to achieve with it when the current policy already results in almost fuck all harm?

Do these people not have real jobs or a useful contribution to make to society?

Pascal

12th January 2011, 10:18

Trying hard. If you consider the road toll based on vehicle kms it is miniscule too.
The info that counts is comparative, by which policies can be assessed.

3 comparisons of interest; pursuit toll each of 7 years pre and post 2003, HIGH SPEED pursuit toll relative to other comparable jurisdictions for mobility etc (hard to find truly comparable ones as few OECDs have such bad foundations for a road safety program), deaths/crashes by HIGH SPEED impaired driver per vkm under non pursuit versus under pursuit circumstances. Same for youth may be a fourth one worth a look in.
Remove all crashes where speeds not extreme - reckless for conditions.

I don't see our Govt funding this study or much else aimed at toll trimming, it's priority is now set ambitiously on the goal of equaling best countries road toll stats
by 2010... extended out to 2030. Those voted in now; many won't be alive to be held to account for strategic decisions then.

Okay. Now that you've finished crapping out a dictionary of needless verbiage mixed in with some pointless, random dropping of points, how about you answer one simple question.

Why do you think a 0.0827% is a "way too high trauma rate"?

PS: Did anybody understand what Candor's post was about? Or am I the only one seeming to struggle with the:

Me: "Hi, good morning Candor!"
Candor: "Orange blossom farts!"

mental-tourette style responses?

oneofsix

12th January 2011, 10:28

Why do you think a 0.0827% is a "way too high trauma rate"?

Cause I don't think of it as statistics but as people and families (including the cops), yeah the runners are dickheads but who hasn't been at some stage? The numbers aren't counting the traumatised relies and friends. The runners shouldn't be countered out just cause they aren't "innocent", there isn't a death penalty for failure to stop. What interests me is why are the idoits running? where did the change in attitude come from? Was it when the police decided ticketing people attending a car show in Chch was a good way to make friends and influence people? (seems to be when things with the "boy racers" down there went sour.

slowpoke

12th January 2011, 10:33

The thing with PD/Community work etc is that it becomes a gathering of likeminded fuck heads come Saturday morning,ok they waste a Saturday but hey at least they garnish some "im a bad boy" stigma out of it.To many of these wannabies a trip to the big house would be better than the smack in the face they should have got from there old man back whenever,Scare the shit out of someone = i wont do that again/i dont want to be a wannabie= in many (not all) cases problem solved lets get on with life.As for the avatar mate,will set about changing it for ya regardless of the fact that ive been having bread and dripping sammies since buying em:msn-wink:

Yep, totally agree regarding PD/Community work. The punishments are already available for drink driving, "normal" reckless driving, even if they aren't used. What I'm concerned with is the strategy for the young fucks out pinching cars with their mates just for the hell of it, where taunting/playing with the cops is all part of the thrill/game.

In those cases I reckon something a bit more left field might be more effective, because as you say, the deterrent at the moment isn't really there. I'm just not quite sure what it is yet........

Thanks for changing the avatar....BUT YOU"RE NOT HELPING ME!

StoneY

12th January 2011, 11:33

I recall not too many years ago, Police Pursuits (lol finally spelt it right) were never a common occurance back in the 90's
Not that I recall anyhow

Once it became known they were being instructed to 'end dangerous pursuits' we started hearing about them, exact timestamp.........fucked if I know

Is it just that we now have affordable vehicles that can hit the 'end pursuit speed' so much easier?
Is it a growing disrespect for society, such as we are seeing in schools since the cane was abolished?

I dont have an answer, but I do believe the fallout from NOT giving up the chase is less than the cost of giving up the chase too easy

That cost is obviously a rise in runners, hence a rise in crashes caused by runners, hence an escalation in the carnage.....caused by the morons that think 'this cop HAS to stop at xxx speed, muwahahahahaha I'm OFF!!!!'

Anyone saying the Police CAUSED the runner to kill the innocents is just plain fecking stupid and has the logic of an earth worm, and can they PLEASE stop wasting our oxygen supply

I also apply this theory to Cops that do silly u-turns in dangerous locations to enter a pursuit as well.....sorry but thats the one bug I have with Police pursuits, the u-turn.

Thread thrashed, opions given, conspiricay central shot down yet again...carry on nothing left to see here
:yes:

Pascal

12th January 2011, 12:13

Cause I don't think of it as statistics but as people and families (including the cops), yeah the runners are dickheads but who hasn't been at some stage? The numbers aren't counting the traumatised relies and friends. The runners shouldn't be countered out just cause they aren't "innocent", there isn't a death penalty for failure to stop. What interests me is why are the idoits running? where did the change in attitude come from? Was it when the police decided ticketing people attending a car show in Chch was a good way to make friends and influence people? (seems to be when things with the "boy racers" down there went sour.

The runners are counted out because they are not innocent. In the discussion thus far it has focussed on reducing the risk to the general public, so the 22 people spread over 5 years that were injured or killed. (4 were killed, I believe)

I think Candor is focussing on the wrong thing. The police pursuit policy is clearly already providing a very, very low level of risk to the general public. The media has created a perception that it is bad, simply by reporting on the times it went wrong. If they reported on all the pursuits I suspect most of NZ would just yawn at the odd crash where a fleeing driver has topped him/herself.

The focus should be on having those who run from the police not run. You're not going to reduce the statistics much by changing when police chase people. You will however change them by changing the attitude of those idiots that have already decided to disobey the law.

oneofsix

12th January 2011, 12:36

The focus should be on having those who run from the police not run. You're not going to reduce the statistics much by changing when police chase people. You will however change them by changing the attitude of those idiots that have already decided to disobey the law.

Agreed. Suspect education rather than legislation is the way to do it, if the risk of death isn't punishment enough then nothing else will be, IMHO.

Genestho

12th January 2011, 13:59

Agreed. Suspect education rather than legislation is the way to do it, if the risk of death isn't punishment enough then nothing else will be, IMHO.

IMO - Probably a little of both as always, what deters one doesn't deter all, with a view towards efficiency which I'm sure will come, if it's not on the table already.

But, as with all youth issues (in this instance) throughout time (we were all teens once right?), you could say alot of actions could be spontaneous - not alot of forward thinking, the thrill of the chase, adrenalin, showing off to peers etc.

The ones that are thinking ahead when ie, lifting a vehicle and spotted, are probably hedging their bets that if they drive at speed, erratically - the pursuit would be called off, what have they got to lose.

As you say, if the ultimate consequence is death, and people are willing to take the risk regardless, then not much else can be expected to be effective as a deterrent.

Whatever the reasons, to gain evidence I expect the Police to do their job, most need to be caught in the act before evidence is tampered with.

Police are damned if they do, damned if they don't.

red mermaid

12th January 2011, 18:56

I recall not too many years ago, Police Pursuits (lol finally spelt it right) were never a common occurance back in the 90's
Not that I recall anyho

They were common just no one had put in a system to record them, and the world wasn't so PC.

StoneY

14th January 2011, 13:02

There ya go folks they CAN win now and then and no one killed no one innocent hurt, this is the way it SHOULD be

Get behind our Police and support a campaign to never end a chase untill the BAD guys are stopped

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/4541584/Police-road-spikes-used-to-stop-runaway-vehicle

Spearfish

15th January 2011, 22:35

Perhaps the punishment for the "run for cred types" shouldn't be such a secret.
Doing community service or PD in a very public place with a bright pink set of overalls with the words pertaining to "I'm an anti-social fucktard who has no inhibitions about killing people to impress my temporary friends" on the back.

Seriously though it worked for the tagfags that were scribbling shyt in our area, the public ripped the shyt out of them, I think It was stopped though.....no guesses why.

Pixie

16th January 2011, 06:58

The police pursuit policy is clearly already providing a very, very low level of risk to the general public. The media has created a perception that it is bad, simply by reporting on the times it went wrong. If they reported on all the pursuits I suspect most of NZ would just yawn at the odd crash where a fleeing driver has topped him/herself.

I will use this as a defence next time I get a speeding ticket....I'll just replace all references to "pursuit" and "police" with "exceeding the speed limit"

blackdog

16th January 2011, 15:39

interesting info here regarding the results of implementing jail sentences for runners

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/speeders-flout-skyes-law-20110115-19rv3.html

scumdog

16th January 2011, 16:31

interesting info here regarding the results of implementing jail sentences for runners

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/speeders-flout-skyes-law-20110115-19rv3.html

Same old - same old.

NOBODY gets the 'maximum' when it comes to driving - until they've repeated the offence about ten times.

The maximum should be minimum mandatory IMHO.

blackdog

16th January 2011, 16:35

Same old - same old.

NOBODY gets the 'maximum' when it comes to driving - until they've repeated the offence about ten times.

The maximum should be minimum mandatory IMHO.

no argument here

i do not want this to become a regular occurrence:facepalm:

pritch

16th January 2011, 20:55

Odd how all these guys agree, & we concur.

Not really. The blind leading the blind.

:innocent:

Kirill357

23rd January 2011, 11:00

From my perspective the government is there to own, maintain and manage the infrastructure required for the country such as roading, railroads and so forth. They are there to act as a representative of New Zealand on the international stage and to manage the external defense force and internal security force of the country as required.

Beyond that I do not believe a government should have a role in the lives of it's people.

My personal feeling is that it is the responsibility of the individual, their household, their family units, etc.

If you have placed all your life savings into one finance company (Eggs in one basket) and it folds, it is not my responsiblity or the governments' responsibility to help you out.

If you have an accident and you do not have medical insurance / regular insurance, it is not my responsiblity or that of the rest of society to fund and care for you.

Laid off? That is one of the risks of employment. You can cover yourself by having income protection insurance to cover the time between you lose your job and when you find another one. Or create another one for yourself.

Now that seems harsh, as if I do not care about the plight of the people you mentioned in the example. I do, but I do not believe it is the role of the government to help everybody. That role can be better fulfilled by society. I would much rather donate the money the government takes off me by force to organisations that I know will use it efficiently and effectively to help people.

I think we're living in a consumerist, brand and image driven society where people want things to fit their image, but are unable to afford them. They end up in the 30 month interest free deals and sucking up a lifetime of debt.

Getting a bit off topic though.

As to the lady from the Candor Trust. Once police have abandoned any attempt at stopping vehicles driven erratically, speeding through suburban streets or even drunk drivers - what do you think will happen? And realistically - given your ideals they would have to abandon ANY traffic stop to elliminate the need for a pursuit.

Unless, of course, they're allowed to signal that somebody should stop, but if that person ignores them they should ignore them right back. And unfriend them on Facebook. And maybe send them a hate tweet.

Ahh, yes, finally, the voice of reason, precisely my view as well, government has way to much involvement into the peoples lives, its merely a tool for society not the other way around and I believe our leaders and people around are forgetting about it