You're taking the wrong tack guys. I've had a number of people at work bitching about their relicencing fees (they drive diesels).
I've simply agreed with them that it is indeed shocking and unwarranted, and suggested that what they could do is organise a drive to Parliament to protest to the Politicians.
The general reply to that one seems to be "touche"...
And I to my motorcycle parked like the soul of the junkyard. Restored, a bicycle fleshed with power, and tore off. Up Highway 106 continually drunk on the wind in my mouth. Wringing the handlebar for speed, wild to be wreckage forever.
- James Dickey, Cherrylog Road.
Spoke Direct to Darren Hughes tonight. Asked him to take the following matter to Phil and co.
Nick Smith has stated on TV to a reporter that ACC is facing a $370m payout for claims covering the CHCH Eathquake. When asked how that would afect levies he stated that ACC has an $11m surplus so the payouts would not be affected. He went onto say that as all payouts are future proofed by this surplus and that it would take 3 earthquakes of the same significance befor having an impact on ACC funds. I note this is the same ammount of events required to have an impact on EQC payouts as well.
My question was. at the rally was this ammount of $11m not quoted by us and we were informed we did not have the facts right? Were we not told that ACC was broke and opening it up to privatisation was the only saviour?
Darren informed me that Phil and co have picked up on numerous comments made in the past few days regarding ACC's financial staus appear to confirm that the public was deliberatly lied to by Nick Smith and that the matter was being investigated.
I am not trying to trivalise the destruction that has occured in CHCH, not would I want to see anyone who has suffered denied what they are legally entitled to from ACC, but feel a we need to now rise up and ask why the facts as we knew them to be at the time of the rally were denied and yet now are the same ammounts being given to the public as security to ensure there is enough money in the kitty for these expected payouts.
I put it to Darren that if our case was proven then the matter needs to be esculated to the speaker of the house as a case of deliberate missleading by Nick Smith.
Brick walls are there only to stop those who dont want it as much as you.
because the spin doctors are at work in order to privatize ACC
very insightful question unfortunately the answer is simple
Stephen
"Look, Madame, where we live, look how we live ... look at the life we have...The Republic has forgotten us."
Because the ACC coffers are ringfenced into different areas. When ACC said they were broke regarding motorcycles, what they meant was that the amount of money they had allocated into the motor vehicle fund wasn't enough to cover could potentially be spent.
Apparently...
And I to my motorcycle parked like the soul of the junkyard. Restored, a bicycle fleshed with power, and tore off. Up Highway 106 continually drunk on the wind in my mouth. Wringing the handlebar for speed, wild to be wreckage forever.
- James Dickey, Cherrylog Road.
Good questions Wingrider.
And its 11b not m that surplus mate
As Riffer states the individual allocations get ringfenced on a yearly projected budget
I still oppose us paying more but would have been a fool to not accept the recent minsiterial appointment onto the MSAC (Motorcycle Safety Advisory Council)
That only manages the 30$ ringfenced MSL contribution, and has no influence on any other matters
BRONZ Wellington is having semi-regular meetings with the ACC spokeperons from each of the opposition parties throughout this year, and it may pay to ask us the questions you wish to be posed to the ACC spokes for Labour.
Happens he is my local MP Chris Hipkins.
It's not likely a focus of Phil himself at the moment considering all the issue's he faces in an election year
PM me for a more direct communication path mate
Brent
Just ride.
If Nick the Prick is now owning up to a figure of $11b (which was the figure we had 15 months ago, and ACC has increased that surplus in the intervening time), then can we assume that recent reports stating the surplus is $14b are closer to the truth?
Do you realise how many holes there could be if people would just take the time to take the dirt out of them?
Well Riffer and me went to the 'big house' and caught up with a few pollie's
Cant say what their total plan is but it appears a fairer option than the current one
Directions they are looking are far more palatable, and more in line with the original ACC scheme, although we did recieve an admission they are likely to stick with pre-funding models, as due to the curve of inflation, pay as you go is no longer a realistic model
One major thing is tho, the opposition oppose any version of privatising ANY part of the scheme, thats a bonus at least.........
Just ride.
One of the reasons I no longer belong to Ulysses is because of the image they try to project!
Articles like this leave me cold. http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/mo...bikers-ride-on
Patched up Harley wannabees that really like the macho bad arse "bikes are dangerous" image sucking up to ACC and their stinking bullshit statistics!
Maybe it's just me but that's what I read into the article and it pisses me off!
I ride a bike because I think they are "safer" than any other vehicle on the road, it is a legitimate, legal and necessary form of transport, not a flaming unnecessary expensive toy!
Good read... But a bit confused at this paragraph in there...
According to 2008-10 police data for the Nelson Bays region, of 142 accidents involving motorcyclists, police deemed them to be more likely at fault in 124 of them: 87 per cent. Forty-six accidents (32 per cent) involved cars which failed to give way or "did not see/look".
Is someone bad at maths, or am i misunderstanding things at 4.30 am?
87% + 32% = 119%
142 + 46 = 188
The only stupid question is a question not asked!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks