Literal for profit cameras?

[Akzle]

True... but interconnected...

Parliament = Governor-General representing the Sovereign + House of Representatives
Government = those members of the House of Representatives who have been appointed as Ministers of the Crown by the Governor-General - call also be called the Executive
Judiciary = they interpret the law that the government administers which has been made by Parliament


Crown is the whole, whereas parliament, government and judiciary are parts of the whole.

I'd suggest that many would say "state" rather than crown.

kinda. but not really.
i'm sovereign like a mofo, and no cunt represents me.

[Moi]

kinda. but not really.
i'm sovereign like a mofo, and no cunt represents me.

You're perfectly entitled to be there...


outside the tent trying to piss in...

[Scuba_Steve]

But hey you know, it's all about that "$afety" not the profit; & we all know big private comanies are happy to take a hit on profit, it's not like they're there to make money or anything

[awayatc]

It's not about revenue...
It's about safety

[jasonu]

Be ready for more scungy bastards hiding behind billboards and more setting cheesy open road speed traps at the end of passing lanes etc where there is no real safety issue.

[Akzle]

Be ready for more scungy bastards hiding behind billboards and more setting cheesy open road speed traps at the end of passing lanes etc where there is no real safety issue.

have you ever noticed how people DONT FUCKEN MERGE. there arguably is a safety issue. but it isn't the velocirator.

[Drew]

I doubt it will be set up with the company running the cameras being paid per fine.

[Moi]

The way many of you are going on, you'd think it was fait accompli...

Stop discussing how to make it work, start discussing why it is wrong...

[trufflebutter]

have you ever noticed how people DONT FUCKEN MERGE. there arguably is a safety issue. but it isn't the velocirator.

Merge like a zip, not a Cunt?

[Drew]

But that would be the best way of ensuring the performance expectation is met or exceeded. There is a story that cops can lose their jobs if they dont ticket a certain percentage of motorists each day.

No it wouldn't, quite the opposite. Fewer tickets would indicate it's working.

The way many of you are going on, you'd think it was fait accompli...

Stop discussing how to make it work, start discussing why it is wrong...

Why is it wrong? Why can't the government contract out the job?

[TheDemonLord]

No it wouldn't, quite the opposite. Fewer tickets would indicate it's working.
Why is it wrong? Why can't the government contract out the job?

IMO it violates part of the social contract between citizens and the government. We accept that if we fall afoul of certain rules, then we can expect that the full tyranny of the state is able to raise, be levelled against us.

That this is done without ulterior motive and with respect only to those rules is key in that arrangement. It is also subject directly (in theory) to the will of the majority.

A Private company has, as it's primary motivation, the requirement to make a profit. This is in conflict with the principle above. It is also in conflict with the Populace having direct control over the entity that is doing the enforcement (the Tyranny of the state)

I accept a level of inefficiency due to Govt beurocracy and red tape as an acceptable cost to maintain a clear demarcation

[FJRider]

No it wouldn't, quite the opposite. Fewer tickets would indicate it's working.

Getting close ... but no cigar. Fewer tickets does (would) mean the safety programs are working ... and funding for the LTSA from Central Government would be reduced.

But the good news is ... with all the improvements to upper/lower north island roads ... more revenue gained from these areas ensures more policing in those areas. Leaving more areas in the south not so heavily policed.

Why is it wrong? Why can't the government contract out the job?

All good in principal ... but they tried that with staffing prisons. That didn't work out well ....

[FJRider]

A Private company has, as it's primary motivation, the requirement to make a profit. This is in conflict with the principle above. It is also in conflict with the Populace having direct control over the entity that is doing the enforcement (the Tyranny of the state)

The contract tenders usually accepted are the (usually) lowest. Just standard business contract practice.

In the case of speed camera operations ... the contractor takes the photos and sends them in for processing. They have no control over what happens then. Employees are un-sworn so no confidentiality issues need arise as they have no access to police data bases. They do not enforce ... just take pictures. The enforcement notice comes from LTSA. NOT the contractor.

I accept a level of inefficiency due to Govt beurocracy and red tape as an acceptable cost to maintain a clear demarcation

That's good of you ... you voted Labour probably ...

[Drew]

Are you lot fucken retarded?

The profit is in the contract. The money the government pays them to do a job for them. Income from that job goes back to government.

[swbarnett]

Fewer tickets does (would) mean the safety programs are working ...

No, it means one of two things; either more of the populace is within the law or the populace had gotten smarter.

Either way, fewer tickets is in no way an indicator of increased safety.