What's it going to take

[freedom-wedge]

Actually no, but that's beside the point. I just dislike dishonest people.

so you would dislike Mr English for his misuse of public funds regarding his mp's housing allowance ?? while telling us all at the exact same time to tighten our belts. hes not the only one either, if we were gulity of such, we would face the full noise in court, he and his own sorted things to better suit themselves in the aftermath, they did so becuase poeple like you dont really know whats going on or its alright with you to be that way, get out of your warm bath and shake the sand off your head, were being mislead daily, the reason for that is becuase were still waffling about yeasterdays breach of ethics so that we miss the important one today.

Our Pm's been grinning like a cat on tv of late regarding his response to questioning about rasing gst, I remember him flatly telling the NZ public after his election win that they didnt have the mandate for serious change, honestly dude sheesh

I havent given up hope of there being a straight up politico yet are there any nominations ???

[Str8 Jacket]

mmm, whittakers almond slab! No raisins or sultana's, simply delightful!

[Pascal]

I havent given up hope of there being a straight up politico yet are there any nominations ???

Don't know. You're not straight up, so why do you hold them accountable to a different standard than you hold yourself?

Second Whittakers. Bloody awesome and still made in NZ.

[Oscar]

granted on the latter, the first well I think your to one eyed to understand that when asked these questions, a prime minister or an inteded one, should be looking to reasure the public, in this day and age it wouldnt be unreasonable to expect that he was prept before hand and the question written by his people just to mislead, if you dont like my words or they way they are written dont read them

He was reassuring his people - i.e. that he wouldn't raise GST to fund the deficit - why is this a problem for you?

I'm actually not bothered what you say or how you say it, because you never actually say much beyond vague inferences.

[MisterD]

so you would dislike Mr English for his misuse of public funds regarding his mp's housing allowance ?? while telling us all at the exact same time to tighten our belts. hes not the only one either, if we were gulity of such, we would face the full noise in court, he and his own sorted things to better suit themselves in the aftermath, they did so becuase poeple like you dont really know whats going on or its alright with you to be that way, get out of your warm bath and shake the sand off your head, were being mislead daily, the reason for that is becuase were still waffling about yeasterdays breach of ethics so that we miss the important one today.

Jaysus if this wasn't done to death on here at the time...did you also miss the fact that the auditor general investigated and said he'd done nothing wrong? Hmm?

Our Pm's been grinning like a cat on tv of late regarding his response to questioning about rasing gst, I remember him flatly telling the NZ public after his election win that they didnt have the mandate for serious change, honestly dude sheesh

I havent given up hope of there being a straight up politico yet are there any nominations ???

politics 101...shit changes and you can't keep everything that looks like a promise, it's therefore sensible to contradict a random utterance in response to a specific question in an interview, than anything that was like in the actual manifesto.

IMO the valid criticism of Key at the moment is that he had all the ammo from the tax working group to make serious changes to a broken tax system and instead he's flown a couple of little kites on what he might do.

Bring back Sir Rog!

[Skyryder]

Bananas on toast are nice with a sprinkling of brown sugar and cinnamon.

With runny fresh cream.. Not whipped..............gota be runny. Straight from the seperator is best. But not possible for us townies.


Skyryder

[Skyryder]

So what?
If the Police don't act on it until they've checked it, what's the problem?
Notwithstanding that, if it's stored in the UK, it's within reach of their legal system (the UK has liable and slander laws, too).
And if they had some info. (say someone had some knowledge that could free Scott Watson) what you say if they ignored it?

There's no problem with the police checking out the information as to its verification. That's not the issue. The problem is that this information is stored in another county and with a private orgaisation tha tis not subject to our laws. i simply hold the view that if information is held on a New Zealsnd citizen that information should be subject to the Privacy Act and said information held in our country. Key in his infinite wsidom thinks otherwise as do you. I don't.


Skyryder

[Oscar]

There's no problem with the police checking out the information as to its verification. That's not the issue. The problem is that this information is stored in another county and with a private orgaisation tha tis not subject to our laws. i simply hold the view that if information is held on a New Zealsnd citizen that information should be subject to the Privacy Act and said information held in our country. Key in his infinite wsidom thinks otherwise as do you. I don't.


Skyryder

There's a whole lot of information held by foreign companies and governments on NZers.
To be upset by one in particular is naive.

[freedom-wedge]

Don't know. You're not straight up, so why do you hold them accountable to a different standard than you hold yourself?

Second Whittakers. Bloody awesome and still made in NZ.

I,m not straight up why, becuase I saw it a little differently than you, come on, double speak and misleading commentry are the norm these days, we are right to mistrust agendas and even material created by mainstreem media.

agreed about supporting Whittakers, Cadbury and any other company who migrates, reducuing our workforce in the process need a good dose of consumer back lash,

[freedom-wedge]

Jaysus if this wasn't done to death on here at the time...did you also miss the fact that the auditor general investigated and said he'd done nothing wrong? Hmm?


politics 101...shit changes and you can't keep everything that looks like a promise, it's therefore sensible to contradict a random utterance in response to a specific question in an interview, than anything that was like in the actual manifesto.


IMO the valid criticism of Key at the moment is that he had all the ammo from the tax working group to make serious changes to a broken tax system and instead he's flown a couple of little kites on what he might do.

Also agreed

Bring back Sir Rog!

your first point = It may of been so, but reports from that office can be influenced politically, as can the idependant police complaints authority, and even the privacy commision, If I remember he paid some money back in the end ??

your second point = agreed but bring back sir Rog ?
Now I think youve had quite enough caaafffffiieeeennnneeeee

[oldrider]

For people to understand that its fair to be told the truth by those who supposedly lead us, that people can hold those leaders trying to gain our allegiance so that they might govern, to their word.

STV is probably a better bet than MMP for a start!

[freedom-wedge]

There's a whole lot of information held by foreign companies and governments on NZers.
To be upset by one in particular is naive.

naivety is a form of innocence, somthing that we are slowly loosing, the right to be presumed I mean, this is just one more tool open to abuse that will bring about that end, read the subject matter in the S & S bill being read in parliment, and see the powers police will have if they detain you, and remember that they can use a call from a disgruntled work mate who used the crime line just to get back at you, hes fine, there will be no come back for him, this is far more serious than a company holding information on NZers

[avgas]

For people to understand that its fair to be told the truth by those who supposedly lead us, that people can hold those leaders trying to gain our allegiance so that they might govern, to their word.

Rocks from the skies and great rumbles of earth.
For that is how the prophecy is foretold

[Oscar]

naivety is a form of innocence, somthing that we are slowly loosing, the right to be presumed I mean, this is just one more tool open to abuse that will bring about that end, read the subject matter in the S & S bill being read in parliment, and see the powers police will have if they detain you, and remember that they can use a call from a disgruntled work mate who used the crime line just to get back at you, hes fine, there will be no come back for him, this is far more serious than a company holding information on NZers

Are you saying the police can detain you based on rumour?
Have you heard of habeas corpus?

And speaking of rumours and disinformation, you have yet to present one scrap of evidence for your meanderings. I mean, have you one example to back up your assertions?

[freedom-wedge]

This is but a few of the desired wish list

The bill is meant to streamline search and surveillance, by redefining not only police powers but also the powers of over 70 government agencies- called ‘enforcement officers’ in the bill. However, the bill does much more than that. It effectively gives police powers to agencies such as Work and Income and the even the Pork Board.

Dramatic Increase in Powers
Basically, once this bill becomes law, state power increases and search and surveillance become open slather. The Bill treats a single search and on-going surveillance as one and the same thing. For example, installing a video camera in a home for a month is treated the same as a one-off search of a car; taking a copy of an entire hard disk (with all kinds of information on it, some possibly covered by a search warrant, other intimately private) is considered no different than making photocopies of business files, and all enforcement officers have the same powers, regardless of the purpose of their job.

The Right to Silence
When this bill becomes law, the right to silence will effectively no longer exist. Using an Examination Order the police can demand that you report to them for questioning. The criterion is that they suspect you of being involved with two or more people in the commission (or plotting) of any offence punishable by imprisonment. Even extremely minor offences such as trespass or disorderly behaviour would qualify.

The only way you can refuse this order is to cite a bit of legal jargon: ‘Section 60 of the Evidence Act’ and claim ‘privilege against self-incrimination’. But even if you happen to know this, it may not help-you can be ordered in front of a judge where you then have to offer evidence as to why you would be likely to incriminate yourself if you talked: the ultimate Catch-22.

Examination Orders
Examination Orders last for up to thirty days and the only penalty available for refusing to comply is a maximum of one year’s imprisonment.

These Orders weren’t part of the Law Commission’s original report to Parliament. They were inserted into the bill by the Labour government on the pretext that the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) was going to be abolished; but the National government has decided to keep the SFO
.
When the SFO was created, there were many of us who opposed it. We argued that sooner or later their powers would be transferred to the police and applied outside of the business context. We were right.


The Right Not to Participate in Proving your own Guilt
Current practice is that the police have to provide all the evidence to prove a person is guilty-next year they can sit back and order you to produce some of that evidence. Instead of getting a search warrant, they will be able to apply for a Production Order. This will require you to produce documents you are suspected of having (or will have in the future) and is available to any enforcement
officer covered by the Act. If you refuse to supply the documentation, the sentence is a maximum of one year’s imprisonment.

Surveillance Devices
Surveillance devices include bugs, video cameras and tracking devices for cars. Currently, there are no specific laws regulating surveillance on private property. Police need a warrant to enter your house and install a listening bug. Video surveillance by police inside a house or other private place is currently illegal. Police do it anyway knowing that most judges will admit it as evidence. That will change with this bill. It introduces the concept of a surveillance device warrant, which can be obtained by any enforcement officer (not just police) under the same criteria as a search warrant – that is, the suspicion that the search (or surveillance) will uncover evidential material necessary for a prosecution of a crime. This equates on-going video surveillance with a one-off search.

This contrasts to legislation elsewhere. In the US, Canada and a number of European countries, phone bugging and installing a surveillance camera in a home is treated as a much more serious invasion of privacy than a search. In order to get a surveillance warrant, police have to demonstrate that other ways of obtaining the evidence have failed. In the new bill, there is no such restriction.

Plain View Searches
There is no restriction on the use of any thing the police find during a search or surveillance operation. Using ‘plain view’, if the surveillance data shows evidence of a different offence than that for which the warrant was obtained then that material can still be used in court. The same applies for a search warrant. ‘Plain view’ is an opportunity to ‘have a nosy’ at what else is around.

Warrant-less Searches
Once you are arrested or even simply detained, the police and enforcement officers are able to search your home, workplace, car, friend’s home or any place with which you are associated, without a warrant if they believe they can find evidential material related to the offence. This power, combined with ‘plain view’ searches is a nightmare. Whilst you are sitting in the cells, your home can be turned upside down with no warrant.

Similarly, a warrant will not needed to record a conversation when two or more people are talking if one person consents to a recording of the conversation. This person could be an undercover cop sitting in a meeting, someone employed by an ‘enforcement officer’ or a friendly person at the bar. A warrant is needed for a computer search, however this warrant allows them to have access to your entire hard-drive and then using plain view they can trawl through other information not on the warrant.