COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill

[mashman]

Now there's a novel thought.

Bit of a bummer if you're asymptomatic, and I do wonder what they'll do to those human beings in order to keep everyone else safe. Can't exactly throw them in jail. I'm hanging out for a kind of Running Man type solution to generate some revenue. If nothing else those dirty asymptomatics will earn a living.

[jasonu]

Agreed! Pity we can't do a damnd thing about it, as the general population think it's necessary and would not dare to cross Aunty!

Don't worry mate our Jacinda will see us right.

[TheDemonLord]

Agreed! Pity we can't do a damnd thing about it, as the general population think it's necessary and would not dare to cross Aunty!

Can't we?

Even using the lowest estimated numbers, the NZ Populace outmans and out-guns the NZ Police and NZDF by a comfortable 4-1 for Semi-autos and if you include all firearm types - it's more like 20-1.

Or we can go to the ballot box.

[TheDemonLord]

Remind me.

Civil Liberties have Civic responsibilities.

[eldog]

Can't we go to the ballot box.

Like that will make a difference.

yeah, fixed it for ya.

you have been taken over by web surfing zombies, on their instant gratification joyride.

get on your bike and enjoy it while you can, it’s only a matter of time, before they are deemed unhealthy or too dangerous, by the masses.

[husaberg]

So can they or can't they enter a private dwellinghouse or marae?

As they could have previously anyway.
What makes me laugh is you seem to think they couldn't before hand
https://consultations.justice.govt.n...ess-powers.pdf
here is the dumbed down version.
https://communitylaw.org.nz/communit...tigate-crimes/

The police can enter your place without a warrant in the following situations:

Making an arrest – The police can come into your place to search for you and arrest you if they've got reasonable grounds to suspect you've committed an offence that's punishable by a prison term. To be able to use this power the police have to have reasonable grounds to believe you're at the place at that time and that if they don't enter straightaway either you'll leave or you'll interfere with evidence. They can also enter to arrest you if there's an arrest warrant out for you or if you've escaped from prison.

Preventing crimes – The police can enter to stop a criminal offence being committed that's likely to cause someone to be injured, or serious damage to or serious loss of any property.
Seizing evidence – The police can enter your place if they've arrested you (whether at your place or somewhere else) and they've got reasonable grounds to believe there's evidence at your place that will be destroyed or interfered with if they wait to get a warrant from a court. Also, if they think there's evidence of a serious crime (one punishable by a jail term of 14 years or more, like rape or aggravated robbery), they can enter to seize it whether they've arrested you or not.
Emergencies – The police can enter when there's an emergency threatening somebody's life or safety.
Enforcing specific laws – A number of Acts allow the police or other officials to enter property without a warrant in order to enforce that particular Act, including the Land Transport Act 1998 (see the chapter “Driving and traffic law”), the Immigration Act 2009, and the Animal Welfare Act 1999.

whilst i am sure you will revel in your latest attempts to fool people into thinking you know what you talking about, you very clearly cant not read or understand acts of law.
any more than understand trial on drugs or 911.
Your own misplaced paranoia is not evidence of wrongdoing.
the act is very explicit in that it relate to certain conditions not all the time anytime they want to search casedakatman.

[Katman]

As they could have previously anyway.
What makes me laugh is you seem to think they couldn't before hand
https://consultations.justice.govt.n...ess-powers.pdf
here is the dumbed down version.
https://communitylaw.org.nz/communit...tigate-crimes/

whilst i am sure you will revel in your latest attempts to fool people into thinking you know what you talking about, you very clearly cant not read or understand acts of law.
any more than understand trial on drugs or 911.
Your own misplaced paranoia is not evidence of wrongdoing.
the ac is vry explicit in that it relate to certain conditions not all the time anytime they want to search casedakatman.

Yes, I'm well aware that they could already.

I've been in a situation where they've marched into a house saying they could smell cannabis but then fail to find anything of the sort.

So yes, I've seen first hand just how far the NZ police will stretch the law.

[pritch]

Yes, I'm well aware that they could already.

I've been in a situation where they've marched into a house saying they could smell cannabis but then fail to find anything of the sort.

Yes, I don't think husaberg's list was exhaustive. It's my understanding that as well as having cause to suspect an offence against the drugs act there is a similar provision in the Firearms Act.

[husaberg]

Yes, I'm well aware that they could already.

I've been in a situation where they've marched into a house saying they could smell cannabis but then fail to find anything of the sort.

So yes, I've seen first hand just how far the NZ police will stretch the law.

Really because reading your posts makes it clear you were pretty confused
So what has changed now then
if you knew they already had the rights, if they believed a crime was being committed or evidence was likely to be destroyed or a life endangered
why do you suddenly act like you have had some sort of liberties have been suddenly taken from you with this act then?

[jasonu]

Really because reading your posts makes it clear you were pretty confused
So what has changed now then
if you knew they already had the rights, if they believed a crime was being committed or evidence was likely to be destroyed or a life endangered
why do you suddenly act like you have had some sort of liberties have been suddenly taken from you with this act then?

If you are correct and nothing has changed then why do you think they went to the trouble of rushing this new bill through?

[pete376403]

If you are correct and nothing has changed then why do you think they went to the trouble of rushing this new bill through?

Possibly they wanted the bits relating to Covid / lockdown levels to be in in place as soon as possible? And the act has to be as comprehensive as possible to prevent or at least slowdown the weasel lawyers who will use any unclear wording to get their clients off charges? (it's not as though there hasn't been plenty of that in the past) Personally I'm pretty happy that the moves the govt has made over the past 6 weeks or so has lessened the chances of me being infected, and possibly dying, because some bozo insisted his right to KFC was more important than my health and safety.

[husaberg]

If you are correct and nothing has changed then why do you think they went to the trouble of rushing this new bill through?

its not a question of if i gave the examples of previous acts and how the law is interpreted already.
I am sure it was added as they had very little laws about intentionally risking public health. but as these were not designed to stop a disease.
So in order not to having avoid idiots spreading the disease. whilst claiming the law doesn't apply to spreading a disease. it seems there made it clearer.
Because It takes longer to hear a case and its appeals than it does to simply make the law clearer.
I would suspect the law was more aimed at drug dealer and gangs, Who always claim their rights are being infringed in order to carry on their criminal activity.
Oddly they always seem to worry about their rights much more than non criminals do............

[jasonu]

its not a question of if i gave the examples of previous acts and how the law is interpreted already.
I am sure it was added as they had very little laws about intentionally risking public health. but as these were not desined to stop a disease.
So in order not to having avoid idiots spreading the disease. whilst claiming the law doesn't apply to spreading a disease. it seems there made it clearer.
Because It takes longer to hear a case and its appeals than it does to simply make the law clearer.
I would suspect the law was more aimed at drug dealer and gangs, Who always claim their rights are being infringed in order to carry on their criminal activity.
Oddly they always seem to worry about their rights much more than non criminals do............

I saw there is a 90 day review in the new rules. How much of these new rules do you think will be let go after this is all done?

[husaberg]

I saw there is a 90 day review in the new rules. How much of these new rules do you think will be let go after this is all done?

Who cares, its clear to anyone with a modicum of intelligence, that its not some Trojan horse, like Stevo was trying to make it out to be.
But feel free to ignore that so you can keep pushing your own agenda.......

where were you on this one.........
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...ed-devils-case

[R650R]

get on your bike and enjoy it while you can, it’s only a matter of time, before they are deemed unhealthy or too dangerous, by the masses.

I’m loathe to say it lest some leftie beggar journalist is trolling here for news likevthey do across all forums... but we should prepare ourselves to counter that which will come.

From day one of the lockdown and all this over sanitising nonsense that even included fuel bowsers, I thought how long before they realise bike jackets are giant Petri dishes collecting billions of bacteria/viruses across large swathes of the country, traversing multiple regions at speed running shouldets with loose women at every pub stop lol....

All this tripping over cleaner air and less hospital admissions makes our enjoyment of bikes a prime target. Never mind the massive symbol of freedom and free expression that motorcycling embodies, the communists sure don’t like that.

Their running scared though, I could not believe there was no single tax increase in the budget to pay for this war chest of expenditure... oh well I guess theyvrealised it’s election time soon.

Re all the new powers, there was a great radio interview post 911 with an elderly German women who survived nazi Germany. She could not believe the Americans giving away all their rights under the new laws, it was the frog boiling in the pot dejavu for her...