Politics NZ Politics

[Rizzah]

Well, she was a criminal defence barrister, so she used to go to court and argue why her client didn't commit the crime. Or why evidence / testimony from a victim is lies, and/or they can't be trusted

You can be a lawyer and go down several different paths. Like be a prosecutor, and take down the bad guys. Or you can specialise in defence and get paid by them.

She obviously was comfortable getting paid by war criminals to keep them out of jail. She's entitled to do that of course. But it does take a type of person to do that. I don't think I could!

Sorry edit - for the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) - run by the UN, she was only an intern for the defence team. She worked for the UN, and the UN provided defence council to the accused to ensure they had fair representation.
A similar situation with Radovan Karadžić, who was tried by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), run by the UN. She was part of the defence team.

 

[Inruin]

Incompetence. It wasn't a targeted war like this one.

Lets see if they are better off or not before declaring war then

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

A spree then.

In one month this persons behavior was steal, steal, and steal again.

Does not sound like a well organised pattern of offending.

The mental health arguments will be interesting for some perhaps.

The Court ruling will annoy others either way.

Without knowing the ins and outs of the case it sounds like one that is most appropriately dealt with through fines - court costs - and diversion.

I am still tending toward a conviction being too severe an outcome for the person involved, however in New Zealand, for shop lifting, you usually only get diversion for a second offence (Usually first offence is a warning - second is diversion) this case is three separate incidents.

Not being a Lawyer I cannot really say what that means for her, other than it is not good.

I think there’s a level where under $1000 is lower consequences. Teenager stealing a $30 label jumper type of theft.

$10k is seen as significant and much more damaging to retailers hence a potential 7 year sentence. It’s literally several months after tax profit for some retailers. Everyone thinks about the poor entitled MP, but personally I feel more sorry for the under fire retailers that have been hammered by covid and crime. Shop owners robbed, stabbed, ram raided, closing up shop from repeated crime. Worse when it’s the MPs doing it to you…

 

[MaybeTop8]

I think there’s a level where under $1000 is lower consequences. Teenager stealing a $30 label jumper type of theft.

$10k is seen as significant and much more damaging to retailers hence a potential 7 year sentence. It’s literally several months after tax profit for some retailers. Everyone thinks about the poor entitled MP, but personally I feel more sorry for the under fire retailers that have been hammered by covid and crime. Shop owners robbed, stabbed, ram raided, closing up shop from repeated crime. Worse when it’s the MPs doing it to you…

Any concerns about being bought out by big tobacco and enabling smoking again Wiz? Or how about enabling the rich to pay less tax?

 

[sup42]

I think there’s a level where under $1000 is lower consequences. Teenager stealing a $30 label jumper type of theft.

$10k is seen as significant and much more damaging to retailers hence a potential 7 year sentence. It’s literally several months after tax profit for some retailers. Everyone thinks about the poor entitled MP, but personally I feel more sorry for the under fire retailers that have been hammered by covid and crime. Shop owners robbed, stabbed, ram raided, closing up shop from repeated crime. Worse when it’s the MPs doing it to you…

A non violent crime with zero risk of harm to the offender or the public.

No previous history of offending.

In your view what is an appropriate sentence? Never mind what you think about totally unrelated cases - stabbings - ram raids and such like.

What sentence do you think will serve society best?

I would argue a wake up call and avoiding throwing away a productive young persons life serves the community better than turning someone into a dependent on the state with limited future prospects to function as a contributing member of society.

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

A non violent crime with zero risk of harm to the offender or the public.

No previous history of offending.

In your view what is an appropriate sentence? Never mind what you think about totally unrelated cases - stabbings - ram raids and such like.

What sentence do you think will serve society best?

I would argue a wake up call and avoiding throwing away a productive young persons life serves the community better than turning someone into a dependent on the state with limited future prospects to function as a contributing member of society.

Hey I don’t think she should go to prison. I think she’s paying a heavy enough price.

Just saying how the law sees it being a higher level due to the dollar value.

She can still be productive with a criminal record but (if convicted) she’s a thief. I wouldnt employ her for any job with responsibilities/ cash handling/ stock handling, etc. You would want the thief closely monitored with a manager closely supervising her. That’s the real world consequences once society can’t trust you anymore.

But the reality is she’s educated, experienced and highly skilled, so unlike Joe Public who pays forever, she will fall into a corporate role somewhere and has a path back to meaningful employment.

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

Any concerns about being bought out by big tobacco and enabling smoking again Wiz? Or how about enabling the rich to pay less tax?

Personally the smoking a non issue. I don’t support National changing it but I also dgaf. If people want to kill themselves, so be it.

On tax, government income has rocketed up well ABOVE INFLATION. Everyone should be paying much less tax. The way Labour hiked tax targeted at the rich, they will naturally also pay less tax. But everyone should be paying less.

I personally support the first $10k being tax free but I don’t think anyone has proposed that.

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

I would argue a wake up call and avoiding throwing away a productive young persons life serves the community better than turning someone into a dependent on the state with limited future prospects to function as a contributing member of society.

Interesting question… if she’s convicted would you be happy for her to work as say managing your personal KiwiSaver funds?

Hell no from me!

Trust is the glue of society. Once it’s gone you have nothing.

 

[John Nick]

Interesting question… if she’s convicted would you be happy for her to work as say managing your personal KiwiSaver funds?

Hell no from me!

Trust is the glue of society. Once it’s gone you have nothing.

Personally no to any positions that have control over anything to do with finance.
Trust to me has to be earned. (Same as Manu)
Hopefully she gets the opportunity and help to get her life back on track.
Doesn't need any unfounded misinformation on what else she might or might not have done.
Can only lead to a unsubstantiated bias

 

[Bay39er]

Interesting question… if she’s convicted would you be happy for her to work as say managing your personal KiwiSaver funds?

Hell no from me!

Trust is the glue of society. Once it’s gone you have nothing.

Provided the motives behind her actions were being addressed I would not rule it out.

If you looked hard enough you could find a reason not to employ her in any job on the basis that she can’t be “trusted” but I believe that this person will live an exemplary life from this point (at least I hope that with support she will)

 

[Worried2Death]

She might go ok defending herself in court.

Might be better off with someone else, looks like all her previous clients got life sentences.

 

[Worried2Death]

What is the right?

What is it actually? Lately it appears to be fronts for shady special interest groups rather than traditional fiscal conservatism, we seem to be drifting more towards the American party donor system, if MaybeTop8 is correct about the likes of big oil, tobacco lobby and the Atlas menace influence in NZ.

What's the left? Slightly more social justice focused ideology within a capitalist framework, supposedly. Do these bipolar labels even apply any more? A tiny elite is still accumulating an ever bigger share of global wealth, helped by the pandemic it appears.

 

[Inruin]

What is it actually? Lately it appears to be fronts for shady special interest groups rather than traditional fiscal conservatism, we seem to be drifting more towards the American party donor system, if MaybeTop8 is correct about the likes of big oil, tobacco lobby and the Atlas menace influence in NZ.

What's the left? Slightly more social justice focused ideology within a capitalist framework, supposedly. Do these bipolar labels even apply any more? A tiny elite is still accumulating an ever bigger share of global wealth, helped by the pandemic it appears.

Well, that's why I was asking because apparently everything is basically right now and centre isn't actually centre etc etc. I asked what was right and the answer was some posters on here. Brilliant. And if the current political set up across the spectrum is essentially all right with a few tweaks either way then how far left is the utopia that he is dreaming of, what does it look like how is it achievable and what are the failings of that because nothing is perfect. It's all very well bleating on about neo-liberal this and that, right wing blah blah and it's all corrupt. This is the society that has been developed in the country over a period of time that the vast majority are relatively happy with. If there was a desire for change further away than where we are you would see that occur through party policies and how people vote. I have no doubt there is a certain degree of lobbying influencing the current coalition, just as I believe there was for the previous one. If indeed it's as big an issue as it's made out to be then the media and the opposition aren't doing their job anywhere good enough.

You are always going to have the rich and the poor and the inbetweens regardless. There isn't any getting away from that, 1000's of years of history with different societal systems have shown that. You can put legislation in place to try and limit or minimize but that also has consequences.

 

[MrFrankWhite]

Well, I originally was going to leave that off and leave the comment neutral. But it is a fact that she has defended war criminals (of genocide, no less) at the Hague, so that is a relevant aspect of her character

"the left" don't have a problem here referencing politicians' pasts (ex tobacco lobbyists / airline CEOs / underage texters)


well, that depends on your perspective. you might call it chaos. polled NZers tend to think it is pointing in a better direction than the last 6 years

Im about to get banned again for calling stupid people stupid..

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

The effects of not indexing tax rates:

“From 2012 to 2017, the average tax rate of the most common income of a regularly employed worker increased by 0.1 percentage points. But from 2017 to 2022 it increased by 1.2 percentage points.

“The significant increase is because the peak that includes the most common regularly employed worker shifts to the higher marginal tax rate of 30 per cent. The average tax rate then increases rapidly as incomes rise from there and marginal income is taxed at 30 per cent instead of 17.5 per cent,” the report said.

Do high income earners pay their share?:

‘The report found the top 10 per cent of income earners paid 44 per cent of personal taxes, despite earning 33 per cent of taxable income. In other words, that part of the tax system is progressive because high-income earners contribute a higher proportion of their income in tax take.

Tax system is fairer than you think, despite high-income earners rorting top rate

A report binned by the Government actually backs what it has been saying.

www.nzherald.co.nz

 

[Lord Gnome of Waiheke]

Lets see if they are better off or not before declaring war then

Lets not, this is a target wealth transfer from the poor to the wealthy - hopefully it too is derailed by incompetence.

 

[Lord Gnome of Waiheke]

top 10 per cent of income earners paid 44 per cent of personal taxes, despite earning 33 per cent of taxable income. In other words, that part of the tax system is progressive because high-income earners contribute a higher proportion of their income in tax take.

If that is justification for cutting taxes for high earners - like me - then the world truly has gone mad.

I earn $500k+ a year - I DON'T NEED A FUCKING TAX CUT.

However, public services are suffering from years of underinvestment and the government is going to *checks notes* find 10% savings from health, education, transport, housing etc as well as cutting the minimum wage, benefits and pensions.

It's a war on the poor voted for by people who either don't give a shit because they are already wealthy OR FUCKING IDIOTS.

 

[defensivebomb]

Im about to get banned again for calling stupid people stupid..

what part of my post did you struggle to comprehend?

 

[defensivebomb]

actually MrFrankWhite don't bother replying to me. I've had you on ignore for about a month as I don't value your opinion

 

[Inruin]

If that is justification for cutting taxes for high earners - like me - then the world truly has gone mad.

I earn $500k+ a year - I DON'T NEED A FUCKING TAX CUT.

However, public services are suffering from years of underinvestment and the government is going to *checks notes* find 10% savings from health, education, transport, housing etc as well as cutting the minimum wage, benefits and pensions.

It's a war on the poor voted for by people who either don't give a shit because they are already wealthy OR FUCKING IDIOTS.

The minimum wage is about to be lifted again shortly. Or is this another of those 'yes it's going up but it's actually coming down' propagandist posts that the 'left' leaning posters seem to enjoy?