On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 12:28:32?PM UTC+12, Crash wrote:
https://tinyurl.com/yhn3h9dkIf the judge truly was pissed at these offenders why didn't she give the shits the maximum sentence of TEN years instead of a smack on the hand with a wet bus ticket?! Being soft on crime and criminals sends the wrong message!!!
None.
Ram raid counts up.
Preventative action based around fortifications. This is OK to a
point but how many ram raids would have been prevented by prison
sentences for those convicted? Prisons work very well at taking
criminals out of circulation.
Crocodile tears from Police Minister. What else could she say?
--
Crash McBash
https://tinyurl.com/yhn3h9dk
None.
Ram raid counts up.
Preventative action based around fortifications. This is OK to a
point but how many ram raids would have been prevented by prison
sentences for those convicted? Prisons work very well at taking
criminals out of circulation.
Crocodile tears from Police Minister. What else could she say?
--If the judge truly was pissed at these offenders why didn't she give the shits the maximum sentence of TEN years instead of a smack on the hand with a wet bus ticket?! Being soft on crime and criminals sends the wrong message!!!
Crash McBash
https://tinyurl.com/yhn3h9dk
None.
Ram raid counts up.
Preventative action based around fortifications. This is OK to a
point but how many ram raids would have been prevented by prison
sentences for those convicted? Prisons work very well at taking
criminals out of circulation.
Crocodile tears from Police Minister. What else could she say?
https://tinyurl.com/yhn3h9dk
None.
Ram raid counts up.
Preventative action based around fortifications. This is OK to a
point but how many ram raids would have been prevented by prison
sentences for those convicted? Prisons work very well at taking
criminals out of circulation.
Crocodile tears from Police Minister. What else could she say?
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 12:28:41 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
https://tinyurl.com/yhn3h9dk
None.
Ram raid counts up.
Preventative action based around fortifications. This is OK to a
point but how many ram raids would have been prevented by prison
sentences for those convicted? Prisons work very well at taking
criminals out of circulation.
Crocodile tears from Police Minister. What else could she say?
How many are repeat offenders then Crash?
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 22:41:14 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>No, but I had not heard that repeat offenders was a particular
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 12:28:41 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
https://tinyurl.com/yhn3h9dk
None.
Ram raid counts up.
Preventative action based around fortifications. This is OK to a
point but how many ram raids would have been prevented by prison >>>sentences for those convicted? Prisons work very well at taking >>>criminals out of circulation.
Crocodile tears from Police Minister. What else could she say?
How many are repeat offenders then Crash?
There would be far fewer if there were serious inconveniences for
those convicted. Are you claiming that the perpetrators of Ram Raids
never do it again?
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 08:24:03 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 22:41:14 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:No, but I had not heard that repeat offenders was a particular
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 12:28:41 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
https://tinyurl.com/yhn3h9dk
None.
Ram raid counts up.
Preventative action based around fortifications. This is OK to a
point but how many ram raids would have been prevented by prison >>>>sentences for those convicted? Prisons work very well at taking >>>>criminals out of circulation.
Crocodile tears from Police Minister. What else could she say?
How many are repeat offenders then Crash?
There would be far fewer if there were serious inconveniences for
those convicted. Are you claiming that the perpetrators of Ram Raids
never do it again?
problem, or seen any statistics about repeat offenders.
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:33:27 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 08:24:03 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 22:41:14 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:No, but I had not heard that repeat offenders was a particular
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 12:28:41 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:
https://tinyurl.com/yhn3h9dk
None.
Ram raid counts up.
Preventative action based around fortifications. This is OK to a >>>>>point but how many ram raids would have been prevented by prison >>>>>sentences for those convicted? Prisons work very well at taking >>>>>criminals out of circulation.
Crocodile tears from Police Minister. What else could she say?
How many are repeat offenders then Crash?
There would be far fewer if there were serious inconveniences for
those convicted. Are you claiming that the perpetrators of Ram Raids >>>never do it again?
problem, or seen any statistics about repeat offenders.
Then why introduce this to the thread if you have not heard anything
about it? This was never mentioned in my OP either by me or within
the article, so not part of the reasons for starting this thread.
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:52:03 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>Wriggle away my beauty, wriggle away - you deliberately injected a distraction but got caught.
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:33:27 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 08:24:03 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 22:41:14 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:No, but I had not heard that repeat offenders was a particular
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 12:28:41 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:
https://tinyurl.com/yhn3h9dk
None.
Ram raid counts up.
Preventative action based around fortifications. This is OK to a >>>>>>point but how many ram raids would have been prevented by prison >>>>>>sentences for those convicted? Prisons work very well at taking >>>>>>criminals out of circulation.
Crocodile tears from Police Minister. What else could she say?
How many are repeat offenders then Crash?
There would be far fewer if there were serious inconveniences for
those convicted. Are you claiming that the perpetrators of Ram Raids >>>>never do it again?
problem, or seen any statistics about repeat offenders.
Then why introduce this to the thread if you have not heard anything
about it? This was never mentioned in my OP either by me or within
the article, so not part of the reasons for starting this thread.
The question was asked "how many ram raids would have been prevented
by prison sentences for those convicted?"
The answer to that question will depend on how many repeat offenders
there are anyway.
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:52:03 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:33:27 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 08:24:03 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 22:41:14 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:No, but I had not heard that repeat offenders was a particular
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 12:28:41 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:
https://tinyurl.com/yhn3h9dk
None.
Ram raid counts up.
Preventative action based around fortifications. This is OK to a >>>>>>point but how many ram raids would have been prevented by prison >>>>>>sentences for those convicted? Prisons work very well at taking >>>>>>criminals out of circulation.
Crocodile tears from Police Minister. What else could she say?
How many are repeat offenders then Crash?
There would be far fewer if there were serious inconveniences for
those convicted. Are you claiming that the perpetrators of Ram Raids >>>>never do it again?
problem, or seen any statistics about repeat offenders.
Then why introduce this to the thread if you have not heard anything
about it? This was never mentioned in my OP either by me or within
the article, so not part of the reasons for starting this thread.
The question was asked "how many ram raids would have been prevented
by prison sentences for those convicted?"
The answer to that question will depend on how many repeat offenders
there are anyway.
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 14:22:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:52:03 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:33:27 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 08:24:03 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 22:41:14 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:No, but I had not heard that repeat offenders was a particular
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 12:28:41 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:
https://tinyurl.com/yhn3h9dk
None.
Ram raid counts up.
Preventative action based around fortifications. This is OK to a >>>>>>>point but how many ram raids would have been prevented by prison >>>>>>>sentences for those convicted? Prisons work very well at taking >>>>>>>criminals out of circulation.
Crocodile tears from Police Minister. What else could she say?
How many are repeat offenders then Crash?
There would be far fewer if there were serious inconveniences for >>>>>those convicted. Are you claiming that the perpetrators of Ram Raids >>>>>never do it again?
problem, or seen any statistics about repeat offenders.
Then why introduce this to the thread if you have not heard anything >>>about it? This was never mentioned in my OP either by me or within
the article, so not part of the reasons for starting this thread.
The question was asked "how many ram raids would have been prevented
by prison sentences for those convicted?"
The answer to that question will depend on how many repeat offenders
there are anyway.
Except you have clearly not considered that prison sentences for those >convicted may well be a deterrent, where today there is little
deterrent to those involved in ram raids.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 08:54:44 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:This thread was never about repeat offenders until you introduced that >deliberate diversion.
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 14:22:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:52:03 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:33:27 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 08:24:03 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 22:41:14 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:No, but I had not heard that repeat offenders was a particular >>>>>>problem, or seen any statistics about repeat offenders.
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 12:28:41 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>wrote:
https://tinyurl.com/yhn3h9dkHow many are repeat offenders then Crash?
None.
Ram raid counts up.
Preventative action based around fortifications. This is OK to a >>>>>>>>>point but how many ram raids would have been prevented by prison >>>>>>>>>sentences for those convicted? Prisons work very well at taking >>>>>>>>>criminals out of circulation.
Crocodile tears from Police Minister. What else could she say? >>>>>>>>
There would be far fewer if there were serious inconveniences for >>>>>>>those convicted. Are you claiming that the perpetrators of Ram Raids >>>>>>>never do it again?
Then why introduce this to the thread if you have not heard anything >>>>>about it? This was never mentioned in my OP either by me or within >>>>>the article, so not part of the reasons for starting this thread.
The question was asked "how many ram raids would have been prevented
by prison sentences for those convicted?"
The answer to that question will depend on how many repeat offenders >>>>there are anyway.
Except you have clearly not considered that prison sentences for those >>>convicted may well be a deterrent, where today there is little
deterrent to those involved in ram raids.
I have no problem with that statement which I note does not explain
what current deterrents are, but it is a different issue from the
question of how many repeat offences we have anyway.
Ram raids are up, what will the government do about it? Well? Can you guess?
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 08:54:44 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>This thread was never about repeat offenders until you introduced that deliberate diversion.
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 14:22:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:52:03 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:33:27 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 08:24:03 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 22:41:14 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:No, but I had not heard that repeat offenders was a particular >>>>>problem, or seen any statistics about repeat offenders.
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 12:28:41 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:
https://tinyurl.com/yhn3h9dk
None.
Ram raid counts up.
Preventative action based around fortifications. This is OK to a >>>>>>>>point but how many ram raids would have been prevented by prison >>>>>>>>sentences for those convicted? Prisons work very well at taking >>>>>>>>criminals out of circulation.
Crocodile tears from Police Minister. What else could she say?
How many are repeat offenders then Crash?
There would be far fewer if there were serious inconveniences for >>>>>>those convicted. Are you claiming that the perpetrators of Ram Raids >>>>>>never do it again?
Then why introduce this to the thread if you have not heard anything >>>>about it? This was never mentioned in my OP either by me or within
the article, so not part of the reasons for starting this thread.
The question was asked "how many ram raids would have been prevented
by prison sentences for those convicted?"
The answer to that question will depend on how many repeat offenders >>>there are anyway.
Except you have clearly not considered that prison sentences for those >>convicted may well be a deterrent, where today there is little
deterrent to those involved in ram raids.
I have no problem with that statement which I note does not explain
what current deterrents are, but it is a different issue from the
question of how many repeat offences we have anyway.
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 03:32:49 -0000 (UTC), TonyWhy would any sentient being ask such an inane question. It is totally irrelevant,
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 08:54:44 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:This thread was never about repeat offenders until you introduced that >>deliberate diversion.
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 14:22:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:52:03 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:33:27 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 08:24:03 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 22:41:14 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:No, but I had not heard that repeat offenders was a particular >>>>>>>problem, or seen any statistics about repeat offenders.
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 12:28:41 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
https://tinyurl.com/yhn3h9dkHow many are repeat offenders then Crash?
None.
Ram raid counts up.
Preventative action based around fortifications. This is OK to a >>>>>>>>>>point but how many ram raids would have been prevented by prison >>>>>>>>>>sentences for those convicted? Prisons work very well at taking >>>>>>>>>>criminals out of circulation.
Crocodile tears from Police Minister. What else could she say? >>>>>>>>>
There would be far fewer if there were serious inconveniences for >>>>>>>>those convicted. Are you claiming that the perpetrators of Ram Raids >>>>>>>>never do it again?
Then why introduce this to the thread if you have not heard anything >>>>>>about it? This was never mentioned in my OP either by me or within >>>>>>the article, so not part of the reasons for starting this thread.
The question was asked "how many ram raids would have been prevented >>>>>by prison sentences for those convicted?"
The answer to that question will depend on how many repeat offenders >>>>>there are anyway.
Except you have clearly not considered that prison sentences for those >>>>convicted may well be a deterrent, where today there is little >>>>deterrent to those involved in ram raids.
I have no problem with that statement which I note does not explain
what current deterrents are, but it is a different issue from the >>>question of how many repeat offences we have anyway.
Ram raids are up, what will the government do about it? Well? Can you guess?
So answer the question: - "how many ram raids would have been
prevented by prison sentences for those convicted?"
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 03:32:49 -0000 (UTC), TonyWhy would any sentient being ask such an inane question. It is totally >irrelevant,
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:So answer the question: - "how many ram raids would have been
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 08:54:44 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:This thread was never about repeat offenders until you introduced that >>>deliberate diversion.
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 14:22:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:52:03 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:33:27 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 08:24:03 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 22:41:14 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>wrote:No, but I had not heard that repeat offenders was a particular >>>>>>>>problem, or seen any statistics about repeat offenders.
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 12:28:41 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:
https://tinyurl.com/yhn3h9dkHow many are repeat offenders then Crash?
None.
Ram raid counts up.
Preventative action based around fortifications. This is OK to a >>>>>>>>>>>point but how many ram raids would have been prevented by prison >>>>>>>>>>>sentences for those convicted? Prisons work very well at taking >>>>>>>>>>>criminals out of circulation.
Crocodile tears from Police Minister. What else could she say? >>>>>>>>>>
There would be far fewer if there were serious inconveniences for >>>>>>>>>those convicted. Are you claiming that the perpetrators of Ram Raids >>>>>>>>>never do it again?
Then why introduce this to the thread if you have not heard anything >>>>>>>about it? This was never mentioned in my OP either by me or within >>>>>>>the article, so not part of the reasons for starting this thread.
The question was asked "how many ram raids would have been prevented >>>>>>by prison sentences for those convicted?"
The answer to that question will depend on how many repeat offenders >>>>>>there are anyway.
Except you have clearly not considered that prison sentences for those >>>>>convicted may well be a deterrent, where today there is little >>>>>deterrent to those involved in ram raids.
I have no problem with that statement which I note does not explain >>>>what current deterrents are, but it is a different issue from the >>>>question of how many repeat offences we have anyway.
Ram raids are up, what will the government do about it? Well? Can you guess? >>
prevented by prison sentences for those convicted?"
What is the givernment doing about the massive increase in ram raids? That is >the relevant question.
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 05:44:03 -0000 (UTC), TonyIf they persist in committing crimes YES! If you do the crime you should do the time!!! Unless you're a pig ignorant Labour stooge like you Rich. Which in your case and Labours it's pat them on the back for getting their fair share of the economy and
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:changes in sentencing laws, particularly in making prison an option
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 05:08:02 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe topic is ram raids. And this government's failure to address the dramatic
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 03:32:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Why would any sentient being ask such an inane question. It is totally >>>irrelevant,
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 08:54:44 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:This thread was never about repeat offenders until you introduced that >>>>>deliberate diversion.
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 14:22:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:52:03 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:33:27 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>wrote:The question was asked "how many ram raids would have been prevented >>>>>>>>by prison sentences for those convicted?"
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 08:24:03 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 22:41:14 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>No, but I had not heard that repeat offenders was a particular >>>>>>>>>>problem, or seen any statistics about repeat offenders.
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 12:28:41 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
https://tinyurl.com/yhn3h9dkHow many are repeat offenders then Crash?
None.
Ram raid counts up.
Preventative action based around fortifications. This is OK to a
point but how many ram raids would have been prevented by prison
sentences for those convicted? Prisons work very well at taking >>>>>>>>>>>>>criminals out of circulation.
Crocodile tears from Police Minister. What else could she say? >>>>>>>>>>>>
There would be far fewer if there were serious inconveniences for >>>>>>>>>>>those convicted. Are you claiming that the perpetrators of Ram Raids
never do it again?
Then why introduce this to the thread if you have not heard anything
about it? This was never mentioned in my OP either by me or within >>>>>>>>>the article, so not part of the reasons for starting this thread. >>>>>>>>
The answer to that question will depend on how many repeat offenders >>>>>>>>there are anyway.
Except you have clearly not considered that prison sentences for those
convicted may well be a deterrent, where today there is little >>>>>>>deterrent to those involved in ram raids.
I have no problem with that statement which I note does not explain >>>>>>what current deterrents are, but it is a different issue from the >>>>>>question of how many repeat offences we have anyway.
Ram raids are up, what will the government do about it? Well? Can you guess?
So answer the question: - "how many ram raids would have been >>>>prevented by prison sentences for those convicted?"
What is the givernment doing about the massive increase in ram raids? That is
the relevant question.
Now you are just trying to go off topic to avoid the topic of the
merits or otherwise of a suggested increase in penalties.
increase. You are the one who has gone off topic.
Man up for once! Sorry, I should have realised that you cannot ever do that. It is about appropriate penalties for ram raids, and reducing repeat offences, Tony. The government would need to be involved in any
for younger aged offenders. Do you think it is a good idea to put
young people in prison, Tony?
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 05:08:02 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe topic is ram raids. And this government's failure to address the dramatic increase. You are the one who has gone off topic.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 03:32:49 -0000 (UTC), TonyWhy would any sentient being ask such an inane question. It is totally >>irrelevant,
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 08:54:44 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:This thread was never about repeat offenders until you introduced that >>>>deliberate diversion.
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 14:22:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:52:03 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:33:27 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:The question was asked "how many ram raids would have been prevented >>>>>>>by prison sentences for those convicted?"
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 08:24:03 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 22:41:14 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:No, but I had not heard that repeat offenders was a particular >>>>>>>>>problem, or seen any statistics about repeat offenders.
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 12:28:41 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
https://tinyurl.com/yhn3h9dkHow many are repeat offenders then Crash?
None.
Ram raid counts up.
Preventative action based around fortifications. This is OK to a >>>>>>>>>>>>point but how many ram raids would have been prevented by prison >>>>>>>>>>>>sentences for those convicted? Prisons work very well at taking >>>>>>>>>>>>criminals out of circulation.
Crocodile tears from Police Minister. What else could she say? >>>>>>>>>>>
There would be far fewer if there were serious inconveniences for >>>>>>>>>>those convicted. Are you claiming that the perpetrators of Ram Raids >>>>>>>>>>never do it again?
Then why introduce this to the thread if you have not heard anything >>>>>>>>about it? This was never mentioned in my OP either by me or within >>>>>>>>the article, so not part of the reasons for starting this thread. >>>>>>>
The answer to that question will depend on how many repeat offenders >>>>>>>there are anyway.
Except you have clearly not considered that prison sentences for those >>>>>>convicted may well be a deterrent, where today there is little >>>>>>deterrent to those involved in ram raids.
I have no problem with that statement which I note does not explain >>>>>what current deterrents are, but it is a different issue from the >>>>>question of how many repeat offences we have anyway.
Ram raids are up, what will the government do about it? Well? Can you guess?
So answer the question: - "how many ram raids would have been
prevented by prison sentences for those convicted?"
What is the givernment doing about the massive increase in ram raids? That is >>the relevant question.
Now you are just trying to go off topic to avoid the topic of the
merits or otherwise of a suggested increase in penalties.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 05:08:02 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe topic is ram raids. And this government's failure to address the dramatic >increase. You are the one who has gone off topic.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 03:32:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Why would any sentient being ask such an inane question. It is totally >>>irrelevant,
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 08:54:44 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:This thread was never about repeat offenders until you introduced that >>>>>deliberate diversion.
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 14:22:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:52:03 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:33:27 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>wrote:The question was asked "how many ram raids would have been prevented >>>>>>>>by prison sentences for those convicted?"
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 08:24:03 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 22:41:14 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>No, but I had not heard that repeat offenders was a particular >>>>>>>>>>problem, or seen any statistics about repeat offenders.
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 12:28:41 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
https://tinyurl.com/yhn3h9dkHow many are repeat offenders then Crash?
None.
Ram raid counts up.
Preventative action based around fortifications. This is OK to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>point but how many ram raids would have been prevented by prison >>>>>>>>>>>>>sentences for those convicted? Prisons work very well at taking >>>>>>>>>>>>>criminals out of circulation.
Crocodile tears from Police Minister. What else could she say? >>>>>>>>>>>>
There would be far fewer if there were serious inconveniences for >>>>>>>>>>>those convicted. Are you claiming that the perpetrators of Ram Raids
never do it again?
Then why introduce this to the thread if you have not heard anything >>>>>>>>>about it? This was never mentioned in my OP either by me or within >>>>>>>>>the article, so not part of the reasons for starting this thread. >>>>>>>>
The answer to that question will depend on how many repeat offenders >>>>>>>>there are anyway.
Except you have clearly not considered that prison sentences for those >>>>>>>convicted may well be a deterrent, where today there is little >>>>>>>deterrent to those involved in ram raids.
I have no problem with that statement which I note does not explain >>>>>>what current deterrents are, but it is a different issue from the >>>>>>question of how many repeat offences we have anyway.
Ram raids are up, what will the government do about it? Well? Can you guess?
So answer the question: - "how many ram raids would have been
prevented by prison sentences for those convicted?"
What is the givernment doing about the massive increase in ram raids? That is
the relevant question.
Now you are just trying to go off topic to avoid the topic of the
merits or otherwise of a suggested increase in penalties.
Man up for once! Sorry, I should have realised that you cannot ever do that.
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 05:44:03 -0000 (UTC), TonyYet another distraction from you. You provide virtually no substance but many diversions.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 05:08:02 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe topic is ram raids. And this government's failure to address the dramatic >>increase. You are the one who has gone off topic.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 03:32:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Why would any sentient being ask such an inane question. It is totally >>>>irrelevant,
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 08:54:44 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:This thread was never about repeat offenders until you introduced that >>>>>>deliberate diversion.
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 14:22:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:52:03 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:33:27 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:The question was asked "how many ram raids would have been prevented >>>>>>>>>by prison sentences for those convicted?"
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 08:24:03 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 22:41:14 +1200, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>No, but I had not heard that repeat offenders was a particular >>>>>>>>>>>problem, or seen any statistics about repeat offenders.
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 12:28:41 +1200, Crash >>>>>>>>>>>>><nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
https://tinyurl.com/yhn3h9dkHow many are repeat offenders then Crash?
None.
Ram raid counts up.
Preventative action based around fortifications. This is OK to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>point but how many ram raids would have been prevented by prison >>>>>>>>>>>>>>sentences for those convicted? Prisons work very well at taking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>criminals out of circulation.
Crocodile tears from Police Minister. What else could she say? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
There would be far fewer if there were serious inconveniences for >>>>>>>>>>>>those convicted. Are you claiming that the perpetrators of Ram >>>>>>>>>>>>Raids
never do it again?
Then why introduce this to the thread if you have not heard anything >>>>>>>>>>about it? This was never mentioned in my OP either by me or within >>>>>>>>>>the article, so not part of the reasons for starting this thread. >>>>>>>>>
The answer to that question will depend on how many repeat offenders >>>>>>>>>there are anyway.
Except you have clearly not considered that prison sentences for those >>>>>>>>convicted may well be a deterrent, where today there is little >>>>>>>>deterrent to those involved in ram raids.
I have no problem with that statement which I note does not explain >>>>>>>what current deterrents are, but it is a different issue from the >>>>>>>question of how many repeat offences we have anyway.
Ram raids are up, what will the government do about it? Well? Can you >>>>>>guess?
So answer the question: - "how many ram raids would have been >>>>>prevented by prison sentences for those convicted?"
What is the givernment doing about the massive increase in ram raids? That >>>>is
the relevant question.
Now you are just trying to go off topic to avoid the topic of the
merits or otherwise of a suggested increase in penalties.
Man up for once! Sorry, I should have realised that you cannot ever do that.
It is about appropriate penalties for ram raids, and reducing repeat >offences, Tony. The government would need to be involved in any
changes in sentencing laws, particularly in making prison an option
for younger aged offenders. Do you think it is a good idea to put
young people in prison, Tony?
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 05:44:03 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 05:08:02 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe topic is ram raids. And this government's failure to address the dramatic >>increase. You are the one who has gone off topic.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 03:32:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Why would any sentient being ask such an inane question. It is totally >>>>irrelevant,
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 08:54:44 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:This thread was never about repeat offenders until you introduced that >>>>>>deliberate diversion.
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 14:22:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:52:03 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:33:27 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:The question was asked "how many ram raids would have been prevented >>>>>>>>>by prison sentences for those convicted?"
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 08:24:03 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 22:41:14 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>No, but I had not heard that repeat offenders was a particular >>>>>>>>>>>problem, or seen any statistics about repeat offenders.
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 12:28:41 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
https://tinyurl.com/yhn3h9dkHow many are repeat offenders then Crash?
None.
Ram raid counts up.
Preventative action based around fortifications. This is OK to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>point but how many ram raids would have been prevented by prison >>>>>>>>>>>>>>sentences for those convicted? Prisons work very well at taking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>criminals out of circulation.
Crocodile tears from Police Minister. What else could she say? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
There would be far fewer if there were serious inconveniences for >>>>>>>>>>>>those convicted. Are you claiming that the perpetrators of Ram Raids
never do it again?
Then why introduce this to the thread if you have not heard anything >>>>>>>>>>about it? This was never mentioned in my OP either by me or within >>>>>>>>>>the article, so not part of the reasons for starting this thread. >>>>>>>>>
The answer to that question will depend on how many repeat offenders >>>>>>>>>there are anyway.
Except you have clearly not considered that prison sentences for those >>>>>>>>convicted may well be a deterrent, where today there is little >>>>>>>>deterrent to those involved in ram raids.
I have no problem with that statement which I note does not explain >>>>>>>what current deterrents are, but it is a different issue from the >>>>>>>question of how many repeat offences we have anyway.
Ram raids are up, what will the government do about it? Well? Can you guess?
So answer the question: - "how many ram raids would have been >>>>>prevented by prison sentences for those convicted?"
What is the givernment doing about the massive increase in ram raids? That is
the relevant question.
Now you are just trying to go off topic to avoid the topic of the
merits or otherwise of a suggested increase in penalties.
Man up for once! Sorry, I should have realised that you cannot ever do that.
It is about appropriate penalties for ram raids, and reducing repeat >offences, Tony.
The government would need to be involved in any
changes in sentencing laws, particularly in making prison an option
for younger aged offenders. Do you think it is a good idea to put
young people in prison, Tony?
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 17:48:15 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 05:44:03 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:It is about appropriate penalties for ram raids, and reducing repeat >>offences, Tony.
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 05:08:02 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The topic is ram raids. And this government's failure to address the >>>dramatic
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 03:32:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Why would any sentient being ask such an inane question. It is totally >>>>>irrelevant,
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 08:54:44 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>wrote:This thread was never about repeat offenders until you introduced that >>>>>>>deliberate diversion.
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 14:22:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:52:03 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:33:27 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>The question was asked "how many ram raids would have been prevented >>>>>>>>>>by prison sentences for those convicted?"
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 08:24:03 +1200, Crash >>>>>>>>>>>><nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 22:41:14 +1200, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>No, but I had not heard that repeat offenders was a particular >>>>>>>>>>>>problem, or seen any statistics about repeat offenders.
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 12:28:41 +1200, Crash >>>>>>>>>>>>>><nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
https://tinyurl.com/yhn3h9dkHow many are repeat offenders then Crash?
None.
Ram raid counts up.
Preventative action based around fortifications. This is OK to a
point but how many ram raids would have been prevented by prison >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>sentences for those convicted? Prisons work very well at taking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>criminals out of circulation.
Crocodile tears from Police Minister. What else could she say? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There would be far fewer if there were serious inconveniences for >>>>>>>>>>>>>those convicted. Are you claiming that the perpetrators of Ram >>>>>>>>>>>>>Raids
never do it again?
Then why introduce this to the thread if you have not heard anything >>>>>>>>>>>about it? This was never mentioned in my OP either by me or within >>>>>>>>>>>the article, so not part of the reasons for starting this thread. >>>>>>>>>>
The answer to that question will depend on how many repeat offenders >>>>>>>>>>there are anyway.
Except you have clearly not considered that prison sentences for those >>>>>>>>>convicted may well be a deterrent, where today there is little >>>>>>>>>deterrent to those involved in ram raids.
I have no problem with that statement which I note does not explain >>>>>>>>what current deterrents are, but it is a different issue from the >>>>>>>>question of how many repeat offences we have anyway.
Ram raids are up, what will the government do about it? Well? Can you >>>>>>>guess?
So answer the question: - "how many ram raids would have been >>>>>>prevented by prison sentences for those convicted?"
What is the givernment doing about the massive increase in ram raids? That >>>>>is
the relevant question.
Now you are just trying to go off topic to avoid the topic of the >>>>merits or otherwise of a suggested increase in penalties.
increase. You are the one who has gone off topic.
Man up for once! Sorry, I should have realised that you cannot ever do that. >>
Rich that is something you introduced to the thread Rich, not
something I commented on and not something commented on in the article
I cited in my OP - there is no reference to repeat offenders at all. I >referenced increased penalties and later in the thread I clarified
that this may be a factor in reducing the incidence of ram raids.
The government would need to be involved in any
changes in sentencing laws, particularly in making prison an option
for younger aged offenders. Do you think it is a good idea to put
young people in prison, Tony?
I don't know about Tony, but I certainly do and I made this clear in
an earlier post.
--
Crash McBash
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 05:44:03 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 05:08:02 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe topic is ram raids. And this government's failure to address the dramatic >>increase. You are the one who has gone off topic.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 03:32:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Why would any sentient being ask such an inane question. It is totally >>>>irrelevant,
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 08:54:44 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:This thread was never about repeat offenders until you introduced that >>>>>>deliberate diversion.
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 14:22:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:52:03 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:33:27 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:The question was asked "how many ram raids would have been prevented >>>>>>>>>by prison sentences for those convicted?"
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 08:24:03 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 22:41:14 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>No, but I had not heard that repeat offenders was a particular >>>>>>>>>>>problem, or seen any statistics about repeat offenders.
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 12:28:41 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
https://tinyurl.com/yhn3h9dkHow many are repeat offenders then Crash?
None.
Ram raid counts up.
Preventative action based around fortifications. This is OK to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>point but how many ram raids would have been prevented by prison >>>>>>>>>>>>>>sentences for those convicted? Prisons work very well at taking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>criminals out of circulation.
Crocodile tears from Police Minister. What else could she say? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
There would be far fewer if there were serious inconveniences for >>>>>>>>>>>>those convicted. Are you claiming that the perpetrators of Ram Raids
never do it again?
Then why introduce this to the thread if you have not heard anything >>>>>>>>>>about it? This was never mentioned in my OP either by me or within >>>>>>>>>>the article, so not part of the reasons for starting this thread. >>>>>>>>>
The answer to that question will depend on how many repeat offenders >>>>>>>>>there are anyway.
Except you have clearly not considered that prison sentences for those >>>>>>>>convicted may well be a deterrent, where today there is little >>>>>>>>deterrent to those involved in ram raids.
I have no problem with that statement which I note does not explain >>>>>>>what current deterrents are, but it is a different issue from the >>>>>>>question of how many repeat offences we have anyway.
Ram raids are up, what will the government do about it? Well? Can you guess?
So answer the question: - "how many ram raids would have been >>>>>prevented by prison sentences for those convicted?"
What is the givernment doing about the massive increase in ram raids? That is
the relevant question.
Now you are just trying to go off topic to avoid the topic of the
merits or otherwise of a suggested increase in penalties.
Man up for once! Sorry, I should have realised that you cannot ever do that.
It is about appropriate penalties for ram raids, and reducing repeat offences, Tony. The government would need to be involved in any
changes in sentencing laws,
particularly in making prison an option
for younger aged offenders. Do you think it is a good idea to put
young people in prison, Tony?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 03:32:49 -0000 (UTC), TonyWhy would any sentient being ask such an inane question. It is totally irrelevant,
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:So answer the question: - "how many ram raids would have been
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 08:54:44 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:This thread was never about repeat offenders until you introduced that >>>deliberate diversion.
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 14:22:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:52:03 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:33:27 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 08:24:03 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 22:41:14 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>wrote:No, but I had not heard that repeat offenders was a particular >>>>>>>>problem, or seen any statistics about repeat offenders.
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 12:28:41 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:
https://tinyurl.com/yhn3h9dkHow many are repeat offenders then Crash?
None.
Ram raid counts up.
Preventative action based around fortifications. This is OK to a >>>>>>>>>>>point but how many ram raids would have been prevented by prison >>>>>>>>>>>sentences for those convicted? Prisons work very well at taking >>>>>>>>>>>criminals out of circulation.
Crocodile tears from Police Minister. What else could she say? >>>>>>>>>>
There would be far fewer if there were serious inconveniences for >>>>>>>>>those convicted. Are you claiming that the perpetrators of Ram Raids >>>>>>>>>never do it again?
Then why introduce this to the thread if you have not heard anything >>>>>>>about it? This was never mentioned in my OP either by me or within >>>>>>>the article, so not part of the reasons for starting this thread.
The question was asked "how many ram raids would have been prevented >>>>>>by prison sentences for those convicted?"
The answer to that question will depend on how many repeat offenders >>>>>>there are anyway.
Except you have clearly not considered that prison sentences for those >>>>>convicted may well be a deterrent, where today there is little >>>>>deterrent to those involved in ram raids.
I have no problem with that statement which I note does not explain >>>>what current deterrents are, but it is a different issue from the >>>>question of how many repeat offences we have anyway.
Ram raids are up, what will the government do about it? Well? Can you guess? >>
prevented by prison sentences for those convicted?"
What is the givernment doing about the massive increase in ram raids? That is the relevant question.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:As far as penalties are concerned yes the government does set the law
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 05:44:03 -0000 (UTC), TonyYet another distraction from you. You provide virtually no substance but many >diversions.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:It is about appropriate penalties for ram raids, and reducing repeat >>offences, Tony. The government would need to be involved in any
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 05:08:02 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The topic is ram raids. And this government's failure to address the dramatic
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 03:32:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Why would any sentient being ask such an inane question. It is totally >>>>>irrelevant,
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 08:54:44 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>wrote:This thread was never about repeat offenders until you introduced that >>>>>>>deliberate diversion.
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 14:22:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:52:03 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:33:27 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>The question was asked "how many ram raids would have been prevented >>>>>>>>>>by prison sentences for those convicted?"
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 08:24:03 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 22:41:14 +1200, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>No, but I had not heard that repeat offenders was a particular >>>>>>>>>>>>problem, or seen any statistics about repeat offenders.
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 12:28:41 +1200, Crash >>>>>>>>>>>>>><nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
https://tinyurl.com/yhn3h9dkHow many are repeat offenders then Crash?
None.
Ram raid counts up.
Preventative action based around fortifications. This is OK to a
point but how many ram raids would have been prevented by prison >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>sentences for those convicted? Prisons work very well at taking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>criminals out of circulation.
Crocodile tears from Police Minister. What else could she say? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There would be far fewer if there were serious inconveniences for >>>>>>>>>>>>>those convicted. Are you claiming that the perpetrators of Ram >>>>>>>>>>>>>Raids
never do it again?
Then why introduce this to the thread if you have not heard anything >>>>>>>>>>>about it? This was never mentioned in my OP either by me or within >>>>>>>>>>>the article, so not part of the reasons for starting this thread. >>>>>>>>>>
The answer to that question will depend on how many repeat offenders >>>>>>>>>>there are anyway.
Except you have clearly not considered that prison sentences for those >>>>>>>>>convicted may well be a deterrent, where today there is little >>>>>>>>>deterrent to those involved in ram raids.
I have no problem with that statement which I note does not explain >>>>>>>>what current deterrents are, but it is a different issue from the >>>>>>>>question of how many repeat offences we have anyway.
Ram raids are up, what will the government do about it? Well? Can you >>>>>>>guess?
So answer the question: - "how many ram raids would have been >>>>>>prevented by prison sentences for those convicted?"
What is the givernment doing about the massive increase in ram raids? That >>>>>is
the relevant question.
Now you are just trying to go off topic to avoid the topic of the >>>>merits or otherwise of a suggested increase in penalties.
increase. You are the one who has gone off topic.
Man up for once! Sorry, I should have realised that you cannot ever do that. >>
changes in sentencing laws, particularly in making prison an option
for younger aged offenders. Do you think it is a good idea to put
young people in prison, Tony?
Just focus on one thing - the government owns this, not any other body.
Ram raids are increasing and fixing that is the government's job. Not mine and >thanlk goodness it is not yours or we would be even worse off.
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 06:28:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:As far as penalties are concerned yes the government does set the law
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 05:44:03 -0000 (UTC), TonyYet another distraction from you. You provide virtually no substance but many >>diversions.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 05:08:02 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The topic is ram raids. And this government's failure to address the >>>>dramatic
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 03:32:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Why would any sentient being ask such an inane question. It is totally >>>>>>irrelevant,
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 08:54:44 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>>wrote:This thread was never about repeat offenders until you introduced that >>>>>>>>deliberate diversion.
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 14:22:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:52:03 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:33:27 +1200, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>The question was asked "how many ram raids would have been prevented >>>>>>>>>>>by prison sentences for those convicted?"
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 08:24:03 +1200, Crash >>>>>>>>>>>>><nogood@dontbother.invalid>Then why introduce this to the thread if you have not heard anything
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 22:41:14 +1200, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>No, but I had not heard that repeat offenders was a particular >>>>>>>>>>>>>problem, or seen any statistics about repeat offenders. >>>>>>>>>>>>
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 12:28:41 +1200, Crash >>>>>>>>>>>>>>><nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
https://tinyurl.com/yhn3h9dkHow many are repeat offenders then Crash?
None.
Ram raid counts up.
Preventative action based around fortifications. This is OK to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>a
point but how many ram raids would have been prevented by prison
sentences for those convicted? Prisons work very well at taking
criminals out of circulation.
Crocodile tears from Police Minister. What else could she say? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There would be far fewer if there were serious inconveniences for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>those convicted. Are you claiming that the perpetrators of Ram >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Raids
never do it again?
about it? This was never mentioned in my OP either by me or within >>>>>>>>>>>>the article, so not part of the reasons for starting this thread. >>>>>>>>>>>
The answer to that question will depend on how many repeat offenders >>>>>>>>>>>there are anyway.
Except you have clearly not considered that prison sentences for those
convicted may well be a deterrent, where today there is little >>>>>>>>>>deterrent to those involved in ram raids.
I have no problem with that statement which I note does not explain >>>>>>>>>what current deterrents are, but it is a different issue from the >>>>>>>>>question of how many repeat offences we have anyway.
Ram raids are up, what will the government do about it? Well? Can you >>>>>>>>guess?
So answer the question: - "how many ram raids would have been >>>>>>>prevented by prison sentences for those convicted?"
What is the givernment doing about the massive increase in ram raids? >>>>>>That
is
the relevant question.
Now you are just trying to go off topic to avoid the topic of the >>>>>merits or otherwise of a suggested increase in penalties.
increase. You are the one who has gone off topic.
Man up for once! Sorry, I should have realised that you cannot ever do that.
It is about appropriate penalties for ram raids, and reducing repeat >>>offences, Tony. The government would need to be involved in any
changes in sentencing laws, particularly in making prison an option
for younger aged offenders. Do you think it is a good idea to put
young people in prison, Tony?
Just focus on one thing - the government owns this, not any other body.
for that - it has been suggested that penalties should be greater; I
am raising the issue of what penalties are being asked for with
respect to young offenders, which is where change has been suggested.
Would you put 10 to 15 year old children in prison, Tony?
Ram raids are increasing and fixing that is the government's job. Not mine >>and
thanlk goodness it is not yours or we would be even worse off.
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 06:28:52 -0000 (UTC), Tonyhttps://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/heather-du-plessis-allan-drive/audio/ginny-andersen-police-minister-says-new-measures-will-ensure-repeat-offenders-are-held-accountable/
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:As far as penalties are concerned yes the government does set the law
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 05:44:03 -0000 (UTC), TonyYet another distraction from you. You provide virtually no substance but many
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 05:08:02 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The topic is ram raids. And this government's failure to address the dramatic
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 03:32:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Why would any sentient being ask such an inane question. It is totally >>>>>irrelevant,
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 08:54:44 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>This thread was never about repeat offenders until you introduced that
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 14:22:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:52:03 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:33:27 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>The question was asked "how many ram raids would have been prevented
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 08:24:03 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>Then why introduce this to the thread if you have not heard anything
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 22:41:14 +1200, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich...@hotmail.com>No, but I had not heard that repeat offenders was a particular >>>>>>>>>>>>problem, or seen any statistics about repeat offenders. >>>>>>>>>>>
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 12:28:41 +1200, Crash >>>>>>>>>>>>>><nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
https://tinyurl.com/yhn3h9dk
None.
Ram raid counts up.
Preventative action based around fortifications. This is OK to a
point but how many ram raids would have been prevented by prison
sentences for those convicted? Prisons work very well at taking
criminals out of circulation.
Crocodile tears from Police Minister. What else could she say?
How many are repeat offenders then Crash?
There would be far fewer if there were serious inconveniences for
those convicted. Are you claiming that the perpetrators of Ram >>>>>>>>>>>>>Raids
never do it again?
about it? This was never mentioned in my OP either by me or within
the article, so not part of the reasons for starting this thread. >>>>>>>>>>
by prison sentences for those convicted?"
The answer to that question will depend on how many repeat offenders
there are anyway.
Except you have clearly not considered that prison sentences for those
convicted may well be a deterrent, where today there is little >>>>>>>>>deterrent to those involved in ram raids.
I have no problem with that statement which I note does not explain >>>>>>>>what current deterrents are, but it is a different issue from the >>>>>>>>question of how many repeat offences we have anyway.
deliberate diversion.
Ram raids are up, what will the government do about it? Well? Can you >>>>>>>guess?
So answer the question: - "how many ram raids would have been >>>>>>prevented by prison sentences for those convicted?"
What is the givernment doing about the massive increase in ram raids? That
is
the relevant question.
Now you are just trying to go off topic to avoid the topic of the >>>>merits or otherwise of a suggested increase in penalties.
increase. You are the one who has gone off topic.
Man up for once! Sorry, I should have realised that you cannot ever do that.
It is about appropriate penalties for ram raids, and reducing repeat >>offences, Tony. The government would need to be involved in any
changes in sentencing laws, particularly in making prison an option
for younger aged offenders. Do you think it is a good idea to put
young people in prison, Tony?
diversions.
Just focus on one thing - the government owns this, not any other body.
for that - it has been suggested that penalties should be greater; I
am raising the issue of what penalties are being asked for with
respect to young offenders, which is where change has been suggested.
Would you put 10 to 15 year old children in prison, Tony?
Ram raids are increasing and fixing that is the government's job. Not mine and
thanlk goodness it is not yours or we would be even worse off.
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 1:29:32?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 06:28:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:As far as penalties are concerned yes the government does set the law
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 05:44:03 -0000 (UTC), TonyYet another distraction from you. You provide virtually no substance but many
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 05:08:02 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe topic is ram raids. And this government's failure to address the dramatic
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 03:32:49 -0000 (UTC), TonyWhy would any sentient being ask such an inane question. It is totally >> >>>>>irrelevant,
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 08:54:44 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>This thread was never about repeat offenders until you introduced that
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 14:22:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:52:03 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:33:27 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>The question was asked "how many ram raids would have been prevented
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 08:24:03 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 22:41:14 +1200, Rich80105No, but I had not heard that repeat offenders was a particular >> >>>>>>>>>>>>problem, or seen any statistics about repeat offenders.
<Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 12:28:41 +1200, Crash
<nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
https://tinyurl.com/yhn3h9dk
None.
Ram raid counts up.
Preventative action based around fortifications. This is OK to a
point but how many ram raids would have been prevented by prison
sentences for those convicted? Prisons work very well at taking
criminals out of circulation.
Crocodile tears from Police Minister. What else could she say?
How many are repeat offenders then Crash?
There would be far fewer if there were serious inconveniences for
those convicted. Are you claiming that the perpetrators of Ram >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Raids
never do it again?
Then why introduce this to the thread if you have not heard anything
about it? This was never mentioned in my OP either by me or within
the article, so not part of the reasons for starting this thread. >> >>>>>>>>>>
by prison sentences for those convicted?"
The answer to that question will depend on how many repeat offenders
there are anyway.
Except you have clearly not considered that prison sentences for those
convicted may well be a deterrent, where today there is little
deterrent to those involved in ram raids.
I have no problem with that statement which I note does not explain >> >>>>>>>>what current deterrents are, but it is a different issue from the
question of how many repeat offences we have anyway.
deliberate diversion.
Ram raids are up, what will the government do about it? Well? Can you >> >>>>>>>guess?
So answer the question: - "how many ram raids would have been
prevented by prison sentences for those convicted?"
What is the givernment doing about the massive increase in ram raids? That
is
the relevant question.
Now you are just trying to go off topic to avoid the topic of the
merits or otherwise of a suggested increase in penalties.
increase. You are the one who has gone off topic.
Man up for once! Sorry, I should have realised that you cannot ever do that.
It is about appropriate penalties for ram raids, and reducing repeat
offences, Tony. The government would need to be involved in any
changes in sentencing laws, particularly in making prison an option
for younger aged offenders. Do you think it is a good idea to put
young people in prison, Tony?
diversions.
Just focus on one thing - the government owns this, not any other body.
for that - it has been suggested that penalties should be greater; I
am raising the issue of what penalties are being asked for with
respect to young offenders, which is where change has been suggested.
Would you put 10 to 15 year old children in prison, Tony?
Ram raids are increasing and fixing that is the government's job. Not mine and
thanlk goodness it is not yours or we would be even worse off. >https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/heather-du-plessis-allan-drive/audio/ginny-andersen-police-minister-says-new-measures-will-ensure-repeat-offenders-are-held-accountable/
As usual for Labour: Deny until National announce a policy then adopt it with the speed of a parplegic snail :)
On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 04:52:43 -0700 (PDT), John BowesMaybe if you get the wax cleared from your ears and open your eye you might find out Rich :)
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 1:29:32?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 06:28:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:for that - it has been suggested that penalties should be greater; I
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 05:44:03 -0000 (UTC), TonyYet another distraction from you. You provide virtually no substance but many
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 05:08:02 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe topic is ram raids. And this government's failure to address the dramatic
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 03:32:49 -0000 (UTC), TonyWhy would any sentient being ask such an inane question. It is totally
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 08:54:44 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>This thread was never about repeat offenders until you introduced that
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 14:22:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:52:03 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:33:27 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 08:24:03 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 22:41:14 +1200, Rich80105No, but I had not heard that repeat offenders was a particular
<Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 12:28:41 +1200, Crash
<nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
https://tinyurl.com/yhn3h9dk
None.
Ram raid counts up.
Preventative action based around fortifications. This is OK to a
point but how many ram raids would have been prevented by prison
sentences for those convicted? Prisons work very well at taking
criminals out of circulation.
Crocodile tears from Police Minister. What else could she say?
How many are repeat offenders then Crash?
There would be far fewer if there were serious inconveniences for
those convicted. Are you claiming that the perpetrators of Ram
Raids
never do it again?
problem, or seen any statistics about repeat offenders.
Then why introduce this to the thread if you have not heard anything
about it? This was never mentioned in my OP either by me or within
the article, so not part of the reasons for starting this thread.
The question was asked "how many ram raids would have been prevented
by prison sentences for those convicted?"
The answer to that question will depend on how many repeat offenders
there are anyway.
Except you have clearly not considered that prison sentences for those
convicted may well be a deterrent, where today there is little >> >>>>>>>>>deterrent to those involved in ram raids.
I have no problem with that statement which I note does not explain
what current deterrents are, but it is a different issue from the >> >>>>>>>>question of how many repeat offences we have anyway.
deliberate diversion.
Ram raids are up, what will the government do about it? Well? Can you
guess?
So answer the question: - "how many ram raids would have been
prevented by prison sentences for those convicted?"
irrelevant,
What is the givernment doing about the massive increase in ram raids? That
is
the relevant question.
Now you are just trying to go off topic to avoid the topic of the
merits or otherwise of a suggested increase in penalties.
increase. You are the one who has gone off topic.
Man up for once! Sorry, I should have realised that you cannot ever do that.
It is about appropriate penalties for ram raids, and reducing repeat
offences, Tony. The government would need to be involved in any
changes in sentencing laws, particularly in making prison an option
for younger aged offenders. Do you think it is a good idea to put
young people in prison, Tony?
diversions.
Just focus on one thing - the government owns this, not any other body. >> As far as penalties are concerned yes the government does set the law
am raising the issue of what penalties are being asked for with
respect to young offenders, which is where change has been suggested.
Would you put 10 to 15 year old children in prison, Tony?
Ram raids are increasing and fixing that is the government's job. Not mine and
thanlk goodness it is not yours or we would be even worse off. >https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/heather-du-plessis-allan-drive/audio/ginny-andersen-police-minister-says-new-measures-will-ensure-repeat-offenders-are-held-accountable/
As usual for Labour: Deny until National announce a policy then adopt it with the speed of a parplegic snail :)I have not heard them proposing to put 10 to 15 year olds in prison.
On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 14:49:11 -0700 (PDT), John BowesWhy shouldn't youth offenders be locked up? Do the crime be prepared to do the time! Something your government isn't interested in making them do.
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 8:10:40?AM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:You are confused; it is National that are proposing to send youth
On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 04:52:43 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 1:29:32?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:I have not heard them proposing to put 10 to 15 year olds in prison. >Maybe if you get the wax cleared from your ears and open your eye you might find out Rich :)
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 06:28:52 -0000 (UTC), Tonyhttps://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/heather-du-plessis-allan-drive/audio/ginny-andersen-police-minister-says-new-measures-will-ensure-repeat-offenders-are-held-accountable/
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:As far as penalties are concerned yes the government does set the law >> >> for that - it has been suggested that penalties should be greater; I >> >> am raising the issue of what penalties are being asked for with
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 05:44:03 -0000 (UTC), TonyYet another distraction from you. You provide virtually no substance but many
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 05:08:02 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe topic is ram raids. And this government's failure to address the dramatic
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 03:32:49 -0000 (UTC), TonyWhy would any sentient being ask such an inane question. It is totally
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 08:54:44 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>This thread was never about repeat offenders until you introduced that
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 14:22:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:52:03 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:33:27 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 08:24:03 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 22:41:14 +1200, Rich80105No, but I had not heard that repeat offenders was a particular
<Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 12:28:41 +1200, Crash
<nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
https://tinyurl.com/yhn3h9dk
None.
Ram raid counts up.
Preventative action based around fortifications. This is OK to a
point but how many ram raids would have been prevented by prison
sentences for those convicted? Prisons work very well at taking
criminals out of circulation.
Crocodile tears from Police Minister. What else could she say?
How many are repeat offenders then Crash?
There would be far fewer if there were serious inconveniences for
those convicted. Are you claiming that the perpetrators of Ram
Raids
never do it again?
problem, or seen any statistics about repeat offenders.
Then why introduce this to the thread if you have not heard anything
about it? This was never mentioned in my OP either by me or within
the article, so not part of the reasons for starting this thread.
The question was asked "how many ram raids would have been prevented
by prison sentences for those convicted?"
The answer to that question will depend on how many repeat offenders
there are anyway.
Except you have clearly not considered that prison sentences for those
convicted may well be a deterrent, where today there is little
deterrent to those involved in ram raids.
I have no problem with that statement which I note does not explain
what current deterrents are, but it is a different issue from the
question of how many repeat offences we have anyway.
deliberate diversion.
Ram raids are up, what will the government do about it? Well? Can you
guess?
So answer the question: - "how many ram raids would have been
prevented by prison sentences for those convicted?"
irrelevant,
What is the givernment doing about the massive increase in ram raids? That
is
the relevant question.
Now you are just trying to go off topic to avoid the topic of the >> >> >>>>merits or otherwise of a suggested increase in penalties.
increase. You are the one who has gone off topic.
Man up for once! Sorry, I should have realised that you cannot ever do that.
It is about appropriate penalties for ram raids, and reducing repeat >> >> >>offences, Tony. The government would need to be involved in any
changes in sentencing laws, particularly in making prison an option >> >> >>for younger aged offenders. Do you think it is a good idea to put
young people in prison, Tony?
diversions.
Just focus on one thing - the government owns this, not any other body.
respect to young offenders, which is where change has been suggested. >> >> Would you put 10 to 15 year old children in prison, Tony?
Ram raids are increasing and fixing that is the government's job. Not mine and
thanlk goodness it is not yours or we would be even worse off.
As usual for Labour: Deny until National announce a policy then adopt it with the speed of a parplegic snail :)
offenders to prison - or have they backed away from that now?
On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 14:49:11 -0700 (PDT), John BowesSeems your inglorious leader is as mixed up as you are Rich :)
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 8:10:40?AM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:You are confused; it is National that are proposing to send youth
On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 04:52:43 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 1:29:32?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:I have not heard them proposing to put 10 to 15 year olds in prison. >Maybe if you get the wax cleared from your ears and open your eye you might find out Rich :)
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 06:28:52 -0000 (UTC), Tonyhttps://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/heather-du-plessis-allan-drive/audio/ginny-andersen-police-minister-says-new-measures-will-ensure-repeat-offenders-are-held-accountable/
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:As far as penalties are concerned yes the government does set the law >> >> for that - it has been suggested that penalties should be greater; I >> >> am raising the issue of what penalties are being asked for with
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 05:44:03 -0000 (UTC), TonyYet another distraction from you. You provide virtually no substance but many
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 05:08:02 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe topic is ram raids. And this government's failure to address the dramatic
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 03:32:49 -0000 (UTC), TonyWhy would any sentient being ask such an inane question. It is totally
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 08:54:44 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>This thread was never about repeat offenders until you introduced that
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 14:22:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:52:03 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:33:27 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 08:24:03 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 22:41:14 +1200, Rich80105No, but I had not heard that repeat offenders was a particular
<Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 12:28:41 +1200, Crash
<nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
https://tinyurl.com/yhn3h9dk
None.
Ram raid counts up.
Preventative action based around fortifications. This is OK to a
point but how many ram raids would have been prevented by prison
sentences for those convicted? Prisons work very well at taking
criminals out of circulation.
Crocodile tears from Police Minister. What else could she say?
How many are repeat offenders then Crash?
There would be far fewer if there were serious inconveniences for
those convicted. Are you claiming that the perpetrators of Ram
Raids
never do it again?
problem, or seen any statistics about repeat offenders.
Then why introduce this to the thread if you have not heard anything
about it? This was never mentioned in my OP either by me or within
the article, so not part of the reasons for starting this thread.
The question was asked "how many ram raids would have been prevented
by prison sentences for those convicted?"
The answer to that question will depend on how many repeat offenders
there are anyway.
Except you have clearly not considered that prison sentences for those
convicted may well be a deterrent, where today there is little
deterrent to those involved in ram raids.
I have no problem with that statement which I note does not explain
what current deterrents are, but it is a different issue from the
question of how many repeat offences we have anyway.
deliberate diversion.
Ram raids are up, what will the government do about it? Well? Can you
guess?
So answer the question: - "how many ram raids would have been
prevented by prison sentences for those convicted?"
irrelevant,
What is the givernment doing about the massive increase in ram raids? That
is
the relevant question.
Now you are just trying to go off topic to avoid the topic of the >> >> >>>>merits or otherwise of a suggested increase in penalties.
increase. You are the one who has gone off topic.
Man up for once! Sorry, I should have realised that you cannot ever do that.
It is about appropriate penalties for ram raids, and reducing repeat >> >> >>offences, Tony. The government would need to be involved in any
changes in sentencing laws, particularly in making prison an option >> >> >>for younger aged offenders. Do you think it is a good idea to put
young people in prison, Tony?
diversions.
Just focus on one thing - the government owns this, not any other body.
respect to young offenders, which is where change has been suggested. >> >> Would you put 10 to 15 year old children in prison, Tony?
Ram raids are increasing and fixing that is the government's job. Not mine and
thanlk goodness it is not yours or we would be even worse off.
As usual for Labour: Deny until National announce a policy then adopt it with the speed of a parplegic snail :)
offenders to prison - or have they backed away from that now?
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 8:10:40?AM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 04:52:43 -0700 (PDT), John BowesMaybe if you get the wax cleared from your ears and open your eye you might find out Rich :)
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 1:29:32?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:I have not heard them proposing to put 10 to 15 year olds in prison.
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 06:28:52 -0000 (UTC), Tonyhttps://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/heather-du-plessis-allan-drive/audio/ginny-andersen-police-minister-says-new-measures-will-ensure-repeat-offenders-are-held-accountable/
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:for that - it has been suggested that penalties should be greater; I
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 05:44:03 -0000 (UTC), TonyYet another distraction from you. You provide virtually no substance but many
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 05:08:02 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe topic is ram raids. And this government's failure to address the dramatic
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 03:32:49 -0000 (UTC), TonyWhy would any sentient being ask such an inane question. It is totally
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 08:54:44 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>This thread was never about repeat offenders until you introduced that
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 14:22:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:52:03 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:33:27 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 08:24:03 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 22:41:14 +1200, Rich80105No, but I had not heard that repeat offenders was a particular
<Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 12:28:41 +1200, Crash
<nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
https://tinyurl.com/yhn3h9dk
None.
Ram raid counts up.
Preventative action based around fortifications. This is OK to a
point but how many ram raids would have been prevented by prison
sentences for those convicted? Prisons work very well at taking
criminals out of circulation.
Crocodile tears from Police Minister. What else could she say?
How many are repeat offenders then Crash?
There would be far fewer if there were serious inconveniences for
those convicted. Are you claiming that the perpetrators of Ram
Raids
never do it again?
problem, or seen any statistics about repeat offenders.
Then why introduce this to the thread if you have not heard anything
about it? This was never mentioned in my OP either by me or within
the article, so not part of the reasons for starting this thread.
The question was asked "how many ram raids would have been prevented
by prison sentences for those convicted?"
The answer to that question will depend on how many repeat offenders
there are anyway.
Except you have clearly not considered that prison sentences for those
convicted may well be a deterrent, where today there is little >> >> >>>>>>>>>deterrent to those involved in ram raids.
I have no problem with that statement which I note does not explain
what current deterrents are, but it is a different issue from the >> >> >>>>>>>>question of how many repeat offences we have anyway.
deliberate diversion.
Ram raids are up, what will the government do about it? Well? Can you
guess?
So answer the question: - "how many ram raids would have been
prevented by prison sentences for those convicted?"
irrelevant,
What is the givernment doing about the massive increase in ram raids? That
is
the relevant question.
Now you are just trying to go off topic to avoid the topic of the
merits or otherwise of a suggested increase in penalties.
increase. You are the one who has gone off topic.
Man up for once! Sorry, I should have realised that you cannot ever do that.
It is about appropriate penalties for ram raids, and reducing repeat
offences, Tony. The government would need to be involved in any
changes in sentencing laws, particularly in making prison an option
for younger aged offenders. Do you think it is a good idea to put
young people in prison, Tony?
diversions.
Just focus on one thing - the government owns this, not any other body. >> >> As far as penalties are concerned yes the government does set the law
am raising the issue of what penalties are being asked for with
respect to young offenders, which is where change has been suggested.
Would you put 10 to 15 year old children in prison, Tony?
Ram raids are increasing and fixing that is the government's job. Not mine and
thanlk goodness it is not yours or we would be even worse off.
As usual for Labour: Deny until National announce a policy then adopt it with the speed of a parplegic snail :)
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 10:19:35 AM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 14:49:11 -0700 (PDT), John BowesSeems your inglorious leader is as mixed up as you are Rich :)
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 8:10:40?AM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:You are confused; it is National that are proposing to send youth
On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 04:52:43 -0700 (PDT), John BowesMaybe if you get the wax cleared from your ears and open your eye you might find out Rich :)
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 1:29:32?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:I have not heard them proposing to put 10 to 15 year olds in prison.
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 06:28:52 -0000 (UTC), Tonyhttps://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/heather-du-plessis-allan-drive/audio/ginny-andersen-police-minister-says-new-measures-will-ensure-repeat-offenders-are-held-accountable/
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:As far as penalties are concerned yes the government does set the law >> >> >> for that - it has been suggested that penalties should be greater; I >> >> >> am raising the issue of what penalties are being asked for with
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 05:44:03 -0000 (UTC), TonyYet another distraction from you. You provide virtually no substance but many
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 05:08:02 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe topic is ram raids. And this government's failure to address the dramatic
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 03:32:49 -0000 (UTC), TonyWhy would any sentient being ask such an inane question. It is totally
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 08:54:44 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>This thread was never about repeat offenders until you introduced that
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 14:22:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:52:03 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:33:27 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 08:24:03 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 22:41:14 +1200, Rich80105No, but I had not heard that repeat offenders was a particular
<Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 12:28:41 +1200, Crash
<nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
https://tinyurl.com/yhn3h9dk
None.
Ram raid counts up.
Preventative action based around fortifications. This is OK to a
point but how many ram raids would have been prevented by prison
sentences for those convicted? Prisons work very well at taking
criminals out of circulation.
Crocodile tears from Police Minister. What else could she say?
How many are repeat offenders then Crash?
There would be far fewer if there were serious inconveniences for
those convicted. Are you claiming that the perpetrators of Ram
Raids
never do it again?
problem, or seen any statistics about repeat offenders.
Then why introduce this to the thread if you have not heard anything
about it? This was never mentioned in my OP either by me or within
the article, so not part of the reasons for starting this thread.
The question was asked "how many ram raids would have been prevented
by prison sentences for those convicted?"
The answer to that question will depend on how many repeat offenders
there are anyway.
Except you have clearly not considered that prison sentences for those
convicted may well be a deterrent, where today there is little
deterrent to those involved in ram raids.
I have no problem with that statement which I note does not explain
what current deterrents are, but it is a different issue from the
question of how many repeat offences we have anyway.
deliberate diversion.
Ram raids are up, what will the government do about it? Well? Can you
guess?
So answer the question: - "how many ram raids would have been
prevented by prison sentences for those convicted?"
irrelevant,
What is the givernment doing about the massive increase in ram raids? That
is
the relevant question.
Now you are just trying to go off topic to avoid the topic of the >> >> >> >>>>merits or otherwise of a suggested increase in penalties.
increase. You are the one who has gone off topic.
Man up for once! Sorry, I should have realised that you cannot ever do that.
It is about appropriate penalties for ram raids, and reducing repeat >> >> >> >>offences, Tony. The government would need to be involved in any
changes in sentencing laws, particularly in making prison an option >> >> >> >>for younger aged offenders. Do you think it is a good idea to put
young people in prison, Tony?
diversions.
Just focus on one thing - the government owns this, not any other body.
respect to young offenders, which is where change has been suggested. >> >> >> Would you put 10 to 15 year old children in prison, Tony?
Ram raids are increasing and fixing that is the government's job. Not mine and
thanlk goodness it is not yours or we would be even worse off.
As usual for Labour: Deny until National announce a policy then adopt it with the speed of a parplegic snail :)
offenders to prison - or have they backed away from that now?
Talk about flip flop. Maybe their election moto should be ïn it for whatever"! Hipkins like you Rich doesn't know what the fuck Labour stand for:)
https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/audio/chris-hipkins-prime-minister-on-labours-new-crime-policy/
On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 14:49:11 -0700 (PDT), John BowesYou are a liar. They have never said anything about 10 to 15 year olds going to prison.
<bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 8:10:40?AM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 04:52:43 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 1:29:32?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:I have not heard them proposing to put 10 to 15 year olds in prison. >>Maybe if you get the wax cleared from your ears and open your eye you might >>find out Rich :)
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 06:28:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:am raising the issue of what penalties are being asked for with
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 05:44:03 -0000 (UTC), TonyYet another distraction from you. You provide virtually no substance >>> >> >but many
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 05:08:02 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe topic is ram raids. And this government's failure to address the >>> >> >>>dramatic
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 03:32:49 -0000 (UTC), TonyWhy would any sentient being ask such an inane question. It is
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 08:54:44 +1200, CrashThis thread was never about repeat offenders until you introduced >>> >> >>>>>>>that
<nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 14:22:57 +1200, Rich80105
<Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:52:03 +1200, Crash
<nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:33:27 +1200, Rich80105
<Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 08:24:03 +1200, Crash
<nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 22:41:14 +1200, Rich80105No, but I had not heard that repeat offenders was a
<Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 12:28:41 +1200, Crash
<nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
https://tinyurl.com/yhn3h9dk
None.
Ram raid counts up.
Preventative action based around fortifications. This is >>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>OK to a
point but how many ram raids would have been prevented by >>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>prison
sentences for those convicted? Prisons work very well at >>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>taking
criminals out of circulation.
Crocodile tears from Police Minister. What else could she >>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>say?
How many are repeat offenders then Crash?
There would be far fewer if there were serious
inconveniences for
those convicted. Are you claiming that the perpetrators of >>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Ram
Raids
never do it again?
particular
problem, or seen any statistics about repeat offenders.
Then why introduce this to the thread if you have not heard >>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>anything
about it? This was never mentioned in my OP either by me or >>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>within
the article, so not part of the reasons for starting this
thread.
The question was asked "how many ram raids would have been
prevented
by prison sentences for those convicted?"
The answer to that question will depend on how many repeat
offenders
there are anyway.
Except you have clearly not considered that prison sentences >>> >> >>>>>>>>>for those
convicted may well be a deterrent, where today there is little >>> >> >>>>>>>>>deterrent to those involved in ram raids.
I have no problem with that statement which I note does not
explain
what current deterrents are, but it is a different issue from >>> >> >>>>>>>>the
question of how many repeat offences we have anyway.
deliberate diversion.
Ram raids are up, what will the government do about it? Well? Can >>> >> >>>>>>>you
guess?
So answer the question: - "how many ram raids would have been
prevented by prison sentences for those convicted?"
totally
irrelevant,
What is the givernment doing about the massive increase in ram
raids? That
is
the relevant question.
Now you are just trying to go off topic to avoid the topic of the >>> >> >>>>merits or otherwise of a suggested increase in penalties.
increase. You are the one who has gone off topic.
Man up for once! Sorry, I should have realised that you cannot ever >>> >> >>>do that.
It is about appropriate penalties for ram raids, and reducing repeat >>> >> >>offences, Tony. The government would need to be involved in any
changes in sentencing laws, particularly in making prison an option >>> >> >>for younger aged offenders. Do you think it is a good idea to put
young people in prison, Tony?
diversions.
Just focus on one thing - the government owns this, not any other body. >>> >> As far as penalties are concerned yes the government does set the law >>> >> for that - it has been suggested that penalties should be greater; I
respect to young offenders, which is where change has been suggested. >>> >> Would you put 10 to 15 year old children in prison, Tony?
Ram raids are increasing and fixing that is the government's job. Not >>> >> >mine and
thanlk goodness it is not yours or we would be even worse off.
https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/heather-du-plessis-allan-drive/audio/ginny-andersen-police-minister-says-new-measures-will-ensure-repeat-offenders-are-held-accountable/
As usual for Labour: Deny until National announce a policy then adopt it >>> >with the speed of a parplegic snail :)
You are confused; it is National that are proposing to send youth
offenders to prison - or have they backed away from that now?
On 2023-07-17, John Bowes <bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 10:19:35?AM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 14:49:11 -0700 (PDT), John BowesSeems your inglorious leader is as mixed up as you are Rich :)
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 8:10:40?AM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:You are confused; it is National that are proposing to send youth
On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 04:52:43 -0700 (PDT), John BowesMaybe if you get the wax cleared from your ears and open your eye you might find out Rich :)
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 1:29:32?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:I have not heard them proposing to put 10 to 15 year olds in prison.
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 06:28:52 -0000 (UTC), Tonyhttps://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/heather-du-plessis-allan-drive/audio/ginny-andersen-police-minister-says-new-measures-will-ensure-repeat-offenders-are-held-accountable/
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:As far as penalties are concerned yes the government does set the law >>> >> >> for that - it has been suggested that penalties should be greater; I >>> >> >> am raising the issue of what penalties are being asked for with
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 05:44:03 -0000 (UTC), TonyYet another distraction from you. You provide virtually no substance but many
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 05:08:02 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe topic is ram raids. And this government's failure to address the dramatic
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 03:32:49 -0000 (UTC), TonyWhy would any sentient being ask such an inane question. It is totally
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 08:54:44 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>This thread was never about repeat offenders until you introduced that
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 14:22:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:52:03 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:33:27 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 08:24:03 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>Then why introduce this to the thread if you have not heard anything
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 22:41:14 +1200, Rich80105No, but I had not heard that repeat offenders was a particular
<Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 12:28:41 +1200, Crash
<nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
https://tinyurl.com/yhn3h9dk
None.
Ram raid counts up.
Preventative action based around fortifications. This is OK to a
point but how many ram raids would have been prevented by prison
sentences for those convicted? Prisons work very well at taking
criminals out of circulation.
Crocodile tears from Police Minister. What else could she say?
How many are repeat offenders then Crash?
There would be far fewer if there were serious inconveniences for
those convicted. Are you claiming that the perpetrators of Ram
Raids
never do it again?
problem, or seen any statistics about repeat offenders. >>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
about it? This was never mentioned in my OP either by me or within
the article, so not part of the reasons for starting this thread.
The question was asked "how many ram raids would have been prevented
by prison sentences for those convicted?"
The answer to that question will depend on how many repeat offenders
there are anyway.
Except you have clearly not considered that prison sentences for those
convicted may well be a deterrent, where today there is little
deterrent to those involved in ram raids.
I have no problem with that statement which I note does not explain
what current deterrents are, but it is a different issue from the
question of how many repeat offences we have anyway.
deliberate diversion.
Ram raids are up, what will the government do about it? Well? Can you
guess?
So answer the question: - "how many ram raids would have been >>> >> >> >>>>>>prevented by prison sentences for those convicted?"
irrelevant,
What is the givernment doing about the massive increase in ram raids? That
is
the relevant question.
Now you are just trying to go off topic to avoid the topic of the >>> >> >> >>>>merits or otherwise of a suggested increase in penalties.
increase. You are the one who has gone off topic.
Man up for once! Sorry, I should have realised that you cannot ever do that.
It is about appropriate penalties for ram raids, and reducing repeat
offences, Tony. The government would need to be involved in any
changes in sentencing laws, particularly in making prison an option >>> >> >> >>for younger aged offenders. Do you think it is a good idea to put >>> >> >> >>young people in prison, Tony?
diversions.
Just focus on one thing - the government owns this, not any other body.
respect to young offenders, which is where change has been suggested. >>> >> >> Would you put 10 to 15 year old children in prison, Tony?
Ram raids are increasing and fixing that is the government's job. Not mine and
thanlk goodness it is not yours or we would be even worse off.
As usual for Labour: Deny until National announce a policy then adopt it with the speed of a parplegic snail :)
offenders to prison - or have they backed away from that now?
Talk about flip flop. Maybe their election moto should be ïn it for whatever"! Hipkins like you Rich doesn't know what the fuck Labour stand for:)
https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/audio/chris-hipkins-prime-minister-on-labours-new-crime-policy/
A best it a case of work overload, at worst it shows the affects of the woke >culture/narrative.
Surely the factors of the case need to be taken into account when in court.
On 18 Jul 2023 01:03:42 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Seems Labour doesn't believe your lies either Rich :)
On 2023-07-17, John Bowes <bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 10:19:35?AM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 14:49:11 -0700 (PDT), John BowesSeems your inglorious leader is as mixed up as you are Rich :)
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 8:10:40?AM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:You are confused; it is National that are proposing to send youth
On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 04:52:43 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 1:29:32?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:I have not heard them proposing to put 10 to 15 year olds in prison. >>> >Maybe if you get the wax cleared from your ears and open your eye you might find out Rich :)
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 06:28:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:As far as penalties are concerned yes the government does set the law
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 05:44:03 -0000 (UTC), TonyYet another distraction from you. You provide virtually no substance but many
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 05:08:02 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe topic is ram raids. And this government's failure to address the dramatic
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 03:32:49 -0000 (UTC), TonyWhy would any sentient being ask such an inane question. It is totally
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 08:54:44 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>This thread was never about repeat offenders until you introduced that
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 14:22:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:52:03 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:33:27 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 08:24:03 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 22:41:14 +1200, Rich80105No, but I had not heard that repeat offenders was a particular
<Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 12:28:41 +1200, Crash
<nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
https://tinyurl.com/yhn3h9dk
None.
Ram raid counts up.
Preventative action based around fortifications. This is OK to a
point but how many ram raids would have been prevented by prison
sentences for those convicted? Prisons work very well at taking
criminals out of circulation.
Crocodile tears from Police Minister. What else could she say?
How many are repeat offenders then Crash?
There would be far fewer if there were serious inconveniences for
those convicted. Are you claiming that the perpetrators of Ram
Raids
never do it again?
problem, or seen any statistics about repeat offenders.
Then why introduce this to the thread if you have not heard anything
about it? This was never mentioned in my OP either by me or within
the article, so not part of the reasons for starting this thread.
The question was asked "how many ram raids would have been prevented
by prison sentences for those convicted?"
The answer to that question will depend on how many repeat offenders
there are anyway.
Except you have clearly not considered that prison sentences for those
convicted may well be a deterrent, where today there is little
deterrent to those involved in ram raids.
I have no problem with that statement which I note does not explain
what current deterrents are, but it is a different issue from the
question of how many repeat offences we have anyway.
deliberate diversion.
Ram raids are up, what will the government do about it? Well? Can you
guess?
So answer the question: - "how many ram raids would have been
prevented by prison sentences for those convicted?"
irrelevant,
What is the givernment doing about the massive increase in ram raids? That
is
the relevant question.
Now you are just trying to go off topic to avoid the topic of the
merits or otherwise of a suggested increase in penalties.
increase. You are the one who has gone off topic.
Man up for once! Sorry, I should have realised that you cannot ever do that.
It is about appropriate penalties for ram raids, and reducing repeat
offences, Tony. The government would need to be involved in any >>> >> >> >>changes in sentencing laws, particularly in making prison an option
for younger aged offenders. Do you think it is a good idea to put
young people in prison, Tony?
diversions.
Just focus on one thing - the government owns this, not any other body.
for that - it has been suggested that penalties should be greater; I
am raising the issue of what penalties are being asked for with >>> >> >> respect to young offenders, which is where change has been suggested.
Would you put 10 to 15 year old children in prison, Tony?
Ram raids are increasing and fixing that is the government's job. Not mine and
thanlk goodness it is not yours or we would be even worse off. >>> >> >https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/heather-du-plessis-allan-drive/audio/ginny-andersen-police-minister-says-new-measures-will-ensure-repeat-offenders-are-held-accountable/
As usual for Labour: Deny until National announce a policy then adopt it with the speed of a parplegic snail :)
offenders to prison - or have they backed away from that now?
Talk about flip flop. Maybe their election moto should be ïn it for whatever"! Hipkins like you Rich doesn't know what the fuck Labour stand for:)
https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/audio/chris-hipkins-prime-minister-on-labours-new-crime-policy/
A best it a case of work overload, at worst it shows the affects of the woke
culture/narrative.
Surely the factors of the case need to be taken into account when in court. Exactly, Gordon - that is why we have a Youth Court in addition to thecourt for adults. Labour do propose to give the youth court slightly
more powers, but are not prepared to send youth to prison as National propose.
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 7:05:07?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On 18 Jul 2023 01:03:42 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Seems Labour doesn't believe your lies either Rich :)
On 2023-07-17, John Bowes <bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:court for adults. Labour do propose to give the youth court slightly
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 10:19:35?AM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 14:49:11 -0700 (PDT), John BowesSeems your inglorious leader is as mixed up as you are Rich :)
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 8:10:40?AM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:You are confused; it is National that are proposing to send youth
On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 04:52:43 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 1:29:32?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:I have not heard them proposing to put 10 to 15 year olds in prison. >> >>> >Maybe if you get the wax cleared from your ears and open your eye you might find out Rich :)
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 06:28:52 -0000 (UTC), Tonyhttps://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/heather-du-plessis-allan-drive/audio/ginny-andersen-police-minister-says-new-measures-will-ensure-repeat-offenders-are-held-accountable/
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:As far as penalties are concerned yes the government does set the law
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 05:44:03 -0000 (UTC), TonyYet another distraction from you. You provide virtually no substance but many
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 05:08:02 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe topic is ram raids. And this government's failure to address the dramatic
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 03:32:49 -0000 (UTC), TonyWhy would any sentient being ask such an inane question. It is totally
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 08:54:44 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>This thread was never about repeat offenders until you introduced that
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 14:22:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:52:03 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:33:27 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 08:24:03 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 22:41:14 +1200, Rich80105No, but I had not heard that repeat offenders was a particular
<Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 12:28:41 +1200, Crash
<nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
https://tinyurl.com/yhn3h9dk
None.
Ram raid counts up.
Preventative action based around fortifications. This is OK to a
point but how many ram raids would have been prevented by prison
sentences for those convicted? Prisons work very well at taking
criminals out of circulation.
Crocodile tears from Police Minister. What else could she say?
How many are repeat offenders then Crash?
There would be far fewer if there were serious inconveniences for
those convicted. Are you claiming that the perpetrators of Ram
Raids
never do it again?
problem, or seen any statistics about repeat offenders.
Then why introduce this to the thread if you have not heard anything
about it? This was never mentioned in my OP either by me or within
the article, so not part of the reasons for starting this thread.
The question was asked "how many ram raids would have been prevented
by prison sentences for those convicted?"
The answer to that question will depend on how many repeat offenders
there are anyway.
Except you have clearly not considered that prison sentences for those
convicted may well be a deterrent, where today there is little
deterrent to those involved in ram raids.
I have no problem with that statement which I note does not explain
what current deterrents are, but it is a different issue from the
question of how many repeat offences we have anyway.
deliberate diversion.
Ram raids are up, what will the government do about it? Well? Can you
guess?
So answer the question: - "how many ram raids would have been
prevented by prison sentences for those convicted?"
irrelevant,
What is the givernment doing about the massive increase in ram raids? That
is
the relevant question.
Now you are just trying to go off topic to avoid the topic of the
merits or otherwise of a suggested increase in penalties.
increase. You are the one who has gone off topic.
Man up for once! Sorry, I should have realised that you cannot ever do that.
It is about appropriate penalties for ram raids, and reducing repeat
offences, Tony. The government would need to be involved in any >> >>> >> >> >>changes in sentencing laws, particularly in making prison an option
for younger aged offenders. Do you think it is a good idea to put
young people in prison, Tony?
diversions.
Just focus on one thing - the government owns this, not any other body.
for that - it has been suggested that penalties should be greater; I
am raising the issue of what penalties are being asked for with
respect to young offenders, which is where change has been suggested.
Would you put 10 to 15 year old children in prison, Tony?
Ram raids are increasing and fixing that is the government's job. Not mine and
thanlk goodness it is not yours or we would be even worse off.
As usual for Labour: Deny until National announce a policy then adopt it with the speed of a parplegic snail :)
offenders to prison - or have they backed away from that now?
Talk about flip flop. Maybe their election moto should be ïn it for whatever"! Hipkins like you Rich doesn't know what the fuck Labour stand for:)
https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/audio/chris-hipkins-prime-minister-on-labours-new-crime-policy/
A best it a case of work overload, at worst it shows the affects of the woke
culture/narrative.
Surely the factors of the case need to be taken into account when in court. >> Exactly, Gordon - that is why we have a Youth Court in addition to the
more powers, but are not prepared to send youth to prison as National
propose.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/132563946/ministers-commit-to-building-two-new-high-needs-youth-justice-facilities
On Tue, 18 Jul 2023 00:36:57 -0700 (PDT), John BowesJust stupid bloody semantics from Rich80105 in defence of his stupid questions about if youth should be incarcerated:)
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 7:05:07?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On 18 Jul 2023 01:03:42 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Seems Labour doesn't believe your lies either Rich :)
On 2023-07-17, John Bowes <bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:Exactly, Gordon - that is why we have a Youth Court in addition to the
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 10:19:35?AM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 14:49:11 -0700 (PDT), John BowesSeems your inglorious leader is as mixed up as you are Rich :)
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 8:10:40?AM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:You are confused; it is National that are proposing to send youth
On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 04:52:43 -0700 (PDT), John BowesMaybe if you get the wax cleared from your ears and open your eye you might find out Rich :)
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 1:29:32?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote: >> >>> >> >> On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 06:28:52 -0000 (UTC), TonyI have not heard them proposing to put 10 to 15 year olds in prison.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:As far as penalties are concerned yes the government does set the law
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 05:44:03 -0000 (UTC), TonyYet another distraction from you. You provide virtually no substance but many
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 05:08:02 -0000 (UTC), Tonyincrease. You are the one who has gone off topic.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 03:32:49 -0000 (UTC), TonyWhy would any sentient being ask such an inane question. It is totally
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 08:54:44 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>This thread was never about repeat offenders until you introduced that
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 14:22:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:52:03 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:33:27 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 08:24:03 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 22:41:14 +1200, Rich80105No, but I had not heard that repeat offenders was a particular
<Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 12:28:41 +1200, Crash
<nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
https://tinyurl.com/yhn3h9dk
None.
Ram raid counts up.
Preventative action based around fortifications. This is OK to a
point but how many ram raids would have been prevented by prison
sentences for those convicted? Prisons work very well at taking
criminals out of circulation.
Crocodile tears from Police Minister. What else could she say?
How many are repeat offenders then Crash?
There would be far fewer if there were serious inconveniences for
those convicted. Are you claiming that the perpetrators of Ram
Raids
never do it again?
problem, or seen any statistics about repeat offenders.
Then why introduce this to the thread if you have not heard anything
about it? This was never mentioned in my OP either by me or within
the article, so not part of the reasons for starting this thread.
The question was asked "how many ram raids would have been prevented
by prison sentences for those convicted?"
The answer to that question will depend on how many repeat offenders
there are anyway.
Except you have clearly not considered that prison sentences for those
convicted may well be a deterrent, where today there is little
deterrent to those involved in ram raids.
I have no problem with that statement which I note does not explain
what current deterrents are, but it is a different issue from the
question of how many repeat offences we have anyway.
deliberate diversion.
Ram raids are up, what will the government do about it? Well? Can you
guess?
So answer the question: - "how many ram raids would have been
prevented by prison sentences for those convicted?"
irrelevant,
What is the givernment doing about the massive increase in ram raids? That
is
the relevant question.
Now you are just trying to go off topic to avoid the topic of the
merits or otherwise of a suggested increase in penalties. >> >>> >> >> >>>The topic is ram raids. And this government's failure to address the dramatic
Man up for once! Sorry, I should have realised that you cannot ever do that.
It is about appropriate penalties for ram raids, and reducing repeat
offences, Tony. The government would need to be involved in any
changes in sentencing laws, particularly in making prison an option
for younger aged offenders. Do you think it is a good idea to put
young people in prison, Tony?
diversions.
Just focus on one thing - the government owns this, not any other body.
for that - it has been suggested that penalties should be greater; I
am raising the issue of what penalties are being asked for with >> >>> >> >> respect to young offenders, which is where change has been suggested.
Would you put 10 to 15 year old children in prison, Tony?
Ram raids are increasing and fixing that is the government's job. Not mine and
thanlk goodness it is not yours or we would be even worse off. >> >>> >> >https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/heather-du-plessis-allan-drive/audio/ginny-andersen-police-minister-says-new-measures-will-ensure-repeat-offenders-are-held-accountable/
As usual for Labour: Deny until National announce a policy then adopt it with the speed of a parplegic snail :)
offenders to prison - or have they backed away from that now?
Talk about flip flop. Maybe their election moto should be ïn it for whatever"! Hipkins like you Rich doesn't know what the fuck Labour stand for:)
https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/audio/chris-hipkins-prime-minister-on-labours-new-crime-policy/
A best it a case of work overload, at worst it shows the affects of the woke
culture/narrative.
Surely the factors of the case need to be taken into account when in court.
court for adults. Labour do propose to give the youth court slightly
more powers, but are not prepared to send youth to prison as National
propose.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/132563946/ministers-commit-to-building-two-new-high-needs-youth-justice-facilitiesA secure youth justice facility is not the same as a prison, John
Bowes - National were not proposing to build anything new as that
could have meant they could not afford tax cuts for the wealthy!
On 18 Jul 2023 01:03:42 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:What Labour announced in the past two days is a prison for youth.
On 2023-07-17, John Bowes <bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 10:19:35?AM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 14:49:11 -0700 (PDT), John BowesSeems your inglorious leader is as mixed up as you are Rich :)
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 8:10:40?AM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:You are confused; it is National that are proposing to send youth
On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 04:52:43 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 1:29:32?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:I have not heard them proposing to put 10 to 15 year olds in prison. >>>> >Maybe if you get the wax cleared from your ears and open your eye you >>>> >might find out Rich :)
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 06:28:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:As far as penalties are concerned yes the government does set the >>>> >> >>law
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 05:44:03 -0000 (UTC), TonyYet another distraction from you. You provide virtually no
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 05:08:02 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe topic is ram raids. And this government's failure to address >>>> >> >> >>>the dramatic
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 03:32:49 -0000 (UTC), TonyWhy would any sentient being ask such an inane question. It is >>>> >> >> >>>>>totally
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 08:54:44 +1200, CrashThis thread was never about repeat offenders until you
<nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 14:22:57 +1200, Rich80105
<Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:52:03 +1200, Crash
<nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:33:27 +1200, Rich80105
<Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 08:24:03 +1200, CrashThen why introduce this to the thread if you have not >>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>heard anything
<nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 22:41:14 +1200, Rich80105No, but I had not heard that repeat offenders was a
<Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 12:28:41 +1200, Crash
<nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
https://tinyurl.com/yhn3h9dk
None.
Ram raid counts up.
Preventative action based around fortifications. This >>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>is OK to a
point but how many ram raids would have been
prevented by prison
sentences for those convicted? Prisons work very well >>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>at taking
criminals out of circulation.
Crocodile tears from Police Minister. What else could >>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>she say?
How many are repeat offenders then Crash?
There would be far fewer if there were serious
inconveniences for
those convicted. Are you claiming that the perpetrators >>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>of Ram
Raids
never do it again?
particular
problem, or seen any statistics about repeat offenders. >>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
about it? This was never mentioned in my OP either by me >>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>or within
the article, so not part of the reasons for starting this >>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>thread.
The question was asked "how many ram raids would have been >>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>prevented
by prison sentences for those convicted?"
The answer to that question will depend on how many repeat >>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>offenders
there are anyway.
Except you have clearly not considered that prison
sentences for those
convicted may well be a deterrent, where today there is >>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>little
deterrent to those involved in ram raids.
I have no problem with that statement which I note does not >>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>explain
what current deterrents are, but it is a different issue >>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>from the
question of how many repeat offences we have anyway.
introduced that
deliberate diversion.
Ram raids are up, what will the government do about it? Well? >>>> >> >> >>>>>>>Can you
guess?
So answer the question: - "how many ram raids would have been >>>> >> >> >>>>>>prevented by prison sentences for those convicted?"
irrelevant,
What is the givernment doing about the massive increase in ram >>>> >> >> >>>>>raids? That
is
the relevant question.
Now you are just trying to go off topic to avoid the topic of >>>> >> >> >>>>the
merits or otherwise of a suggested increase in penalties.
increase. You are the one who has gone off topic.
Man up for once! Sorry, I should have realised that you cannot >>>> >> >> >>>ever do that.
It is about appropriate penalties for ram raids, and reducing
repeat
offences, Tony. The government would need to be involved in any >>>> >> >> >>changes in sentencing laws, particularly in making prison an
option
for younger aged offenders. Do you think it is a good idea to put >>>> >> >> >>young people in prison, Tony?
substance but many
diversions.
Just focus on one thing - the government owns this, not any other >>>> >> >> >body.
for that - it has been suggested that penalties should be greater; I >>>> >> >> am raising the issue of what penalties are being asked for with
respect to young offenders, which is where change has been
suggested.
Would you put 10 to 15 year old children in prison, Tony?
Ram raids are increasing and fixing that is the government's job. >>>> >> >> >Not mine and
thanlk goodness it is not yours or we would be even worse off.
https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/heather-du-plessis-allan-drive/audio/ginny-andersen-police-minister-says-new-measures-will-ensure-repeat-offenders-are-held-accountable/
As usual for Labour: Deny until National announce a policy then adopt >>>> >> >it with the speed of a parplegic snail :)
offenders to prison - or have they backed away from that now?
Talk about flip flop. Maybe their election moto should be ïn it for >>>whatever"! Hipkins like you Rich doesn't know what the fuck Labour stand for:)
https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/audio/chris-hipkins-prime-minister-on-labours-new-crime-policy/
A best it a case of work overload, at worst it shows the affects of the woke >>culture/narrative.
Surely the factors of the case need to be taken into account when in court.
Exactly, Gordon - that is why we have a Youth Court in addition to the
court for adults. Labour do propose to give the youth court slightly
more powers, but are not prepared to send youth to prison as National >propose.
On Tue, 18 Jul 2023 00:36:57 -0700 (PDT), John BowesMore lies. The proposal by Labour is for prisons. You can't dress it up any other way.
<bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 7:05:07?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On 18 Jul 2023 01:03:42 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Seems Labour doesn't believe your lies either Rich :)
On 2023-07-17, John Bowes <bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:Exactly, Gordon - that is why we have a Youth Court in addition to the
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 10:19:35?AM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 14:49:11 -0700 (PDT), John BowesSeems your inglorious leader is as mixed up as you are Rich :)
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 8:10:40?AM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:You are confused; it is National that are proposing to send youth
On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 04:52:43 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 1:29:32?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:I have not heard them proposing to put 10 to 15 year olds in prison. >>> >>> >Maybe if you get the wax cleared from your ears and open your eye you >>> >>> >might find out Rich :)
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 06:28:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:As far as penalties are concerned yes the government does set the >>> >>> >> >>law
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 05:44:03 -0000 (UTC), TonyYet another distraction from you. You provide virtually no
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 05:08:02 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe topic is ram raids. And this government's failure to
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 03:32:49 -0000 (UTC), TonyWhy would any sentient being ask such an inane question. It >>> >>> >> >> >>>>>is totally
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 08:54:44 +1200, CrashThis thread was never about repeat offenders until you
<nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 14:22:57 +1200, Rich80105
<Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:52:03 +1200, Crash
<nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:33:27 +1200, Rich80105
<Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 08:24:03 +1200, Crash
<nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 22:41:14 +1200, Rich80105No, but I had not heard that repeat offenders was a >>> >>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>particular
<Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 12:28:41 +1200, Crash
<nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
https://tinyurl.com/yhn3h9dk
None.
Ram raid counts up.
Preventative action based around fortifications. >>> >>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>This is OK to a
point but how many ram raids would have been
prevented by prison
sentences for those convicted? Prisons work very >>> >>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>well at taking
criminals out of circulation.
Crocodile tears from Police Minister. What else >>> >>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>could she say?
How many are repeat offenders then Crash?
There would be far fewer if there were serious
inconveniences for
those convicted. Are you claiming that the
perpetrators of Ram
Raids
never do it again?
problem, or seen any statistics about repeat
offenders.
Then why introduce this to the thread if you have not >>> >>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>heard anything
about it? This was never mentioned in my OP either by >>> >>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>me or within
the article, so not part of the reasons for starting >>> >>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>this thread.
The question was asked "how many ram raids would have >>> >>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>been prevented
by prison sentences for those convicted?"
The answer to that question will depend on how many
repeat offenders
there are anyway.
Except you have clearly not considered that prison
sentences for those
convicted may well be a deterrent, where today there is >>> >>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>little
deterrent to those involved in ram raids.
I have no problem with that statement which I note does >>> >>> >> >> >>>>>>>>not explain
what current deterrents are, but it is a different issue >>> >>> >> >> >>>>>>>>from the
question of how many repeat offences we have anyway.
introduced that
deliberate diversion.
Ram raids are up, what will the government do about it? >>> >>> >> >> >>>>>>>Well? Can you
guess?
So answer the question: - "how many ram raids would have >>> >>> >> >> >>>>>>been
prevented by prison sentences for those convicted?"
irrelevant,
What is the givernment doing about the massive increase in >>> >>> >> >> >>>>>ram raids? That
is
the relevant question.
Now you are just trying to go off topic to avoid the topic of >>> >>> >> >> >>>>the
merits or otherwise of a suggested increase in penalties.
address the dramatic
increase. You are the one who has gone off topic.
Man up for once! Sorry, I should have realised that you cannot >>> >>> >> >> >>>ever do that.
It is about appropriate penalties for ram raids, and reducing >>> >>> >> >> >>repeat
offences, Tony. The government would need to be involved in any >>> >>> >> >> >>changes in sentencing laws, particularly in making prison an >>> >>> >> >> >>option
for younger aged offenders. Do you think it is a good idea to >>> >>> >> >> >>put
young people in prison, Tony?
substance but many
diversions.
Just focus on one thing - the government owns this, not any
other body.
for that - it has been suggested that penalties should be
greater; I
am raising the issue of what penalties are being asked for with >>> >>> >> >> respect to young offenders, which is where change has been
suggested.
Would you put 10 to 15 year old children in prison, Tony?
Ram raids are increasing and fixing that is the government'shttps://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/heather-du-plessis-allan-drive/audio/ginny-andersen-police-minister-says-new-measures-will-ensure-repeat-offenders-are-held-accountable/
job. Not mine and
thanlk goodness it is not yours or we would be even worse off. >>> >>> >>
As usual for Labour: Deny until National announce a policy then
adopt it with the speed of a parplegic snail :)
offenders to prison - or have they backed away from that now?
Talk about flip flop. Maybe their election moto should be ïn it for
whatever"! Hipkins like you Rich doesn't know what the fuck Labour stand for:)
https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/audio/chris-hipkins-prime-minister-on-labours-new-crime-policy/
A best it a case of work overload, at worst it shows the affects of the >>> >woke
culture/narrative.
Surely the factors of the case need to be taken into account when in court.
court for adults. Labour do propose to give the youth court slightly
more powers, but are not prepared to send youth to prison as National
propose.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/132563946/ministers-commit-to-building-two-new-high-needs-youth-justice-facilities
A secure youth justice facility is not the same as a prison, John
Bowes - National were not proposing to build anything new as that
could have meant they could not afford tax cuts for the wealthy!
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 126:47:00 |
| Calls: | 6,663 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,335,073 |