Telling people what they can and can’t wear in public seems very ... >Nanny-Stateish, don’t you think ...Intinidating ordinary law abiding citizens together with verbal and physical assault and using the way they dress to emphisize their brutality is unacceptable don't you think?
Telling people what they can and can’t wear in public seems very ... >Nanny-Stateish, don’t you think ...
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 05:43:10 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:Do you ever make sense?
... and using the way they dress to emphisize their
brutality ...
And you said you weren’t a lefty ...
... and using the way they dress to emphisize their
brutality ...
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 05:29:39 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro ><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Telling people what they can and can’t wear in public seems very ... >>Nanny-Stateish, don’t you think ...
No. Gang patches are by their nature as intimidating and offensive as >swastikas other similar images of oppression and intimidation. Are
you happy for that to be permitted?
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 20:00:52 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>I am sure that Crash has his opinions about your post but here is mine:-
wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 05:29:39 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Telling people what they can and can’t wear in public seems very ... >>>Nanny-Stateish, don’t you think ...
No. Gang patches are by their nature as intimidating and offensive as >>swastikas other similar images of oppression and intimidation. Are
you happy for that to be permitted?
The government has signalled this policy proposal for some time; and >yesterday the police commissioner spoke very well about the obligation
of the police to seek to reduce crime by gangs, while avoiding any
criticism of government policy.
This has of course been proposed previously, and tried out in
Australia, with limited success - I think there may be some similar
laws still applicable in a couple of states.
All research indicates that gang patches and other distinguishing
dress are certainly not offensive to their members and do not have any
marked effect on recruitment. What does affect gang membership is
poverty, family disfunction arising from poverty, and a desire to
belong by those so disadvantaged. Hence list is a greater problem for >National-led governments than for Labour led governments, but still a
problem for all governments.
A policy that was very popular with those opposed to the previous
government was tolerance of different views and ideas - the call of
"Freedom" was heard in many protests from the rioters in front of
parliament to the Taxpayer Union assisted Groundswell, and to many
others. While often the pleas were closer to "Free-dumb" than real
Freedom, and included Freedom to believe lies, there is no doubt that
it struck a chord with those who opposed policies that saved many
lived through Covid, and policies that gave New Zealand a very quick
economic recovery than many countries, resulting in higher net worth
of government assets compared with losses by other countries.
So now we have a return to the failed policy of banning certain
emblems and forms of dress. A symbol on the back of a leather jacket
does not make a bike rider a criminal, whether the person is a member
of a "Gang" however that is described or not. There are a number of
bike riding groups that have an emblem on their jackets - how do
police decide which groups are wearing prescribed dress?
But leaving that practical issue aside, how do the "Freedom"
proponents feel about this attack on freedom of expression?
Dress can indicate a propensity to crime of course - just think about
one of the biggest problems we have - tax fraud. Are white shirts and
blue suits a symbol of financial degeneracy - should they be banned?
The previous government did quite well with increasing IRD staff
finding tax fraud, and that well repaid costs - are they a[art of the
current staffing cuts?
Bald heads are well known to be adopted by the military, police, and >criminals - it makes it more difficult for their hair to be grabbed in
an altercation. Should we insist that bald people wear a wig?
No, this is an authoritarian symbol of the determination by government
to 'create an enemy" based on how people look, not what they do. More
money into stopping crime would be more effective than policing
personal dress. All that they are likely to achieve is more people
wanting to join a gang . . . and the alienation of many who voted for
a more libertarian stance on allowing people to think for themselves,
to not be subject to authoritarian rules about who they live their
lives or what to believe - the right to take risks and live their own
lives without interference.
I look forward to seeing what ACT say in parliament about this - they
are in reality very much subject to internal discipline, but preach
the right to believe silly policies. Perhaps they will decline to vote
for legislation that is clearly mindless authoritarianism . . .
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 12:03:48 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>So being a member of a club and putting that on your clothing is
wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 20:00:52 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 05:29:39 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Telling people what they can and can’t wear in public seems very ... >>>>Nanny-Stateish, don’t you think ...
No. Gang patches are by their nature as intimidating and offensive as >>>swastikas other similar images of oppression and intimidation. Are
you happy for that to be permitted?
The government has signalled this policy proposal for some time; and >>yesterday the police commissioner spoke very well about the obligation
of the police to seek to reduce crime by gangs, while avoiding any >>criticism of government policy.
This has of course been proposed previously, and tried out in
Australia, with limited success - I think there may be some similar
laws still applicable in a couple of states.
All research indicates that gang patches and other distinguishing
dress are certainly not offensive to their members and do not have any >>marked effect on recruitment.
But you cannot cite this assertion.
What does affect gang membership isThis is not about the 'gang problem' - it is about acceptable
poverty, family disfunction arising from poverty, and a desire to
belong by those so disadvantaged. Hence list is a greater problem for >>National-led governments than for Labour led governments, but still a >>problem for all governments.
behaviour in public.
Absolutely - no argument there, but if you remove a patch does thatA policy that was very popular with those opposed to the previous >>government was tolerance of different views and ideas - the call of >>"Freedom" was heard in many protests from the rioters in front of >>parliament to the Taxpayer Union assisted Groundswell, and to manyThis is not about beliefs but intimidating behaviour in public that
others. While often the pleas were closer to "Free-dumb" than real
Freedom, and included Freedom to believe lies, there is no doubt that
it struck a chord with those who opposed policies that saved many
lived through Covid, and policies that gave New Zealand a very quick >>economic recovery than many countries, resulting in higher net worth
of government assets compared with losses by other countries.
has been observed by patched gang members.
So now we have a return to the failed policy of banning certainBy their intimidating and otherwise unlawful behaviour in public.
emblems and forms of dress. A symbol on the back of a leather jacket
does not make a bike rider a criminal, whether the person is a member
of a "Gang" however that is described or not. There are a number of
bike riding groups that have an emblem on their jackets - how do
police decide which groups are wearing prescribed dress?
But leaving that practical issue aside, how do the "Freedom"
proponents feel about this attack on freedom of expression?
Dress can indicate a propensity to crime of course - just think about
one of the biggest problems we have - tax fraud. Are white shirts and
blue suits a symbol of financial degeneracy - should they be banned?
The previous government did quite well with increasing IRD staff
finding tax fraud, and that well repaid costs - are they a[art of the >>current staffing cuts?
Bald heads are well known to be adopted by the military, police, and >>criminals - it makes it more difficult for their hair to be grabbed in
an altercation. Should we insist that bald people wear a wig?
No, this is an authoritarian symbol of the determination by government
to 'create an enemy" based on how people look, not what they do. More
money into stopping crime would be more effective than policing
personal dress. All that they are likely to achieve is more people
wanting to join a gang . . . and the alienation of many who voted for
a more libertarian stance on allowing people to think for themselves,
to not be subject to authoritarian rules about who they live their
lives or what to believe - the right to take risks and live their own
lives without interference.
I look forward to seeing what ACT say in parliament about this - they
are in reality very much subject to internal discipline, but preach
the right to believe silly policies. Perhaps they will decline to vote
for legislation that is clearly mindless authoritarianism . . .
You have really descended into incoherent and irrational language.
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 22:30:59 -0000 (UTC), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>Nonsense - you simply don't have the intellect to understand that the patches are deliberate messages designed to intimidate ordinary folk - if you are not intimidated by them then you are in a potential gang member.
wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 05:29:39 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:Do you have any evidence of that? I know that the criminal offences
Telling people what they can and can’t wear in public seems very ...
Nanny-Stateish, don’t you think ...
No.
Gang patches are intimidatory and offensive to me and the majority of >>voters.
by gangs are offensive, and sometimes their behaviour while on the
roads, but wearing a patch? Naah - most are indifferent.
Not extreme at all, there are several nude beaches, the people who frequent them are definitely expressing their freedom. As for ACT - why do you have to be so idiotic?It is no different to banning people wandering around naked. DoIt is a fairly extreme example of freedom of expression - do you think
you think people should be allowed to wander in public naked?
the ACT party may put it forward?
Yes it is, absolutely the same. The messages they send are deliberate and they are saying F*** all of you that are not members.How aboutThat would certainly be offensive to some, perhaps enough to have them >charged with offensive behaviour, but a gang patch is not the same
with a tee shirt that says "kill all trans people and lefties" - you think >>that's a bit "Nanny-Stateish" hmmm?
thing.
Irrelevant.The coalition campaigned on this,No they didn't. I am not aware of even National campaigning on it,
but I doubt ACT or NZ First did. Nevertheless, it is only now
coalition policy if it is in that agreement, sorted out by the three
leaders after the election.
Irrelevant.were elected, and are now doing as theyI haven't seen that criticism - it appears to be an attempt to
promised. Lefties find this so confusing.
Meanwhile the MSM parrots the opposition lies, including the old chestnuts >>such "chase down people for wearing jackets, bandanas, hats, even
jewellery like rings" despite the government clearly signalling this >>legislation applies to patches of designated gangs.
misquote the proposals announced by the Prime Minister.
Your sarcasm is so transparent - and almost as offensive as gang patches.Oh for a news media that reports news rather than acting as the government >>opposition.
What news have we missed, JohnO?
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 05:29:39 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:Do you have any evidence of that? I know that the criminal offences
Telling people what they can and can’t wear in public seems very ...
Nanny-Stateish, don’t you think ...
No.
Gang patches are intimidatory and offensive to me and the majority of
voters.
It is no different to banning people wandering around naked. DoIt is a fairly extreme example of freedom of expression - do you think
you think people should be allowed to wander in public naked?
How aboutThat would certainly be offensive to some, perhaps enough to have them
with a tee shirt that says "kill all trans people and lefties" - you think >that's a bit "Nanny-Stateish" hmmm?
The coalition campaigned on this,No they didn't. I am not aware of even National campaigning on it,
were elected, and are now doing as theyI haven't seen that criticism - it appears to be an attempt to
promised. Lefties find this so confusing.
Meanwhile the MSM parrots the opposition lies, including the old chestnuts >such "chase down people for wearing jackets, bandanas, hats, even
jewellery like rings" despite the government clearly signalling this >legislation applies to patches of designated gangs.
Oh for a news media that reports news rather than acting as the government >opposition.
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 16:16:03 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>So you think that gangs who kill people with drugs they sell and shoot at people's homes and bully little old ladies in the street and murder police officers in broad daylight are the same as scouts? Really, are you so dumb?
wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 12:03:48 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:So being a member of a club and putting that on your clothing is
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 20:00:52 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 05:29:39 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Telling people what they can and can’t wear in public seems very ... >>>>>Nanny-Stateish, don’t you think ...
No. Gang patches are by their nature as intimidating and offensive as >>>>swastikas other similar images of oppression and intimidation. Are
you happy for that to be permitted?
The government has signalled this policy proposal for some time; and >>>yesterday the police commissioner spoke very well about the obligation
of the police to seek to reduce crime by gangs, while avoiding any >>>criticism of government policy.
This has of course been proposed previously, and tried out in
Australia, with limited success - I think there may be some similar
laws still applicable in a couple of states.
All research indicates that gang patches and other distinguishing
dress are certainly not offensive to their members and do not have any >>>marked effect on recruitment.
But you cannot cite this assertion.
What does affect gang membership isThis is not about the 'gang problem' - it is about acceptable
poverty, family disfunction arising from poverty, and a desire to
belong by those so disadvantaged. Hence list is a greater problem for >>>National-led governments than for Labour led governments, but still a >>>problem for all governments.
behaviour in public.
offensive? Will they crack down on Scouts and Guides next?
Of course it does.Absolutely - no argument there, but if you remove a patch does that
A policy that was very popular with those opposed to the previous >>>government was tolerance of different views and ideas - the call of >>>"Freedom" was heard in many protests from the rioters in front of >>>parliament to the Taxpayer Union assisted Groundswell, and to many >>>others. While often the pleas were closer to "Free-dumb" than real >>>Freedom, and included Freedom to believe lies, there is no doubt thatThis is not about beliefs but intimidating behaviour in public that
it struck a chord with those who opposed policies that saved many
lived through Covid, and policies that gave New Zealand a very quick >>>economic recovery than many countries, resulting in higher net worth
of government assets compared with losses by other countries.
has been observed by patched gang members.
So now we have a return to the failed policy of banning certainBy their intimidating and otherwise unlawful behaviour in public.
emblems and forms of dress. A symbol on the back of a leather jacket
does not make a bike rider a criminal, whether the person is a member
of a "Gang" however that is described or not. There are a number of
bike riding groups that have an emblem on their jackets - how do
police decide which groups are wearing prescribed dress?
make them any less intimidating?
But leaving that practical issue aside, how do the "Freedom"
proponents feel about this attack on freedom of expression?
Dress can indicate a propensity to crime of course - just think about
one of the biggest problems we have - tax fraud. Are white shirts and >>>blue suits a symbol of financial degeneracy - should they be banned?
The previous government did quite well with increasing IRD staff
finding tax fraud, and that well repaid costs - are they a[art of the >>>current staffing cuts?
Bald heads are well known to be adopted by the military, police, and >>>criminals - it makes it more difficult for their hair to be grabbed in
an altercation. Should we insist that bald people wear a wig?
No, this is an authoritarian symbol of the determination by government
to 'create an enemy" based on how people look, not what they do. More >>>money into stopping crime would be more effective than policing
personal dress. All that they are likely to achieve is more people >>>wanting to join a gang . . . and the alienation of many who voted for
a more libertarian stance on allowing people to think for themselves,
to not be subject to authoritarian rules about who they live their
lives or what to believe - the right to take risks and live their own >>>lives without interference.
I look forward to seeing what ACT say in parliament about this - they
are in reality very much subject to internal discipline, but preach
the right to believe silly policies. Perhaps they will decline to vote >>>for legislation that is clearly mindless authoritarianism . . .
You have really descended into incoherent and irrational language.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 20:00:52 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:I am sure that Crash has his opinions about your post but here is mine:-
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 05:29:39 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Telling people what they can and can’t wear in public seems very ... >>>>Nanny-Stateish, don’t you think ...
No. Gang patches are by their nature as intimidating and offensive as >>>swastikas other similar images of oppression and intimidation. Are
you happy for that to be permitted?
The government has signalled this policy proposal for some time; and >>yesterday the police commissioner spoke very well about the obligation
of the police to seek to reduce crime by gangs, while avoiding any >>criticism of government policy.
This has of course been proposed previously, and tried out in
Australia, with limited success - I think there may be some similar
laws still applicable in a couple of states.
All research indicates that gang patches and other distinguishing
dress are certainly not offensive to their members and do not have any >>marked effect on recruitment. What does affect gang membership is
poverty, family disfunction arising from poverty, and a desire to
belong by those so disadvantaged. Hence list is a greater problem for >>National-led governments than for Labour led governments, but still a >>problem for all governments.
A policy that was very popular with those opposed to the previous >>government was tolerance of different views and ideas - the call of >>"Freedom" was heard in many protests from the rioters in front of >>parliament to the Taxpayer Union assisted Groundswell, and to many
others. While often the pleas were closer to "Free-dumb" than real
Freedom, and included Freedom to believe lies, there is no doubt that
it struck a chord with those who opposed policies that saved many
lived through Covid, and policies that gave New Zealand a very quick >>economic recovery than many countries, resulting in higher net worth
of government assets compared with losses by other countries.
So now we have a return to the failed policy of banning certain
emblems and forms of dress. A symbol on the back of a leather jacket
does not make a bike rider a criminal, whether the person is a member
of a "Gang" however that is described or not. There are a number of
bike riding groups that have an emblem on their jackets - how do
police decide which groups are wearing prescribed dress?
But leaving that practical issue aside, how do the "Freedom"
proponents feel about this attack on freedom of expression?
Dress can indicate a propensity to crime of course - just think about
one of the biggest problems we have - tax fraud. Are white shirts and
blue suits a symbol of financial degeneracy - should they be banned?
The previous government did quite well with increasing IRD staff
finding tax fraud, and that well repaid costs - are they a[art of the >>current staffing cuts?
Bald heads are well known to be adopted by the military, police, and >>criminals - it makes it more difficult for their hair to be grabbed in
an altercation. Should we insist that bald people wear a wig?
No, this is an authoritarian symbol of the determination by government
to 'create an enemy" based on how people look, not what they do. More
money into stopping crime would be more effective than policing
personal dress. All that they are likely to achieve is more people
wanting to join a gang . . . and the alienation of many who voted for
a more libertarian stance on allowing people to think for themselves,
to not be subject to authoritarian rules about who they live their
lives or what to believe - the right to take risks and live their own
lives without interference.
I look forward to seeing what ACT say in parliament about this - they
are in reality very much subject to internal discipline, but preach
the right to believe silly policies. Perhaps they will decline to vote
for legislation that is clearly mindless authoritarianism . . .
What an absolute heap of political and anti people crap.
You have turned a concern about the huge damage, danger and unhappiness caused >by gangs into a political diatribe second only to your repetitive lies and >defamation in this group.
Your lies about the protests at parliament (they were not rioters until other >nasties joined them at the end, before that they were peaceful and could not be
called rioters except by creatures like you) and your lies about freedom of >expression and freedom to determine the future without you and your ilk >interfering in essential freedoms, are legendary in this group.
Grow up and get a real life.
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 00:23:24 -0000 (UTC), TonySo you are inarticulate I see.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 20:00:52 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:I am sure that Crash has his opinions about your post but here is mine:- >>What an absolute heap of political and anti people crap.
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 05:29:39 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Telling people what they can and can’t wear in public seems very ... >>>>>Nanny-Stateish, don’t you think ...
No. Gang patches are by their nature as intimidating and offensive as >>>>swastikas other similar images of oppression and intimidation. Are
you happy for that to be permitted?
The government has signalled this policy proposal for some time; and >>>yesterday the police commissioner spoke very well about the obligation
of the police to seek to reduce crime by gangs, while avoiding any >>>criticism of government policy.
This has of course been proposed previously, and tried out in
Australia, with limited success - I think there may be some similar
laws still applicable in a couple of states.
All research indicates that gang patches and other distinguishing
dress are certainly not offensive to their members and do not have any >>>marked effect on recruitment. What does affect gang membership is >>>poverty, family disfunction arising from poverty, and a desire to
belong by those so disadvantaged. Hence list is a greater problem for >>>National-led governments than for Labour led governments, but still a >>>problem for all governments.
A policy that was very popular with those opposed to the previous >>>government was tolerance of different views and ideas - the call of >>>"Freedom" was heard in many protests from the rioters in front of >>>parliament to the Taxpayer Union assisted Groundswell, and to many >>>others. While often the pleas were closer to "Free-dumb" than real >>>Freedom, and included Freedom to believe lies, there is no doubt that
it struck a chord with those who opposed policies that saved many
lived through Covid, and policies that gave New Zealand a very quick >>>economic recovery than many countries, resulting in higher net worth
of government assets compared with losses by other countries.
So now we have a return to the failed policy of banning certain
emblems and forms of dress. A symbol on the back of a leather jacket
does not make a bike rider a criminal, whether the person is a member
of a "Gang" however that is described or not. There are a number of
bike riding groups that have an emblem on their jackets - how do
police decide which groups are wearing prescribed dress?
But leaving that practical issue aside, how do the "Freedom"
proponents feel about this attack on freedom of expression?
Dress can indicate a propensity to crime of course - just think about
one of the biggest problems we have - tax fraud. Are white shirts and >>>blue suits a symbol of financial degeneracy - should they be banned?
The previous government did quite well with increasing IRD staff
finding tax fraud, and that well repaid costs - are they a[art of the >>>current staffing cuts?
Bald heads are well known to be adopted by the military, police, and >>>criminals - it makes it more difficult for their hair to be grabbed in
an altercation. Should we insist that bald people wear a wig?
No, this is an authoritarian symbol of the determination by government
to 'create an enemy" based on how people look, not what they do. More >>>money into stopping crime would be more effective than policing
personal dress. All that they are likely to achieve is more people >>>wanting to join a gang . . . and the alienation of many who voted for
a more libertarian stance on allowing people to think for themselves,
to not be subject to authoritarian rules about who they live their
lives or what to believe - the right to take risks and live their own >>>lives without interference.
I look forward to seeing what ACT say in parliament about this - they
are in reality very much subject to internal discipline, but preach
the right to believe silly policies. Perhaps they will decline to vote >>>for legislation that is clearly mindless authoritarianism . . .
You have turned a concern about the huge damage, danger and unhappiness >>caused
by gangs into a political diatribe second only to your repetitive lies and >>defamation in this group.
Your lies about the protests at parliament (they were not rioters until other >>nasties joined them at the end, before that they were peaceful and could not >>be
called rioters except by creatures like you) and your lies about freedom of >>expression and freedom to determine the future without you and your ilk >>interfering in essential freedoms, are legendary in this group.
Grow up and get a real life.
So you don't follow the Freedum protestors that wanted to publicise
anti-vaxx fantasies?
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 20:00:52 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 05:29:39 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Telling people what they can and can’t wear in public seems very ... >>>Nanny-Stateish, don’t you think ...
No. Gang patches are by their nature as intimidating and offensive as >>swastikas other similar images of oppression and intimidation. Are
you happy for that to be permitted?
The government has signalled this policy proposal for some time; and >yesterday the police commissioner spoke very well about the obligation
of the police to seek to reduce crime by gangs, while avoiding any
criticism of government policy.
This has of course been proposed previously, and tried out in
Australia, with limited success - I think there may be some similar
laws still applicable in a couple of states.
All research indicates that gang patches and other distinguishing
dress are certainly not offensive to their members and do not have any
marked effect on recruitment.
What does affect gang membership is
poverty, family disfunction arising from poverty, and a desire to
belong by those so disadvantaged. Hence list is a greater problem for >National-led governments than for Labour led governments, but still a
problem for all governments.
A policy that was very popular with those opposed to the previous
government was tolerance of different views and ideas - the call of
"Freedom" was heard in many protests from the rioters in front of
parliament to the Taxpayer Union assisted Groundswell, and to many
others. While often the pleas were closer to "Free-dumb" than real
Freedom, and included Freedom to believe lies, there is no doubt that
it struck a chord with those who opposed policies that saved many
lived through Covid, and policies that gave New Zealand a very quick
economic recovery than many countries, resulting in higher net worth
of government assets compared with losses by other countries.
So now we have a return to the failed policy of banning certain
emblems and forms of dress. A symbol on the back of a leather jacket
does not make a bike rider a criminal, whether the person is a member
of a "Gang" however that is described or not. There are a number of
bike riding groups that have an emblem on their jackets - how do
police decide which groups are wearing prescribed dress?
But leaving that practical issue aside, how do the "Freedom"
proponents feel about this attack on freedom of expression?
Dress can indicate a propensity to crime of course - just think about
one of the biggest problems we have - tax fraud. Are white shirts and
blue suits a symbol of financial degeneracy - should they be banned?
The previous government did quite well with increasing IRD staff
finding tax fraud, and that well repaid costs - are they a[art of the
current staffing cuts?
Bald heads are well known to be adopted by the military, police, and >criminals - it makes it more difficult for their hair to be grabbed in
an altercation. Should we insist that bald people wear a wig?
No, this is an authoritarian symbol of the determination by government
to 'create an enemy" based on how people look, not what they do. More
money into stopping crime would be more effective than policing
personal dress. All that they are likely to achieve is more people
wanting to join a gang . . . and the alienation of many who voted for
a more libertarian stance on allowing people to think for themselves,
to not be subject to authoritarian rules about who they live their
lives or what to believe - the right to take risks and live their own
lives without interference.
I look forward to seeing what ACT say in parliament about this - they
are in reality very much subject to internal discipline, but preach
the right to believe silly policies. Perhaps they will decline to vote
for legislation that is clearly mindless authoritarianism . . .
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 16:16:03 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>Are you serious, surely you are joking with people now.
wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 12:03:48 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>So being a member of a club and putting that on your clothing is
wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 20:00:52 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 05:29:39 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Telling people what they can and can’t wear in public seems very ... >>>>> Nanny-Stateish, don’t you think ...
No. Gang patches are by their nature as intimidating and offensive as >>>> swastikas other similar images of oppression and intimidation. Are
you happy for that to be permitted?
The government has signalled this policy proposal for some time; and
yesterday the police commissioner spoke very well about the obligation
of the police to seek to reduce crime by gangs, while avoiding any
criticism of government policy.
This has of course been proposed previously, and tried out in
Australia, with limited success - I think there may be some similar
laws still applicable in a couple of states.
All research indicates that gang patches and other distinguishing
dress are certainly not offensive to their members and do not have any
marked effect on recruitment.
But you cannot cite this assertion.
What does affect gang membership isThis is not about the 'gang problem' - it is about acceptable
poverty, family disfunction arising from poverty, and a desire to
belong by those so disadvantaged. Hence list is a greater problem for
National-led governments than for Labour led governments, but still a
problem for all governments.
behaviour in public.
offensive? Will they crack down on Scouts and Guides next?
Yes.Absolutely - no argument there, but if you remove a patch does that
A policy that was very popular with those opposed to the previousThis is not about beliefs but intimidating behaviour in public that
government was tolerance of different views and ideas - the call of
"Freedom" was heard in many protests from the rioters in front of
parliament to the Taxpayer Union assisted Groundswell, and to many
others. While often the pleas were closer to "Free-dumb" than real
Freedom, and included Freedom to believe lies, there is no doubt that
it struck a chord with those who opposed policies that saved many
lived through Covid, and policies that gave New Zealand a very quick
economic recovery than many countries, resulting in higher net worth
of government assets compared with losses by other countries.
has been observed by patched gang members.
So now we have a return to the failed policy of banning certainBy their intimidating and otherwise unlawful behaviour in public.
emblems and forms of dress. A symbol on the back of a leather jacket
does not make a bike rider a criminal, whether the person is a member
of a "Gang" however that is described or not. There are a number of
bike riding groups that have an emblem on their jackets - how do
police decide which groups are wearing prescribed dress?
make them any less intimidating?
But leaving that practical issue aside, how do the "Freedom"
proponents feel about this attack on freedom of expression?
Dress can indicate a propensity to crime of course - just think about
one of the biggest problems we have - tax fraud. Are white shirts and
blue suits a symbol of financial degeneracy - should they be banned?
The previous government did quite well with increasing IRD staff
finding tax fraud, and that well repaid costs - are they a[art of the
current staffing cuts?
Bald heads are well known to be adopted by the military, police, and
criminals - it makes it more difficult for their hair to be grabbed in
an altercation. Should we insist that bald people wear a wig?
No, this is an authoritarian symbol of the determination by government
to 'create an enemy" based on how people look, not what they do. More
money into stopping crime would be more effective than policing
personal dress. All that they are likely to achieve is more people
wanting to join a gang . . . and the alienation of many who voted for
a more libertarian stance on allowing people to think for themselves,
to not be subject to authoritarian rules about who they live their
lives or what to believe - the right to take risks and live their own
lives without interference.
I look forward to seeing what ACT say in parliament about this - they
are in reality very much subject to internal discipline, but preach
the right to believe silly policies. Perhaps they will decline to vote
for legislation that is clearly mindless authoritarianism . . .
You have really descended into incoherent and irrational language.
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 22:30:59 -0000 (UTC), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 05:29:39 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:Do you have any evidence of that? I know that the criminal offences
Telling people what they can and canÂ’t wear in public seems very ...
Nanny-Stateish, donÂ’t you think ...
No.
Gang patches are intimidatory and offensive to me and the majority of >>voters.
by gangs are offensive, and sometimes their behaviour while on the
roads, but wearing a patch? Naah - most are indifferent.
It is no different to banning people wandering around naked. DoIt is a fairly extreme example of freedom of expression - do you think
you think people should be allowed to wander in public naked?
the ACT party may put it forward?
How aboutThat would certainly be offensive to some, perhaps enough to have them charged with offensive behaviour, but a gang patch is not the same
with a tee shirt that says "kill all trans people and lefties" - you think >>that's a bit "Nanny-Stateish" hmmm?
thing.
The coalition campaigned on this,No they didn't. I am not aware of even National campaigning on it,
but I doubt ACT or NZ First did. Nevertheless, it is only now
coalition policy if it is in that agreement, sorted out by the three
leaders after the election.
were elected, and are now doing as theyI haven't seen that criticism - it appears to be an attempt to
promised. Lefties find this so confusing.
Meanwhile the MSM parrots the opposition lies, including the old chestnuts >>such "chase down people for wearing jackets, bandanas, hats, even
jewellery like rings" despite the government clearly signalling this >>legislation applies to patches of designated gangs.
misquote the proposals announced by the Prime Minister.
Oh for a news media that reports news rather than acting as the government >>opposition.
What news have we missed, JohnO?
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 05:29:39 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Telling people what they can and can’t wear in public seems very ...
Nanny-Stateish, don’t you think ...
No.
Gang patches are intimidatory and offensive to me and the majority of
voters. It is no different to banning people wandering around naked. Do
you think people should be allowed to wander in public naked? How about
with a tee shirt that says "kill all trans people and lefties" - you think that's a bit "Nanny-Stateish" hmmm?
The coalition campaigned on this, were elected, and are now doing as they promised. Lefties find this so confusing.
Meanwhile the MSM parrots the opposition lies, including the old chestnuts such "chase down people for wearing jackets, bandanas, hats, even
jewellery like rings" despite the government clearly signalling this legislation applies to patches of designated gangs.
Oh for a news media that reports news rather than acting as the government opposition.
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 20:00:52 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 05:29:39 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Telling people what they can and canÂ’t wear in public seems very ... >>>Nanny-Stateish, donÂ’t you think ...
No. Gang patches are by their nature as intimidating and offensive as >>swastikas other similar images of oppression and intimidation. Are
you happy for that to be permitted?
The government has signalled this policy proposal for some time; and yesterday the police commissioner spoke very well about the obligation
of the police to seek to reduce crime by gangs, while avoiding any
criticism of government policy.
This has of course been proposed previously, and tried out in
Australia, with limited success - I think there may be some similar
laws still applicable in a couple of states.
All research indicates that gang patches and other distinguishing
dress are certainly not offensive to their members and do not have any
marked effect on recruitment. What does affect gang membership is
poverty, family disfunction arising from poverty, and a desire to
belong by those so disadvantaged. Hence list is a greater problem for National-led governments than for Labour led governments, but still a
problem for all governments.
A policy that was very popular with those opposed to the previous
government was tolerance of different views and ideas - the call of
"Freedom" was heard in many protests from the rioters in front of
parliament to the Taxpayer Union assisted Groundswell, and to many
others. While often the pleas were closer to "Free-dumb" than real
Freedom, and included Freedom to believe lies, there is no doubt that
it struck a chord with those who opposed policies that saved many
lived through Covid, and policies that gave New Zealand a very quick
economic recovery than many countries, resulting in higher net worth
of government assets compared with losses by other countries.
So now we have a return to the failed policy of banning certain
emblems and forms of dress. A symbol on the back of a leather jacket
does not make a bike rider a criminal, whether the person is a member
of a "Gang" however that is described or not. There are a number of
bike riding groups that have an emblem on their jackets - how do
police decide which groups are wearing prescribed dress?
But leaving that practical issue aside, how do the "Freedom"
proponents feel about this attack on freedom of expression?
Dress can indicate a propensity to crime of course - just think about
one of the biggest problems we have - tax fraud. Are white shirts and
blue suits a symbol of financial degeneracy - should they be banned?
The previous government did quite well with increasing IRD staff
finding tax fraud, and that well repaid costs - are they a[art of the
current staffing cuts?
Bald heads are well known to be adopted by the military, police, and criminals - it makes it more difficult for their hair to be grabbed in
an altercation. Should we insist that bald people wear a wig?
No, this is an authoritarian symbol of the determination by government
to 'create an enemy" based on how people look, not what they do. More
money into stopping crime would be more effective than policing
personal dress. All that they are likely to achieve is more people
wanting to join a gang . . . and the alienation of many who voted for
a more libertarian stance on allowing people to think for themselves,
to not be subject to authoritarian rules about who they live their
lives or what to believe - the right to take risks and live their own
lives without interference.
I look forward to seeing what ACT say in parliament about this - they
are in reality very much subject to internal discipline, but preach
the right to believe silly policies. Perhaps they will decline to vote
for legislation that is clearly mindless authoritarianism . . .
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 05:29:39 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Telling people what they can and canÂ’t wear in public seems very ... >>Nanny-Stateish, donÂ’t you think ...
No. Gang patches are by their nature as intimidating and offensive as swastikas other similar images of oppression and intimidation. Are
you happy for that to be permitted?
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 16:16:03 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 12:03:48 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:So being a member of a club and putting that on your clothing is
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 20:00:52 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 05:29:39 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Telling people what they can and can’t wear in public seems very ... >>>>>Nanny-Stateish, don’t you think ...
No. Gang patches are by their nature as intimidating and offensive as >>>>swastikas other similar images of oppression and intimidation. Are
you happy for that to be permitted?
The government has signalled this policy proposal for some time; and >>>yesterday the police commissioner spoke very well about the obligation
of the police to seek to reduce crime by gangs, while avoiding any >>>criticism of government policy.
This has of course been proposed previously, and tried out in
Australia, with limited success - I think there may be some similar
laws still applicable in a couple of states.
All research indicates that gang patches and other distinguishing
dress are certainly not offensive to their members and do not have any >>>marked effect on recruitment.
But you cannot cite this assertion.
What does affect gang membership isThis is not about the 'gang problem' - it is about acceptable
poverty, family disfunction arising from poverty, and a desire to
belong by those so disadvantaged. Hence list is a greater problem for >>>National-led governments than for Labour led governments, but still a >>>problem for all governments.
behaviour in public.
offensive? Will they crack down on Scouts and Guides next?
Absolutely - no argument there, but if you remove a patch does thatA policy that was very popular with those opposed to the previous >>>government was tolerance of different views and ideas - the call of >>>"Freedom" was heard in many protests from the rioters in front of >>>parliament to the Taxpayer Union assisted Groundswell, and to many >>>others. While often the pleas were closer to "Free-dumb" than real >>>Freedom, and included Freedom to believe lies, there is no doubt thatThis is not about beliefs but intimidating behaviour in public that
it struck a chord with those who opposed policies that saved many
lived through Covid, and policies that gave New Zealand a very quick >>>economic recovery than many countries, resulting in higher net worth
of government assets compared with losses by other countries.
has been observed by patched gang members.
So now we have a return to the failed policy of banning certainBy their intimidating and otherwise unlawful behaviour in public.
emblems and forms of dress. A symbol on the back of a leather jacket
does not make a bike rider a criminal, whether the person is a member
of a "Gang" however that is described or not. There are a number of
bike riding groups that have an emblem on their jackets - how do
police decide which groups are wearing prescribed dress?
make them any less intimidating?
But leaving that practical issue aside, how do the "Freedom"
proponents feel about this attack on freedom of expression?
Dress can indicate a propensity to crime of course - just think about
one of the biggest problems we have - tax fraud. Are white shirts and >>>blue suits a symbol of financial degeneracy - should they be banned?
The previous government did quite well with increasing IRD staff
finding tax fraud, and that well repaid costs - are they a[art of the >>>current staffing cuts?
Bald heads are well known to be adopted by the military, police, and >>>criminals - it makes it more difficult for their hair to be grabbed in
an altercation. Should we insist that bald people wear a wig?
No, this is an authoritarian symbol of the determination by government
to 'create an enemy" based on how people look, not what they do. More >>>money into stopping crime would be more effective than policing
personal dress. All that they are likely to achieve is more people >>>wanting to join a gang . . . and the alienation of many who voted for
a more libertarian stance on allowing people to think for themselves,
to not be subject to authoritarian rules about who they live their
lives or what to believe - the right to take risks and live their own >>>lives without interference.
I look forward to seeing what ACT say in parliament about this - they
are in reality very much subject to internal discipline, but preach
the right to believe silly policies. Perhaps they will decline to vote >>>for legislation that is clearly mindless authoritarianism . . .
You have really descended into incoherent and irrational language.
On 2024-02-25, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 05:29:39 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:Swastikas have a very different meaning to the people of India.
Telling people what they can and can?t wear in public seems very ... >>>Nanny-Stateish, don?t you think ...
No. Gang patches are by their nature as intimidating and offensive as
swastikas other similar images of oppression and intimidation. Are
you happy for that to be permitted?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika
On 2024-02-25, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 20:00:52 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 05:29:39 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Telling people what they can and can?t wear in public seems very ... >>>>Nanny-Stateish, don?t you think ...
No. Gang patches are by their nature as intimidating and offensive as >>>swastikas other similar images of oppression and intimidation. Are
you happy for that to be permitted?
The government has signalled this policy proposal for some time; and
yesterday the police commissioner spoke very well about the obligation
of the police to seek to reduce crime by gangs, while avoiding any
criticism of government policy.
As should be the case. The Police should signal that they we do as they are >requested, not rant about their poltical view. Far to much of this going on >in many areas.
This has of course been proposed previously, and tried out in
Australia, with limited success - I think there may be some similar
laws still applicable in a couple of states.
All research indicates that gang patches and other distinguishing
dress are certainly not offensive to their members and do not have any
marked effect on recruitment. What does affect gang membership is
poverty, family disfunction arising from poverty, and a desire to
belong by those so disadvantaged. Hence list is a greater problem for
National-led governments than for Labour led governments, but still a
problem for all governments.
A policy that was very popular with those opposed to the previous
government was tolerance of different views and ideas - the call of
"Freedom" was heard in many protests from the rioters in front of
parliament to the Taxpayer Union assisted Groundswell, and to many
others. While often the pleas were closer to "Free-dumb" than real
Freedom, and included Freedom to believe lies, there is no doubt that
it struck a chord with those who opposed policies that saved many
lived through Covid, and policies that gave New Zealand a very quick
economic recovery than many countries, resulting in higher net worth
of government assets compared with losses by other countries.
So now we have a return to the failed policy of banning certain
emblems and forms of dress. A symbol on the back of a leather jacket
does not make a bike rider a criminal, whether the person is a member
of a "Gang" however that is described or not. There are a number of
bike riding groups that have an emblem on their jackets - how do
police decide which groups are wearing prescribed dress?
But leaving that practical issue aside, how do the "Freedom"
proponents feel about this attack on freedom of expression?
Dress can indicate a propensity to crime of course - just think about
one of the biggest problems we have - tax fraud. Are white shirts and
blue suits a symbol of financial degeneracy - should they be banned?
The previous government did quite well with increasing IRD staff
finding tax fraud, and that well repaid costs - are they a[art of the
current staffing cuts?
Bald heads are well known to be adopted by the military, police, and
criminals - it makes it more difficult for their hair to be grabbed in
an altercation. Should we insist that bald people wear a wig?
No, this is an authoritarian symbol of the determination by government
to 'create an enemy" based on how people look, not what they do. More
money into stopping crime would be more effective than policing
personal dress. All that they are likely to achieve is more people
wanting to join a gang . . . and the alienation of many who voted for
a more libertarian stance on allowing people to think for themselves,
to not be subject to authoritarian rules about who they live their
lives or what to believe - the right to take risks and live their own
lives without interference.
I look forward to seeing what ACT say in parliament about this - they
are in reality very much subject to internal discipline, but preach
the right to believe silly policies. Perhaps they will decline to vote
for legislation that is clearly mindless authoritarianism . . .
On 26 Feb 2024 05:00:19 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Of course it will help. provided it is enforced. You seem to agree that enforcement is a "small amount of work" all good then.
On 2024-02-25, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 20:00:52 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 05:29:39 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Telling people what they can and can?t wear in public seems very ... >>>>>Nanny-Stateish, don?t you think ...
No. Gang patches are by their nature as intimidating and offensive as >>>>swastikas other similar images of oppression and intimidation. Are
you happy for that to be permitted?
The government has signalled this policy proposal for some time; and
yesterday the police commissioner spoke very well about the obligation
of the police to seek to reduce crime by gangs, while avoiding any
criticism of government policy.
As should be the case. The Police should signal that they we do as they are >>requested, not rant about their poltical view. Far to much of this going on >>in many areas.
Exactly Gordon. From what has been said by others it is clear that an >important issue for the police being effective is the resources that
they are given - this rule change will cause a small amount of
additional work for police but not help otherwise - but that will not
be said directly by senior police..
This has of course been proposed previously, and tried out in
Australia, with limited success - I think there may be some similar
laws still applicable in a couple of states.
All research indicates that gang patches and other distinguishing
dress are certainly not offensive to their members and do not have any
marked effect on recruitment. What does affect gang membership is
poverty, family disfunction arising from poverty, and a desire to
belong by those so disadvantaged. Hence list is a greater problem for
National-led governments than for Labour led governments, but still a
problem for all governments.
A policy that was very popular with those opposed to the previous
government was tolerance of different views and ideas - the call of
"Freedom" was heard in many protests from the rioters in front of
parliament to the Taxpayer Union assisted Groundswell, and to many
others. While often the pleas were closer to "Free-dumb" than real
Freedom, and included Freedom to believe lies, there is no doubt that
it struck a chord with those who opposed policies that saved many
lived through Covid, and policies that gave New Zealand a very quick
economic recovery than many countries, resulting in higher net worth
of government assets compared with losses by other countries.
So now we have a return to the failed policy of banning certain
emblems and forms of dress. A symbol on the back of a leather jacket
does not make a bike rider a criminal, whether the person is a member
of a "Gang" however that is described or not. There are a number of
bike riding groups that have an emblem on their jackets - how do
police decide which groups are wearing prescribed dress?
But leaving that practical issue aside, how do the "Freedom"
proponents feel about this attack on freedom of expression?
Dress can indicate a propensity to crime of course - just think about
one of the biggest problems we have - tax fraud. Are white shirts and
blue suits a symbol of financial degeneracy - should they be banned?
The previous government did quite well with increasing IRD staff
finding tax fraud, and that well repaid costs - are they a[art of the
current staffing cuts?
Bald heads are well known to be adopted by the military, police, and
criminals - it makes it more difficult for their hair to be grabbed in
an altercation. Should we insist that bald people wear a wig?
No, this is an authoritarian symbol of the determination by government
to 'create an enemy" based on how people look, not what they do. More
money into stopping crime would be more effective than policing
personal dress. All that they are likely to achieve is more people
wanting to join a gang . . . and the alienation of many who voted for
a more libertarian stance on allowing people to think for themselves,
to not be subject to authoritarian rules about who they live their
lives or what to believe - the right to take risks and live their own
lives without interference.
I look forward to seeing what ACT say in parliament about this - they
are in reality very much subject to internal discipline, but preach
the right to believe silly policies. Perhaps they will decline to vote
for legislation that is clearly mindless authoritarianism . . .
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 100:16:24 |
| Calls: | 6,659 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,208 |
| Messages: | 5,334,753 |