|
Are you a This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| homeowner |
|
39 | 22.41% |
| renter |
|
69 | 39.66% |
| stupid peace of poo poo |
|
66 | 37.93% |
| Total: | 174 votes | ||
|
sebmojo posted:idgi it's a guy hitting on the prime minister on facebook and spelling angel as angle, whats not to get
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 10:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 21:41 |
|
|
sebmojo posted:idgi quote:Welcome to Cyberpunk 101
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 10:38
|
|
|
The image header on his page is WAITING FOR DEATH. it's nice that he's patient.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/property/98200714/wellington-landlord-says-councils-rental-warrant-of-fitness-needs-some-work House fails inspection on a couple of minor maintenance issues. Easily corrected. Landlord whines to media saying the whole thing is broken. It is like if your car failed a warrant because of a blown tail light bulb and a dodgy window winder.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
It kinda depends what was wrong with the outside light, I guess? If it was there and was wired up wrong or had never worked, sure, cause if you say a house has a feature (like security lighting) it has to work. If it was just a blown bulb that's kinda lovely, cause it could blow at any time and is a trivial task to replace - doesn't really seem like a valid reason to say that a house doesn't meet a minimum standard for human habitation. Surely he knew what was up with the window stays before they turned up though, and he's just pissy he got caught out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
Inspector probably tried light and it didn’t work. They aren’t there to diagnose why. Same as for a car warrant. If you have to pay full fee for a recheck and have a long wait then I can see an issue. But the article doesn’t really touch on that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
Yeah the comparison to the car WOF is really apt, though hopefully also like a car WOF it doesn't cost anything for the second check to see that you've fixed all the issues. It'll take a bit of adjusted thinking from landlords though because the fact that they're responsible for replacing lightbulbs is one of those things that never actually happens in practice because noone wants to wait a couple of weeks while the landlord gets their rear end into gear for a replacement lightbulb.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 05:20
|
|
|
Varkk posted:https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/property/98200714/wellington-landlord-says-councils-rental-warrant-of-fitness-needs-some-work
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 07:15
|
|
|
In an absolutely shocking turn of events, Todd Barclay will not be prosecuted due to insufficent evidence. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/98366107/no-charges-from-todd-barclay-reinvestigation--police No warrants were executed, and Barclay refused to be interviewed multiple times
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 07:19
|
|
|
The fact that the landlord went to the media implies that they're not that interested in actually trying to solve the problem. Surely the WCC lets landlords know what is required and they can do a once over of their property to make sure the lightbulbs are all in order etc?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 07:28
|
|
|
Going to the media seems to be a costly way to do something without fixing the problem. If anything he is more likely to get a poo poo storm than support for acting like a whiny parasitic poo poo lord.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 07:53
|
|
|
Going to the reactionary pro-landlord media and its generally uneducated reactionary base because you failed your inspection on security issues instead of being rubber stamped into being able to charge additional for offering a house worth living in is actually a really simple way to fix the problem of the licensing requiring you to do more than have a home that isn't virtually uninhabitable.Varkk posted:If you have to pay full fee for a recheck and have a long wait then I can see an issue. But the article doesn’t really touch on that. quote:"We can reassess the home within six months for free, and we're happy to do that."
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 08:16
|
|
|
Also, you can download a written copy of the test from the Wellington City Council's website and 'test' your own home before paying someone to come out and do it formally. This would be helpful if you have, say, a porch light that doesn't work and there's a tickbox under the 'Entrance' category that says "Working Light" and also if you have no window stays and there's a tickbox in the Bedroom section saying "Window security stays (if required)"
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 08:19
|
|
|
fake edit: also, all of that stuff isn't something I already knew. I literally just thought "wait, it mentioned retesting it in six months in the article, so that's probably standard" because people kept mentioning it should be able to be done, then I googled "wellington city council house fitness" and all of that poo poo was right there in the very first result which is the WCC's website. It took less than five minutes to discover this wasn't a big deal and he's a crybaby slumlord who thinks his fancy do-up should lack basic home security features.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 08:25
|
|
|
Rahul posted:In an absolutely shocking turn of events, Todd Barclay will not be prosecuted due to insufficent evidence. And Barclay left the country in the middle of it all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 09:56
|
|
|
Apparently he also recorded women who would go speak to the lady who accused him of blackmail about their health issues as they didn't feel comfortable speaking to him (lower half of the article). He's a real piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/342719/bill-english-stands-by-spy-teaching-mpquote:Speaking to Morning Report today, he stood by Mr Yang and said he was comfortable with his MP's background. So Bill's test for whether or not a member of parliament is compromised is 'did they do their job ok'. Cool.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 08:11
|
|
|
So Bill's admitted by his own admission that he's compromised?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 09:37
|
|
|
Labour has figured out how it's going to ban foreign buyers of property, by classing all existing housing as "sensitive" under the Overseas Investment Act. It's a really clever solution and won't require any changes to TPP (so long as they get their law change through before TPP concludes). http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/98417459/Labour-will-make-all-existing-homes-sensitive-effectively-banning-foreign-buyers Also I don't see any stories about it, but they aren't going to be so lucky with their promise to push back the investor-state dispute settlements process though. They'll just have to blame that on National. It's going to be interesting to see how they handle it, because TPP is a really divisive issue inside Labour and obviously between Labour and their coalition partners.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 12:48
|
|
|
Government is also planning to get rid of three strikes law and the employment bill that made it harder for women to make pay equity cases. It's so nice to be able to start sentences with "The government is planning to..." and not have it he something poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
bike tory posted:Government is also planning to get rid of three strikes law and the employment bill that made it harder for women to make pay equity cases. It's so nice to be able to start sentences with "The government is planning to..." and not have it he something poo poo. Oh hey, guess who's upset about it. Garth "Not a shill for privatised prisons" McVicar is frothing mad about this too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 03:05
|
|
|
why on earth would you get rid of the three strikes law? I can guess the answer and it's going to be 'because minorities are over-represented' but actually I don't give a gently caress about rapists, thieves or domestic abusers regardless of their race opps i'm a nazi now aren't i? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
BloodRed posted:why on earth would you get rid of the three strikes law? Source your quotes
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 03:25
|
|
|
i'm just paraphrasing the other half of the population which isn't represented here very often 
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
Life isn’t loving baseball. An important part of justice is the judge considering the facts of each case in front of them. Then imposing an appropriate sentence based all facts. The three strikes law removes that from the judge based on some arbitrary criteria imported from a sport popular in another country.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 03:39
|
|
|
if you're facing up to a violent crime for the third time then IMO you're a bad egg.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
But once again the judge looks at criminal history when sentencing. Along with other factors. This is hampered by the imposition of a three strikes law.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
BloodRed posted:if you're facing up to a violent crime for the third time then IMO you're a bad egg.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 03:50
|
|
|
In a vast majority of third-violent-offence cases, it is the right thing to do to lock that person away for a long time. There are however, unusual cases (often involving mental illness or drugs) that require a more nuanced approach, because it's harder to pin down culpability and prison would only make things worse. Under the old law, both groups got locked away after three offences. With the Three Strikes law removed, the first group will get locked away and the second will get the help they need. There is always need for nuance in sentencing, and Three Strikes Laws are like mandating a brain surgeon use a sledgehammer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
The three strikes law has literally nothing to do with justice or sentencing or any of those things and was pure marketing-driven pandering to the think-of-the-children crowd.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 04:02
|
|
|
Three strike law also punishes relatively minor crimes disproportionally compared to once and done criminals like white collar fraud which can run into the millions affecting masses of people while your average burgler might hit for a couple thousand with insurance covering the loss most of the time. Your white collar criminal would never run into three strikes even if they commit more of the same crimes since detection of fraud is comparatively difficult and as is gathering of evidence to a precise enough degree for a conviction. Resources required to prove a case is also very significant and requires specialist subset of accounting. Three strikes law has no place in any justice system as sentencing and remedies should be at the discretion of judges to match the facts of the case. Then there is the fact three strikes is meant to feed the private prisons with more people to drive up profits. 100% poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
Hold on, the text of the law doesn't mention white collar criminals because that's not what this law was designed to address... "There are 40 qualifying offences comprising all major violent and sexual offences with a maximum penalty of seven years or greater imprisonment, including murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, sexual violation, abduction, kidnapping, and aggravated robbery." Like I said, we are talking about the very very bad people in our society, not average peeping Tom's or minor crims. Edit: there has yet to actually be someone hit with a third strike, which to me is an indication the deterrent is somewhat working, or at least is not being widely abused to put troubled people in prison. The three strikes law is very different here from that which was implemented in the states, btw Sorryformybadjokes fucked around with this message at 05:19 on Nov 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
The judges can still consider previous convictions though. There's no upside to having the 3 strike rule, but there is a downside in having to give out too harsh a sentence. Or are you suggesting that judges are just too lenient?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 05:16
|
|
|
I mean cool but you're kinda missing the point that those bad people would go to jail anyway, without a Three Strikes law, and all it does is make it difficult to be nuanced in cases that require it. For example, if one parent involved in a custody dispute takes their child out for the day without permission, that's technically kidnapping. Now, it's definitely not a good thing for a person to do but does a parent who does this three times deserve to go to jail? In a sane legal system they'd probably lose their custody rights and face some sorta sanction, but prison would be seen as ridiculous and excessive. The Three Strikes law, of course, wouldn't distinguish this parent from a person who violently kidnapped and ransomed three backpackers. If a person commits three serious violent offences, they're going to prison regardless of whether there's a three strikes law or not. All a Three Strikes law does is increase the likelihood of false positives.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 05:20
|
|
|
BloodRed posted:Hold on, the text of the law doesn't mention white collar criminals because that's not what this law was designed to address... Read this: https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/25-11-2016/that-judge-translated-this-three-strikes-law-is-batshit-crazy/ e: also you're incorrect to state no one has been convicted after a 3rd strike offence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 05:20
|
|
|
bobbilljim posted:The judges can still consider previous convictions though. There's no upside to having the 3 strike rule, but there is a downside in having to give out too harsh a sentence. Or are you suggesting that judges are just too lenient? I'm just saying it was a tool that could be used to get very bad dudes off the street and into a support system (they can choose to rehabilitate or not...) that is not being replaced by anything else. Yes it might not be perfect but the only losers are going to be the victims and their families. Most of the second strikes given were for crimes committed while on bail! They are (regardless of circumstances which led to a life of crime) horrendous people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 05:22
|
|
|
BloodRed posted:I'm just saying it was a tool that could be used to get very bad dudes off the street and into a support system (they can choose to rehabilitate or not...) that is not being replaced by anything else. what do you think judges doooo
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 05:23
|
|
|
I had to go check out what the other 32 qualifying offences are. Sentencing Act 2002 posted:serious violent offence means an offence against any of the following provisions of the Crimes Act 1961: So obviously there are some very bad things in there that do deserve serious jail time, but there are also some potentially lesser crimes, say, throwing a punch in a pub, or having a 17 year old girlfriend while being 18. Having maximum sentences imposed for situations where maybe community detention or rehabilitation programs would have a greater benefit costs the taxpayer more money while benefitting nobody. This is why we have judges and not automatic maximum sentencing machines.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 05:26
|
|
|
sebmojo posted:what do you think judges doooo Well thats the crux isn't it? People at the time felt that judges weren't doing enough without mandatory sentencing. And all I'm saying is that it has yet to be proven if our justice system now has the ability to lower recidivism without the three strikes being available as additional punishment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 05:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 21:41 |
|
|
no... david "dead baby identity thief" garrett's legacy...
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 05:32
|
|
