NZ Murder Capital of the world?
Discussion
[quote=Richard Gee]Law Number 1 - No benefits for lazy bastards
Unfortunately as I understand it most of the "benefit" money goes to on National Super, and after Muldoons election bribe to set thst up it's gone in the to hard basket. Not much of the take goes on unemployment benefits, and if you want to cut sickness benefit perhaps you'd like to chat to my mate who's lungs are stuffed from emphysema, he's never smoked by the way, and has worked when he could. He's now 10 years on battling cancer beaten it twice with chemo, (easy, you just feel like hammered dog shit for 6 months), the third round is in his lungs so he's run out of options and is boxing on and hoping it won't be to soon.
I'm sure people abuse the welfare benefits but all of them?, 50%?, 10%?, 2%?
Cheers
Mark Stacey
Did I say everyone? I don't think so. I think the phrase I used was 'lazy bastards' Your mate CLEARLY doesn't qualify as a 'lazy bastard' does he?????? I apologise in advance for my tone, but I'm pretty clear on what I mean - we had them in the UK in droves and I'm pretty certain you have them here - there was one all over the TV just yesterday. Don't assume I'm having a go at legitimate people. I am not. I'm having a go at the same genre of lazy g*t that exists all over the world. And I do suspect if the truth could be proven about percentages of cheats in a benefit system in ANY westernised society, it would probably scare that society into doing something about it. It really wouldn't surprise me at all if it were 50% or more. I'll give you an example - from my old home town in the UK again I'm afraid. 10 years ago - 7,000 or so on unemployment benefit and 4,000 on permanent disability ebnefit. Today - 6,400 on unemployment benefit, 28,000 plus on permanent disability benefit. You don't need to be Einstein to see what is going on here. I for one would definitely like to see MORE, no ALL, appropriate money was spent on legitimate cases like your friend rather than spread out and diluted amongst those who can't be bothered to work or think they have a right to be on benefits when there is nothing wrong with them and far more needy cases around.
It is a cancer of society and I will stand by my viewpoint no matter what.
Like I said, I'm new here and I apologise for my tone, but please don't tar me with that brush. I am 100% behind your mate and 100% against those who undermine his situation by cheating the system.
Unfortunately as I understand it most of the "benefit" money goes to on National Super, and after Muldoons election bribe to set thst up it's gone in the to hard basket. Not much of the take goes on unemployment benefits, and if you want to cut sickness benefit perhaps you'd like to chat to my mate who's lungs are stuffed from emphysema, he's never smoked by the way, and has worked when he could. He's now 10 years on battling cancer beaten it twice with chemo, (easy, you just feel like hammered dog shit for 6 months), the third round is in his lungs so he's run out of options and is boxing on and hoping it won't be to soon.
I'm sure people abuse the welfare benefits but all of them?, 50%?, 10%?, 2%?
Cheers
Mark Stacey
Did I say everyone? I don't think so. I think the phrase I used was 'lazy bastards' Your mate CLEARLY doesn't qualify as a 'lazy bastard' does he?????? I apologise in advance for my tone, but I'm pretty clear on what I mean - we had them in the UK in droves and I'm pretty certain you have them here - there was one all over the TV just yesterday. Don't assume I'm having a go at legitimate people. I am not. I'm having a go at the same genre of lazy g*t that exists all over the world. And I do suspect if the truth could be proven about percentages of cheats in a benefit system in ANY westernised society, it would probably scare that society into doing something about it. It really wouldn't surprise me at all if it were 50% or more. I'll give you an example - from my old home town in the UK again I'm afraid. 10 years ago - 7,000 or so on unemployment benefit and 4,000 on permanent disability ebnefit. Today - 6,400 on unemployment benefit, 28,000 plus on permanent disability benefit. You don't need to be Einstein to see what is going on here. I for one would definitely like to see MORE, no ALL, appropriate money was spent on legitimate cases like your friend rather than spread out and diluted amongst those who can't be bothered to work or think they have a right to be on benefits when there is nothing wrong with them and far more needy cases around.
It is a cancer of society and I will stand by my viewpoint no matter what.
Like I said, I'm new here and I apologise for my tone, but please don't tar me with that brush. I am 100% behind your mate and 100% against those who undermine his situation by cheating the system.
There are all kinds of benefit cheats. I once had the qualifications section of an application form to be a labourer filled in with the following:
"What the F
k do you need that for. I'm applying to dig trenches not be the Fking Mayor"
We discovered that a section of the community was at that time deliberately getting two employment rejections per month to extend their unemployment benefits.
I wrote a letter to the Work & Income (as it was then) branch manager insisting that the above application NOT be counted as a 'rejection' as it was not a serious attempt to gain employment.
His reaction was that I was clearly bigoted, racist, and did not understand the difficulties the long-term unemployed had. He would not be referring any more 'clients' to me; and how dare I presume to tell him how to do his job or attempt to interfere with his client's remuneration.
In response I sent him, in a postal tube, a laminated photocopy of the Oxford Dictionary definition of 'remuneration' blown up to A3.
I know it was a petty and childish response but it is one of the few retaliations that didn't cause me further grief down the track . . . Maybe he never got it ?¿?
"What the F
k do you need that for. I'm applying to dig trenches not be the Fking Mayor" We discovered that a section of the community was at that time deliberately getting two employment rejections per month to extend their unemployment benefits.
I wrote a letter to the Work & Income (as it was then) branch manager insisting that the above application NOT be counted as a 'rejection' as it was not a serious attempt to gain employment.
His reaction was that I was clearly bigoted, racist, and did not understand the difficulties the long-term unemployed had. He would not be referring any more 'clients' to me; and how dare I presume to tell him how to do his job or attempt to interfere with his client's remuneration.
In response I sent him, in a postal tube, a laminated photocopy of the Oxford Dictionary definition of 'remuneration' blown up to A3.
I know it was a petty and childish response but it is one of the few retaliations that didn't cause me further grief down the track . . . Maybe he never got it ?¿?
Edited by Kiwi XTR2 on Wednesday 19th July 17:36
It's amazing how many of the robbing, raping, murdering, thieving b*astards you see in the papers are 'beneficieries' (sorry about the spelling) though isn't it? They are the ones I want to see sorted out. The trouble is, if they've got kids (any that haven't been beaten to death) what do you do? The kids have already got it tough with waster parents, do you want them to be deprived of their single weekly meal of fish-n-chips when Mummy and Daddy haven't got enough for their swappa-crate of Bushmans and 30 Holiday?
These people are the ones who make it so hard for people with genuine hardship through no fault of their own.
I vote that Richard Branson is allowed to purchase New Zealand in its entirety. I don't know if he'd make New Virgin as big a commercial success as his multi-faceted empire, but I bet it would be a really fun place to live!
Failing that, I like the rules already suggested, apart from the Honda/Elise one as that is just singling out one minority car from the rest. Oops, wait a minute, isn't this where we came in?
These people are the ones who make it so hard for people with genuine hardship through no fault of their own.
I vote that Richard Branson is allowed to purchase New Zealand in its entirety. I don't know if he'd make New Virgin as big a commercial success as his multi-faceted empire, but I bet it would be a really fun place to live!
Failing that, I like the rules already suggested, apart from the Honda/Elise one as that is just singling out one minority car from the rest. Oops, wait a minute, isn't this where we came in?
Jamie, the problem lies on the fact that we PAY them to have kids.... you have another kid, you get more cash... it's a career choice for some families.... have another kid and buy that plasma TV you've been hankering after (I sh1t you not!)
Last year, 26000 women who were already on the DPB had another kid. Let's look at that.
Here's 26,000 women who, by their own admission, are already unable to financially support the kids they have already making the CHOICE to have another kid and getpaid more for it.
The DPB is flawed... when you go on it, you get paid for how many kids you have at that snapshot in time. If you have more while you're on the DPB then that's your tough sh1t, you have to make do with what you've already got. Free contraception will be provided to all DPB mums and free sterilisations will be provided if they so wish..... actually, I reckon if you're on the DPB for longer than a year, sterilisation should be COMPULSARY to remain on it.
Worth a thought eh?
Last year, 26000 women who were already on the DPB had another kid. Let's look at that.
Here's 26,000 women who, by their own admission, are already unable to financially support the kids they have already making the CHOICE to have another kid and getpaid more for it.
The DPB is flawed... when you go on it, you get paid for how many kids you have at that snapshot in time. If you have more while you're on the DPB then that's your tough sh1t, you have to make do with what you've already got. Free contraception will be provided to all DPB mums and free sterilisations will be provided if they so wish..... actually, I reckon if you're on the DPB for longer than a year, sterilisation should be COMPULSARY to remain on it.
Worth a thought eh?
Esprit said:
Jamie, the problem lies on the fact that we PAY them to have kids.... you have another kid, you get more cash... it's a career choice for some families.... have another kid and buy that plasma TV you've been hankering after (I sh1t you not!)
Last year, 26000 women who were already on the DPB had another kid. Let's look at that.
Here's 26,000 women who, by their own admission, are already unable to financially support the kids they have already making the CHOICE to have another kid and getpaid more for it.
The DPB is flawed... when you go on it, you get paid for how many kids you have at that snapshot in time. If you have more while you're on the DPB then that's your tough sh1t, you have to make do with what you've already got. Free contraception will be provided to all DPB mums and free sterilisations will be provided if they so wish..... actually, I reckon if you're on the DPB for longer than a year, sterilisation should be COMPULSARY to remain on it.
Worth a thought eh?
Last year, 26000 women who were already on the DPB had another kid. Let's look at that.
Here's 26,000 women who, by their own admission, are already unable to financially support the kids they have already making the CHOICE to have another kid and getpaid more for it.
The DPB is flawed... when you go on it, you get paid for how many kids you have at that snapshot in time. If you have more while you're on the DPB then that's your tough sh1t, you have to make do with what you've already got. Free contraception will be provided to all DPB mums and free sterilisations will be provided if they so wish..... actually, I reckon if you're on the DPB for longer than a year, sterilisation should be COMPULSARY to remain on it.
Worth a thought eh?
a huge round of applause there!
i have gunshot wounds where the pc brigade gave me hell over voicing similar concerns, regardless of the "but its true" protest.
I say its time to put something in the drinking water.(ducks for cover)
These days you can't state the truth if it's not deemed to be PC. The facts may be correct but you'll be strung-up if you say anything.
It happened to a Police Commissioner in the UK a few years back. He made a relevent remark about how the majority of violent crimes were committed by black youths in a certain district of London. It wasn't meant to be some sort of witch hunt but part of the basis for a campaign to cut crime. After all you need to understand the problem before you can fix it. He was heavily criticised in the press and requests were made for him to resign. Just for stating the accepted facts.
I think in the end local respected leaders of the Afro-Carribean community spoke out in his defence.
I'm not using this example to demonstrate that race is the big issue. It's not, despite some people using it to hide behind. It's all about minority groups, be they gangs, criminals or fraudulant DPB claimants.
It happened to a Police Commissioner in the UK a few years back. He made a relevent remark about how the majority of violent crimes were committed by black youths in a certain district of London. It wasn't meant to be some sort of witch hunt but part of the basis for a campaign to cut crime. After all you need to understand the problem before you can fix it. He was heavily criticised in the press and requests were made for him to resign. Just for stating the accepted facts.
I think in the end local respected leaders of the Afro-Carribean community spoke out in his defence.
I'm not using this example to demonstrate that race is the big issue. It's not, despite some people using it to hide behind. It's all about minority groups, be they gangs, criminals or fraudulant DPB claimants.
Esprit said:
Jamie, the problem lies on the fact that we PAY them to have kids.... you have another kid, you get more cash... it's a career choice for some families.... have another kid and buy that plasma TV you've been hankering after (I sh1t you not!)
Last year, 26000 women who were already on the DPB had another kid. Let's look at that.
Here's 26,000 women who, by their own admission, are already unable to financially support the kids they have already making the CHOICE to have another kid and getpaid more for it.
The DPB is flawed... when you go on it, you get paid for how many kids you have at that snapshot in time. If you have more while you're on the DPB then that's your tough sh1t, you have to make do with what you've already got. Free contraception will be provided to all DPB mums and free sterilisations will be provided if they so wish..... actually, I reckon if you're on the DPB for longer than a year, sterilisation should be COMPULSARY to remain on it.
Worth a thought eh?
Last year, 26000 women who were already on the DPB had another kid. Let's look at that.
Here's 26,000 women who, by their own admission, are already unable to financially support the kids they have already making the CHOICE to have another kid and getpaid more for it.
The DPB is flawed... when you go on it, you get paid for how many kids you have at that snapshot in time. If you have more while you're on the DPB then that's your tough sh1t, you have to make do with what you've already got. Free contraception will be provided to all DPB mums and free sterilisations will be provided if they so wish..... actually, I reckon if you're on the DPB for longer than a year, sterilisation should be COMPULSARY to remain on it.
Worth a thought eh?
The other problem is they are incouraging people to have more kids because of the ageing population we have in NZ so its a no win situation. In time we can start up a Pher's grey power party
Some of us are running out of stuff to rinse
And only if it's Subaru blue, not that 'meths' coloured rubbish.
Might struggle to get too many more PHers down here to set up Pistonheadia :
Worse for theft than
Mexico 
And only if it's Subaru blue, not that 'meths' coloured rubbish.
Might struggle to get too many more PHers down here to set up Pistonheadia :
NZ Herald said:
Welcome to NZ - a land of petty crime and dodgy roads
Friday July 21, 2006 - By James Ihaka
A leading British insurance provider has warned travellers of the dangers prevalent when visiting New Zealand.
Aviva, the largest insurance services provider in the United Kingdom, has released findings on travel hot-spots around the globe, listing the countries most likely to pose a risk to tourists based on its claims database. While Thailand leads the list, appearing in almost every category as a "hotbed for theft, tummy problems, traffic accidents and lost belongings", and South Africa comes out on top for robbery with violence, New Zealand also appears on three lists.
It is rated fourth behind Thailand, South Africa and India as the most dangerous country to drive in, and features highly for incidents of theft against British tourists, coming in at fourth place behind Thailand, South Africa and islands in the Caribbean. British tourists also report more lost or misplaced belongings while visiting New Zealand.
The National Party's tourism spokesman, David Carter, said he was disappointed by the survey's results. "New Zealand appears to be developing a reputation for petty crime and dodgy roads," he said. "Perhaps if the Government had set sensible police priorities earlier, we could have dealt with this poor perception. "And if the roading crisis had been taken seriously, we would have fewer accidents."
Mr Carter said tourism was now vital to the New Zealand economy and the country could not afford to have its "image sullied by a perception of lawlessness and petty crime".
Aviva's research revealed the safest countries for travelling Brits were in Western Europe. Ireland came out on top, followed by Belgium, Holland, Germany and France.
HOW WE RATE
Lost/misplaced items
1. Thailand.
2. Mexico.
3. Caribbean.
4. Australia.
5. New Zealand.
Road accidents
1. Thailand.
2. South Africa.
3. India.
4. New Zealand.
5. Canada.
Theft
1. Thailand.
2. South Africa.
3. Caribbean.
4. New Zealand.
5. Mexico.
Friday July 21, 2006 - By James Ihaka
A leading British insurance provider has warned travellers of the dangers prevalent when visiting New Zealand.
Aviva, the largest insurance services provider in the United Kingdom, has released findings on travel hot-spots around the globe, listing the countries most likely to pose a risk to tourists based on its claims database. While Thailand leads the list, appearing in almost every category as a "hotbed for theft, tummy problems, traffic accidents and lost belongings", and South Africa comes out on top for robbery with violence, New Zealand also appears on three lists.
It is rated fourth behind Thailand, South Africa and India as the most dangerous country to drive in, and features highly for incidents of theft against British tourists, coming in at fourth place behind Thailand, South Africa and islands in the Caribbean. British tourists also report more lost or misplaced belongings while visiting New Zealand.
The National Party's tourism spokesman, David Carter, said he was disappointed by the survey's results. "New Zealand appears to be developing a reputation for petty crime and dodgy roads," he said. "Perhaps if the Government had set sensible police priorities earlier, we could have dealt with this poor perception. "And if the roading crisis had been taken seriously, we would have fewer accidents."
Mr Carter said tourism was now vital to the New Zealand economy and the country could not afford to have its "image sullied by a perception of lawlessness and petty crime".
Aviva's research revealed the safest countries for travelling Brits were in Western Europe. Ireland came out on top, followed by Belgium, Holland, Germany and France.
HOW WE RATE
Lost/misplaced items
1. Thailand.
2. Mexico.
3. Caribbean.
4. Australia.
5. New Zealand.
Road accidents
1. Thailand.
2. South Africa.
3. India.
4. New Zealand.
5. Canada.
Theft
1. Thailand.
2. South Africa.
3. Caribbean.
4. New Zealand.
5. Mexico.
Worse for theft than
Mexico Gassing Station | New Zealand | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff