Discussion:
They stole $29mil from you
Add Reply
JohnO
2021-04-20 04:17:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300281951/auditorgeneral-rules-the-299m-the-government-used-to-buy-ihumtao-was-unlawfully-spent

The arrogance of this government is breathtaking.
John Bowes
2021-04-20 04:25:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JohnO
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300281951/auditorgeneral-rules-the-299m-the-government-used-to-buy-ihumtao-was-unlawfully-spent
The arrogance of this government is breathtaking.
They make Helen Clark's 'misappropriation' look like a kid stealing sweets from the supermarket pick n' mix. But shouldn't surprise anyone except Rich and possibly Keith :)
James Christophers
2021-04-20 05:22:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JohnO
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300281951/auditorgeneral-rules-the-299m-the-government-used-to-buy-ihumtao-was-unlawfully-spent
The arrogance of this government is breathtaking.
In practice, what can/should now be done under the laws of New Zealand to set the matter to rights - e.g...

Can the government of New Zealand be sued for conduct subsequently judged unlawful? If so, then by who, since the government would presumably be represented by Crown Law.
JohnO
2021-04-20 20:28:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300281951/auditorgeneral-rules-the-299m-the-government-used-to-buy-ihumtao-was-unlawfully-spent
The arrogance of this government is breathtaking.
In practice, what can/should now be done under the laws of New Zealand to set the matter to rights - e.g...
Can the government of New Zealand be sued for conduct subsequently judged unlawful? If so, then by who, since the government would presumably be represented by Crown Law.
There's little that can be done in the immediate time frame. The government will simply use its majority to retrospectively approve the allocation of funds to a different purpose to what they originally promised.

In the longer term, the voting dullards of New Zealand will eventually wake up to the fact that the current mob can't be trusted to use money for the purpose they allocated it for and vote them out.
James Christophers
2021-04-20 22:34:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300281951/auditorgeneral-rules-the-299m-the-government-used-to-buy-ihumtao-was-unlawfully-spent
The arrogance of this government is breathtaking.
In practice, what can/should now be done under the laws of New Zealand to set the matter to rights - e.g...
Can the government of New Zealand be sued for conduct subsequently judged unlawful? If so, then by who, since the government would presumably be represented by Crown Law.
Appropriations are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and must be approved by an Act of Parliament. There are means available for Ministers and departments to amend appropriations to meet changing circumstances e.g., in an emergency. This is done lawfully through the granting of Imprest Supply. As I understand it, such due process had not been observed so the re-appropriation of funds was, technically, unlawful.

Some might speculate/believe the government had at the time thought/decided its overwhelming parliamentary majority was sufficient authorisation in itself, and a little judicious pragmatism would pass sweetly under the radar - "nod-nod, wink-wink, say no more". Quite so, but I am indifferent to such speculation since, in essence, the "error" was a technical lacuna involving not the theft, but the unauthorised reallocation or misallocation of government funds owned wholly and solely by the government itself - IOW, the owner cannot steal from himself. This is why the government's behaviour cannot be illegal.

BTW, "taxpayer money" is the money remaining in the taxpayer's possession after tax is paid. So, whatever anyone's take on it, no taxpayer money had been stolen, reallocated or misallocated, neither had any such risk been incurred.
BR
2021-04-21 05:14:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 15:34:46 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
BTW, "taxpayer money" is the money remaining in the taxpayer's possession after tax is paid. So, whatever anyone's take on it, no taxpayer money had been stolen, reallocated or misallocated, neither had any such risk been incurred.
So who owns the money that is paid in tax?

Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Rich80105
2021-04-21 05:26:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BR
On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 15:34:46 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
BTW, "taxpayer money" is the money remaining in the taxpayer's possession after tax is paid. So, whatever anyone's take on it, no taxpayer money had been stolen, reallocated or misallocated, neither had any such risk been incurred.
So who owns the money that is paid in tax?
Bill.
The government. In effect they took money from one government account
but they had not given themselves permission to take it from there -
they will have to go to parliament to fix the mistake; it will be an
embarassment, but no taxpayer has lost any money.
James Christophers
2021-04-21 05:53:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 15:34:46 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
BTW, "taxpayer money" is the money remaining in the taxpayer's possession after tax is paid. So, whatever anyone's take on it, no taxpayer money had been stolen, reallocated or misallocated, neither had any such risk been incurred.
So who owns the money that is paid in tax?
Bill.
The government. In effect they took money from one government account
but they had not given themselves permission to take it from there -
they will have to go to parliament to fix the mistake;
Retrospective - not a good look. They had not gievn themselves permision becasue that is not what is req

For it to have been kosher they should first have "reminded themselves" of their lawful requirement to refer formally to Parliament before the re-appropriation was made.
Post by Rich80105
it will be an embarrassment...
A passing inconvenience at most, but it's impossible to imagine any politician worth their salt breaking a sweat over it.
Post by Rich80105
...but no taxpayer has lost any money.
Neither has the government. And, as I've been making clear from the outset, the taxpayer never could have lost money either since it wasn't their money in the first place!

So there we have it: no money stolen; no money lost - and nothing actionable at law into the bargain!

What's not to like, eh?
BR
2021-04-22 05:42:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 15:34:46 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
BTW, "taxpayer money" is the money remaining in the taxpayer's possession after tax is paid. So, whatever anyone's take on it, no taxpayer money had been stolen, reallocated or misallocated, neither had any such risk been incurred.
So who owns the money that is paid in tax?
Bill.
The government.
That speaks volumes about you and your political masters.

A government that thinks it owns the money entrusted to it by those it
claims to represent, will also think it can do with it what it likes.

That attitude by you and the politicians you support is the underlying
cause of all the avoidable problems faced by this country and any
others unfortunate enough to be governed by such self-entitled greedy
politicians.

Governments do not own the taxpayers' money. They are mere stewards of
it, tasked with managing it prudently and spending it wisely.

Is that too much to ask?

Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
James Christophers
2021-04-22 06:26:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 15:34:46 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
BTW, "taxpayer money" is the money remaining in the taxpayer's possession after tax is paid. So, whatever anyone's take on it, no taxpayer money had been stolen, reallocated or misallocated, neither had any such risk been incurred.
So who owns the money that is paid in tax?
Bill.
The government.
That speaks volumes about you and your political masters.
Nope. It speaks volumes about the Constitution of New Zealand.
Post by BR
A government that thinks it owns the money entrusted to it by those it
claims to represent, will also think it can do with it what it likes.
Under NZ Constitutional Law government operates both within the remit of its original election manifesto, being free also to vary this in any lawful way it sees fit, including breaking any "promise(s)" it may have made.
Post by BR
That attitude by you and the politicians you support is the underlying
cause of all the avoidable problems faced by this country and any
others unfortunate enough to be governed by such self-entitled greedy
politicians.
OK then, list your practical proposals for fixing it once and for all.
Post by BR
Governments do not own the taxpayers' money. They are mere stewards of
it, tasked with managing it prudently and spending it wisely.
Is that too much to ask?
Not at all, Bill.

Feel free to put your concerns to any constitutional lawyer worthy of the title, then come back and tell us what you have learned.

What could be simpler?
Rich80105
2021-04-22 07:34:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 15:34:46 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
BTW, "taxpayer money" is the money remaining in the taxpayer's possession after tax is paid. So, whatever anyone's take on it, no taxpayer money had been stolen, reallocated or misallocated, neither had any such risk been incurred.
So who owns the money that is paid in tax?
Bill.
The government.
That speaks volumes about you and your political masters.
A government that thinks it owns the money entrusted to it by those it
claims to represent, will also think it can do with it what it likes.
That attitude by you and the politicians you support is the underlying
cause of all the avoidable problems faced by this country and any
others unfortunate enough to be governed by such self-entitled greedy
politicians.
Governments do not own the taxpayers' money. They are mere stewards of
it, tasked with managing it prudently and spending it wisely.
Is that too much to ask?
Bill.
Not at all, Bill. Now someone will tell us all that it is the Crown
that owns all the assets. Government accounts is a frequently used
term; the important thing is that "taxpayers" do not either provide
all such assets or "own" any of the money or assets in those accounts.
Held in trust is a reasonable expression although lawyers may have
something to say about that in view of trust legislation and the
expectation that Trusts have "Trustees" - Government operates under
legislation that relates to government. But I agree that the party or
parties that form government do not themseves own government or Crown
assets. English is complicated enough; it is easy to see how people
can get confused when things have been translated to Maori and back
again . . .
George Black
2021-04-21 19:49:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BR
On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 15:34:46 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
BTW, "taxpayer money" is the money remaining in the taxpayer's possession after tax is paid. So, whatever anyone's take on it, no taxpayer money had been stolen, reallocated or misallocated, neither had any such risk been incurred.
So who owns the money that is paid in tax?
Bill.
How about we stop paying tax and then see just how the thieves will
finance their little schemes
JohnO
2021-04-21 20:16:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300281951/auditorgeneral-rules-the-299m-the-government-used-to-buy-ihumtao-was-unlawfully-spent
The arrogance of this government is breathtaking.
In practice, what can/should now be done under the laws of New Zealand to set the matter to rights - e.g...
Can the government of New Zealand be sued for conduct subsequently judged unlawful? If so, then by who, since the government would presumably be represented by Crown Law.
Appropriations are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and must be approved by an Act of Parliament. There are means available for Ministers and departments to amend appropriations to meet changing circumstances e.g., in an emergency. This is done lawfully through the granting of Imprest Supply. As I understand it, such due process had not been observed so the re-appropriation of funds was, technically, unlawful.
Some might speculate/believe the government had at the time thought/decided its overwhelming parliamentary majority was sufficient authorisation in itself,
Which is a long winded description of arrogance. Never use a long sentence when one word will do.
and a little judicious pragmatism would pass sweetly under the radar - "nod-nod, wink-wink, say no more". Quite so, but I am indifferent to such speculation since, in essence, the "error" was a technical lacuna involving not the theft, but the unauthorised reallocation or misallocation of government funds owned wholly and solely by the government itself - IOW, the owner cannot steal from himself. This is why the government's behaviour cannot be illegal.
The money was lawfully allocated for housing. It was then unlawfully misappropriated for the purpose of buying land and giving it to some noisy malcontents. To wit, the money was stolen from the housing appropriation.
BTW, "taxpayer money" is the money remaining in the taxpayer's possession after tax is paid. So, whatever anyone's take on it, no taxpayer money had been stolen, reallocated or misallocated, neither had any such risk been incurred.
Wrong again. That $29mil of formerly public money is now in the hands of Fletchers, and its shareholders. When some money goes, unlawfully, from one entity to another, that is theft.
John Bowes
2021-04-22 01:33:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300281951/auditorgeneral-rules-the-299m-the-government-used-to-buy-ihumtao-was-unlawfully-spent
The arrogance of this government is breathtaking.
In practice, what can/should now be done under the laws of New Zealand to set the matter to rights - e.g...
Can the government of New Zealand be sued for conduct subsequently judged unlawful? If so, then by who, since the government would presumably be represented by Crown Law.
Appropriations are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and must be approved by an Act of Parliament. There are means available for Ministers and departments to amend appropriations to meet changing circumstances e.g., in an emergency. This is done lawfully through the granting of Imprest Supply. As I understand it, such due process had not been observed so the re-appropriation of funds was, technically, unlawful.
Some might speculate/believe the government had at the time thought/decided its overwhelming parliamentary majority was sufficient authorisation in itself,
Which is a long winded description of arrogance. Never use a long sentence when one word will do.
and a little judicious pragmatism would pass sweetly under the radar - "nod-nod, wink-wink, say no more". Quite so, but I am indifferent to such speculation since, in essence, the "error" was a technical lacuna involving not the theft, but the unauthorised reallocation or misallocation of government funds owned wholly and solely by the government itself - IOW, the owner cannot steal from himself. This is why the government's behaviour cannot be illegal.
The money was lawfully allocated for housing. It was then unlawfully misappropriated for the purpose of buying land and giving it to some noisy malcontents. To wit, the money was stolen from the housing appropriation.
BTW, "taxpayer money" is the money remaining in the taxpayer's possession after tax is paid. So, whatever anyone's take on it, no taxpayer money had been stolen, reallocated or misallocated, neither had any such risk been incurred.
Wrong again. That $29mil of formerly public money is now in the hands of Fletchers, and its shareholders. When some money goes, unlawfully, from one entity to another, that is theft.
Considering ALL money the government spends come through various channels from the taxpayer it's fairly obvious Keith is just blowing smoke in his denial it is taxpayers money :)
Rich80105
2021-04-22 02:40:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 18:33:05 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300281951/auditorgeneral-rules-the-299m-the-government-used-to-buy-ihumtao-was-unlawfully-spent
The arrogance of this government is breathtaking.
In practice, what can/should now be done under the laws of New Zealand to set the matter to rights - e.g...
Can the government of New Zealand be sued for conduct subsequently judged unlawful? If so, then by who, since the government would presumably be represented by Crown Law.
Appropriations are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and must be approved by an Act of Parliament. There are means available for Ministers and departments to amend appropriations to meet changing circumstances e.g., in an emergency. This is done lawfully through the granting of Imprest Supply. As I understand it, such due process had not been observed so the re-appropriation of funds was, technically, unlawful.
Some might speculate/believe the government had at the time thought/decided its overwhelming parliamentary majority was sufficient authorisation in itself,
Which is a long winded description of arrogance. Never use a long sentence when one word will do.
and a little judicious pragmatism would pass sweetly under the radar - "nod-nod, wink-wink, say no more". Quite so, but I am indifferent to such speculation since, in essence, the "error" was a technical lacuna involving not the theft, but the unauthorised reallocation or misallocation of government funds owned wholly and solely by the government itself - IOW, the owner cannot steal from himself. This is why the government's behaviour cannot be illegal.
The money was lawfully allocated for housing. It was then unlawfully misappropriated for the purpose of buying land and giving it to some noisy malcontents. To wit, the money was stolen from the housing appropriation.
BTW, "taxpayer money" is the money remaining in the taxpayer's possession after tax is paid. So, whatever anyone's take on it, no taxpayer money had been stolen, reallocated or misallocated, neither had any such risk been incurred.
Wrong again. That $29mil of formerly public money is now in the hands of Fletchers, and its shareholders. When some money goes, unlawfully, from one entity to another, that is theft.
Considering ALL money the government spends come through various channels from the taxpayer it's fairly obvious Keith is just blowing smoke in his denial it is taxpayers money :)
I don't know what the percentage of government income from taxation
is, but it is certainly less than 100%. GST is paid by foreigners;
duties, levies, gains on sale of assets, exchange rate effects,
returns from state owned assets, etc. Once paid however it does not
belong to those that paid it - just as money paid by government for NZ
Superannuation and welfare benefits ceases to be government money when
it reaches personal accounts.
James Christophers
2021-04-22 03:16:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 18:33:05 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300281951/auditorgeneral-rules-the-299m-the-government-used-to-buy-ihumtao-was-unlawfully-spent
The arrogance of this government is breathtaking.
In practice, what can/should now be done under the laws of New Zealand to set the matter to rights - e.g...
Can the government of New Zealand be sued for conduct subsequently judged unlawful? If so, then by who, since the government would presumably be represented by Crown Law.
Appropriations are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and must be approved by an Act of Parliament. There are means available for Ministers and departments to amend appropriations to meet changing circumstances e.g., in an emergency. This is done lawfully through the granting of Imprest Supply. As I understand it, such due process had not been observed so the re-appropriation of funds was, technically, unlawful.
Some might speculate/believe the government had at the time thought/decided its overwhelming parliamentary majority was sufficient authorisation in itself,
Which is a long winded description of arrogance. Never use a long sentence when one word will do.
and a little judicious pragmatism would pass sweetly under the radar - "nod-nod, wink-wink, say no more". Quite so, but I am indifferent to such speculation since, in essence, the "error" was a technical lacuna involving not the theft, but the unauthorised reallocation or misallocation of government funds owned wholly and solely by the government itself - IOW, the owner cannot steal from himself. This is why the government's behaviour cannot be illegal.
The money was lawfully allocated for housing. It was then unlawfully misappropriated for the purpose of buying land and giving it to some noisy malcontents. To wit, the money was stolen from the housing appropriation.
BTW, "taxpayer money" is the money remaining in the taxpayer's possession after tax is paid. So, whatever anyone's take on it, no taxpayer money had been stolen, reallocated or misallocated, neither had any such risk been incurred.
Wrong again. That $29mil of formerly public money is now in the hands of Fletchers, and its shareholders. When some money goes, unlawfully, from one entity to another, that is theft.
Considering ALL money the government spends come through various channels from the taxpayer it's fairly obvious Keith is just blowing smoke in his denial it is taxpayers money :)
I don't know what the percentage of government income from taxation
is, but it is certainly less than 100%. GST is paid by foreigners;
duties, levies, gains on sale of assets, exchange rate effects,
returns from state owned assets, etc. Once paid however it does not
belong to those that paid it - just as money paid by government for NZ
Superannuation and welfare benefits ceases to be government money when
it reaches personal accounts.
By no means all the money the government uses/spends comes from taxation. A goodly portion comes from borrowings e.g., overseas creditors, and government bonds. In wartime, governments issue interest-bearing government bonds to raise money to fund the defence of the nation. The current NZ government has done this to help see it and the country through the Covid-19 contingency.
John Bowes
2021-04-22 05:36:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 18:33:05 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300281951/auditorgeneral-rules-the-299m-the-government-used-to-buy-ihumtao-was-unlawfully-spent
The arrogance of this government is breathtaking.
In practice, what can/should now be done under the laws of New Zealand to set the matter to rights - e.g...
Can the government of New Zealand be sued for conduct subsequently judged unlawful? If so, then by who, since the government would presumably be represented by Crown Law.
Appropriations are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and must be approved by an Act of Parliament. There are means available for Ministers and departments to amend appropriations to meet changing circumstances e.g., in an emergency. This is done lawfully through the granting of Imprest Supply. As I understand it, such due process had not been observed so the re-appropriation of funds was, technically, unlawful.
Some might speculate/believe the government had at the time thought/decided its overwhelming parliamentary majority was sufficient authorisation in itself,
Which is a long winded description of arrogance. Never use a long sentence when one word will do.
and a little judicious pragmatism would pass sweetly under the radar - "nod-nod, wink-wink, say no more". Quite so, but I am indifferent to such speculation since, in essence, the "error" was a technical lacuna involving not the theft, but the unauthorised reallocation or misallocation of government funds owned wholly and solely by the government itself - IOW, the owner cannot steal from himself. This is why the government's behaviour cannot be illegal.
The money was lawfully allocated for housing. It was then unlawfully misappropriated for the purpose of buying land and giving it to some noisy malcontents. To wit, the money was stolen from the housing appropriation.
BTW, "taxpayer money" is the money remaining in the taxpayer's possession after tax is paid. So, whatever anyone's take on it, no taxpayer money had been stolen, reallocated or misallocated, neither had any such risk been incurred.
Wrong again. That $29mil of formerly public money is now in the hands of Fletchers, and its shareholders. When some money goes, unlawfully, from one entity to another, that is theft.
Considering ALL money the government spends come through various channels from the taxpayer it's fairly obvious Keith is just blowing smoke in his denial it is taxpayers money :)
I don't know what the percentage of government income from taxation
is, but it is certainly less than 100%. GST is paid by foreigners;
duties, levies, gains on sale of assets, exchange rate effects,
returns from state owned assets, etc. Once paid however it does not
belong to those that paid it - just as money paid by government for NZ
Superannuation and welfare benefits ceases to be government money when
it reaches personal accounts.
Another comprehension fail from the ever trolling Rich! I never claimed ALL government money came from taxation you gormless twit! Try rereading my post, though I doubt if that will help a fucking imbecile like you understand it any better!
James Christophers
2021-04-23 23:01:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 18:33:05 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300281951/auditorgeneral-rules-the-299m-the-government-used-to-buy-ihumtao-was-unlawfully-spent
The arrogance of this government is breathtaking.
In practice, what can/should now be done under the laws of New Zealand to set the matter to rights - e.g...
Can the government of New Zealand be sued for conduct subsequently judged unlawful? If so, then by who, since the government would presumably be represented by Crown Law.
Appropriations are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and must be approved by an Act of Parliament. There are means available for Ministers and departments to amend appropriations to meet changing circumstances e.g., in an emergency. This is done lawfully through the granting of Imprest Supply. As I understand it, such due process had not been observed so the re-appropriation of funds was, technically, unlawful.
Some might speculate/believe the government had at the time thought/decided its overwhelming parliamentary majority was sufficient authorisation in itself,
Which is a long winded description of arrogance. Never use a long sentence when one word will do.
and a little judicious pragmatism would pass sweetly under the radar - "nod-nod, wink-wink, say no more". Quite so, but I am indifferent to such speculation since, in essence, the "error" was a technical lacuna involving not the theft, but the unauthorised reallocation or misallocation of government funds owned wholly and solely by the government itself - IOW, the owner cannot steal from himself. This is why the government's behaviour cannot be illegal.
The money was lawfully allocated for housing. It was then unlawfully misappropriated for the purpose of buying land and giving it to some noisy malcontents. To wit, the money was stolen from the housing appropriation.
BTW, "taxpayer money" is the money remaining in the taxpayer's possession after tax is paid. So, whatever anyone's take on it, no taxpayer money had been stolen, reallocated or misallocated, neither had any such risk been incurred.
Wrong again. That $29mil of formerly public money is now in the hands of Fletchers, and its shareholders. When some money goes, unlawfully, from one entity to another, that is theft.
Considering ALL money the government spends come through various channels from the taxpayer it's fairly obvious Keith is just blowing smoke in his denial it is taxpayers money :)
I don't know what the percentage of government income from taxation
is, but it is certainly less than 100%.
Correct.
Post by Rich80105
GST is paid by foreigners;
duties, levies, gains on sale of assets, exchange rate effects,
returns from state owned assets, etc. Once paid however it does not
belong to those that paid it - just as money paid by government for NZ
Superannuation and welfare benefits ceases to be government money when
it reaches personal accounts.
(snipped)...I never claimed ALL government money came from taxation... (snipped)
Post by Rich80105
Post by John Bowes
Considering ALL money the government spends come through various channels from the taxpayer...(snip)
Explain.
John Bowes
2021-04-24 01:38:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 18:33:05 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300281951/auditorgeneral-rules-the-299m-the-government-used-to-buy-ihumtao-was-unlawfully-spent
The arrogance of this government is breathtaking.
In practice, what can/should now be done under the laws of New Zealand to set the matter to rights - e.g...
Can the government of New Zealand be sued for conduct subsequently judged unlawful? If so, then by who, since the government would presumably be represented by Crown Law.
Appropriations are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and must be approved by an Act of Parliament. There are means available for Ministers and departments to amend appropriations to meet changing circumstances e.g., in an emergency. This is done lawfully through the granting of Imprest Supply. As I understand it, such due process had not been observed so the re-appropriation of funds was, technically, unlawful.
Some might speculate/believe the government had at the time thought/decided its overwhelming parliamentary majority was sufficient authorisation in itself,
Which is a long winded description of arrogance. Never use a long sentence when one word will do.
and a little judicious pragmatism would pass sweetly under the radar - "nod-nod, wink-wink, say no more". Quite so, but I am indifferent to such speculation since, in essence, the "error" was a technical lacuna involving not the theft, but the unauthorised reallocation or misallocation of government funds owned wholly and solely by the government itself - IOW, the owner cannot steal from himself. This is why the government's behaviour cannot be illegal.
The money was lawfully allocated for housing. It was then unlawfully misappropriated for the purpose of buying land and giving it to some noisy malcontents. To wit, the money was stolen from the housing appropriation.
BTW, "taxpayer money" is the money remaining in the taxpayer's possession after tax is paid. So, whatever anyone's take on it, no taxpayer money had been stolen, reallocated or misallocated, neither had any such risk been incurred.
Wrong again. That $29mil of formerly public money is now in the hands of Fletchers, and its shareholders. When some money goes, unlawfully, from one entity to another, that is theft.
Considering ALL money the government spends come through various channels from the taxpayer it's fairly obvious Keith is just blowing smoke in his denial it is taxpayers money :)
I don't know what the percentage of government income from taxation
is, but it is certainly less than 100%.
Correct.
Post by Rich80105
GST is paid by foreigners;
duties, levies, gains on sale of assets, exchange rate effects,
returns from state owned assets, etc. Once paid however it does not
belong to those that paid it - just as money paid by government for NZ
Superannuation and welfare benefits ceases to be government money when
it reaches personal accounts.
(snipped)...I never claimed ALL government money came from taxation... (snipped)
Post by Rich80105
Post by John Bowes
Considering ALL money the government spends come through various channels from the taxpayer...(snip)
Explain.
Thank you for proving my point Keith. Money from taxpayers doesn't necessarily mean it is money from tax and you fucking well know it!
Rich80105
2021-04-24 02:36:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 18:38:29 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 18:33:05 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300281951/auditorgeneral-rules-the-299m-the-government-used-to-buy-ihumtao-was-unlawfully-spent
The arrogance of this government is breathtaking.
In practice, what can/should now be done under the laws of New Zealand to set the matter to rights - e.g...
Can the government of New Zealand be sued for conduct subsequently judged unlawful? If so, then by who, since the government would presumably be represented by Crown Law.
Appropriations are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and must be approved by an Act of Parliament. There are means available for Ministers and departments to amend appropriations to meet changing circumstances e.g., in an emergency. This is done lawfully through the granting of Imprest Supply. As I understand it, such due process had not been observed so the re-appropriation of funds was, technically, unlawful.
Some might speculate/believe the government had at the time thought/decided its overwhelming parliamentary majority was sufficient authorisation in itself,
Which is a long winded description of arrogance. Never use a long sentence when one word will do.
and a little judicious pragmatism would pass sweetly under the radar - "nod-nod, wink-wink, say no more". Quite so, but I am indifferent to such speculation since, in essence, the "error" was a technical lacuna involving not the theft, but the unauthorised reallocation or misallocation of government funds owned wholly and solely by the government itself - IOW, the owner cannot steal from himself. This is why the government's behaviour cannot be illegal.
The money was lawfully allocated for housing. It was then unlawfully misappropriated for the purpose of buying land and giving it to some noisy malcontents. To wit, the money was stolen from the housing appropriation.
BTW, "taxpayer money" is the money remaining in the taxpayer's possession after tax is paid. So, whatever anyone's take on it, no taxpayer money had been stolen, reallocated or misallocated, neither had any such risk been incurred.
Wrong again. That $29mil of formerly public money is now in the hands of Fletchers, and its shareholders. When some money goes, unlawfully, from one entity to another, that is theft.
Considering ALL money the government spends come through various channels from the taxpayer it's fairly obvious Keith is just blowing smoke in his denial it is taxpayers money :)
I don't know what the percentage of government income from taxation
is, but it is certainly less than 100%.
Correct.
Post by Rich80105
GST is paid by foreigners;
duties, levies, gains on sale of assets, exchange rate effects,
returns from state owned assets, etc. Once paid however it does not
belong to those that paid it - just as money paid by government for NZ
Superannuation and welfare benefits ceases to be government money when
it reaches personal accounts.
(snipped)...I never claimed ALL government money came from taxation... (snipped)
Post by Rich80105
Post by John Bowes
Considering ALL money the government spends come through various channels from the taxpayer...(snip)
Explain.
Thank you for proving my point Keith. Money from taxpayers doesn't necessarily mean it is money from tax and you fucking well know it!
So if this government sells a building that they own overseas and
pocket a profit, which taxpayer did that come from, JohnO?

But you also appear to believe there is only onetaxpayer - why the
reference to "the taxpayer", JohnBowes?
Nellie the Elephant
2021-04-24 03:05:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 18:38:29 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 18:33:05 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300281951/auditorgeneral-rules-the-299m-the-government-used-to-buy-ihumtao-was-unlawfully-spent
The arrogance of this government is breathtaking.
In practice, what can/should now be done under the laws of New Zealand to set the matter to rights - e.g...
Can the government of New Zealand be sued for conduct subsequently judged unlawful? If so, then by who, since the government would presumably be represented by Crown Law.
Appropriations are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and must be approved by an Act of Parliament. There are means available for Ministers and departments to amend appropriations to meet changing circumstances e.g., in an emergency. This is done lawfully through the granting of Imprest Supply. As I understand it, such due process had not been observed so the re-appropriation of funds was, technically, unlawful.
Some might speculate/believe the government had at the time thought/decided its overwhelming parliamentary majority was sufficient authorisation in itself,
Which is a long winded description of arrogance. Never use a long sentence when one word will do.
and a little judicious pragmatism would pass sweetly under the radar - "nod-nod, wink-wink, say no more". Quite so, but I am indifferent to such speculation since, in essence, the "error" was a technical lacuna involving not the theft, but the unauthorised reallocation or misallocation of government funds owned wholly and solely by the government itself - IOW, the owner cannot steal from himself. This is why the government's behaviour cannot be illegal.
The money was lawfully allocated for housing. It was then unlawfully misappropriated for the purpose of buying land and giving it to some noisy malcontents. To wit, the money was stolen from the housing appropriation.
BTW, "taxpayer money" is the money remaining in the taxpayer's possession after tax is paid. So, whatever anyone's take on it, no taxpayer money had been stolen, reallocated or misallocated, neither had any such risk been incurred.
Wrong again. That $29mil of formerly public money is now in the hands of Fletchers, and its shareholders. When some money goes, unlawfully, from one entity to another, that is theft.
Considering ALL money the government spends come through various channels from the taxpayer it's fairly obvious Keith is just blowing smoke in his denial it is taxpayers money :)
I don't know what the percentage of government income from taxation
is, but it is certainly less than 100%.
Correct.
Post by Rich80105
GST is paid by foreigners;
duties, levies, gains on sale of assets, exchange rate effects,
returns from state owned assets, etc. Once paid however it does not
belong to those that paid it - just as money paid by government for NZ
Superannuation and welfare benefits ceases to be government money when
it reaches personal accounts.
(snipped)...I never claimed ALL government money came from taxation... (snipped)
Post by Rich80105
Post by John Bowes
Considering ALL money the government spends come through various channels from the taxpayer...(snip)
Explain.
Thank you for proving my point Keith. Money from taxpayers doesn't necessarily mean it is money from tax and you fucking well know it!
So if this government sells a building that they own overseas and
pocket a profit, which taxpayer did that come from, JohnO?
But you also appear to believe there is only onetaxpayer - why the
reference to "the taxpayer", JohnBowes?
It is a very common expression.

If the government owned a building overseas it was previously
purchased, probably with money from taxation.

Why, oh why, do you and James Christophers delight in teaming up
against people. Nobody else here appears to do that?
Could it be that you do it just for fun and because you are an
anonymous poster?
Rich80105
2021-04-24 09:01:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 15:05:36 +1200, Nellie the Elephant
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 18:38:29 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 18:33:05 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300281951/auditorgeneral-rules-the-299m-the-government-used-to-buy-ihumtao-was-unlawfully-spent
The arrogance of this government is breathtaking.
In practice, what can/should now be done under the laws of New Zealand to set the matter to rights - e.g...
Can the government of New Zealand be sued for conduct subsequently judged unlawful? If so, then by who, since the government would presumably be represented by Crown Law.
Appropriations are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and must be approved by an Act of Parliament. There are means available for Ministers and departments to amend appropriations to meet changing circumstances e.g., in an emergency. This is done lawfully through the granting of Imprest Supply. As I understand it, such due process had not been observed so the re-appropriation of funds was, technically, unlawful.
Some might speculate/believe the government had at the time thought/decided its overwhelming parliamentary majority was sufficient authorisation in itself,
Which is a long winded description of arrogance. Never use a long sentence when one word will do.
and a little judicious pragmatism would pass sweetly under the radar - "nod-nod, wink-wink, say no more". Quite so, but I am indifferent to such speculation since, in essence, the "error" was a technical lacuna involving not the theft, but the unauthorised reallocation or misallocation of government funds owned wholly and solely by the government itself - IOW, the owner cannot steal from himself. This is why the government's behaviour cannot be illegal.
The money was lawfully allocated for housing. It was then unlawfully misappropriated for the purpose of buying land and giving it to some noisy malcontents. To wit, the money was stolen from the housing appropriation.
BTW, "taxpayer money" is the money remaining in the taxpayer's possession after tax is paid. So, whatever anyone's take on it, no taxpayer money had been stolen, reallocated or misallocated, neither had any such risk been incurred.
Wrong again. That $29mil of formerly public money is now in the hands of Fletchers, and its shareholders. When some money goes, unlawfully, from one entity to another, that is theft.
Considering ALL money the government spends come through various channels from the taxpayer it's fairly obvious Keith is just blowing smoke in his denial it is taxpayers money :)
I don't know what the percentage of government income from taxation
is, but it is certainly less than 100%.
Correct.
Post by Rich80105
GST is paid by foreigners;
duties, levies, gains on sale of assets, exchange rate effects,
returns from state owned assets, etc. Once paid however it does not
belong to those that paid it - just as money paid by government for NZ
Superannuation and welfare benefits ceases to be government money when
it reaches personal accounts.
(snipped)...I never claimed ALL government money came from taxation... (snipped)
Post by Rich80105
Post by John Bowes
Considering ALL money the government spends come through various channels from the taxpayer...(snip)
Explain.
Thank you for proving my point Keith. Money from taxpayers doesn't necessarily mean it is money from tax and you fucking well know it!
So if this government sells a building that they own overseas and
pocket a profit, which taxpayer did that come from, JohnO?
But you also appear to believe there is only onetaxpayer - why the
reference to "the taxpayer", JohnBowes?
It is a very common expression.
If the government owned a building overseas it was previously
purchased, probably with money from taxation.
Why, oh why, do you and James Christophers delight in teaming up
against people. Nobody else here appears to do that?
Could it be that you do it just for fun and because you are an
anonymous poster?
I'll leave that to you, Nellie
Nellie the Elephant
2021-04-25 21:37:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 15:05:36 +1200, Nellie the Elephant
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 18:38:29 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 18:33:05 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300281951/auditorgeneral-rules-the-299m-the-government-used-to-buy-ihumtao-was-unlawfully-spent
The arrogance of this government is breathtaking.
In practice, what can/should now be done under the laws of New Zealand to set the matter to rights - e.g...
Can the government of New Zealand be sued for conduct subsequently judged unlawful? If so, then by who, since the government would presumably be represented by Crown Law.
Appropriations are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and must be approved by an Act of Parliament. There are means available for Ministers and departments to amend appropriations to meet changing circumstances e.g., in an emergency. This is done lawfully through the granting of Imprest Supply. As I understand it, such due process had not been observed so the re-appropriation of funds was, technically, unlawful.
Some might speculate/believe the government had at the time thought/decided its overwhelming parliamentary majority was sufficient authorisation in itself,
Which is a long winded description of arrogance. Never use a long sentence when one word will do.
and a little judicious pragmatism would pass sweetly under the radar - "nod-nod, wink-wink, say no more". Quite so, but I am indifferent to such speculation since, in essence, the "error" was a technical lacuna involving not the theft, but the unauthorised reallocation or misallocation of government funds owned wholly and solely by the government itself - IOW, the owner cannot steal from himself. This is why the government's behaviour cannot be illegal.
The money was lawfully allocated for housing. It was then unlawfully misappropriated for the purpose of buying land and giving it to some noisy malcontents. To wit, the money was stolen from the housing appropriation.
BTW, "taxpayer money" is the money remaining in the taxpayer's possession after tax is paid. So, whatever anyone's take on it, no taxpayer money had been stolen, reallocated or misallocated, neither had any such risk been incurred.
Wrong again. That $29mil of formerly public money is now in the hands of Fletchers, and its shareholders. When some money goes, unlawfully, from one entity to another, that is theft.
Considering ALL money the government spends come through various channels from the taxpayer it's fairly obvious Keith is just blowing smoke in his denial it is taxpayers money :)
I don't know what the percentage of government income from taxation
is, but it is certainly less than 100%.
Correct.
Post by Rich80105
GST is paid by foreigners;
duties, levies, gains on sale of assets, exchange rate effects,
returns from state owned assets, etc. Once paid however it does not
belong to those that paid it - just as money paid by government for NZ
Superannuation and welfare benefits ceases to be government money when
it reaches personal accounts.
(snipped)...I never claimed ALL government money came from taxation... (snipped)
Post by Rich80105
Post by John Bowes
Considering ALL money the government spends come through various channels from the taxpayer...(snip)
Explain.
Thank you for proving my point Keith. Money from taxpayers doesn't necessarily mean it is money from tax and you fucking well know it!
So if this government sells a building that they own overseas and
pocket a profit, which taxpayer did that come from, JohnO?
But you also appear to believe there is only onetaxpayer - why the
reference to "the taxpayer", JohnBowes?
It is a very common expression.
If the government owned a building overseas it was previously
purchased, probably with money from taxation.
Why, oh why, do you and James Christophers delight in teaming up
against people. Nobody else here appears to do that?
Could it be that you do it just for fun and because you are an
anonymous poster?
I'll leave that to you, Nellie
Oh no that will not do.
Your obvious enjoyment is clear. You really do appear to be a waste of
oxygen. Perhaps you should find something worthwhile to do and stop
irritating your betters.
Rich80105
2021-04-26 00:44:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 09:37:36 +1200, Nellie the Elephant
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 15:05:36 +1200, Nellie the Elephant
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 18:38:29 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 18:33:05 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300281951/auditorgeneral-rules-the-299m-the-government-used-to-buy-ihumtao-was-unlawfully-spent
The arrogance of this government is breathtaking.
In practice, what can/should now be done under the laws of New Zealand to set the matter to rights - e.g...
Can the government of New Zealand be sued for conduct subsequently judged unlawful? If so, then by who, since the government would presumably be represented by Crown Law.
Appropriations are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and must be approved by an Act of Parliament. There are means available for Ministers and departments to amend appropriations to meet changing circumstances e.g., in an emergency. This is done lawfully through the granting of Imprest Supply. As I understand it, such due process had not been observed so the re-appropriation of funds was, technically, unlawful.
Some might speculate/believe the government had at the time thought/decided its overwhelming parliamentary majority was sufficient authorisation in itself,
Which is a long winded description of arrogance. Never use a long sentence when one word will do.
and a little judicious pragmatism would pass sweetly under the radar - "nod-nod, wink-wink, say no more". Quite so, but I am indifferent to such speculation since, in essence, the "error" was a technical lacuna involving not the theft, but the unauthorised reallocation or misallocation of government funds owned wholly and solely by the government itself - IOW, the owner cannot steal from himself. This is why the government's behaviour cannot be illegal.
The money was lawfully allocated for housing. It was then unlawfully misappropriated for the purpose of buying land and giving it to some noisy malcontents. To wit, the money was stolen from the housing appropriation.
BTW, "taxpayer money" is the money remaining in the taxpayer's possession after tax is paid. So, whatever anyone's take on it, no taxpayer money had been stolen, reallocated or misallocated, neither had any such risk been incurred.
Wrong again. That $29mil of formerly public money is now in the hands of Fletchers, and its shareholders. When some money goes, unlawfully, from one entity to another, that is theft.
Considering ALL money the government spends come through various channels from the taxpayer it's fairly obvious Keith is just blowing smoke in his denial it is taxpayers money :)
I don't know what the percentage of government income from taxation
is, but it is certainly less than 100%.
Correct.
Post by Rich80105
GST is paid by foreigners;
duties, levies, gains on sale of assets, exchange rate effects,
returns from state owned assets, etc. Once paid however it does not
belong to those that paid it - just as money paid by government for NZ
Superannuation and welfare benefits ceases to be government money when
it reaches personal accounts.
(snipped)...I never claimed ALL government money came from taxation... (snipped)
Post by Rich80105
Post by John Bowes
Considering ALL money the government spends come through various channels from the taxpayer...(snip)
Explain.
Thank you for proving my point Keith. Money from taxpayers doesn't necessarily mean it is money from tax and you fucking well know it!
So if this government sells a building that they own overseas and
pocket a profit, which taxpayer did that come from, JohnO?
But you also appear to believe there is only onetaxpayer - why the
reference to "the taxpayer", JohnBowes?
It is a very common expression.
If the government owned a building overseas it was previously
purchased, probably with money from taxation.
Why, oh why, do you and James Christophers delight in teaming up
against people. Nobody else here appears to do that?
Could it be that you do it just for fun and because you are an
anonymous poster?
I'll leave that to you, Nellie
Oh no that will not do.
Your obvious enjoyment is clear. You really do appear to be a waste of
oxygen. Perhaps you should find something worthwhile to do and stop
irritating your betters.
It was your post Nellie that took us off topi to an attack on another
poster. I look forward to your taking your own advice. To get back to
the subject of the thread, it is clear that nobody has stolen $29mil.
PErhaps the thread has run its course.
Nellie the Elephant
2021-04-26 01:55:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 09:37:36 +1200, Nellie the Elephant
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 15:05:36 +1200, Nellie the Elephant
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 18:38:29 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 18:33:05 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300281951/auditorgeneral-rules-the-299m-the-government-used-to-buy-ihumtao-was-unlawfully-spent
The arrogance of this government is breathtaking.
In practice, what can/should now be done under the laws of New Zealand to set the matter to rights - e.g...
Can the government of New Zealand be sued for conduct subsequently judged unlawful? If so, then by who, since the government would presumably be represented by Crown Law.
Appropriations are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and must be approved by an Act of Parliament. There are means available for Ministers and departments to amend appropriations to meet changing circumstances e.g., in an emergency. This is done lawfully through the granting of Imprest Supply. As I understand it, such due process had not been observed so the re-appropriation of funds was, technically, unlawful.
Some might speculate/believe the government had at the time thought/decided its overwhelming parliamentary majority was sufficient authorisation in itself,
Which is a long winded description of arrogance. Never use a long sentence when one word will do.
and a little judicious pragmatism would pass sweetly under the radar - "nod-nod, wink-wink, say no more". Quite so, but I am indifferent to such speculation since, in essence, the "error" was a technical lacuna involving not the theft, but the unauthorised reallocation or misallocation of government funds owned wholly and solely by the government itself - IOW, the owner cannot steal from himself. This is why the government's behaviour cannot be illegal.
The money was lawfully allocated for housing. It was then unlawfully misappropriated for the purpose of buying land and giving it to some noisy malcontents. To wit, the money was stolen from the housing appropriation.
BTW, "taxpayer money" is the money remaining in the taxpayer's possession after tax is paid. So, whatever anyone's take on it, no taxpayer money had been stolen, reallocated or misallocated, neither had any such risk been incurred.
Wrong again. That $29mil of formerly public money is now in the hands of Fletchers, and its shareholders. When some money goes, unlawfully, from one entity to another, that is theft.
Considering ALL money the government spends come through various channels from the taxpayer it's fairly obvious Keith is just blowing smoke in his denial it is taxpayers money :)
I don't know what the percentage of government income from taxation
is, but it is certainly less than 100%.
Correct.
Post by Rich80105
GST is paid by foreigners;
duties, levies, gains on sale of assets, exchange rate effects,
returns from state owned assets, etc. Once paid however it does not
belong to those that paid it - just as money paid by government for NZ
Superannuation and welfare benefits ceases to be government money when
it reaches personal accounts.
(snipped)...I never claimed ALL government money came from taxation... (snipped)
Post by Rich80105
Post by John Bowes
Considering ALL money the government spends come through various channels from the taxpayer...(snip)
Explain.
Thank you for proving my point Keith. Money from taxpayers doesn't necessarily mean it is money from tax and you fucking well know it!
So if this government sells a building that they own overseas and
pocket a profit, which taxpayer did that come from, JohnO?
But you also appear to believe there is only onetaxpayer - why the
reference to "the taxpayer", JohnBowes?
It is a very common expression.
If the government owned a building overseas it was previously
purchased, probably with money from taxation.
Why, oh why, do you and James Christophers delight in teaming up
against people. Nobody else here appears to do that?
Could it be that you do it just for fun and because you are an
anonymous poster?
I'll leave that to you, Nellie
Oh no that will not do.
Your obvious enjoyment is clear. You really do appear to be a waste of
oxygen. Perhaps you should find something worthwhile to do and stop
irritating your betters.
It was your post Nellie that took us off topi to an attack on another
I did no such thing. I asked a question. "Why, oh why, do you and
James Christophers delight in teaming up
against people. Nobody else here appears to do that?
Post by Rich80105
poster.
I look forward to your taking your own advice. To get back to
the subject of the thread, it is clear that nobody has stolen $29mil.
PErhaps the thread has run its course.
If you believe that posts must be so strictly on topic that other
people should ignore bad behaviour then this newsgroup is dead or
dictated to by a few.
You often criticise others, why am I not permitted to do so? (again,
just a question).
The thread will have run its course when the last poster posts to it,
meanwhile why are you so unkind?
Rich80105
2021-04-26 02:19:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 13:55:23 +1200, Nellie the Elephant
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 09:37:36 +1200, Nellie the Elephant
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 15:05:36 +1200, Nellie the Elephant
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 18:38:29 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 18:33:05 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300281951/auditorgeneral-rules-the-299m-the-government-used-to-buy-ihumtao-was-unlawfully-spent
The arrogance of this government is breathtaking.
In practice, what can/should now be done under the laws of New Zealand to set the matter to rights - e.g...
Can the government of New Zealand be sued for conduct subsequently judged unlawful? If so, then by who, since the government would presumably be represented by Crown Law.
Appropriations are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and must be approved by an Act of Parliament. There are means available for Ministers and departments to amend appropriations to meet changing circumstances e.g., in an emergency. This is done lawfully through the granting of Imprest Supply. As I understand it, such due process had not been observed so the re-appropriation of funds was, technically, unlawful.
Some might speculate/believe the government had at the time thought/decided its overwhelming parliamentary majority was sufficient authorisation in itself,
Which is a long winded description of arrogance. Never use a long sentence when one word will do.
and a little judicious pragmatism would pass sweetly under the radar - "nod-nod, wink-wink, say no more". Quite so, but I am indifferent to such speculation since, in essence, the "error" was a technical lacuna involving not the theft, but the unauthorised reallocation or misallocation of government funds owned wholly and solely by the government itself - IOW, the owner cannot steal from himself. This is why the government's behaviour cannot be illegal.
The money was lawfully allocated for housing. It was then unlawfully misappropriated for the purpose of buying land and giving it to some noisy malcontents. To wit, the money was stolen from the housing appropriation.
BTW, "taxpayer money" is the money remaining in the taxpayer's possession after tax is paid. So, whatever anyone's take on it, no taxpayer money had been stolen, reallocated or misallocated, neither had any such risk been incurred.
Wrong again. That $29mil of formerly public money is now in the hands of Fletchers, and its shareholders. When some money goes, unlawfully, from one entity to another, that is theft.
Considering ALL money the government spends come through various channels from the taxpayer it's fairly obvious Keith is just blowing smoke in his denial it is taxpayers money :)
I don't know what the percentage of government income from taxation
is, but it is certainly less than 100%.
Correct.
Post by Rich80105
GST is paid by foreigners;
duties, levies, gains on sale of assets, exchange rate effects,
returns from state owned assets, etc. Once paid however it does not
belong to those that paid it - just as money paid by government for NZ
Superannuation and welfare benefits ceases to be government money when
it reaches personal accounts.
(snipped)...I never claimed ALL government money came from taxation... (snipped)
Post by Rich80105
Post by John Bowes
Considering ALL money the government spends come through various channels from the taxpayer...(snip)
Explain.
Thank you for proving my point Keith. Money from taxpayers doesn't necessarily mean it is money from tax and you fucking well know it!
So if this government sells a building that they own overseas and
pocket a profit, which taxpayer did that come from, JohnO?
But you also appear to believe there is only onetaxpayer - why the
reference to "the taxpayer", JohnBowes?
It is a very common expression.
If the government owned a building overseas it was previously
purchased, probably with money from taxation.
Why, oh why, do you and James Christophers delight in teaming up
against people. Nobody else here appears to do that?
Could it be that you do it just for fun and because you are an
anonymous poster?
I'll leave that to you, Nellie
Oh no that will not do.
Your obvious enjoyment is clear. You really do appear to be a waste of
oxygen. Perhaps you should find something worthwhile to do and stop
irritating your betters.
It was your post Nellie that took us off topi to an attack on another
I did no such thing. I asked a question. "Why, oh why, do you and
James Christophers delight in teaming up
against people. Nobody else here appears to do that?
And doubtless you felt justified in that post, although I point out
that it was off-topic
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Rich80105
poster.
I look forward to your taking your own advice. To get back to
the subject of the thread, it is clear that nobody has stolen $29mil.
PErhaps the thread has run its course.
If you believe that posts must be so strictly on topic that other
people should ignore bad behaviour then this newsgroup is dead or
dictated to by a few.
Since you had irritated your betters, I felt that my comment was
appropriate. If you believe there has been bad behaviour then you
should perhaps address it more directly, and identify specific
examples of a post that you object to - all you appeareed to do was
attempt to criticise other posters who had at least been addressing
the topic and argument put forward by other posters - in particular
the concept that there is an entity that can reasonably be described
as 'the taxpayer'.
Post by Nellie the Elephant
You often criticise others, why am I not permitted to do so? (again,
just a question).
Of course you can. But your post gave an example of the behaviour you
appeared to be trying to criticise - and was clearly off topic.
Post by Nellie the Elephant
The thread will have run its course when the last poster posts to it,
meanwhile why are you so unkind?
Unkind? I was pointing out that
James Christophers
2021-04-26 03:34:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 09:37:36 +1200, Nellie the Elephant
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 15:05:36 +1200, Nellie the Elephant
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 18:38:29 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 18:33:05 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300281951/auditorgeneral-rules-the-299m-the-government-used-to-buy-ihumtao-was-unlawfully-spent
The arrogance of this government is breathtaking.
In practice, what can/should now be done under the laws of New Zealand to set the matter to rights - e.g...
Can the government of New Zealand be sued for conduct subsequently judged unlawful? If so, then by who, since the government would presumably be represented by Crown Law.
Appropriations are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and must be approved by an Act of Parliament. There are means available for Ministers and departments to amend appropriations to meet changing circumstances e.g., in an emergency. This is done lawfully through the granting of Imprest Supply. As I understand it, such due process had not been observed so the re-appropriation of funds was, technically, unlawful.
Some might speculate/believe the government had at the time thought/decided its overwhelming parliamentary majority was sufficient authorisation in itself,
Which is a long winded description of arrogance. Never use a long sentence when one word will do.
and a little judicious pragmatism would pass sweetly under the radar - "nod-nod, wink-wink, say no more". Quite so, but I am indifferent to such speculation since, in essence, the "error" was a technical lacuna involving not the theft, but the unauthorised reallocation or misallocation of government funds owned wholly and solely by the government itself - IOW, the owner cannot steal from himself. This is why the government's behaviour cannot be illegal.
The money was lawfully allocated for housing. It was then unlawfully misappropriated for the purpose of buying land and giving it to some noisy malcontents. To wit, the money was stolen from the housing appropriation.
BTW, "taxpayer money" is the money remaining in the taxpayer's possession after tax is paid. So, whatever anyone's take on it, no taxpayer money had been stolen, reallocated or misallocated, neither had any such risk been incurred.
Wrong again. That $29mil of formerly public money is now in the hands of Fletchers, and its shareholders. When some money goes, unlawfully, from one entity to another, that is theft.
Considering ALL money the government spends come through various channels from the taxpayer it's fairly obvious Keith is just blowing smoke in his denial it is taxpayers money :)
I don't know what the percentage of government income from taxation
is, but it is certainly less than 100%.
Correct.
Post by Rich80105
GST is paid by foreigners;
duties, levies, gains on sale of assets, exchange rate effects,
returns from state owned assets, etc. Once paid however it does not
belong to those that paid it - just as money paid by government for NZ
Superannuation and welfare benefits ceases to be government money when
it reaches personal accounts.
(snipped)...I never claimed ALL government money came from taxation... (snipped)
Post by Rich80105
Post by John Bowes
Considering ALL money the government spends come through various channels from the taxpayer...(snip)
Explain.
Thank you for proving my point Keith. Money from taxpayers doesn't necessarily mean it is money from tax and you fucking well know it!
So if this government sells a building that they own overseas and
pocket a profit, which taxpayer did that come from, JohnO?
But you also appear to believe there is only onetaxpayer - why the
reference to "the taxpayer", JohnBowes?
It is a very common expression.
If the government owned a building overseas it was previously
purchased, probably with money from taxation.
Why, oh why, do you and James Christophers delight in teaming up
against people. Nobody else here appears to do that?
Could it be that you do it just for fun and because you are an
anonymous poster?
I'll leave that to you, Nellie
Oh no that will not do.
Your obvious enjoyment is clear. You really do appear to be a waste of
oxygen. Perhaps you should find something worthwhile to do and stop
irritating your betters.
It was your post Nellie that took us off topi to an attack on another
poster. I look forward to your taking your own advice. To get back to
the subject of the thread, it is clear that nobody has stolen $29mil.
PErhaps the thread has run its course.
Now in ruins, JohnO's thread can now carry on till Kingdom Come for all I care. **The topic itself** was, effectively, ended in a post time-stamped Apr 24, 2021, 3:05:44 PM (2 days ago). BTW the same contributor also suggested I had been "teaming up" with another writer.[1]

Since Apr 24, 2021, 3:05:44 PM (2 days ago), there have been 8 further posts prior to this one, none of them directly to do with JohnO's original topic.

Make of that what each of you will.

[1] Teaming up implies organised collusion. There is no such collusion whatever, only coincidences, inevitable during the development of any purposeful discourse involving three or more participants.
JohnO
2021-04-27 00:20:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 09:37:36 +1200, Nellie the Elephant
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 15:05:36 +1200, Nellie the Elephant
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 18:38:29 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 18:33:05 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300281951/auditorgeneral-rules-the-299m-the-government-used-to-buy-ihumtao-was-unlawfully-spent
The arrogance of this government is breathtaking.
In practice, what can/should now be done under the laws of New Zealand to set the matter to rights - e.g...
Can the government of New Zealand be sued for conduct subsequently judged unlawful? If so, then by who, since the government would presumably be represented by Crown Law.
Appropriations are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and must be approved by an Act of Parliament. There are means available for Ministers and departments to amend appropriations to meet changing circumstances e.g., in an emergency. This is done lawfully through the granting of Imprest Supply. As I understand it, such due process had not been observed so the re-appropriation of funds was, technically, unlawful.
Some might speculate/believe the government had at the time thought/decided its overwhelming parliamentary majority was sufficient authorisation in itself,
Which is a long winded description of arrogance. Never use a long sentence when one word will do.
and a little judicious pragmatism would pass sweetly under the radar - "nod-nod, wink-wink, say no more". Quite so, but I am indifferent to such speculation since, in essence, the "error" was a technical lacuna involving not the theft, but the unauthorised reallocation or misallocation of government funds owned wholly and solely by the government itself - IOW, the owner cannot steal from himself. This is why the government's behaviour cannot be illegal.
The money was lawfully allocated for housing. It was then unlawfully misappropriated for the purpose of buying land and giving it to some noisy malcontents. To wit, the money was stolen from the housing appropriation.
BTW, "taxpayer money" is the money remaining in the taxpayer's possession after tax is paid. So, whatever anyone's take on it, no taxpayer money had been stolen, reallocated or misallocated, neither had any such risk been incurred.
Wrong again. That $29mil of formerly public money is now in the hands of Fletchers, and its shareholders. When some money goes, unlawfully, from one entity to another, that is theft.
Considering ALL money the government spends come through various channels from the taxpayer it's fairly obvious Keith is just blowing smoke in his denial it is taxpayers money :)
I don't know what the percentage of government income from taxation
is, but it is certainly less than 100%.
Correct.
Post by Rich80105
GST is paid by foreigners;
duties, levies, gains on sale of assets, exchange rate effects,
returns from state owned assets, etc. Once paid however it does not
belong to those that paid it - just as money paid by government for NZ
Superannuation and welfare benefits ceases to be government money when
it reaches personal accounts.
(snipped)...I never claimed ALL government money came from taxation... (snipped)
Post by Rich80105
Post by John Bowes
Considering ALL money the government spends come through various channels from the taxpayer...(snip)
Explain.
Thank you for proving my point Keith. Money from taxpayers doesn't necessarily mean it is money from tax and you fucking well know it!
So if this government sells a building that they own overseas and
pocket a profit, which taxpayer did that come from, JohnO?
But you also appear to believe there is only onetaxpayer - why the
reference to "the taxpayer", JohnBowes?
It is a very common expression.
If the government owned a building overseas it was previously
purchased, probably with money from taxation.
Why, oh why, do you and James Christophers delight in teaming up
against people. Nobody else here appears to do that?
Could it be that you do it just for fun and because you are an
anonymous poster?
I'll leave that to you, Nellie
Oh no that will not do.
Your obvious enjoyment is clear. You really do appear to be a waste of
oxygen. Perhaps you should find something worthwhile to do and stop
irritating your betters.
It was your post Nellie that took us off topi to an attack on another
poster. I look forward to your taking your own advice. To get back to
the subject of the thread, it is clear that nobody has stolen $29mil.
PErhaps the thread has run its course.
Now in ruins, JohnO's thread can now carry on till Kingdom Come for all I care. **The topic itself** was, effectively, ended in a post time-stamped Apr 24, 2021, 3:05:44 PM (2 days ago). BTW the same contributor also suggested I had been "teaming up" with another writer.[1]
Since Apr 24, 2021, 3:05:44 PM (2 days ago), there have been 8 further posts prior to this one, none of them directly to do with JohnO's original topic.
Make of that what each of you will.
[1] Teaming up implies organised collusion. There is no such collusion whatever, only coincidences, inevitable during the development of any purposeful discourse involving three or more participants.
I'm surprised that Godwin's Law hasn't prevailed yet!
James Christophers
2021-04-27 04:22:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 09:37:36 +1200, Nellie the Elephant
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 15:05:36 +1200, Nellie the Elephant
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 18:38:29 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 18:33:05 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300281951/auditorgeneral-rules-the-299m-the-government-used-to-buy-ihumtao-was-unlawfully-spent
The arrogance of this government is breathtaking.
In practice, what can/should now be done under the laws of New Zealand to set the matter to rights - e.g...
Can the government of New Zealand be sued for conduct subsequently judged unlawful? If so, then by who, since the government would presumably be represented by Crown Law.
Appropriations are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and must be approved by an Act of Parliament. There are means available for Ministers and departments to amend appropriations to meet changing circumstances e.g., in an emergency. This is done lawfully through the granting of Imprest Supply. As I understand it, such due process had not been observed so the re-appropriation of funds was, technically, unlawful.
Some might speculate/believe the government had at the time thought/decided its overwhelming parliamentary majority was sufficient authorisation in itself,
Which is a long winded description of arrogance. Never use a long sentence when one word will do.
and a little judicious pragmatism would pass sweetly under the radar - "nod-nod, wink-wink, say no more". Quite so, but I am indifferent to such speculation since, in essence, the "error" was a technical lacuna involving not the theft, but the unauthorised reallocation or misallocation of government funds owned wholly and solely by the government itself - IOW, the owner cannot steal from himself. This is why the government's behaviour cannot be illegal.
The money was lawfully allocated for housing. It was then unlawfully misappropriated for the purpose of buying land and giving it to some noisy malcontents. To wit, the money was stolen from the housing appropriation.
BTW, "taxpayer money" is the money remaining in the taxpayer's possession after tax is paid. So, whatever anyone's take on it, no taxpayer money had been stolen, reallocated or misallocated, neither had any such risk been incurred.
Wrong again. That $29mil of formerly public money is now in the hands of Fletchers, and its shareholders. When some money goes, unlawfully, from one entity to another, that is theft.
Considering ALL money the government spends come through various channels from the taxpayer it's fairly obvious Keith is just blowing smoke in his denial it is taxpayers money :)
I don't know what the percentage of government income from taxation
is, but it is certainly less than 100%.
Correct.
Post by Rich80105
GST is paid by foreigners;
duties, levies, gains on sale of assets, exchange rate effects,
returns from state owned assets, etc. Once paid however it does not
belong to those that paid it - just as money paid by government for NZ
Superannuation and welfare benefits ceases to be government money when
it reaches personal accounts.
(snipped)...I never claimed ALL government money came from taxation... (snipped)
Post by Rich80105
Post by John Bowes
Considering ALL money the government spends come through various channels from the taxpayer...(snip)
Explain.
Thank you for proving my point Keith. Money from taxpayers doesn't necessarily mean it is money from tax and you fucking well know it!
So if this government sells a building that they own overseas and
pocket a profit, which taxpayer did that come from, JohnO?
But you also appear to believe there is only onetaxpayer - why the
reference to "the taxpayer", JohnBowes?
It is a very common expression.
If the government owned a building overseas it was previously
purchased, probably with money from taxation.
Why, oh why, do you and James Christophers delight in teaming up
against people. Nobody else here appears to do that?
Could it be that you do it just for fun and because you are an
anonymous poster?
I'll leave that to you, Nellie
Oh no that will not do.
Your obvious enjoyment is clear. You really do appear to be a waste of
oxygen. Perhaps you should find something worthwhile to do and stop
irritating your betters.
It was your post Nellie that took us off topi to an attack on another
poster. I look forward to your taking your own advice. To get back to
the subject of the thread, it is clear that nobody has stolen $29mil.
PErhaps the thread has run its course.
Now in ruins, JohnO's thread can now carry on till Kingdom Come for all I care. **The topic itself** was, effectively, ended in a post time-stamped Apr 24, 2021, 3:05:44 PM (2 days ago). BTW the same contributor also suggested I had been "teaming up" with another writer.[1]
Since Apr 24, 2021, 3:05:44 PM (2 days ago), there have been 8 further posts prior to this one, none of them directly to do with JohnO's original topic.
Make of that what each of you will.
[1] Teaming up implies organised collusion. There is no such collusion whatever, only coincidences, inevitable during the development of any purposeful discourse involving three or more participants.
I'm surprised that Godwin's Law hasn't prevailed yet!
Mmmm...come to think of it, Trentham's comic little jackboot fetishist has also been a mite inattentive just lately...
John Bowes
2021-04-27 21:52:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 09:37:36 +1200, Nellie the Elephant
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 15:05:36 +1200, Nellie the Elephant
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 18:38:29 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 18:33:05 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300281951/auditorgeneral-rules-the-299m-the-government-used-to-buy-ihumtao-was-unlawfully-spent
The arrogance of this government is breathtaking.
In practice, what can/should now be done under the laws of New Zealand to set the matter to rights - e.g...
Can the government of New Zealand be sued for conduct subsequently judged unlawful? If so, then by who, since the government would presumably be represented by Crown Law.
Appropriations are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and must be approved by an Act of Parliament. There are means available for Ministers and departments to amend appropriations to meet changing circumstances e.g., in an emergency. This is done lawfully through the granting of Imprest Supply. As I understand it, such due process had not been observed so the re-appropriation of funds was, technically, unlawful.
Some might speculate/believe the government had at the time thought/decided its overwhelming parliamentary majority was sufficient authorisation in itself,
Which is a long winded description of arrogance. Never use a long sentence when one word will do.
and a little judicious pragmatism would pass sweetly under the radar - "nod-nod, wink-wink, say no more". Quite so, but I am indifferent to such speculation since, in essence, the "error" was a technical lacuna involving not the theft, but the unauthorised reallocation or misallocation of government funds owned wholly and solely by the government itself - IOW, the owner cannot steal from himself. This is why the government's behaviour cannot be illegal.
The money was lawfully allocated for housing. It was then unlawfully misappropriated for the purpose of buying land and giving it to some noisy malcontents. To wit, the money was stolen from the housing appropriation.
BTW, "taxpayer money" is the money remaining in the taxpayer's possession after tax is paid. So, whatever anyone's take on it, no taxpayer money had been stolen, reallocated or misallocated, neither had any such risk been incurred.
Wrong again. That $29mil of formerly public money is now in the hands of Fletchers, and its shareholders. When some money goes, unlawfully, from one entity to another, that is theft.
Considering ALL money the government spends come through various channels from the taxpayer it's fairly obvious Keith is just blowing smoke in his denial it is taxpayers money :)
I don't know what the percentage of government income from taxation
is, but it is certainly less than 100%.
Correct.
Post by Rich80105
GST is paid by foreigners;
duties, levies, gains on sale of assets, exchange rate effects,
returns from state owned assets, etc. Once paid however it does not
belong to those that paid it - just as money paid by government for NZ
Superannuation and welfare benefits ceases to be government money when
it reaches personal accounts.
(snipped)...I never claimed ALL government money came from taxation... (snipped)
Post by Rich80105
Post by John Bowes
Considering ALL money the government spends come through various channels from the taxpayer...(snip)
Explain.
Thank you for proving my point Keith. Money from taxpayers doesn't necessarily mean it is money from tax and you fucking well know it!
So if this government sells a building that they own overseas and
pocket a profit, which taxpayer did that come from, JohnO?
But you also appear to believe there is only onetaxpayer - why the
reference to "the taxpayer", JohnBowes?
It is a very common expression.
If the government owned a building overseas it was previously
purchased, probably with money from taxation.
Why, oh why, do you and James Christophers delight in teaming up
against people. Nobody else here appears to do that?
Could it be that you do it just for fun and because you are an
anonymous poster?
I'll leave that to you, Nellie
Oh no that will not do.
Your obvious enjoyment is clear. You really do appear to be a waste of
oxygen. Perhaps you should find something worthwhile to do and stop
irritating your betters.
It was your post Nellie that took us off topi to an attack on another
poster. I look forward to your taking your own advice. To get back to
the subject of the thread, it is clear that nobody has stolen $29mil.
PErhaps the thread has run its course.
Now in ruins, JohnO's thread can now carry on till Kingdom Come for all I care. **The topic itself** was, effectively, ended in a post time-stamped Apr 24, 2021, 3:05:44 PM (2 days ago). BTW the same contributor also suggested I had been "teaming up" with another writer.[1]
Since Apr 24, 2021, 3:05:44 PM (2 days ago), there have been 8 further posts prior to this one, none of them directly to do with JohnO's original topic.
Make of that what each of you will.
[1] Teaming up implies organised collusion. There is no such collusion whatever, only coincidences, inevitable during the development of any purposeful discourse involving three or more participants.
I'm surprised that Godwin's Law hasn't prevailed yet!
Mmmm...come to think of it, Trentham's comic little jackboot fetishist has also been a mite inattentive just lately...
Pity the pommie comedian can't be sensible for once in his jackbooted life..
Rich80105
2021-04-28 03:10:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 14:52:21 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 09:37:36 +1200, Nellie the Elephant
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 15:05:36 +1200, Nellie the Elephant
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 18:38:29 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 18:33:05 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300281951/auditorgeneral-rules-the-299m-the-government-used-to-buy-ihumtao-was-unlawfully-spent
The arrogance of this government is breathtaking.
In practice, what can/should now be done under the laws of New Zealand to set the matter to rights - e.g...
Can the government of New Zealand be sued for conduct subsequently judged unlawful? If so, then by who, since the government would presumably be represented by Crown Law.
Appropriations are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and must be approved by an Act of Parliament. There are means available for Ministers and departments to amend appropriations to meet changing circumstances e.g., in an emergency. This is done lawfully through the granting of Imprest Supply. As I understand it, such due process had not been observed so the re-appropriation of funds was, technically, unlawful.
Some might speculate/believe the government had at the time thought/decided its overwhelming parliamentary majority was sufficient authorisation in itself,
Which is a long winded description of arrogance. Never use a long sentence when one word will do.
and a little judicious pragmatism would pass sweetly under the radar - "nod-nod, wink-wink, say no more". Quite so, but I am indifferent to such speculation since, in essence, the "error" was a technical lacuna involving not the theft, but the unauthorised reallocation or misallocation of government funds owned wholly and solely by the government itself - IOW, the owner cannot steal from himself. This is why the government's behaviour cannot be illegal.
The money was lawfully allocated for housing. It was then unlawfully misappropriated for the purpose of buying land and giving it to some noisy malcontents. To wit, the money was stolen from the housing appropriation.
BTW, "taxpayer money" is the money remaining in the taxpayer's possession after tax is paid. So, whatever anyone's take on it, no taxpayer money had been stolen, reallocated or misallocated, neither had any such risk been incurred.
Wrong again. That $29mil of formerly public money is now in the hands of Fletchers, and its shareholders. When some money goes, unlawfully, from one entity to another, that is theft.
Considering ALL money the government spends come through various channels from the taxpayer it's fairly obvious Keith is just blowing smoke in his denial it is taxpayers money :)
I don't know what the percentage of government income from taxation
is, but it is certainly less than 100%.
Correct.
Post by Rich80105
GST is paid by foreigners;
duties, levies, gains on sale of assets, exchange rate effects,
returns from state owned assets, etc. Once paid however it does not
belong to those that paid it - just as money paid by government for NZ
Superannuation and welfare benefits ceases to be government money when
it reaches personal accounts.
(snipped)...I never claimed ALL government money came from taxation... (snipped)
Post by Rich80105
Post by John Bowes
Considering ALL money the government spends come through various channels from the taxpayer...(snip)
Explain.
Thank you for proving my point Keith. Money from taxpayers doesn't necessarily mean it is money from tax and you fucking well know it!
So if this government sells a building that they own overseas and
pocket a profit, which taxpayer did that come from, JohnO?
But you also appear to believe there is only onetaxpayer - why the
reference to "the taxpayer", JohnBowes?
It is a very common expression.
If the government owned a building overseas it was previously
purchased, probably with money from taxation.
Why, oh why, do you and James Christophers delight in teaming up
against people. Nobody else here appears to do that?
Could it be that you do it just for fun and because you are an
anonymous poster?
I'll leave that to you, Nellie
Oh no that will not do.
Your obvious enjoyment is clear. You really do appear to be a waste of
oxygen. Perhaps you should find something worthwhile to do and stop
irritating your betters.
It was your post Nellie that took us off topi to an attack on another
poster. I look forward to your taking your own advice. To get back to
the subject of the thread, it is clear that nobody has stolen $29mil.
PErhaps the thread has run its course.
Now in ruins, JohnO's thread can now carry on till Kingdom Come for all I care. **The topic itself** was, effectively, ended in a post time-stamped Apr 24, 2021, 3:05:44 PM (2 days ago). BTW the same contributor also suggested I had been "teaming up" with another writer.[1]
Since Apr 24, 2021, 3:05:44 PM (2 days ago), there have been 8 further posts prior to this one, none of them directly to do with JohnO's original topic.
Make of that what each of you will.
[1] Teaming up implies organised collusion. There is no such collusion whatever, only coincidences, inevitable during the development of any purposeful discourse involving three or more participants.
I'm surprised that Godwin's Law hasn't prevailed yet!
Mmmm...come to think of it, Trentham's comic little jackboot fetishist has also been a mite inattentive just lately...
Pity the pommie comedian can't be sensible for once in his jackbooted life..
Which sadly does not add any value to the discussion - it is still
clear that nobody has stolen $29 million.
John Bowes
2021-04-28 04:51:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 14:52:21 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 09:37:36 +1200, Nellie the Elephant
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 15:05:36 +1200, Nellie the Elephant
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 18:38:29 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 18:33:05 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300281951/auditorgeneral-rules-the-299m-the-government-used-to-buy-ihumtao-was-unlawfully-spent
The arrogance of this government is breathtaking.
In practice, what can/should now be done under the laws of New Zealand to set the matter to rights - e.g...
Can the government of New Zealand be sued for conduct subsequently judged unlawful? If so, then by who, since the government would presumably be represented by Crown Law.
Appropriations are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and must be approved by an Act of Parliament. There are means available for Ministers and departments to amend appropriations to meet changing circumstances e.g., in an emergency. This is done lawfully through the granting of Imprest Supply. As I understand it, such due process had not been observed so the re-appropriation of funds was, technically, unlawful.
Some might speculate/believe the government had at the time thought/decided its overwhelming parliamentary majority was sufficient authorisation in itself,
Which is a long winded description of arrogance. Never use a long sentence when one word will do.
and a little judicious pragmatism would pass sweetly under the radar - "nod-nod, wink-wink, say no more". Quite so, but I am indifferent to such speculation since, in essence, the "error" was a technical lacuna involving not the theft, but the unauthorised reallocation or misallocation of government funds owned wholly and solely by the government itself - IOW, the owner cannot steal from himself. This is why the government's behaviour cannot be illegal.
The money was lawfully allocated for housing. It was then unlawfully misappropriated for the purpose of buying land and giving it to some noisy malcontents. To wit, the money was stolen from the housing appropriation.
BTW, "taxpayer money" is the money remaining in the taxpayer's possession after tax is paid. So, whatever anyone's take on it, no taxpayer money had been stolen, reallocated or misallocated, neither had any such risk been incurred.
Wrong again. That $29mil of formerly public money is now in the hands of Fletchers, and its shareholders. When some money goes, unlawfully, from one entity to another, that is theft.
Considering ALL money the government spends come through various channels from the taxpayer it's fairly obvious Keith is just blowing smoke in his denial it is taxpayers money :)
I don't know what the percentage of government income from taxation
is, but it is certainly less than 100%.
Correct.
Post by Rich80105
GST is paid by foreigners;
duties, levies, gains on sale of assets, exchange rate effects,
returns from state owned assets, etc. Once paid however it does not
belong to those that paid it - just as money paid by government for NZ
Superannuation and welfare benefits ceases to be government money when
it reaches personal accounts.
(snipped)...I never claimed ALL government money came from taxation... (snipped)
Post by Rich80105
Post by John Bowes
Considering ALL money the government spends come through various channels from the taxpayer...(snip)
Explain.
Thank you for proving my point Keith. Money from taxpayers doesn't necessarily mean it is money from tax and you fucking well know it!
So if this government sells a building that they own overseas and
pocket a profit, which taxpayer did that come from, JohnO?
But you also appear to believe there is only onetaxpayer - why the
reference to "the taxpayer", JohnBowes?
It is a very common expression.
If the government owned a building overseas it was previously
purchased, probably with money from taxation.
Why, oh why, do you and James Christophers delight in teaming up
against people. Nobody else here appears to do that?
Could it be that you do it just for fun and because you are an
anonymous poster?
I'll leave that to you, Nellie
Oh no that will not do.
Your obvious enjoyment is clear. You really do appear to be a waste of
oxygen. Perhaps you should find something worthwhile to do and stop
irritating your betters.
It was your post Nellie that took us off topi to an attack on another
poster. I look forward to your taking your own advice. To get back to
the subject of the thread, it is clear that nobody has stolen $29mil.
PErhaps the thread has run its course.
Now in ruins, JohnO's thread can now carry on till Kingdom Come for all I care. **The topic itself** was, effectively, ended in a post time-stamped Apr 24, 2021, 3:05:44 PM (2 days ago). BTW the same contributor also suggested I had been "teaming up" with another writer.[1]
Since Apr 24, 2021, 3:05:44 PM (2 days ago), there have been 8 further posts prior to this one, none of them directly to do with JohnO's original topic.
Make of that what each of you will.
[1] Teaming up implies organised collusion. There is no such collusion whatever, only coincidences, inevitable during the development of any purposeful discourse involving three or more participants.
I'm surprised that Godwin's Law hasn't prevailed yet!
Mmmm...come to think of it, Trentham's comic little jackboot fetishist has also been a mite inattentive just lately...
Pity the pommie comedian can't be sensible for once in his jackbooted life..
Which sadly does not add any value to the discussion - it is still
clear that nobody has stolen $29 million.
It adds as much as you and Keith have ever added Rich and is the $29 may not have been stolen but it didn't follow accepted or legal parliamentary rules. Much like Clark's misappropriation of money from the Prime Minister fund to fund an election Rich. Considering Labours record of disregarding legal requirements it probably explains why they're soft on crime and dodgy bastards like you and Keith support them :)
James Christophers
2021-04-28 06:08:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 14:52:21 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 09:37:36 +1200, Nellie the Elephant
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 15:05:36 +1200, Nellie the Elephant
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 18:38:29 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 18:33:05 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300281951/auditorgeneral-rules-the-299m-the-government-used-to-buy-ihumtao-was-unlawfully-spent
The arrogance of this government is breathtaking.
In practice, what can/should now be done under the laws of New Zealand to set the matter to rights - e.g...
Can the government of New Zealand be sued for conduct subsequently judged unlawful? If so, then by who, since the government would presumably be represented by Crown Law.
Appropriations are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and must be approved by an Act of Parliament. There are means available for Ministers and departments to amend appropriations to meet changing circumstances e.g., in an emergency. This is done lawfully through the granting of Imprest Supply. As I understand it, such due process had not been observed so the re-appropriation of funds was, technically, unlawful.
Some might speculate/believe the government had at the time thought/decided its overwhelming parliamentary majority was sufficient authorisation in itself,
Which is a long winded description of arrogance. Never use a long sentence when one word will do.
and a little judicious pragmatism would pass sweetly under the radar - "nod-nod, wink-wink, say no more". Quite so, but I am indifferent to such speculation since, in essence, the "error" was a technical lacuna involving not the theft, but the unauthorised reallocation or misallocation of government funds owned wholly and solely by the government itself - IOW, the owner cannot steal from himself. This is why the government's behaviour cannot be illegal.
The money was lawfully allocated for housing. It was then unlawfully misappropriated for the purpose of buying land and giving it to some noisy malcontents. To wit, the money was stolen from the housing appropriation.
BTW, "taxpayer money" is the money remaining in the taxpayer's possession after tax is paid. So, whatever anyone's take on it, no taxpayer money had been stolen, reallocated or misallocated, neither had any such risk been incurred.
Wrong again. That $29mil of formerly public money is now in the hands of Fletchers, and its shareholders. When some money goes, unlawfully, from one entity to another, that is theft.
Considering ALL money the government spends come through various channels from the taxpayer it's fairly obvious Keith is just blowing smoke in his denial it is taxpayers money :)
I don't know what the percentage of government income from taxation
is, but it is certainly less than 100%.
Correct.
Post by Rich80105
GST is paid by foreigners;
duties, levies, gains on sale of assets, exchange rate effects,
returns from state owned assets, etc. Once paid however it does not
belong to those that paid it - just as money paid by government for NZ
Superannuation and welfare benefits ceases to be government money when
it reaches personal accounts.
(snipped)...I never claimed ALL government money came from taxation... (snipped)
Post by Rich80105
Post by John Bowes
Considering ALL money the government spends come through various channels from the taxpayer...(snip)
Explain.
Thank you for proving my point Keith. Money from taxpayers doesn't necessarily mean it is money from tax and you fucking well know it!
So if this government sells a building that they own overseas and
pocket a profit, which taxpayer did that come from, JohnO?
But you also appear to believe there is only onetaxpayer - why the
reference to "the taxpayer", JohnBowes?
It is a very common expression.
If the government owned a building overseas it was previously
purchased, probably with money from taxation.
Why, oh why, do you and James Christophers delight in teaming up
against people. Nobody else here appears to do that?
Could it be that you do it just for fun and because you are an
anonymous poster?
I'll leave that to you, Nellie
Oh no that will not do.
Your obvious enjoyment is clear. You really do appear to be a waste of
oxygen. Perhaps you should find something worthwhile to do and stop
irritating your betters.
It was your post Nellie that took us off topi to an attack on another
poster. I look forward to your taking your own advice. To get back to
the subject of the thread, it is clear that nobody has stolen $29mil.
PErhaps the thread has run its course.
Now in ruins, JohnO's thread can now carry on till Kingdom Come for all I care. **The topic itself** was, effectively, ended in a post time-stamped Apr 24, 2021, 3:05:44 PM (2 days ago). BTW the same contributor also suggested I had been "teaming up" with another writer.[1]
Since Apr 24, 2021, 3:05:44 PM (2 days ago), there have been 8 further posts prior to this one, none of them directly to do with JohnO's original topic.
Make of that what each of you will.
[1] Teaming up implies organised collusion. There is no such collusion whatever, only coincidences, inevitable during the development of any purposeful discourse involving three or more participants.
I'm surprised that Godwin's Law hasn't prevailed yet!
...the $29 may not have been stolen but it didn't follow accepted or legal parliamentary rules.
Nevertheless, the government's error of **re-appropriation** can be formally regularised by validation under the authority of Paliament. The AG says so. End of. If anyone has issues with this, then take it up with him and let us know how you get on.

So, just once more for old time's sake: The incident centres on an administrative in-house irregularity, not a criminal act of theft, otherwise the AG and Mr Plod would have had a lot more to say about it!
John Bowes
2021-04-28 12:27:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 14:52:21 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 09:37:36 +1200, Nellie the Elephant
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 15:05:36 +1200, Nellie the Elephant
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 18:38:29 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 18:33:05 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300281951/auditorgeneral-rules-the-299m-the-government-used-to-buy-ihumtao-was-unlawfully-spent
The arrogance of this government is breathtaking.
In practice, what can/should now be done under the laws of New Zealand to set the matter to rights - e.g...
Can the government of New Zealand be sued for conduct subsequently judged unlawful? If so, then by who, since the government would presumably be represented by Crown Law.
Appropriations are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and must be approved by an Act of Parliament. There are means available for Ministers and departments to amend appropriations to meet changing circumstances e.g., in an emergency. This is done lawfully through the granting of Imprest Supply. As I understand it, such due process had not been observed so the re-appropriation of funds was, technically, unlawful.
Some might speculate/believe the government had at the time thought/decided its overwhelming parliamentary majority was sufficient authorisation in itself,
Which is a long winded description of arrogance. Never use a long sentence when one word will do.
and a little judicious pragmatism would pass sweetly under the radar - "nod-nod, wink-wink, say no more". Quite so, but I am indifferent to such speculation since, in essence, the "error" was a technical lacuna involving not the theft, but the unauthorised reallocation or misallocation of government funds owned wholly and solely by the government itself - IOW, the owner cannot steal from himself. This is why the government's behaviour cannot be illegal.
The money was lawfully allocated for housing. It was then unlawfully misappropriated for the purpose of buying land and giving it to some noisy malcontents. To wit, the money was stolen from the housing appropriation.
BTW, "taxpayer money" is the money remaining in the taxpayer's possession after tax is paid. So, whatever anyone's take on it, no taxpayer money had been stolen, reallocated or misallocated, neither had any such risk been incurred.
Wrong again. That $29mil of formerly public money is now in the hands of Fletchers, and its shareholders. When some money goes, unlawfully, from one entity to another, that is theft.
Considering ALL money the government spends come through various channels from the taxpayer it's fairly obvious Keith is just blowing smoke in his denial it is taxpayers money :)
I don't know what the percentage of government income from taxation
is, but it is certainly less than 100%.
Correct.
Post by Rich80105
GST is paid by foreigners;
duties, levies, gains on sale of assets, exchange rate effects,
returns from state owned assets, etc. Once paid however it does not
belong to those that paid it - just as money paid by government for NZ
Superannuation and welfare benefits ceases to be government money when
it reaches personal accounts.
(snipped)...I never claimed ALL government money came from taxation... (snipped)
Post by Rich80105
Post by John Bowes
Considering ALL money the government spends come through various channels from the taxpayer...(snip)
Explain.
Thank you for proving my point Keith. Money from taxpayers doesn't necessarily mean it is money from tax and you fucking well know it!
So if this government sells a building that they own overseas and
pocket a profit, which taxpayer did that come from, JohnO?
But you also appear to believe there is only onetaxpayer - why the
reference to "the taxpayer", JohnBowes?
It is a very common expression.
If the government owned a building overseas it was previously
purchased, probably with money from taxation.
Why, oh why, do you and James Christophers delight in teaming up
against people. Nobody else here appears to do that?
Could it be that you do it just for fun and because you are an
anonymous poster?
I'll leave that to you, Nellie
Oh no that will not do.
Your obvious enjoyment is clear. You really do appear to be a waste of
oxygen. Perhaps you should find something worthwhile to do and stop
irritating your betters.
It was your post Nellie that took us off topi to an attack on another
poster. I look forward to your taking your own advice. To get back to
the subject of the thread, it is clear that nobody has stolen $29mil.
PErhaps the thread has run its course.
Now in ruins, JohnO's thread can now carry on till Kingdom Come for all I care. **The topic itself** was, effectively, ended in a post time-stamped Apr 24, 2021, 3:05:44 PM (2 days ago). BTW the same contributor also suggested I had been "teaming up" with another writer.[1]
Since Apr 24, 2021, 3:05:44 PM (2 days ago), there have been 8 further posts prior to this one, none of them directly to do with JohnO's original topic.
Make of that what each of you will.
[1] Teaming up implies organised collusion. There is no such collusion whatever, only coincidences, inevitable during the development of any purposeful discourse involving three or more participants.
I'm surprised that Godwin's Law hasn't prevailed yet!
...the $29 may not have been stolen but it didn't follow accepted or legal parliamentary rules.
Nevertheless, the government's error of **re-appropriation** can be formally regularised by validation under the authority of Paliament. The AG says so. End of. If anyone has issues with this, then take it up with him and let us know how you get on.
So, just once more for old time's sake: The incident centres on an administrative in-house irregularity, not a criminal act of theft, otherwise the AG and Mr Plod would have had a lot more to say about it!
Makes no fucking difference what they can do Keith. The fact remains that once again Labour has ignored parliaments own rules and nothing you can say to try and change the facts is just bullshit Keith and you fucking know it!

Paliament? Your dementia playing up again Keith? :)
James Christophers
2021-04-28 23:00:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 14:52:21 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 09:37:36 +1200, Nellie the Elephant
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 15:05:36 +1200, Nellie the Elephant
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 18:38:29 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 18:33:05 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300281951/auditorgeneral-rules-the-299m-the-government-used-to-buy-ihumtao-was-unlawfully-spent
The arrogance of this government is breathtaking.
In practice, what can/should now be done under the laws of New Zealand to set the matter to rights - e.g...
Can the government of New Zealand be sued for conduct subsequently judged unlawful? If so, then by who, since the government would presumably be represented by Crown Law.
Appropriations are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and must be approved by an Act of Parliament. There are means available for Ministers and departments to amend appropriations to meet changing circumstances e.g., in an emergency. This is done lawfully through the granting of Imprest Supply. As I understand it, such due process had not been observed so the re-appropriation of funds was, technically, unlawful.
Some might speculate/believe the government had at the time thought/decided its overwhelming parliamentary majority was sufficient authorisation in itself,
Which is a long winded description of arrogance. Never use a long sentence when one word will do.
and a little judicious pragmatism would pass sweetly under the radar - "nod-nod, wink-wink, say no more". Quite so, but I am indifferent to such speculation since, in essence, the "error" was a technical lacuna involving not the theft, but the unauthorised reallocation or misallocation of government funds owned wholly and solely by the government itself - IOW, the owner cannot steal from himself. This is why the government's behaviour cannot be illegal.
The money was lawfully allocated for housing. It was then unlawfully misappropriated for the purpose of buying land and giving it to some noisy malcontents. To wit, the money was stolen from the housing appropriation.
BTW, "taxpayer money" is the money remaining in the taxpayer's possession after tax is paid. So, whatever anyone's take on it, no taxpayer money had been stolen, reallocated or misallocated, neither had any such risk been incurred.
Wrong again. That $29mil of formerly public money is now in the hands of Fletchers, and its shareholders. When some money goes, unlawfully, from one entity to another, that is theft.
Considering ALL money the government spends come through various channels from the taxpayer it's fairly obvious Keith is just blowing smoke in his denial it is taxpayers money :)
I don't know what the percentage of government income from taxation
is, but it is certainly less than 100%.
Correct.
Post by Rich80105
GST is paid by foreigners;
duties, levies, gains on sale of assets, exchange rate effects,
returns from state owned assets, etc. Once paid however it does not
belong to those that paid it - just as money paid by government for NZ
Superannuation and welfare benefits ceases to be government money when
it reaches personal accounts.
(snipped)...I never claimed ALL government money came from taxation... (snipped)
Post by Rich80105
Post by John Bowes
Considering ALL money the government spends come through various channels from the taxpayer...(snip)
Explain.
Thank you for proving my point Keith. Money from taxpayers doesn't necessarily mean it is money from tax and you fucking well know it!
So if this government sells a building that they own overseas and
pocket a profit, which taxpayer did that come from, JohnO?
But you also appear to believe there is only onetaxpayer - why the
reference to "the taxpayer", JohnBowes?
It is a very common expression.
If the government owned a building overseas it was previously
purchased, probably with money from taxation.
Why, oh why, do you and James Christophers delight in teaming up
against people. Nobody else here appears to do that?
Could it be that you do it just for fun and because you are an
anonymous poster?
I'll leave that to you, Nellie
Oh no that will not do.
Your obvious enjoyment is clear. You really do appear to be a waste of
oxygen. Perhaps you should find something worthwhile to do and stop
irritating your betters.
It was your post Nellie that took us off topi to an attack on another
poster. I look forward to your taking your own advice. To get back to
the subject of the thread, it is clear that nobody has stolen $29mil.
PErhaps the thread has run its course.
Now in ruins, JohnO's thread can now carry on till Kingdom Come for all I care. **The topic itself** was, effectively, ended in a post time-stamped Apr 24, 2021, 3:05:44 PM (2 days ago). BTW the same contributor also suggested I had been "teaming up" with another writer.[1]
Since Apr 24, 2021, 3:05:44 PM (2 days ago), there have been 8 further posts prior to this one, none of them directly to do with JohnO's original topic.
Make of that what each of you will.
[1] Teaming up implies organised collusion. There is no such collusion whatever, only coincidences, inevitable during the development of any purposeful discourse involving three or more participants.
I'm surprised that Godwin's Law hasn't prevailed yet!
...the $29 may not have been stolen but it didn't follow accepted or legal parliamentary rules.
Nevertheless, the government's error of **re-appropriation** can be formally regularised by validation under the authority of Parliament. The AG says so. End of. If anyone has issues with this, then take it up with him and let us know how you get on.
So, just once more for old time's sake: The incident centres on an administrative in-house irregularity, not a criminal act of theft, otherwise the AG and Mr Plod would have had a lot more to say about it!
Makes no fucking difference what they can do Keith. The fact remains that once again Labour has ignored parliaments own rules and nothing you can say to try and change the facts is just bullshit Keith and you fucking know it!
I have changed nothing. I merely give the facts, ma'am - just the facts, on this occasion these having more to do with pragmatism than anything else. Labour acted to their advantage and in anticipation of the AG's opinion, yet while knowing that retrospective validation could be secured, this 100% guaranteed by their overwhelming parliamentary majority.

You have lost an argument you never had in the first place. Suck it up.
John Bowes
2021-04-29 03:15:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 14:52:21 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 09:37:36 +1200, Nellie the Elephant
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 15:05:36 +1200, Nellie the Elephant
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 18:38:29 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 18:33:05 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300281951/auditorgeneral-rules-the-299m-the-government-used-to-buy-ihumtao-was-unlawfully-spent
The arrogance of this government is breathtaking.
In practice, what can/should now be done under the laws of New Zealand to set the matter to rights - e.g...
Can the government of New Zealand be sued for conduct subsequently judged unlawful? If so, then by who, since the government would presumably be represented by Crown Law.
Appropriations are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and must be approved by an Act of Parliament. There are means available for Ministers and departments to amend appropriations to meet changing circumstances e.g., in an emergency. This is done lawfully through the granting of Imprest Supply. As I understand it, such due process had not been observed so the re-appropriation of funds was, technically, unlawful.
Some might speculate/believe the government had at the time thought/decided its overwhelming parliamentary majority was sufficient authorisation in itself,
Which is a long winded description of arrogance. Never use a long sentence when one word will do.
and a little judicious pragmatism would pass sweetly under the radar - "nod-nod, wink-wink, say no more". Quite so, but I am indifferent to such speculation since, in essence, the "error" was a technical lacuna involving not the theft, but the unauthorised reallocation or misallocation of government funds owned wholly and solely by the government itself - IOW, the owner cannot steal from himself. This is why the government's behaviour cannot be illegal.
The money was lawfully allocated for housing. It was then unlawfully misappropriated for the purpose of buying land and giving it to some noisy malcontents. To wit, the money was stolen from the housing appropriation.
BTW, "taxpayer money" is the money remaining in the taxpayer's possession after tax is paid. So, whatever anyone's take on it, no taxpayer money had been stolen, reallocated or misallocated, neither had any such risk been incurred.
Wrong again. That $29mil of formerly public money is now in the hands of Fletchers, and its shareholders. When some money goes, unlawfully, from one entity to another, that is theft.
Considering ALL money the government spends come through various channels from the taxpayer it's fairly obvious Keith is just blowing smoke in his denial it is taxpayers money :)
I don't know what the percentage of government income from taxation
is, but it is certainly less than 100%.
Correct.
Post by Rich80105
GST is paid by foreigners;
duties, levies, gains on sale of assets, exchange rate effects,
returns from state owned assets, etc. Once paid however it does not
belong to those that paid it - just as money paid by government for NZ
Superannuation and welfare benefits ceases to be government money when
it reaches personal accounts.
(snipped)...I never claimed ALL government money came from taxation... (snipped)
Post by Rich80105
Post by John Bowes
Considering ALL money the government spends come through various channels from the taxpayer...(snip)
Explain.
Thank you for proving my point Keith. Money from taxpayers doesn't necessarily mean it is money from tax and you fucking well know it!
So if this government sells a building that they own overseas and
pocket a profit, which taxpayer did that come from, JohnO?
But you also appear to believe there is only onetaxpayer - why the
reference to "the taxpayer", JohnBowes?
It is a very common expression.
If the government owned a building overseas it was previously
purchased, probably with money from taxation.
Why, oh why, do you and James Christophers delight in teaming up
against people. Nobody else here appears to do that?
Could it be that you do it just for fun and because you are an
anonymous poster?
I'll leave that to you, Nellie
Oh no that will not do.
Your obvious enjoyment is clear. You really do appear to be a waste of
oxygen. Perhaps you should find something worthwhile to do and stop
irritating your betters.
It was your post Nellie that took us off topi to an attack on another
poster. I look forward to your taking your own advice. To get back to
the subject of the thread, it is clear that nobody has stolen $29mil.
PErhaps the thread has run its course.
Now in ruins, JohnO's thread can now carry on till Kingdom Come for all I care. **The topic itself** was, effectively, ended in a post time-stamped Apr 24, 2021, 3:05:44 PM (2 days ago). BTW the same contributor also suggested I had been "teaming up" with another writer.[1]
Since Apr 24, 2021, 3:05:44 PM (2 days ago), there have been 8 further posts prior to this one, none of them directly to do with JohnO's original topic.
Make of that what each of you will.
[1] Teaming up implies organised collusion. There is no such collusion whatever, only coincidences, inevitable during the development of any purposeful discourse involving three or more participants.
I'm surprised that Godwin's Law hasn't prevailed yet!
...the $29 may not have been stolen but it didn't follow accepted or legal parliamentary rules.
Nevertheless, the government's error of **re-appropriation** can be formally regularised by validation under the authority of Parliament. The AG says so. End of. If anyone has issues with this, then take it up with him and let us know how you get on.
So, just once more for old time's sake: The incident centres on an administrative in-house irregularity, not a criminal act of theft, otherwise the AG and Mr Plod would have had a lot more to say about it!
Makes no fucking difference what they can do Keith. The fact remains that once again Labour has ignored parliaments own rules and nothing you can say to try and change the facts is just bullshit Keith and you fucking know it!
I have changed nothing. I merely give the facts, ma'am - just the facts, on this occasion these having more to do with pragmatism than anything else. Labour acted to their advantage and in anticipation of the AG's opinion, yet while knowing that retrospective validation could be secured, this 100% guaranteed by their overwhelming parliamentary majority.
You have lost an argument you never had in the first place. Suck it up.
In anticipation? You jest Keith! Even the AG disagrees with your claim (It's in the first paragraph of the cite!). So as usual you've left inconvenient facts out of your story which lends itself more to Enid blyton or Stuff than any honesty!
JohnO
2021-04-28 05:04:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 14:52:21 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 09:37:36 +1200, Nellie the Elephant
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 15:05:36 +1200, Nellie the Elephant
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 18:38:29 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 18:33:05 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300281951/auditorgeneral-rules-the-299m-the-government-used-to-buy-ihumtao-was-unlawfully-spent
The arrogance of this government is breathtaking.
In practice, what can/should now be done under the laws of New Zealand to set the matter to rights - e.g...
Can the government of New Zealand be sued for conduct subsequently judged unlawful? If so, then by who, since the government would presumably be represented by Crown Law.
Appropriations are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and must be approved by an Act of Parliament. There are means available for Ministers and departments to amend appropriations to meet changing circumstances e.g., in an emergency. This is done lawfully through the granting of Imprest Supply. As I understand it, such due process had not been observed so the re-appropriation of funds was, technically, unlawful.
Some might speculate/believe the government had at the time thought/decided its overwhelming parliamentary majority was sufficient authorisation in itself,
Which is a long winded description of arrogance. Never use a long sentence when one word will do.
and a little judicious pragmatism would pass sweetly under the radar - "nod-nod, wink-wink, say no more". Quite so, but I am indifferent to such speculation since, in essence, the "error" was a technical lacuna involving not the theft, but the unauthorised reallocation or misallocation of government funds owned wholly and solely by the government itself - IOW, the owner cannot steal from himself. This is why the government's behaviour cannot be illegal.
The money was lawfully allocated for housing. It was then unlawfully misappropriated for the purpose of buying land and giving it to some noisy malcontents. To wit, the money was stolen from the housing appropriation.
BTW, "taxpayer money" is the money remaining in the taxpayer's possession after tax is paid. So, whatever anyone's take on it, no taxpayer money had been stolen, reallocated or misallocated, neither had any such risk been incurred.
Wrong again. That $29mil of formerly public money is now in the hands of Fletchers, and its shareholders. When some money goes, unlawfully, from one entity to another, that is theft.
Considering ALL money the government spends come through various channels from the taxpayer it's fairly obvious Keith is just blowing smoke in his denial it is taxpayers money :)
I don't know what the percentage of government income from taxation
is, but it is certainly less than 100%.
Correct.
Post by Rich80105
GST is paid by foreigners;
duties, levies, gains on sale of assets, exchange rate effects,
returns from state owned assets, etc. Once paid however it does not
belong to those that paid it - just as money paid by government for NZ
Superannuation and welfare benefits ceases to be government money when
it reaches personal accounts.
(snipped)...I never claimed ALL government money came from taxation... (snipped)
Post by Rich80105
Post by John Bowes
Considering ALL money the government spends come through various channels from the taxpayer...(snip)
Explain.
Thank you for proving my point Keith. Money from taxpayers doesn't necessarily mean it is money from tax and you fucking well know it!
So if this government sells a building that they own overseas and
pocket a profit, which taxpayer did that come from, JohnO?
But you also appear to believe there is only onetaxpayer - why the
reference to "the taxpayer", JohnBowes?
It is a very common expression.
If the government owned a building overseas it was previously
purchased, probably with money from taxation.
Why, oh why, do you and James Christophers delight in teaming up
against people. Nobody else here appears to do that?
Could it be that you do it just for fun and because you are an
anonymous poster?
I'll leave that to you, Nellie
Oh no that will not do.
Your obvious enjoyment is clear. You really do appear to be a waste of
oxygen. Perhaps you should find something worthwhile to do and stop
irritating your betters.
It was your post Nellie that took us off topi to an attack on another
poster. I look forward to your taking your own advice. To get back to
the subject of the thread, it is clear that nobody has stolen $29mil.
PErhaps the thread has run its course.
Now in ruins, JohnO's thread can now carry on till Kingdom Come for all I care. **The topic itself** was, effectively, ended in a post time-stamped Apr 24, 2021, 3:05:44 PM (2 days ago). BTW the same contributor also suggested I had been "teaming up" with another writer.[1]
Since Apr 24, 2021, 3:05:44 PM (2 days ago), there have been 8 further posts prior to this one, none of them directly to do with JohnO's original topic.
Make of that what each of you will.
[1] Teaming up implies organised collusion. There is no such collusion whatever, only coincidences, inevitable during the development of any purposeful discourse involving three or more participants.
I'm surprised that Godwin's Law hasn't prevailed yet!
Mmmm...come to think of it, Trentham's comic little jackboot fetishist has also been a mite inattentive just lately...
Pity the pommie comedian can't be sensible for once in his jackbooted life..
Which sadly does not add any value to the discussion - it is still
clear that nobody has stolen $29 million.
Stolen... misappropriated... it is all the same thing.

Oxford:
misappropriate
/mɪsəˈprəʊprɪeɪt/
verb
dishonestly or unfairly take (something, especially money, belonging to another) for one's own use.
"the report revealed that department officials had misappropriated funds"
James Christophers
2021-04-22 02:20:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300281951/auditorgeneral-rules-the-299m-the-government-used-to-buy-ihumtao-was-unlawfully-spent
The arrogance of this government is breathtaking.
In practice, what can/should now be done under the laws of New Zealand to set the matter to rights - e.g...
Can the government of New Zealand be sued for conduct subsequently judged unlawful? If so, then by who, since the government would presumably be represented by Crown Law.
Appropriations are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and must be approved by an Act of Parliament. There are means available for Ministers and departments to amend appropriations to meet changing circumstances e.g., in an emergency. This is done lawfully through the granting of Imprest Supply. As I understand it, such due process had not been observed so the re-appropriation of funds was, technically, unlawful.
Some might speculate/believe the government had at the time thought/decided its overwhelming parliamentary majority was sufficient authorisation in itself, and a little judicious pragmatism would pass sweetly under the radar - "nod-nod, wink-wink, say no more". Quite so, but I am indifferent to such speculation since, in essence, the "error" was a technical lacuna involving not the theft, but the unauthorised reallocation or misallocation of government funds owned wholly and solely by the government itself - IOW, the owner cannot steal from himself. This is why the government's behaviour cannot be illegal.
The money was lawfully allocated for housing. It was then unlawfully misappropriated for the purpose of buying land and giving it to some noisy malcontents. To wit, the money was stolen from the housing appropriation. Both are government entities so, no such alleged theft can have occurred.
Mmmm...interesting...
BTW, "taxpayer money" is the money remaining in the taxpayer's possession after tax is paid. So, whatever anyone's take on it, no taxpayer money had been stolen, reallocated or misallocated, neither had any such risk been incurred.
Wrong again. That $29mil of formerly public money is now in the hands of Fletchers, and its shareholders. When some money goes, unlawfully, from one entity to another, that is theft.
So how does that square with your previous affirmation that - and I cite you, verbatim - "Both are government entities so, no such alleged theft can have occurred"?

Just wonderin'....
JohnO
2021-04-22 03:15:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300281951/auditorgeneral-rules-the-299m-the-government-used-to-buy-ihumtao-was-unlawfully-spent
The arrogance of this government is breathtaking.
In practice, what can/should now be done under the laws of New Zealand to set the matter to rights - e.g...
Can the government of New Zealand be sued for conduct subsequently judged unlawful? If so, then by who, since the government would presumably be represented by Crown Law.
Appropriations are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and must be approved by an Act of Parliament. There are means available for Ministers and departments to amend appropriations to meet changing circumstances e.g., in an emergency. This is done lawfully through the granting of Imprest Supply. As I understand it, such due process had not been observed so the re-appropriation of funds was, technically, unlawful.
Some might speculate/believe the government had at the time thought/decided its overwhelming parliamentary majority was sufficient authorisation in itself, and a little judicious pragmatism would pass sweetly under the radar - "nod-nod, wink-wink, say no more". Quite so, but I am indifferent to such speculation since, in essence, the "error" was a technical lacuna involving not the theft, but the unauthorised reallocation or misallocation of government funds owned wholly and solely by the government itself - IOW, the owner cannot steal from himself. This is why the government's behaviour cannot be illegal.
The money was lawfully allocated for housing. It was then unlawfully misappropriated for the purpose of buying land and giving it to some noisy malcontents. To wit, the money was stolen from the housing appropriation. Both are government entities so, no such alleged theft can have occurred.
Mmmm...interesting...
BTW, "taxpayer money" is the money remaining in the taxpayer's possession after tax is paid. So, whatever anyone's take on it, no taxpayer money had been stolen, reallocated or misallocated, neither had any such risk been incurred.
Wrong again. That $29mil of formerly public money is now in the hands of Fletchers, and its shareholders. When some money goes, unlawfully, from one entity to another, that is theft.
So how does that square with your previous affirmation that - and I cite you, verbatim - "Both are government entities so, no such alleged theft can have occurred"?
I never said anything of the kind. That text first appeared in your very own post here:

https://groups.google.com/g/nz.general/c/AL79xBcMd9o/m/oipFy26iBAAJ

In response to my original post here, which does not contain that text:

https://groups.google.com/g/nz.general/c/AL79xBcMd9o/m/M6nPrY6OBAAJ
Post by James Christophers
Just wonderin'....
I'm wonderin' about the apparent dishonesty of you editing the quoted content when you reply to my post.
James Christophers
2021-04-22 03:45:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300281951/auditorgeneral-rules-the-299m-the-government-used-to-buy-ihumtao-was-unlawfully-spent
The arrogance of this government is breathtaking.
In practice, what can/should now be done under the laws of New Zealand to set the matter to rights - e.g...
Can the government of New Zealand be sued for conduct subsequently judged unlawful? If so, then by who, since the government would presumably be represented by Crown Law.
Appropriations are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and must be approved by an Act of Parliament. There are means available for Ministers and departments to amend appropriations to meet changing circumstances e.g., in an emergency. This is done lawfully through the granting of Imprest Supply. As I understand it, such due process had not been observed so the re-appropriation of funds was, technically, unlawful.
Some might speculate/believe the government had at the time thought/decided its overwhelming parliamentary majority was sufficient authorisation in itself, and a little judicious pragmatism would pass sweetly under the radar - "nod-nod, wink-wink, say no more". Quite so, but I am indifferent to such speculation since, in essence, the "error" was a technical lacuna involving not the theft, but the unauthorised reallocation or misallocation of government funds owned wholly and solely by the government itself - IOW, the owner cannot steal from himself. This is why the government's behaviour cannot be illegal.
The money was lawfully allocated for housing. It was then unlawfully misappropriated for the purpose of buying land and giving it to some noisy malcontents. To wit, the money was stolen from the housing appropriation. Both are government entities so, no such alleged theft can have occurred.
Mmmm...interesting...
BTW, "taxpayer money" is the money remaining in the taxpayer's possession after tax is paid. So, whatever anyone's take on it, no taxpayer money had been stolen, reallocated or misallocated, neither had any such risk been incurred.
Wrong again. That $29mil of formerly public money is now in the hands of Fletchers, and its shareholders. When some money goes, unlawfully, from one entity to another, that is theft.
So how does that square with your previous affirmation that - and I cite you, verbatim - "Both are government entities so, no such alleged theft can have occurred"?
https://groups.google.com/g/nz.general/c/AL79xBcMd9o/m/oipFy26iBAAJ
https://groups.google.com/g/nz.general/c/AL79xBcMd9o/m/M6nPrY6OBAAJ
Post by James Christophers
Just wonderin'....
I'm wonderin' about the apparent dishonesty of you editing the quoted content when you reply to my post.
Having immediately checked your original URL/post, so am I. Bemused, I herewith withdraw it and apologise unreservedly. I think you will acknowledge I don't deliberately 're-write" other posters' statements to alter their meaning and intent, and I'd be surprised if I could be called out for ever having done so during my 20-ish years on this group. There's already way more than enough "re-interpretation" and traducing-for-advantage going on as it is, and I abhor it.
JohnO
2021-04-22 22:21:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300281951/auditorgeneral-rules-the-299m-the-government-used-to-buy-ihumtao-was-unlawfully-spent
The arrogance of this government is breathtaking.
In practice, what can/should now be done under the laws of New Zealand to set the matter to rights - e.g...
Can the government of New Zealand be sued for conduct subsequently judged unlawful? If so, then by who, since the government would presumably be represented by Crown Law.
Appropriations are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and must be approved by an Act of Parliament. There are means available for Ministers and departments to amend appropriations to meet changing circumstances e.g., in an emergency. This is done lawfully through the granting of Imprest Supply. As I understand it, such due process had not been observed so the re-appropriation of funds was, technically, unlawful.
Some might speculate/believe the government had at the time thought/decided its overwhelming parliamentary majority was sufficient authorisation in itself, and a little judicious pragmatism would pass sweetly under the radar - "nod-nod, wink-wink, say no more". Quite so, but I am indifferent to such speculation since, in essence, the "error" was a technical lacuna involving not the theft, but the unauthorised reallocation or misallocation of government funds owned wholly and solely by the government itself - IOW, the owner cannot steal from himself. This is why the government's behaviour cannot be illegal.
The money was lawfully allocated for housing. It was then unlawfully misappropriated for the purpose of buying land and giving it to some noisy malcontents. To wit, the money was stolen from the housing appropriation. Both are government entities so, no such alleged theft can have occurred.
Mmmm...interesting...
BTW, "taxpayer money" is the money remaining in the taxpayer's possession after tax is paid. So, whatever anyone's take on it, no taxpayer money had been stolen, reallocated or misallocated, neither had any such risk been incurred.
Wrong again. That $29mil of formerly public money is now in the hands of Fletchers, and its shareholders. When some money goes, unlawfully, from one entity to another, that is theft.
So how does that square with your previous affirmation that - and I cite you, verbatim - "Both are government entities so, no such alleged theft can have occurred"?
https://groups.google.com/g/nz.general/c/AL79xBcMd9o/m/oipFy26iBAAJ
https://groups.google.com/g/nz.general/c/AL79xBcMd9o/m/M6nPrY6OBAAJ
Post by James Christophers
Just wonderin'....
I'm wonderin' about the apparent dishonesty of you editing the quoted content when you reply to my post.
Having immediately checked your original URL/post, so am I. Bemused, I herewith withdraw it and apologise unreservedly. I think you will acknowledge I don't deliberately 're-write" other posters' statements to alter their meaning and intent, and I'd be surprised if I could be called out for ever having done so during my 20-ish years on this group. There's already way more than enough "re-interpretation" and traducing-for-advantage going on as it is, and I abhor it.
JohnO
2021-04-22 22:23:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300281951/auditorgeneral-rules-the-299m-the-government-used-to-buy-ihumtao-was-unlawfully-spent
The arrogance of this government is breathtaking.
In practice, what can/should now be done under the laws of New Zealand to set the matter to rights - e.g...
Can the government of New Zealand be sued for conduct subsequently judged unlawful? If so, then by who, since the government would presumably be represented by Crown Law.
Appropriations are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and must be approved by an Act of Parliament. There are means available for Ministers and departments to amend appropriations to meet changing circumstances e.g., in an emergency. This is done lawfully through the granting of Imprest Supply. As I understand it, such due process had not been observed so the re-appropriation of funds was, technically, unlawful.
Some might speculate/believe the government had at the time thought/decided its overwhelming parliamentary majority was sufficient authorisation in itself, and a little judicious pragmatism would pass sweetly under the radar - "nod-nod, wink-wink, say no more". Quite so, but I am indifferent to such speculation since, in essence, the "error" was a technical lacuna involving not the theft, but the unauthorised reallocation or misallocation of government funds owned wholly and solely by the government itself - IOW, the owner cannot steal from himself. This is why the government's behaviour cannot be illegal.
The money was lawfully allocated for housing. It was then unlawfully misappropriated for the purpose of buying land and giving it to some noisy malcontents. To wit, the money was stolen from the housing appropriation. Both are government entities so, no such alleged theft can have occurred.
Mmmm...interesting...
BTW, "taxpayer money" is the money remaining in the taxpayer's possession after tax is paid. So, whatever anyone's take on it, no taxpayer money had been stolen, reallocated or misallocated, neither had any such risk been incurred.
Wrong again. That $29mil of formerly public money is now in the hands of Fletchers, and its shareholders. When some money goes, unlawfully, from one entity to another, that is theft.
So how does that square with your previous affirmation that - and I cite you, verbatim - "Both are government entities so, no such alleged theft can have occurred"?
https://groups.google.com/g/nz.general/c/AL79xBcMd9o/m/oipFy26iBAAJ
https://groups.google.com/g/nz.general/c/AL79xBcMd9o/m/M6nPrY6OBAAJ
Post by James Christophers
Just wonderin'....
I'm wonderin' about the apparent dishonesty of you editing the quoted content when you reply to my post.
Having immediately checked your original URL/post, so am I. Bemused, I herewith withdraw it and apologise unreservedly. I think you will acknowledge I don't deliberately 're-write" other posters' statements to alter their meaning and intent, and I'd be surprised if I could be called out for ever having done so during my 20-ish years on this group. There's already way more than enough "re-interpretation" and traducing-for-advantage going on as it is, and I abhor it.
Accepted, sorry I got triggered there. I put those sort of things down to unintentional cuts & pastes.
James Christophers
2021-04-23 02:42:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JohnO
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300281951/auditorgeneral-rules-the-299m-the-government-used-to-buy-ihumtao-was-unlawfully-spent
The arrogance of this government is breathtaking.
In practice, what can/should now be done under the laws of New Zealand to set the matter to rights - e.g...
Can the government of New Zealand be sued for conduct subsequently judged unlawful? If so, then by who, since the government would presumably be represented by Crown Law.
Appropriations are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and must be approved by an Act of Parliament. There are means available for Ministers and departments to amend appropriations to meet changing circumstances e.g., in an emergency. This is done lawfully through the granting of Imprest Supply. As I understand it, such due process had not been observed so the re-appropriation of funds was, technically, unlawful.
Some might speculate/believe the government had at the time thought/decided its overwhelming parliamentary majority was sufficient authorisation in itself, and a little judicious pragmatism would pass sweetly under the radar - "nod-nod, wink-wink, say no more". Quite so, but I am indifferent to such speculation since, in essence, the "error" was a technical lacuna involving not the theft, but the unauthorised reallocation or misallocation of government funds owned wholly and solely by the government itself - IOW, the owner cannot steal from himself. This is why the government's behaviour cannot be illegal.
The money was lawfully allocated for housing. It was then unlawfully misappropriated for the purpose of buying land and giving it to some noisy malcontents. To wit, the money was stolen from the housing appropriation. Both are government entities so, no such alleged theft can have occurred.
Mmmm...interesting...
BTW, "taxpayer money" is the money remaining in the taxpayer's possession after tax is paid. So, whatever anyone's take on it, no taxpayer money had been stolen, reallocated or misallocated, neither had any such risk been incurred.
Wrong again. That $29mil of formerly public money is now in the hands of Fletchers, and its shareholders. When some money goes, unlawfully, from one entity to another, that is theft.
So how does that square with your previous affirmation that - and I cite you, verbatim - "Both are government entities so, no such alleged theft can have occurred"?
https://groups.google.com/g/nz.general/c/AL79xBcMd9o/m/oipFy26iBAAJ
https://groups.google.com/g/nz.general/c/AL79xBcMd9o/m/M6nPrY6OBAAJ
Post by James Christophers
Just wonderin'....
I'm wonderin' about the apparent dishonesty of you editing the quoted content when you reply to my post.
Having immediately checked your original URL/post, so am I. Bemused, I herewith withdraw it and apologise unreservedly. I think you will acknowledge I don't deliberately 're-write" other posters' statements to alter their meaning and intent, and I'd be surprised if I could be called out for ever having done so during my 20-ish years on this group. There's already way more than enough "re-interpretation" and traducing-for-advantage going on as it is, and I abhor it.
Accepted, sorry I got triggered there. I put those sort of things down to unintentional cuts & pastes.
Gracious of you, and thank you. I can only think it's down to what you suggest, in this instance, multiple line and inadvertently incomplete text deletions plus in this case failing finally to check what had immediately gone before prior to posting. Must try harder.
George Black
2021-04-20 20:03:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JohnO
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300281951/auditorgeneral-rules-the-299m-the-government-used-to-buy-ihumtao-was-unlawfully-spent
The arrogance of this government is breathtaking.
What else can we expect...
morriss...@gmail.com
2021-04-22 22:51:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wednesday, April 21, 2021 at 8:03:52 AM UTC+12, george wrote:

<snip tiresome drivel>

george, you seem depressed. You need a hobby, something like this...

Loading Image...
Tony
2021-04-23 00:12:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
<snip tiresome drivel>
george, you seem depressed. You need a hobby, something like this...
https://private-person.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/bestiality-bestiality-demotivational-poster-1200471651.jpg
You are a genuinely revolting man.
George Black
2021-04-23 00:50:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by ***@gmail.com
<snip tiresome drivel>
george, you seem depressed. You need a hobby, something like this...
https://private-person.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/bestiality-bestiality-demotivational-poster-1200471651.jpg
You are a genuinely revolting man.
One has long suspected he was otherwise engaged though until that
missive I'd not suspected what
Tony
2021-04-23 01:16:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George Black
Post by Tony
Post by ***@gmail.com
<snip tiresome drivel>
george, you seem depressed. You need a hobby, something like this...
https://private-person.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/bestiality-bestiality-demotivational-poster-1200471651.jpg
You are a genuinely revolting man.
One has long suspected he was otherwise engaged though until that
missive I'd not suspected what
It does not surprise me at all. His past posts and behaviour elsewhere reek of
some sort of repusive obsession.
morriss...@gmail.com
2021-04-23 02:02:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
It does not surprise me at all. His past posts and behaviour elsewhere reek of
some sort of repusive [sic!] obsession.
The word you were meaning is, one imagines, "repulsive."
James Christophers
2021-04-23 02:34:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Tony
It does not surprise me at all. His past posts and behaviour elsewhere reek of
some sort of repusive [sic!] obsession.
The word you were meaning is, one imagines, "repulsive."
The word 'repusive' is a portmanteau term combining 'abusive' and 'repulsive' (OED/Chambers et al). Both derive from Latin roots, as any genuine classical scholar boasting a 70% Latin pass will confirm. There's even the more erudite classical scholar who will insist - and persist in insisting - that 'repusive' is to be used at every available opportunity during civilised and uplifting discourse.
Tony
2021-04-23 03:30:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Tony
It does not surprise me at all. His past posts and behaviour elsewhere reek of
some sort of repusive [sic!] obsession.
The word you were meaning is, one imagines, "repulsive."
The word 'repusive' is a portmanteau term combining 'abusive' and 'repulsive'
(OED/Chambers et al). Both derive from Latin roots, as any genuine classical
scholar boasting a 70% Latin pass will confirm. There's even the more erudite
classical scholar who will insist - and persist in insisting - that 'repusive'
is to be used at every available opportunity during civilised and uplifting
discourse.
Interesting. I have never "boasted" of a 70% Latin pass. Indeed I was
disappointed that it was so much lower than my other marks. Nevertheless the
word in question is one I have rarely used but I am of course aware of it.
Rich80105
2021-04-23 06:12:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 22:30:10 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Tony
It does not surprise me at all. His past posts and behaviour elsewhere reek of
some sort of repusive [sic!] obsession.
The word you were meaning is, one imagines, "repulsive."
The word 'repusive' is a portmanteau term combining 'abusive' and 'repulsive'
(OED/Chambers et al). Both derive from Latin roots, as any genuine classical
scholar boasting a 70% Latin pass will confirm. There's even the more erudite
classical scholar who will insist - and persist in insisting - that 'repusive'
is to be used at every available opportunity during civilised and uplifting
discourse.
Interesting. I have never "boasted" of a 70% Latin pass. Indeed I was
disappointed that it was so much lower than my other marks. Nevertheless the
word in question is one I have rarely used but I am of course aware of it.
Of course you are, Tony, we can all admire your erudition - perhaps
for our enlightenment you could give a couple of examples of your use
of the word 'repusive', albeit that as you say you have rarely used
it......
Tony
2021-04-23 06:42:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 22:30:10 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Tony
It does not surprise me at all. His past posts and behaviour elsewhere reek of
some sort of repusive [sic!] obsession.
The word you were meaning is, one imagines, "repulsive."
The word 'repusive' is a portmanteau term combining 'abusive' and 'repulsive'
(OED/Chambers et al). Both derive from Latin roots, as any genuine classical
scholar boasting a 70% Latin pass will confirm. There's even the more erudite
classical scholar who will insist - and persist in insisting - that 'repusive'
is to be used at every available opportunity during civilised and uplifting
discourse.
Interesting. I have never "boasted" of a 70% Latin pass. Indeed I was
disappointed that it was so much lower than my other marks. Nevertheless the
word in question is one I have rarely used but I am of course aware of it.
Of course you are, Tony, we can all admire your erudition - perhaps
for our enlightenment you could give a couple of examples of your use
of the word 'repusive', albeit that as you say you have rarely used
it......
Hard to do that because I have rarely used it. Do try to keep up. Things like
that do not occupy my mind.
Just like truth does not occupy yours. Speaking of which have you reviewed the
post that I sent you proving you to be a liar?
Just asking.
Rich80105
2021-04-23 08:29:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 01:42:21 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 22:30:10 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Tony
It does not surprise me at all. His past posts and behaviour elsewhere reek of
some sort of repusive [sic!] obsession.
The word you were meaning is, one imagines, "repulsive."
The word 'repusive' is a portmanteau term combining 'abusive' and 'repulsive'
(OED/Chambers et al). Both derive from Latin roots, as any genuine classical
scholar boasting a 70% Latin pass will confirm. There's even the more erudite
classical scholar who will insist - and persist in insisting - that 'repusive'
is to be used at every available opportunity during civilised and uplifting
discourse.
Interesting. I have never "boasted" of a 70% Latin pass. Indeed I was
disappointed that it was so much lower than my other marks. Nevertheless the
word in question is one I have rarely used but I am of course aware of it.
Of course you are, Tony, we can all admire your erudition - perhaps
for our enlightenment you could give a couple of examples of your use
of the word 'repusive', albeit that as you say you have rarely used
it......
Hard to do that because I have rarely used it. Do try to keep up.
Ahead of you on that, Tony - read back and you will see that I said
"albeit that as you say you have rarely used it....."

Just because you rarely use it does not mean that you cannot give an
example of what you believe is correct usage - but perhaps despite
being as you say aware of the word, you do not know where it should be
used. Never mind, I am sure that as previously you can rely on James
Christophers to help you demonstrate the extent of your knowledge . .
.
Post by Tony
Things like
that do not occupy my mind.
Aaah, of courseI should have thought of that; it is one of your most
notable characteristics on most topics.
Post by Tony
Just like truth does not occupy yours.
Gratuitous insults, disconnected from any evidence, just demonstate
the paucity of your argument, Tony - I had thought you could do better
but it appears I was mistaken.
Post by Tony
Speaking of which have you reviewed the
post that I sent you proving you to be a liar?
Just asking.
Ask away, but vague references to responses to posts in an unknown
other thread are not helpful - if you cannot clearly identify a
statement and give your reasoning why you think it a lie, I am unable
to give you a response.
Tony
2021-04-23 20:11:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 01:42:21 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 22:30:10 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 1:16:23 PM UTC+12, our good friend
"Unknown"
Post by Tony
It does not surprise me at all. His past posts and behaviour elsewhere reek of
some sort of repusive [sic!] obsession.
The word you were meaning is, one imagines, "repulsive."
The word 'repusive' is a portmanteau term combining 'abusive' and 'repulsive'
(OED/Chambers et al). Both derive from Latin roots, as any genuine classical
scholar boasting a 70% Latin pass will confirm. There's even the more erudite
classical scholar who will insist - and persist in insisting - that 'repusive'
is to be used at every available opportunity during civilised and uplifting
discourse.
Interesting. I have never "boasted" of a 70% Latin pass. Indeed I was
disappointed that it was so much lower than my other marks. Nevertheless the
word in question is one I have rarely used but I am of course aware of it.
Of course you are, Tony, we can all admire your erudition - perhaps
for our enlightenment you could give a couple of examples of your use
of the word 'repusive', albeit that as you say you have rarely used
it......
Hard to do that because I have rarely used it. Do try to keep up.
Ahead of you on that, Tony - read back and you will see that I said
"albeit that as you say you have rarely used it....."
You have never been ahead of anybody in this newsgroup, you are always the
follower, never the leader.
Post by Rich80105
Just because you rarely use it does not mean that you cannot give an
example of what you believe is correct usage
You asked for an example of when I used it but are now asking for what I
believe is correct usage. Those are two separate and in this context unrelated
questions.
In any event all you have to do is learn to use your favourite web browser and
any old search engine and you will find plenty of information. Do please get a
5 year old to help you or you wil flounder around in your usual befuddled way.
Post by Rich80105
- but perhaps despite
being as you say aware of the word, you do not know where it should be
used. Never mind, I am sure that as previously you can rely on James
Christophers to help you demonstrate the extent of your knowledge .
Nonsense. You are lying once more.
Post by Rich80105
.
Post by Tony
Things like
that do not occupy my mind.
Aaah, of courseI should have thought of that; it is one of your most
notable characteristics on most topics.
Yes indeed, I can dispose of trivia, like you, without delay and without a
second thought.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Just like truth does not occupy yours.
Gratuitous insults
Yes that is exactly your style as demonstrated here.
Post by Rich80105
, disconnected from any evidence, just demonstate
the paucity of your argument, Tony - I had thought you could do better
but it appears I was mistaken.
You are invariably mistaken.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Speaking of which have you reviewed the
post that I sent you proving you to be a liar?
Just asking.
Ask away, but vague references to responses to posts in an unknown
other thread are not helpful - if you cannot clearly identify a
statement and give your reasoning why you think it a lie, I am unable
to give you a response.
So you admit the lies and the cowardice in refusing to read the link I sent you.
Just as I expected.
Tony
2021-04-23 03:26:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Tony
It does not surprise me at all. His past posts and behaviour elsewhere reek of
some sort of repusive [sic!] obsession.
The word you were meaning is, one imagines, "repulsive."
One imagines wrongly, thereby demonstrating a wasted youth and an unwillingness
to learn during 'one's' pseudo adulthood.
A perfect background for a hack.
Nevertheless I "imagine" you are every bit the repulsive person you apparently
would prefer to be.
George Black
2021-04-23 20:09:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by George Black
Post by Tony
Post by ***@gmail.com
<snip tiresome drivel>
george, you seem depressed. You need a hobby, something like this...
https://private-person.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/bestiality-bestiality-demotivational-poster-1200471651.jpg
You are a genuinely revolting man.
One has long suspected he was otherwise engaged though until that
missive I'd not suspected what
It does not surprise me at all. His past posts and behaviour elsewhere reek of
some sort of repusive obsession.
Maybe we shouldn't get his goat ??????
morriss...@gmail.com
2021-04-23 20:21:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Ha ha ha ha ha! Very good, George. Move to the top of the class. Tony, you're still in the dunce's corner, sorry to say.
Post by George Black
Post by Tony
Post by George Black
Post by Tony
Post by ***@gmail.com
<snip tiresome drivel>
george, you seem depressed. You need a hobby, something like this...
https://private-person.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/bestiality-bestiality-demotivational-poster-1200471651.jpg
You are a genuinely revolting man.
One has long suspected he was otherwise engaged though until that
missive I'd not suspected what
It does not surprise me at all. His past posts and behaviour elsewhere reek of
some sort of repusive obsession.
Maybe we shouldn't get his goat ??????
Tony
2021-04-23 21:01:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Ha ha ha ha ha! Very good, George. Move to the top of the class. Tony, you're
still in the dunce's corner, sorry to say.
Post by George Black
Post by Tony
Post by George Black
Post by Tony
Post by ***@gmail.com
<snip tiresome drivel>
george, you seem depressed. You need a hobby, something like this...
https://private-person.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/bestiality-bestiality-demotivational-poster-1200471651.jpg
You are a genuinely revolting man.
One has long suspected he was otherwise engaged though until that
missive I'd not suspected what
It does not surprise me at all. His past posts and behaviour elsewhere reek of
some sort of repusive obsession.
Maybe we shouldn't get his goat ??????
Well that would be a new experience.
Now be a good little homophobe and go away.
morriss...@gmail.com
2021-04-24 09:36:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by ***@gmail.com
Ha ha ha ha ha! Very good, George. Move to the top of the class. Tony, you're
still in the dunce's corner, sorry to say.
Post by George Black
Post by Tony
Post by George Black
Post by Tony
Post by ***@gmail.com
<snip tiresome drivel>
george, you seem depressed. You need a hobby, something like this...
https://private-person.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/bestiality-bestiality-demotivational-poster-1200471651.jpg
You are a genuinely revolting man.
One has long suspected he was otherwise engaged though until that
missive I'd not suspected what
It does not surprise me at all. His past posts and behaviour elsewhere reek of
some sort of repusive obsession.
Maybe we shouldn't get his goat ??????
Well that would be a new experience.
Now be a good little homophobe and go away.
You need to go HERE, pal....

Loading Image...
Tony
2021-04-24 20:10:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Tony
Post by ***@gmail.com
Ha ha ha ha ha! Very good, George. Move to the top of the class. Tony, you're
still in the dunce's corner, sorry to say.
Post by George Black
Post by Tony
Post by George Black
Post by Tony
Post by ***@gmail.com
<snip tiresome drivel>
george, you seem depressed. You need a hobby, something like this...
Post by ***@gmail.com
https://private-person.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/bestiality-bestiality-demotivational-poster-1200471651.jpg
You are a genuinely revolting man.
One has long suspected he was otherwise engaged though until that
missive I'd not suspected what
It does not surprise me at all. His past posts and behaviour elsewhere reek of
some sort of repusive obsession.
Maybe we shouldn't get his goat ??????
Well that would be a new experience.
Now be a good little homophobe and go away.
You need to go HERE, pal....
https://stomouseio.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/tomoffinland2.jpg?w=705&h=435&crop=1
I won't go anywhere you point to, you are a revolting creature. You are a
proven anti-Semite and homophobe. Pal!
Rich80105
2021-04-25 02:58:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 15:10:32 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Tony
Post by ***@gmail.com
Ha ha ha ha ha! Very good, George. Move to the top of the class. Tony, you're
still in the dunce's corner, sorry to say.
Post by George Black
Post by Tony
Post by George Black
Post by Tony
Post by ***@gmail.com
<snip tiresome drivel>
george, you seem depressed. You need a hobby, something like this...
Post by ***@gmail.com
https://private-person.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/bestiality-bestiality-demotivational-poster-1200471651.jpg
You are a genuinely revolting man.
One has long suspected he was otherwise engaged though until that
missive I'd not suspected what
It does not surprise me at all. His past posts and behaviour elsewhere reek of
some sort of repusive obsession.
Maybe we shouldn't get his goat ??????
Well that would be a new experience.
Now be a good little homophobe and go away.
You need to go HERE, pal....
https://stomouseio.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/tomoffinland2.jpg?w=705&h=435&crop=1
I won't go anywhere you point to, you are a revolting creature. You are a
proven anti-Semite and homophobe. Pal!
You have just failed tests for tolerance, reasoning and polite
discourse, Tony. If you wish to persude you have failed.
John Bowes
2021-04-25 04:34:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 15:10:32 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Tony
Post by ***@gmail.com
Ha ha ha ha ha! Very good, George. Move to the top of the class. Tony, you're
still in the dunce's corner, sorry to say.
Post by George Black
Post by Tony
Post by George Black
Post by Tony
Post by ***@gmail.com
<snip tiresome drivel>
george, you seem depressed. You need a hobby, something like this...
Post by ***@gmail.com
https://private-person.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/bestiality-bestiality-demotivational-poster-1200471651.jpg
You are a genuinely revolting man.
One has long suspected he was otherwise engaged though until that
missive I'd not suspected what
It does not surprise me at all. His past posts and behaviour elsewhere
reek of
some sort of repusive obsession.
Maybe we shouldn't get his goat ??????
Well that would be a new experience.
Now be a good little homophobe and go away.
You need to go HERE, pal....
https://stomouseio.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/tomoffinland2.jpg?w=705&h=435&crop=1
I won't go anywhere you point to, you are a revolting creature. You are a
proven anti-Semite and homophobe. Pal!
You have just failed tests for tolerance, reasoning and polite
discourse, Tony. If you wish to persude you have failed.
Rich, like you Morrissy suffers from a learning disability. The inability to comprehend plain messages. Like you Morrissy gets everything he deserves. no more and no less.
You Rich trying to tell people how to behave is like a cat becoming vegan :)
Tony
2021-04-25 06:24:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 15:10:32 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Tony
Post by ***@gmail.com
Ha ha ha ha ha! Very good, George. Move to the top of the class. Tony, you're
still in the dunce's corner, sorry to say.
Post by George Black
Post by Tony
Post by George Black
Post by Tony
Post by ***@gmail.com
<snip tiresome drivel>
george, you seem depressed. You need a hobby, something like this...
Post by ***@gmail.com
https://private-person.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/bestiality-bestiality-demotivational-poster-1200471651.jpg
You are a genuinely revolting man.
One has long suspected he was otherwise engaged though until that
missive I'd not suspected what
It does not surprise me at all. His past posts and behaviour
elsewhere
reek of
some sort of repusive obsession.
Maybe we shouldn't get his goat ??????
Well that would be a new experience.
Now be a good little homophobe and go away.
You need to go HERE, pal....
https://stomouseio.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/tomoffinland2.jpg?w=705&h=435&crop=1
I won't go anywhere you point to, you are a revolting creature. You are a
proven anti-Semite and homophobe. Pal!
You have just failed tests for tolerance, reasoning and polite
discourse, Tony. If you wish to persude you have failed.
I have never wished to persude.
I have failed nothing, I know a lot about this man and what others think of him
carries no weight with me.
Do stick to your own faults and leave poor old Morrisey to his turpitude.
Loading...