On Thu, 07 Jan 2021 14:07:54 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by TonyPost by Rich80105On Wed, 06 Jan 2021 23:39:42 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by TonyPost by Rich80105On Wed, 06 Jan 2021 22:04:23 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by TonyPost by Rich80105On Wed, 06 Jan 2021 19:41:53 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by TonyPost by George BlackPost by John BowesMore newspeak from Rich and Labour! Now it seems committing arson and
attacking prison officers is "just making trouble"! One of the stupider
claims
from both Rich and Labour!
Labour doesn't have the balls or skills to govern!
But but but liebor gave them the vote..
How could the gangs treat them so badly after such a bribe ???
And all that 'fight to the death' talk seems to have disappeared from
the media reports..
It was a riot not a protest
Yes it is and only a person with no moral compass would argue otherwise.
It is clear that it was a protest for at least most of thoe
participating - that is not a moral issue, merely one of accurate
reporting. What they did was however illegal, and prosecutions are
being considered; whether it was a riot is yet another matter; it has
"A riot is a group of 6 or more persons who, acting together, are
using violence against persons or property to the alarm of persons in
the neighbourhood of that group. Every member of a riot is liable to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years." I am not aware of
anyone arguing that it was not a riot; I suspect prosecutions could
rely on a number of statutes; I'm happy to leave that to the police.
As you should be.
It was a riot by any reasonable definition which precludes it being a protest
longer than the first few hours. It may have been a protest at first but that
is definitely questionable, but once it became a riot it was no longer a
protest.
That is clear.
Here is an example
https://beyond.britannica.com/how-does-the-u-s-government-define-the-difference-between-a-protest-vs-riot
It was never really a protest and you know that deep down. Just read the
remarks by this governments Minister and officials - it is all there.
You have admitted
nothing at all
Post by Rich80105that it may well have been a protest for the first
few hours. The course of the ''incident'' was very similar to previous
protests in NZ prisons in the past under different governments;
irrelevant.
Post by Rich80105it was
wisely described as a protest through the duration of the
""incident"",
Wrongly so described, it quickly became a riot and driven by hard criminals.
And you know that is true.
Post by Rich80105and as I have previously said there is nothing to
preclude the descrptions of a protest and a riot both being valid at
the same time
Incorrect , they are never synonymous.
Post by Rich80105, and that is consistent with the article that you posted
No it is not.
Post by Rich80105- which while based on USA law does not appear to be significantly
different from attitudes and common usage of the terms in New Zealand.
I suggest you should also leave it to the police to determine
appropriate charges, if any, and cease nit-picking semantic
discussions where you give arguments that are contrary to the
conclusions you appear to want to make.
What a nonsensical sentence. I am doing none of what you suggest.
You got it wrong.
It was a riot and driven by hardened criminals.
They need to be held to account but to describe it as a protest was always
idiotic.
Again you demonstrate your arrogance, your insistence that you are the
only person that is correct when faced with clear evidence that it has
been consistently referred to as a protest, even while criminal
charges for actions are being considered.
Again you are unable to accept that other people have the right to an opinion.
It is you that is arrogant and a dangerous person.
Post by Rich80105Post by TonyTime for you to stop defending criminals.
You are a liar, Tony. I have never defended any of those involved
either for their protesting as they chose to act, or for the criminal
actions that they did. Why do you lie when you are losing an argument,
Tony?
There you are true to form. The first to be abusive.
I am losing nothing and I am not lying and you know it.
You definitely defended them by insisting it was only a protest.
Something that is pathetically idiotic to suggest let alone insist on.
Again you misrepresent what I have said - you are like Trump -
doubling down on your lies.
The initial post I posted in this thread was:
___________________
A successful resolution for a difficult episode.
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/waikeria-prison-protestors-surrender-after-six-day-standoff
Davis spoke well - he did the right thing in letting the experts
handle it; but he also had the sense to allow access to Rawiri
Waititi, who was able to talk to the leaders of the protest and get
them to come down. Good cooperation between the parties.
The incident has highlighted how badly the prison system had
deteriorated under National - Kelvin Davis made a statement back in
2018 recognising many of the problems; saldy events over the last week
will probably make the situation worse before it gets better.
___________________
In praising what Davis said, I was praising this from him:
"The arson, violence and destruction carried out by these men were
reckless criminal acts that put themselves, other prisoners,
Corrections staff and emergency services in danger, Davis says.
No one should glorify the actions of these prisoners. They damaged
property worth hundreds of thousands of dollars and they put their own
lives and the health and safety of staff and other prisoners at risk.
There is never an excuse for resorting to violence and destruction."
Potential charges for the destruction will be up to police, Davis
says. "
and:
"These men wanted political attention, and unfortunately those who
waded into the issue in order to generate headlines only helped to
embolden them, extend the duration of the event, and increase the risk
to safety, he said.
I made the decision not to bow to the demands of these men nor make
public comment that would have simply opened up political negotiation
with them and achieved nothing to bring the event to a safe
resolution. "
________________
Nowhere in that article is the word "riot" used. You appear to be
wanting to escalate the actions of the prisoners for no good reason -
unless you wanted comparisons with the more recent incident in
Washington provoked by the current president; who like you is inclined
to be loose with words and dogmatic in holding views that have been
widely discredited and disagreed with by rational politicians from
many parties, including his own. I suggest that channeliing you "inner
Trump" may not be particularly effective at present, Tony.
A disagreement with your unsupported opinions does not constitute
abuse, Tony, merely disagreement, but your lying about what I have
sais is inexcusable. You should apologise.