Discussion:
Yes, let's be fair.
(too old to reply)
Tony
2021-03-01 05:58:40 UTC
Permalink
An acquaintance was pulled up two or three months ago on a motorway for doing
11kph over the speed limit. He was unhappy because it was 8am on a Sunday
morning and traffic was extremely light. However on reflection he said "fair
enough, I should have been more careful". And so say most of us.
After all speeding is a major cause of crashes and can cause death.
Now we have a young person who has disobeyed a legal imperative to stay at home
and at least one other person who has done something very similar, also in
breach of a regulation or law (I don't care which). We have been warned
tirelessly for about a year about how serious that behaviour can be; it can be
deadly we have been told and indeed it can.
But apparently we have to be kind because we might be guilty of singling people
out or something obscure like that.
We are however exhorted to tell the police about drivers who behave badly.
Perhaps next time I should be kind and not alert the non-existent team of five
million via the authorities if I see someone breaking the law and putting
people's lives at risk.
In fact why don't we all just ignore the science and have a mass parade down
our nearest city streets in an attempt to persuade the city council to abandon
regulations and encourage people to have parties of thousands - after all it
would be the kind thing to do.
By the way, the behaviour of the last week or two puts the lie to the "team of
five million myth", it is a much tinier than that.
Gordon
2021-03-01 06:48:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
An acquaintance was pulled up two or three months ago on a motorway for doing
11kph over the speed limit. He was unhappy because it was 8am on a Sunday
morning and traffic was extremely light. However on reflection he said "fair
enough, I should have been more careful". And so say most of us.
After all speeding is a major cause of crashes and can cause death.
Now we have a young person who has disobeyed a legal imperative to stay at home
and at least one other person who has done something very similar, also in
breach of a regulation or law (I don't care which). We have been warned
tirelessly for about a year about how serious that behaviour can be; it can be
deadly we have been told and indeed it can.
But apparently we have to be kind because we might be guilty of singling people
out or something obscure like that.
Balance is needed. Jump on these people like a ton of bricks and they will
not be keen to tell where they have been.

The enemy is Covid, and in fighting will let it take a foothold.
Post by Tony
We are however exhorted to tell the police about drivers who behave badly.
Perhaps next time I should be kind and not alert the non-existent team of five
million via the authorities if I see someone breaking the law and putting
people's lives at risk.
In fact why don't we all just ignore the science and have a mass parade down
our nearest city streets in an attempt to persuade the city council to abandon
regulations and encourage people to have parties of thousands - after all it
would be the kind thing to do.
By the way, the behaviour of the last week or two puts the lie to the "team of
five million myth", it is a much tinier than that.
Having a bad day?
Rich80105
2021-03-01 09:12:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by Tony
An acquaintance was pulled up two or three months ago on a motorway for doing
11kph over the speed limit. He was unhappy because it was 8am on a Sunday
morning and traffic was extremely light. However on reflection he said "fair
enough, I should have been more careful". And so say most of us.
After all speeding is a major cause of crashes and can cause death.
Now we have a young person who has disobeyed a legal imperative to stay at home
and at least one other person who has done something very similar, also in
breach of a regulation or law (I don't care which). We have been warned
tirelessly for about a year about how serious that behaviour can be; it can be
deadly we have been told and indeed it can.
But apparently we have to be kind because we might be guilty of singling people
out or something obscure like that.
Balance is needed. Jump on these people like a ton of bricks and they will
not be keen to tell where they have been.
The enemy is Covid, and in fighting will let it take a foothold.
Post by Tony
We are however exhorted to tell the police about drivers who behave badly.
Perhaps next time I should be kind and not alert the non-existent team of five
million via the authorities if I see someone breaking the law and putting
people's lives at risk.
In fact why don't we all just ignore the science and have a mass parade down
our nearest city streets in an attempt to persuade the city council to abandon
regulations and encourage people to have parties of thousands - after all it
would be the kind thing to do.
By the way, the behaviour of the last week or two puts the lie to the "team of
five million myth", it is a much tinier than that.
Having a bad day?
The comparison with speeding is not particularly apposite for the
reasons you have stated Gordon, but the other reason it is not
appropriate is because Covid-19 _could_ have been so much worse than
road deaths. Boris Johnson is happy that the UK have reduced deaths to
around 150 a day. Adjusting for population size, that would be around
10 or 11 a day for New Zealand. We could get to that level if we had
wide-spread flouting of the rules, accompanied by those caught
clamming up on others to avoid dobbing friends in for a fine. I
suspect the high level of fines that could be imposed by Australian
police later caused them difficulties as there were protests about
police actions rather than the emphasis staying on trying to shut down
infections.
Tony
2021-03-02 01:08:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by Tony
An acquaintance was pulled up two or three months ago on a motorway for doing
11kph over the speed limit. He was unhappy because it was 8am on a Sunday
morning and traffic was extremely light. However on reflection he said "fair
enough, I should have been more careful". And so say most of us.
After all speeding is a major cause of crashes and can cause death.
Now we have a young person who has disobeyed a legal imperative to stay at home
and at least one other person who has done something very similar, also in
breach of a regulation or law (I don't care which). We have been warned
tirelessly for about a year about how serious that behaviour can be; it can be
deadly we have been told and indeed it can.
But apparently we have to be kind because we might be guilty of singling people
out or something obscure like that.
Balance is needed. Jump on these people like a ton of bricks and they will
not be keen to tell where they have been.
The enemy is Covid, and in fighting will let it take a foothold.
Post by Tony
We are however exhorted to tell the police about drivers who behave badly.
Perhaps next time I should be kind and not alert the non-existent team of five
million via the authorities if I see someone breaking the law and putting
people's lives at risk.
In fact why don't we all just ignore the science and have a mass parade down
our nearest city streets in an attempt to persuade the city council to abandon
regulations and encourage people to have parties of thousands - after all it
would be the kind thing to do.
By the way, the behaviour of the last week or two puts the lie to the "team of
five million myth", it is a much tinier than that.
Having a bad day?
The comparison with speeding is not particularly apposite for the
reasons you have stated Gordon,
Gordon did not state any reasons. And it is absolutely aposite to compare two
offences both of which appear to be minor but can cause death..
Post by Rich80105
but the other reason it is not
appropriate is because Covid-19 _could_ have been so much worse than
road deaths.
Meaningless and non sequitur.
Post by Rich80105
Boris Johnson is happy that the UK have reduced deaths to
around 150 a day. Adjusting for population size, that would be around
10 or 11 a day for New Zealand. We could get to that level if we had
wide-spread flouting of the rules, accompanied by those caught
clamming up on others to avoid dobbing friends in for a fine.
That is all right then, let us stop prosecuting people for breaking the law.
That would make you deliriously happy no doubt.
SImple really, if you are going to make a law you need to be able to police it.
Could not be simpler. Otherwise don't make the law or regulation.
Post by Rich80105
I
suspect the high level of fines that could be imposed by Australian
police later caused them difficulties as there were protests about
police actions rather than the emphasis staying on trying to shut down
infections.
There is no evidence to support that.
However your priorities have not changed, you would rather have a Labour party
that is in power than save lives - that's OK, you are entitled to have that
belief set.
Rich80105
2021-03-02 01:26:26 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 01 Mar 2021 19:08:32 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by Tony
An acquaintance was pulled up two or three months ago on a motorway for doing
11kph over the speed limit. He was unhappy because it was 8am on a Sunday
morning and traffic was extremely light. However on reflection he said "fair
enough, I should have been more careful". And so say most of us.
After all speeding is a major cause of crashes and can cause death.
Now we have a young person who has disobeyed a legal imperative to stay at home
and at least one other person who has done something very similar, also in
breach of a regulation or law (I don't care which). We have been warned
tirelessly for about a year about how serious that behaviour can be; it can be
deadly we have been told and indeed it can.
But apparently we have to be kind because we might be guilty of singling people
out or something obscure like that.
Balance is needed. Jump on these people like a ton of bricks and they will
not be keen to tell where they have been.
The enemy is Covid, and in fighting will let it take a foothold.
Post by Tony
We are however exhorted to tell the police about drivers who behave badly.
Perhaps next time I should be kind and not alert the non-existent team of five
million via the authorities if I see someone breaking the law and putting
people's lives at risk.
In fact why don't we all just ignore the science and have a mass parade down
our nearest city streets in an attempt to persuade the city council to abandon
regulations and encourage people to have parties of thousands - after all it
would be the kind thing to do.
By the way, the behaviour of the last week or two puts the lie to the "team of
five million myth", it is a much tinier than that.
Having a bad day?
The comparison with speeding is not particularly apposite for the
reasons you have stated Gordon,
Gordon did not state any reasons. And it is absolutely aposite to compare two
offences both of which appear to be minor but can cause death..
Post by Rich80105
but the other reason it is not
appropriate is because Covid-19 _could_ have been so much worse than
road deaths.
Meaningless and non sequitur.
Post by Rich80105
Boris Johnson is happy that the UK have reduced deaths to
around 150 a day. Adjusting for population size, that would be around
10 or 11 a day for New Zealand. We could get to that level if we had
wide-spread flouting of the rules, accompanied by those caught
clamming up on others to avoid dobbing friends in for a fine.
That is all right then, let us stop prosecuting people for breaking the law.
Who has suggested that?
Post by Tony
That would make you deliriously happy no doubt.
Of course not - do try to give a fair argument rather than being
insulting.
Post by Tony
SImple really, if you are going to make a law you need to be able to police it.
Could not be simpler. Otherwise don't make the law or regulation.
Laws and regulations are not always simple - and prosecuting
non-comliance can be very difficult. The devil is in the detail
however - so what penalties do you recommend?
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
I
suspect the high level of fines that could be imposed by Australian
police later caused them difficulties as there were protests about
police actions rather than the emphasis staying on trying to shut down
infections.
There is no evidence to support that.
Yes there is - newspaper reports in Sydney and Melbourne covered anger
and protests about the fines.
Post by Tony
However your priorities have not changed, you would rather have a Labour party
that is in power than save lives - that's OK, you are entitled to have that
belief set.
You do keep bringing this back to politics, Tony. Why are you so
obsessed? The reality is that all the government has done is follow
the advice that would have been the same regardless of government. Are
you saying other political parties would not have followed that
advice? If that is your assertion, tell us which of the
recommendations from National would have saved more lives . . .
Rich80105
2021-03-02 02:08:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 01 Mar 2021 19:08:32 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by Tony
An acquaintance was pulled up two or three months ago on a motorway for doing
11kph over the speed limit. He was unhappy because it was 8am on a Sunday
morning and traffic was extremely light. However on reflection he said "fair
enough, I should have been more careful". And so say most of us.
After all speeding is a major cause of crashes and can cause death.
Now we have a young person who has disobeyed a legal imperative to stay at home
and at least one other person who has done something very similar, also in
breach of a regulation or law (I don't care which). We have been warned
tirelessly for about a year about how serious that behaviour can be; it can be
deadly we have been told and indeed it can.
But apparently we have to be kind because we might be guilty of singling people
out or something obscure like that.
Balance is needed. Jump on these people like a ton of bricks and they will
not be keen to tell where they have been.
The enemy is Covid, and in fighting will let it take a foothold.
Post by Tony
We are however exhorted to tell the police about drivers who behave badly.
Perhaps next time I should be kind and not alert the non-existent team of five
million via the authorities if I see someone breaking the law and putting
people's lives at risk.
In fact why don't we all just ignore the science and have a mass parade down
our nearest city streets in an attempt to persuade the city council to abandon
regulations and encourage people to have parties of thousands - after all it
would be the kind thing to do.
By the way, the behaviour of the last week or two puts the lie to the "team of
five million myth", it is a much tinier than that.
Having a bad day?
The comparison with speeding is not particularly apposite for the
reasons you have stated Gordon,
Gordon did not state any reasons. And it is absolutely aposite to compare two
offences both of which appear to be minor but can cause death..
Post by Rich80105
but the other reason it is not
appropriate is because Covid-19 _could_ have been so much worse than
road deaths.
Meaningless and non sequitur.
Post by Rich80105
Boris Johnson is happy that the UK have reduced deaths to
around 150 a day. Adjusting for population size, that would be around
10 or 11 a day for New Zealand. We could get to that level if we had
wide-spread flouting of the rules, accompanied by those caught
clamming up on others to avoid dobbing friends in for a fine.
That is all right then, let us stop prosecuting people for breaking the law.
Who has suggested that?
Post by Tony
That would make you deliriously happy no doubt.
Of course not - do try to give a fair argument rather than being
insulting.
Post by Tony
SImple really, if you are going to make a law you need to be able to police it.
Could not be simpler. Otherwise don't make the law or regulation.
Laws and regulations are not always simple - and prosecuting
non-comliance can be very difficult. The devil is in the detail
however - so what penalties do you recommend?
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
I
suspect the high level of fines that could be imposed by Australian
police later caused them difficulties as there were protests about
police actions rather than the emphasis staying on trying to shut down
infections.
There is no evidence to support that.
Yes there is - newspaper reports in Sydney and Melbourne covered anger
and protests about the fines.
Post by Tony
However your priorities have not changed, you would rather have a Labour party
that is in power than save lives - that's OK, you are entitled to have that
belief set.
You do keep bringing this back to politics, Tony. Why are you so
obsessed? The reality is that all the government has done is follow
the advice that would have been the same regardless of government. Are
you saying other political parties would not have followed that
advice? If that is your assertion, tell us which of the
recommendations from National would have saved more lives . . .
And with regard to penalties -
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/how-best-to-get-covid-19-contacts-to-do-the-right-thing
Tony
2021-03-02 03:19:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 01 Mar 2021 19:08:32 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by Tony
An acquaintance was pulled up two or three months ago on a motorway for doing
11kph over the speed limit. He was unhappy because it was 8am on a Sunday
morning and traffic was extremely light. However on reflection he said "fair
enough, I should have been more careful". And so say most of us.
After all speeding is a major cause of crashes and can cause death.
Now we have a young person who has disobeyed a legal imperative to stay
at
home
and at least one other person who has done something very similar, also in
breach of a regulation or law (I don't care which). We have been warned
tirelessly for about a year about how serious that behaviour can be; it
can
be
deadly we have been told and indeed it can.
But apparently we have to be kind because we might be guilty of singling people
out or something obscure like that.
Balance is needed. Jump on these people like a ton of bricks and they will
not be keen to tell where they have been.
The enemy is Covid, and in fighting will let it take a foothold.
Post by Tony
We are however exhorted to tell the police about drivers who behave badly.
Perhaps next time I should be kind and not alert the non-existent team
of
five
million via the authorities if I see someone breaking the law and putting
people's lives at risk.
In fact why don't we all just ignore the science and have a mass parade down
our nearest city streets in an attempt to persuade the city council to abandon
regulations and encourage people to have parties of thousands - after
all
it
would be the kind thing to do.
By the way, the behaviour of the last week or two puts the lie to the
"team
of
five million myth", it is a much tinier than that.
Having a bad day?
The comparison with speeding is not particularly apposite for the
reasons you have stated Gordon,
Gordon did not state any reasons. And it is absolutely aposite to compare two
offences both of which appear to be minor but can cause death..
Post by Rich80105
but the other reason it is not
appropriate is because Covid-19 _could_ have been so much worse than
road deaths.
Meaningless and non sequitur.
Post by Rich80105
Boris Johnson is happy that the UK have reduced deaths to
around 150 a day. Adjusting for population size, that would be around
10 or 11 a day for New Zealand. We could get to that level if we had
wide-spread flouting of the rules, accompanied by those caught
clamming up on others to avoid dobbing friends in for a fine.
That is all right then, let us stop prosecuting people for breaking the law.
Who has suggested that?
Post by Tony
That would make you deliriously happy no doubt.
Of course not - do try to give a fair argument rather than being
insulting.
Post by Tony
SImple really, if you are going to make a law you need to be able to police it.
Could not be simpler. Otherwise don't make the law or regulation.
Laws and regulations are not always simple - and prosecuting
non-comliance can be very difficult. The devil is in the detail
however - so what penalties do you recommend?
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
I
suspect the high level of fines that could be imposed by Australian
police later caused them difficulties as there were protests about
police actions rather than the emphasis staying on trying to shut down
infections.
There is no evidence to support that.
Yes there is - newspaper reports in Sydney and Melbourne covered anger
and protests about the fines.
Post by Tony
However your priorities have not changed, you would rather have a Labour party
that is in power than save lives - that's OK, you are entitled to have that
belief set.
You do keep bringing this back to politics, Tony. Why are you so
obsessed? The reality is that all the government has done is follow
the advice that would have been the same regardless of government. Are
you saying other political parties would not have followed that
advice? If that is your assertion, tell us which of the
recommendations from National would have saved more lives . . .
And with regard to penalties -
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/how-best-to-get-covid-19-contacts-to-do-the-right-thingNot
persuasive by a long chalk.
Use the regulations and make people accountable or cancel the regulations
because they are then of no value.
Tony
2021-03-02 03:16:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 01 Mar 2021 19:08:32 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by Tony
An acquaintance was pulled up two or three months ago on a motorway for doing
11kph over the speed limit. He was unhappy because it was 8am on a Sunday
morning and traffic was extremely light. However on reflection he said "fair
enough, I should have been more careful". And so say most of us.
After all speeding is a major cause of crashes and can cause death.
Now we have a young person who has disobeyed a legal imperative to stay
at
home
and at least one other person who has done something very similar, also in
breach of a regulation or law (I don't care which). We have been warned
tirelessly for about a year about how serious that behaviour can be; it
can
be
deadly we have been told and indeed it can.
But apparently we have to be kind because we might be guilty of singling people
out or something obscure like that.
Balance is needed. Jump on these people like a ton of bricks and they will
not be keen to tell where they have been.
The enemy is Covid, and in fighting will let it take a foothold.
Post by Tony
We are however exhorted to tell the police about drivers who behave badly.
Perhaps next time I should be kind and not alert the non-existent team of five
million via the authorities if I see someone breaking the law and putting
people's lives at risk.
In fact why don't we all just ignore the science and have a mass parade down
our nearest city streets in an attempt to persuade the city council to abandon
regulations and encourage people to have parties of thousands - after all it
would be the kind thing to do.
By the way, the behaviour of the last week or two puts the lie to the
"team
of
five million myth", it is a much tinier than that.
Having a bad day?
The comparison with speeding is not particularly apposite for the
reasons you have stated Gordon,
Gordon did not state any reasons. And it is absolutely aposite to compare two
offences both of which appear to be minor but can cause death..
Post by Rich80105
but the other reason it is not
appropriate is because Covid-19 _could_ have been so much worse than
road deaths.
Meaningless and non sequitur.
Post by Rich80105
Boris Johnson is happy that the UK have reduced deaths to
around 150 a day. Adjusting for population size, that would be around
10 or 11 a day for New Zealand. We could get to that level if we had
wide-spread flouting of the rules, accompanied by those caught
clamming up on others to avoid dobbing friends in for a fine.
That is all right then, let us stop prosecuting people for breaking the law.
Who has suggested that?
You.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
That would make you deliriously happy no doubt.
Of course not - do try to give a fair argument rather than being
insulting.
No insult mertely the truth.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
SImple really, if you are going to make a law you need to be able to police it.
Could not be simpler. Otherwise don't make the law or regulation.
Laws and regulations are not always simple - and prosecuting
non-comliance can be very difficult. The devil is in the detail
however - so what penalties do you recommend?
Whatever is currently in legislation, simply use the existing legislative
powers. Really simple, but stop pussy footing around.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
I
suspect the high level of fines that could be imposed by Australian
police later caused them difficulties as there were protests about
police actions rather than the emphasis staying on trying to shut down
infections.
There is no evidence to support that.
Yes there is - newspaper reports in Sydney and Melbourne covered anger
and protests about the fines.
No there is not, those reports did not evidence to support that the police
action caused later difficulties. Newspaper reports are not evidence.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
However your priorities have not changed, you would rather have a Labour party
that is in power than save lives - that's OK, you are entitled to have that
belief set.
You do keep bringing this back to politics, Tony. Why are you so
obsessed? The reality is that all the government has done is follow
the advice that would have been the same regardless of government. Are
you saying other political parties would not have followed that
advice? If that is your assertion, tell us which of the
recommendations from National would have saved more lives . . .
Stop changing the subject.
I am not obsessed, you are the one that will never in a million years ever
criticise any Labour government. That is obsession.
James Christophers
2021-03-02 04:56:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 01 Mar 2021 19:08:32 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by Tony
An acquaintance was pulled up two or three months ago on a motorway for doing
11kph over the speed limit. He was unhappy because it was 8am on a Sunday
morning and traffic was extremely light. However on reflection he said "fair
enough, I should have been more careful". And so say most of us.
After all speeding is a major cause of crashes and can cause death.
Now we have a young person who has disobeyed a legal imperative to stay
at
home
and at least one other person who has done something very similar, also in
breach of a regulation or law (I don't care which). We have been warned
tirelessly for about a year about how serious that behaviour can be; it
can
be
deadly we have been told and indeed it can.
But apparently we have to be kind because we might be guilty of singling people
out or something obscure like that.
Balance is needed. Jump on these people like a ton of bricks and they will
not be keen to tell where they have been.
The enemy is Covid, and in fighting will let it take a foothold.
Post by Tony
We are however exhorted to tell the police about drivers who behave badly.
Perhaps next time I should be kind and not alert the non-existent team of five
million via the authorities if I see someone breaking the law and putting
people's lives at risk.
In fact why don't we all just ignore the science and have a mass parade down
our nearest city streets in an attempt to persuade the city council to abandon
regulations and encourage people to have parties of thousands - after all it
would be the kind thing to do.
By the way, the behaviour of the last week or two puts the lie to the
"team
of
five million myth", it is a much tinier than that.
Having a bad day?
The comparison with speeding is not particularly apposite for the
reasons you have stated Gordon,
Gordon did not state any reasons. And it is absolutely aposite to compare two
offences both of which appear to be minor but can cause death..
Post by Rich80105
but the other reason it is not
appropriate is because Covid-19 _could_ have been so much worse than
road deaths.
Meaningless and non sequitur.
Post by Rich80105
Boris Johnson is happy that the UK have reduced deaths to
around 150 a day. Adjusting for population size, that would be around
10 or 11 a day for New Zealand. We could get to that level if we had
wide-spread flouting of the rules, accompanied by those caught
clamming up on others to avoid dobbing friends in for a fine.
That is all right then, let us stop prosecuting people for breaking the law.
Who has suggested that?
You.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
That would make you deliriously happy no doubt.
Of course not - do try to give a fair argument rather than being
insulting.
No insult mertely the truth.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
SImple really, if you are going to make a law you need to be able to police it.
Could not be simpler. Otherwise don't make the law or regulation.
Laws and regulations are not always simple - and prosecuting
non-comliance can be very difficult. The devil is in the detail
however - so what penalties do you recommend?
Whatever is currently in legislation, simply use the existing legislative
powers. Really simple, but stop pussy footing around.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
I
suspect the high level of fines that could be imposed by Australian
police later caused them difficulties as there were protests about
police actions rather than the emphasis staying on trying to shut down
infections.
There is no evidence to support that.
Yes there is - newspaper reports in Sydney and Melbourne covered anger
and protests about the fines.
No there is not, those reports did not evidence to support that the police
action caused later difficulties. Newspaper reports are not evidence.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
However your priorities have not changed, you would rather have a Labour party
that is in power than save lives
The current Labour government shows otherwise, and in spades, and those who for their own reasons prefer Labour to govern are understandably onside with it. What other would any reasonable man expect?
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
- that's OK, you are entitled to have that
belief set.
I rather suspect Rich is onboard with that, your latest papal imprimatur, and the generosity of spirit suffusing its every syllable!
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
You do keep bringing this back to politics, Tony. Why are you so
obsessed? The reality is that all the government has done is follow
the advice that would have been the same regardless of government. Are
you saying other political parties would not have followed that
advice? If that is your assertion, tell us which of the
recommendations from National would have saved more lives . . .
Stop changing the subject.
The query, though arguably spurious, is nevertheless germane within the ambit of any discourse involving any party-led government and its policies.
Post by Tony
I am not obsessed, you are the one that will never in a million years ever
criticise any Labour government.
...by or from conviction.
Post by Tony
That is obsession.
As I say...
Rich80105
2021-03-02 05:14:09 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 1 Mar 2021 20:56:04 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 01 Mar 2021 19:08:32 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by Tony
An acquaintance was pulled up two or three months ago on a motorway for doing
11kph over the speed limit. He was unhappy because it was 8am on a Sunday
morning and traffic was extremely light. However on reflection he said "fair
enough, I should have been more careful". And so say most of us.
After all speeding is a major cause of crashes and can cause death.
Now we have a young person who has disobeyed a legal imperative to stay
at
home
and at least one other person who has done something very similar, also in
breach of a regulation or law (I don't care which). We have been warned
tirelessly for about a year about how serious that behaviour can be; it
can
be
deadly we have been told and indeed it can.
But apparently we have to be kind because we might be guilty of singling
people
out or something obscure like that.
Balance is needed. Jump on these people like a ton of bricks and they will
not be keen to tell where they have been.
The enemy is Covid, and in fighting will let it take a foothold.
Post by Tony
We are however exhorted to tell the police about drivers who behave badly.
Perhaps next time I should be kind and not alert the non-existent team of five
million via the authorities if I see someone breaking the law and putting
people's lives at risk.
In fact why don't we all just ignore the science and have a mass parade down
our nearest city streets in an attempt to persuade the city council to abandon
regulations and encourage people to have parties of thousands - after all it
would be the kind thing to do.
By the way, the behaviour of the last week or two puts the lie to the
"team
of
five million myth", it is a much tinier than that.
Having a bad day?
The comparison with speeding is not particularly apposite for the
reasons you have stated Gordon,
Gordon did not state any reasons. And it is absolutely aposite to compare two
offences both of which appear to be minor but can cause death..
Post by Rich80105
but the other reason it is not
appropriate is because Covid-19 _could_ have been so much worse than
road deaths.
Meaningless and non sequitur.
Post by Rich80105
Boris Johnson is happy that the UK have reduced deaths to
around 150 a day. Adjusting for population size, that would be around
10 or 11 a day for New Zealand. We could get to that level if we had
wide-spread flouting of the rules, accompanied by those caught
clamming up on others to avoid dobbing friends in for a fine.
That is all right then, let us stop prosecuting people for breaking the law.
Who has suggested that?
You.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
That would make you deliriously happy no doubt.
Of course not - do try to give a fair argument rather than being
insulting.
No insult mertely the truth.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
SImple really, if you are going to make a law you need to be able to police it.
Could not be simpler. Otherwise don't make the law or regulation.
Laws and regulations are not always simple - and prosecuting
non-comliance can be very difficult. The devil is in the detail
however - so what penalties do you recommend?
Whatever is currently in legislation, simply use the existing legislative
powers. Really simple, but stop pussy footing around.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
I
suspect the high level of fines that could be imposed by Australian
police later caused them difficulties as there were protests about
police actions rather than the emphasis staying on trying to shut down
infections.
There is no evidence to support that.
Yes there is - newspaper reports in Sydney and Melbourne covered anger
and protests about the fines.
No there is not, those reports did not evidence to support that the police
action caused later difficulties. Newspaper reports are not evidence.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
However your priorities have not changed, you would rather have a Labour party
that is in power than save lives
The current Labour government shows otherwise, and in spades, and those who for their own reasons prefer Labour to govern are understandably onside with it. What other would any reasonable man expect?
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
- that's OK, you are entitled to have that
belief set.
I rather suspect Rich is onboard with that, your latest papal imprimatur, and the generosity of spirit suffusing its every syllable!
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
You do keep bringing this back to politics, Tony. Why are you so
obsessed? The reality is that all the government has done is follow
the advice that would have been the same regardless of government. Are
you saying other political parties would not have followed that
advice? If that is your assertion, tell us which of the
recommendations from National would have saved more lives . . .
Stop changing the subject.
The query, though arguably spurious, is nevertheless germane within the ambit of any discourse involving any party-led government and its policies.
Post by Tony
I am not obsessed, you are the one that will never in a million years ever
criticise any Labour government.
...by or from conviction.
Not really significant in relation to this thread, but I have
criticised the government on at least one issue, but that is normal
for supporters of any party; few agree with everything that party
does. In relation to the current issue however, the criticism is in
stark contrast to the Subject of the thread . . . Supporters of all
parties can find something to think about in the article from Andew
Geddes; but some would perhaps prefer to avoid considering where the
balance lies in relation to undesirable and disappointing actions by a
small number of people which have led to current Covid levels.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
That is obsession.
As I say...
John Bowes
2021-03-02 21:20:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 1 Mar 2021 20:56:04 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 01 Mar 2021 19:08:32 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by Tony
An acquaintance was pulled up two or three months ago on a motorway for
doing
11kph over the speed limit. He was unhappy because it was 8am on a Sunday
morning and traffic was extremely light. However on reflection he said
"fair
enough, I should have been more careful". And so say most of us.
After all speeding is a major cause of crashes and can cause death.
Now we have a young person who has disobeyed a legal imperative to stay
at
home
and at least one other person who has done something very similar, also in
breach of a regulation or law (I don't care which). We have been warned
tirelessly for about a year about how serious that behaviour can be; it
can
be
deadly we have been told and indeed it can.
But apparently we have to be kind because we might be guilty of singling
people
out or something obscure like that.
Balance is needed. Jump on these people like a ton of bricks and they will
not be keen to tell where they have been.
The enemy is Covid, and in fighting will let it take a foothold.
Post by Tony
We are however exhorted to tell the police about drivers who behave badly.
Perhaps next time I should be kind and not alert the non-existent team of
five
million via the authorities if I see someone breaking the law and putting
people's lives at risk.
In fact why don't we all just ignore the science and have a mass parade
down
our nearest city streets in an attempt to persuade the city council to
abandon
regulations and encourage people to have parties of thousands - after all
it
would be the kind thing to do.
By the way, the behaviour of the last week or two puts the lie to the
"team
of
five million myth", it is a much tinier than that.
Having a bad day?
The comparison with speeding is not particularly apposite for the
reasons you have stated Gordon,
Gordon did not state any reasons. And it is absolutely aposite to compare two
offences both of which appear to be minor but can cause death..
Post by Rich80105
but the other reason it is not
appropriate is because Covid-19 _could_ have been so much worse than
road deaths.
Meaningless and non sequitur.
Post by Rich80105
Boris Johnson is happy that the UK have reduced deaths to
around 150 a day. Adjusting for population size, that would be around
10 or 11 a day for New Zealand. We could get to that level if we had
wide-spread flouting of the rules, accompanied by those caught
clamming up on others to avoid dobbing friends in for a fine.
That is all right then, let us stop prosecuting people for breaking the law.
Who has suggested that?
You.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
That would make you deliriously happy no doubt.
Of course not - do try to give a fair argument rather than being
insulting.
No insult mertely the truth.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
SImple really, if you are going to make a law you need to be able to police it.
Could not be simpler. Otherwise don't make the law or regulation.
Laws and regulations are not always simple - and prosecuting
non-comliance can be very difficult. The devil is in the detail
however - so what penalties do you recommend?
Whatever is currently in legislation, simply use the existing legislative
powers. Really simple, but stop pussy footing around.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
I
suspect the high level of fines that could be imposed by Australian
police later caused them difficulties as there were protests about
police actions rather than the emphasis staying on trying to shut down
infections.
There is no evidence to support that.
Yes there is - newspaper reports in Sydney and Melbourne covered anger
and protests about the fines.
No there is not, those reports did not evidence to support that the police
action caused later difficulties. Newspaper reports are not evidence.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
However your priorities have not changed, you would rather have a Labour party
that is in power than save lives
The current Labour government shows otherwise, and in spades, and those who for their own reasons prefer Labour to govern are understandably onside with it. What other would any reasonable man expect?
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
- that's OK, you are entitled to have that
belief set.
I rather suspect Rich is onboard with that, your latest papal imprimatur, and the generosity of spirit suffusing its every syllable!
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
You do keep bringing this back to politics, Tony. Why are you so
obsessed? The reality is that all the government has done is follow
the advice that would have been the same regardless of government. Are
you saying other political parties would not have followed that
advice? If that is your assertion, tell us which of the
recommendations from National would have saved more lives . . .
Stop changing the subject.
The query, though arguably spurious, is nevertheless germane within the ambit of any discourse involving any party-led government and its policies.
Post by Tony
I am not obsessed, you are the one that will never in a million years ever
criticise any Labour government.
...by or from conviction.
Not really significant in relation to this thread, but I have
criticised the government on at least one issue,
When and what issue Rich? or is your convenient memory refusing to give you more data? :)
Post by Rich80105
but that is normal
for supporters of any party; few agree with everything that party
does. In relation to the current issue however, the criticism is in
stark contrast to the Subject of the thread . . . Supporters of all
parties can find something to think about in the article from Andew
Geddes; but some would perhaps prefer to avoid considering where the
balance lies in relation to undesirable and disappointing actions by a
small number of people which have led to current Covid levels.
Tony
2021-03-03 02:58:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 1 Mar 2021 20:56:04 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 01 Mar 2021 19:08:32 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by Tony
An acquaintance was pulled up two or three months ago on a motorway
for
doing
11kph over the speed limit. He was unhappy because it was 8am on a Sunday
morning and traffic was extremely light. However on reflection he
said
"fair
enough, I should have been more careful". And so say most of us.
After all speeding is a major cause of crashes and can cause death.
Now we have a young person who has disobeyed a legal imperative to stay
at
home
and at least one other person who has done something very similar,
also
in
breach of a regulation or law (I don't care which). We have been warned
tirelessly for about a year about how serious that behaviour can be; it
can
be
deadly we have been told and indeed it can.
But apparently we have to be kind because we might be guilty of singling
people
out or something obscure like that.
Balance is needed. Jump on these people like a ton of bricks and they will
not be keen to tell where they have been.
The enemy is Covid, and in fighting will let it take a foothold.
Post by Tony
We are however exhorted to tell the police about drivers who behave badly.
Perhaps next time I should be kind and not alert the non-existent
team of
five
million via the authorities if I see someone breaking the law and putting
people's lives at risk.
In fact why don't we all just ignore the science and have a mass
parade
down
our nearest city streets in an attempt to persuade the city council
to
abandon
regulations and encourage people to have parties of thousands - after
all
it
would be the kind thing to do.
By the way, the behaviour of the last week or two puts the lie to the
"team
of
five million myth", it is a much tinier than that.
Having a bad day?
The comparison with speeding is not particularly apposite for the
reasons you have stated Gordon,
Gordon did not state any reasons. And it is absolutely aposite to compare two
offences both of which appear to be minor but can cause death..
Post by Rich80105
but the other reason it is not
appropriate is because Covid-19 _could_ have been so much worse than
road deaths.
Meaningless and non sequitur.
Post by Rich80105
Boris Johnson is happy that the UK have reduced deaths to
around 150 a day. Adjusting for population size, that would be around
10 or 11 a day for New Zealand. We could get to that level if we had
wide-spread flouting of the rules, accompanied by those caught
clamming up on others to avoid dobbing friends in for a fine.
That is all right then, let us stop prosecuting people for breaking the law.
Who has suggested that?
You.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
That would make you deliriously happy no doubt.
Of course not - do try to give a fair argument rather than being
insulting.
No insult mertely the truth.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
SImple really, if you are going to make a law you need to be able to
police
it.
Could not be simpler. Otherwise don't make the law or regulation.
Laws and regulations are not always simple - and prosecuting
non-comliance can be very difficult. The devil is in the detail
however - so what penalties do you recommend?
Whatever is currently in legislation, simply use the existing legislative
powers. Really simple, but stop pussy footing around.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
I
suspect the high level of fines that could be imposed by Australian
police later caused them difficulties as there were protests about
police actions rather than the emphasis staying on trying to shut down
infections.
There is no evidence to support that.
Yes there is - newspaper reports in Sydney and Melbourne covered anger
and protests about the fines.
No there is not, those reports did not evidence to support that the police
action caused later difficulties. Newspaper reports are not evidence.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
However your priorities have not changed, you would rather have a Labour party
that is in power than save lives
The current Labour government shows otherwise, and in spades, and those who
for their own reasons prefer Labour to govern are understandably onside with
it. What other would any reasonable man expect?
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
- that's OK, you are entitled to have that
belief set.
I rather suspect Rich is onboard with that, your latest papal imprimatur, and
the generosity of spirit suffusing its every syllable!
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
You do keep bringing this back to politics, Tony. Why are you so
obsessed? The reality is that all the government has done is follow
the advice that would have been the same regardless of government. Are
you saying other political parties would not have followed that
advice? If that is your assertion, tell us which of the
recommendations from National would have saved more lives . . .
Stop changing the subject.
The query, though arguably spurious, is nevertheless germane within the ambit
of any discourse involving any party-led government and its policies.
Post by Tony
I am not obsessed, you are the one that will never in a million years ever
criticise any Labour government.
...by or from conviction.
Not really significant in relation to this thread, but I have
criticised the government on at least one issue
Cite?
Post by Rich80105
, but that is normal
for supporters of any party; few agree with everything that party
does. In relation to the current issue however, the criticism is in
stark contrast to the Subject of the thread . . . Supporters of all
parties can find something to think about in the article from Andew
Geddes; but some would perhaps prefer to avoid considering where the
balance lies in relation to undesirable and disappointing actions by a
small number of people which have led to current Covid levels.
The balance does not exist and absolutely cannot exist if all transgressors are
let off scott free. Simple logic. There is no wonder people are misbehaving is
there?
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
That is obsession.
As I say...
Tony
2021-03-03 02:51:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 01 Mar 2021 19:08:32 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by Tony
An acquaintance was pulled up two or three months ago on a motorway
for
doing
11kph over the speed limit. He was unhappy because it was 8am on a Sunday
morning and traffic was extremely light. However on reflection he said "fair
enough, I should have been more careful". And so say most of us.
After all speeding is a major cause of crashes and can cause death.
Now we have a young person who has disobeyed a legal imperative to stay
at
home
and at least one other person who has done something very similar,
also
in
breach of a regulation or law (I don't care which). We have been warned
tirelessly for about a year about how serious that behaviour can be; it
can
be
deadly we have been told and indeed it can.
But apparently we have to be kind because we might be guilty of
singling
people
out or something obscure like that.
Balance is needed. Jump on these people like a ton of bricks and they will
not be keen to tell where they have been.
The enemy is Covid, and in fighting will let it take a foothold.
Post by Tony
We are however exhorted to tell the police about drivers who behave badly.
Perhaps next time I should be kind and not alert the non-existent team
of
five
million via the authorities if I see someone breaking the law and putting
people's lives at risk.
In fact why don't we all just ignore the science and have a mass
parade
down
our nearest city streets in an attempt to persuade the city council to abandon
regulations and encourage people to have parties of thousands - after
all
it
would be the kind thing to do.
By the way, the behaviour of the last week or two puts the lie to the
"team
of
five million myth", it is a much tinier than that.
Having a bad day?
The comparison with speeding is not particularly apposite for the
reasons you have stated Gordon,
Gordon did not state any reasons. And it is absolutely aposite to compare two
offences both of which appear to be minor but can cause death..
Post by Rich80105
but the other reason it is not
appropriate is because Covid-19 _could_ have been so much worse than
road deaths.
Meaningless and non sequitur.
Post by Rich80105
Boris Johnson is happy that the UK have reduced deaths to
around 150 a day. Adjusting for population size, that would be around
10 or 11 a day for New Zealand. We could get to that level if we had
wide-spread flouting of the rules, accompanied by those caught
clamming up on others to avoid dobbing friends in for a fine.
That is all right then, let us stop prosecuting people for breaking the law.
Who has suggested that?
You.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
That would make you deliriously happy no doubt.
Of course not - do try to give a fair argument rather than being
insulting.
No insult mertely the truth.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
SImple really, if you are going to make a law you need to be able to
police
it.
Could not be simpler. Otherwise don't make the law or regulation.
Laws and regulations are not always simple - and prosecuting
non-comliance can be very difficult. The devil is in the detail
however - so what penalties do you recommend?
Whatever is currently in legislation, simply use the existing legislative
powers. Really simple, but stop pussy footing around.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
I
suspect the high level of fines that could be imposed by Australian
police later caused them difficulties as there were protests about
police actions rather than the emphasis staying on trying to shut down
infections.
There is no evidence to support that.
Yes there is - newspaper reports in Sydney and Melbourne covered anger
and protests about the fines.
No there is not, those reports did not evidence to support that the police
action caused later difficulties. Newspaper reports are not evidence.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
However your priorities have not changed, you would rather have a Labour party
that is in power than save lives
The current Labour government shows otherwise, and in spades, and those who
for their own reasons prefer Labour to govern are understandably onside with
it. What other would any reasonable man expect?
The current governnment shows nothing of the sort.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
- that's OK, you are entitled to have that
belief set.
I rather suspect Rich is onboard with that, your latest papal imprimatur, and
the generosity of spirit suffusing its every syllable!
You onboxious old fart. Can't avoid the abuse can you?
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
You do keep bringing this back to politics, Tony. Why are you so
obsessed? The reality is that all the government has done is follow
the advice that would have been the same regardless of government. Are
you saying other political parties would not have followed that
advice? If that is your assertion, tell us which of the
recommendations from National would have saved more lives . . .
Stop changing the subject.
The query, though arguably spurious, is nevertheless germane within the ambit
of any discourse involving any party-led government and its policies.
Irrelevant.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
I am not obsessed, you are the one that will never in a million years ever
criticise any Labour government.
...by or from conviction.
Post by Tony
That is obsession.
As I say...
Did you? I don't believe so.
Tony
2021-03-02 01:02:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by Tony
An acquaintance was pulled up two or three months ago on a motorway for doing
11kph over the speed limit. He was unhappy because it was 8am on a Sunday
morning and traffic was extremely light. However on reflection he said "fair
enough, I should have been more careful". And so say most of us.
After all speeding is a major cause of crashes and can cause death.
Now we have a young person who has disobeyed a legal imperative to stay at home
and at least one other person who has done something very similar, also in
breach of a regulation or law (I don't care which). We have been warned
tirelessly for about a year about how serious that behaviour can be; it can be
deadly we have been told and indeed it can.
But apparently we have to be kind because we might be guilty of singling people
out or something obscure like that.
Balance is needed. Jump on these people like a ton of bricks and they will
not be keen to tell where they have been.
Who said anything about a ton of bricks? I am not advocating heavy punishment
therefore "Ton of bricks" does not apply.
Post by Gordon
The enemy is Covid, and in fighting will let it take a foothold.
Post by Tony
We are however exhorted to tell the police about drivers who behave badly.
Perhaps next time I should be kind and not alert the non-existent team of five
million via the authorities if I see someone breaking the law and putting
people's lives at risk.
In fact why don't we all just ignore the science and have a mass parade down
our nearest city streets in an attempt to persuade the city council to abandon
regulations and encourage people to have parties of thousands - after all it
would be the kind thing to do.
By the way, the behaviour of the last week or two puts the lie to the "team of
five million myth", it is a much tinier than that.
Having a bad day?
No. Merely trying to save lives. You?
Rich80105
2021-03-02 01:17:31 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 01 Mar 2021 19:02:59 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Gordon
Post by Tony
An acquaintance was pulled up two or three months ago on a motorway for doing
11kph over the speed limit. He was unhappy because it was 8am on a Sunday
morning and traffic was extremely light. However on reflection he said "fair
enough, I should have been more careful". And so say most of us.
After all speeding is a major cause of crashes and can cause death.
Now we have a young person who has disobeyed a legal imperative to stay at home
and at least one other person who has done something very similar, also in
breach of a regulation or law (I don't care which). We have been warned
tirelessly for about a year about how serious that behaviour can be; it can be
deadly we have been told and indeed it can.
But apparently we have to be kind because we might be guilty of singling people
out or something obscure like that.
Balance is needed. Jump on these people like a ton of bricks and they will
not be keen to tell where they have been.
Who said anything about a ton of bricks? I am not advocating heavy punishment
therefore "Ton of bricks" does not apply.
Thanks for clarifying that, Tony. So what do you think an appropriate
punishment would be?
Post by Tony
Post by Gordon
The enemy is Covid, and in fighting will let it take a foothold.
Post by Tony
We are however exhorted to tell the police about drivers who behave badly.
Perhaps next time I should be kind and not alert the non-existent team of five
million via the authorities if I see someone breaking the law and putting
people's lives at risk.
In fact why don't we all just ignore the science and have a mass parade down
our nearest city streets in an attempt to persuade the city council to abandon
regulations and encourage people to have parties of thousands - after all it
would be the kind thing to do.
By the way, the behaviour of the last week or two puts the lie to the "team of
five million myth", it is a much tinier than that.
Having a bad day?
No. Merely trying to save lives. You?
Tony
2021-03-02 03:19:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 01 Mar 2021 19:02:59 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Gordon
Post by Tony
An acquaintance was pulled up two or three months ago on a motorway for doing
11kph over the speed limit. He was unhappy because it was 8am on a Sunday
morning and traffic was extremely light. However on reflection he said "fair
enough, I should have been more careful". And so say most of us.
After all speeding is a major cause of crashes and can cause death.
Now we have a young person who has disobeyed a legal imperative to stay at home
and at least one other person who has done something very similar, also in
breach of a regulation or law (I don't care which). We have been warned
tirelessly for about a year about how serious that behaviour can be; it
can
be
deadly we have been told and indeed it can.
But apparently we have to be kind because we might be guilty of singling people
out or something obscure like that.
Balance is needed. Jump on these people like a ton of bricks and they will
not be keen to tell where they have been.
Who said anything about a ton of bricks? I am not advocating heavy punishment
therefore "Ton of bricks" does not apply.
Thanks for clarifying that, Tony. So what do you think an appropriate
punishment would be?
Whatever the regulation allows - duh!
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Gordon
The enemy is Covid, and in fighting will let it take a foothold.
Post by Tony
We are however exhorted to tell the police about drivers who behave badly.
Perhaps next time I should be kind and not alert the non-existent team of five
million via the authorities if I see someone breaking the law and putting
people's lives at risk.
In fact why don't we all just ignore the science and have a mass parade down
our nearest city streets in an attempt to persuade the city council to abandon
regulations and encourage people to have parties of thousands - after all it
would be the kind thing to do.
By the way, the behaviour of the last week or two puts the lie to the
"team
of
five million myth", it is a much tinier than that.
Having a bad day?
No. Merely trying to save lives. You?
Tony
2021-03-02 03:21:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 01 Mar 2021 19:02:59 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Gordon
Post by Tony
An acquaintance was pulled up two or three months ago on a motorway for doing
11kph over the speed limit. He was unhappy because it was 8am on a Sunday
morning and traffic was extremely light. However on reflection he said "fair
enough, I should have been more careful". And so say most of us.
After all speeding is a major cause of crashes and can cause death.
Now we have a young person who has disobeyed a legal imperative to stay at home
and at least one other person who has done something very similar, also in
breach of a regulation or law (I don't care which). We have been warned
tirelessly for about a year about how serious that behaviour can be; it
can
be
deadly we have been told and indeed it can.
But apparently we have to be kind because we might be guilty of singling people
out or something obscure like that.
Balance is needed. Jump on these people like a ton of bricks and they will
not be keen to tell where they have been.
Who said anything about a ton of bricks? I am not advocating heavy punishment
therefore "Ton of bricks" does not apply.
Thanks for clarifying that, Tony.
I clarified nothing, it was Gordon who suggested overreaction not me.
Post by Rich80105
So what do you think an appropriate
punishment would be?
Post by Tony
Post by Gordon
The enemy is Covid, and in fighting will let it take a foothold.
Post by Tony
We are however exhorted to tell the police about drivers who behave badly.
Perhaps next time I should be kind and not alert the non-existent team of five
million via the authorities if I see someone breaking the law and putting
people's lives at risk.
In fact why don't we all just ignore the science and have a mass parade down
our nearest city streets in an attempt to persuade the city council to abandon
regulations and encourage people to have parties of thousands - after all it
would be the kind thing to do.
By the way, the behaviour of the last week or two puts the lie to the
"team
of
five million myth", it is a much tinier than that.
Having a bad day?
No. Merely trying to save lives. You?
Rich80105
2021-03-02 03:48:48 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 01 Mar 2021 21:21:05 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 01 Mar 2021 19:02:59 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Gordon
Post by Tony
An acquaintance was pulled up two or three months ago on a motorway for doing
11kph over the speed limit. He was unhappy because it was 8am on a Sunday
morning and traffic was extremely light. However on reflection he said "fair
enough, I should have been more careful". And so say most of us.
After all speeding is a major cause of crashes and can cause death.
Now we have a young person who has disobeyed a legal imperative to stay at home
and at least one other person who has done something very similar, also in
breach of a regulation or law (I don't care which). We have been warned
tirelessly for about a year about how serious that behaviour can be; it
can
be
deadly we have been told and indeed it can.
But apparently we have to be kind because we might be guilty of singling people
out or something obscure like that.
Balance is needed. Jump on these people like a ton of bricks and they will
not be keen to tell where they have been.
Who said anything about a ton of bricks? I am not advocating heavy punishment
therefore "Ton of bricks" does not apply.
Thanks for clarifying that, Tony.
I clarified nothing, it was Gordon who suggested overreaction not me.
Indeed you are correct - you clarified nothing. "Ton of bricks" means
different things to different people - and as the excellent article by
Andrew Geddis points out:
"And these sorts of prosecutions do occur; apparently there’s been
over 800 of them since Covid-19 hit our shores a year ago. Of course,
that’s only a small sample of total lockdown breaches as police
practice has been to only prosecute egregious, or repeat, offenders.
Which probably is fair enough if we want to avoid completely clogging
up our courts. "

We cannot tell just what those prosecuted had done, but it is far from
"doing nothing," and then to an important issue relating to this
thread:
____________
"The problem here is balancing incentives for people to comply with
the self-isolation rules against getting information from those who
fail to do so, in order to minimise any damage done. Because, if the
consequence of telling contact tracers how and when you breached a
self-isolation requirement is prosecution and potential jail time or a
hefty fine … well, would you do it? And without that information, it
will be harder to track the potential spread of the virus through the
community, which may lead to even longer and wider lockdowns.

How, then, do you solve that particular calculation? Are any deterred
self-isolation breaches worth the lost information about whatever
breaches occur in spite of the law? When giving your answer to this
problem, show your workings."
________________

So there we have it - what is best for the country overall? A fine of
up to $4000 is possibly trivial to some wealthy people, but just the
thterat of it may be enough to have someone on a benefit or minimum
wage doing everything they can to avoid any possibility of being
charged . . . Is the prospect of one or more fines of "up to $4000",
worth a life?
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
So what do you think an appropriate
punishment would be?
Post by Tony
Post by Gordon
The enemy is Covid, and in fighting will let it take a foothold.
Post by Tony
We are however exhorted to tell the police about drivers who behave badly.
Perhaps next time I should be kind and not alert the non-existent team of five
million via the authorities if I see someone breaking the law and putting
people's lives at risk.
In fact why don't we all just ignore the science and have a mass parade down
our nearest city streets in an attempt to persuade the city council to abandon
regulations and encourage people to have parties of thousands - after all it
would be the kind thing to do.
By the way, the behaviour of the last week or two puts the lie to the
"team
of
five million myth", it is a much tinier than that.
Having a bad day?
No. Merely trying to save lives. You?
Tony
2021-03-02 04:16:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 01 Mar 2021 21:21:05 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 01 Mar 2021 19:02:59 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Gordon
Post by Tony
An acquaintance was pulled up two or three months ago on a motorway for doing
11kph over the speed limit. He was unhappy because it was 8am on a Sunday
morning and traffic was extremely light. However on reflection he said "fair
enough, I should have been more careful". And so say most of us.
After all speeding is a major cause of crashes and can cause death.
Now we have a young person who has disobeyed a legal imperative to stay
at
home
and at least one other person who has done something very similar, also in
breach of a regulation or law (I don't care which). We have been warned
tirelessly for about a year about how serious that behaviour can be; it
can
be
deadly we have been told and indeed it can.
But apparently we have to be kind because we might be guilty of singling people
out or something obscure like that.
Balance is needed. Jump on these people like a ton of bricks and they will
not be keen to tell where they have been.
Who said anything about a ton of bricks? I am not advocating heavy punishment
therefore "Ton of bricks" does not apply.
Thanks for clarifying that, Tony.
I clarified nothing, it was Gordon who suggested overreaction not me.
Indeed you are correct - you clarified nothing.
Because there was nothing to clarify. However you simply implied that there was
- a lie therefore.
Post by Rich80105
"Ton of bricks" means
different things to different people - and as the excellent article by
"And these sorts of prosecutions do occur; apparently there’s been
over 800 of them since Covid-19 hit our shores a year ago. Of course,
that’s only a small sample of total lockdown breaches as police
practice has been to only prosecute egregious, or repeat, offenders.
Which probably is fair enough if we want to avoid completely clogging
up our courts. "
We cannot tell just what those prosecuted had done, but it is far from
"doing nothing," and then to an important issue relating to this
I have not suggested that it is doing nothing. Where did you get that lie from?
Post by Rich80105
____________
"The problem here is balancing incentives for people to comply with
the self-isolation rules against getting information from those who
fail to do so, in order to minimise any damage done. Because, if the
consequence of telling contact tracers how and when you breached a
self-isolation requirement is prosecution and potential jail time or a
hefty fine … well, would you do it? And without that information, it
will be harder to track the potential spread of the virus through the
community, which may lead to even longer and wider lockdowns.
How, then, do you solve that particular calculation? Are any deterred
self-isolation breaches worth the lost information about whatever
breaches occur in spite of the law? When giving your answer to this
problem, show your workings."
________________
So there we have it - what is best for the country overall? A fine of
up to $4000 is possibly trivial to some wealthy people, but just the
thterat of it may be enough to have someone on a benefit or minimum
wage doing everything they can to avoid any possibility of being
charged . . . Is the prospect of one or more fines of "up to $4000",
worth a life?
So there we have nothing....Except that people are allowed to get away without
no consequences when they infect others despite a lawful regulation.
And you think that is OK.
I have already explained the simple truth that whatever the regulation allows
is what should be considered by the authorities, it could not be simpler could
it?
Otherwsie cancel the regulation. Ah so it could be simple after all.
You only care about your precious Labour party, you do not give a damn about
the people of this country - evidenced in this thread several times.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
So what do you think an appropriate
punishment would be?
Post by Tony
Post by Gordon
The enemy is Covid, and in fighting will let it take a foothold.
Post by Tony
We are however exhorted to tell the police about drivers who behave badly.
Perhaps next time I should be kind and not alert the non-existent team
of
five
million via the authorities if I see someone breaking the law and putting
people's lives at risk.
In fact why don't we all just ignore the science and have a mass parade down
our nearest city streets in an attempt to persuade the city council to abandon
regulations and encourage people to have parties of thousands - after
all
it
would be the kind thing to do.
By the way, the behaviour of the last week or two puts the lie to the
"team
of
five million myth", it is a much tinier than that.
Having a bad day?
No. Merely trying to save lives. You?
Rich80105
2021-03-02 04:49:54 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 01 Mar 2021 22:16:55 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 01 Mar 2021 21:21:05 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 01 Mar 2021 19:02:59 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Gordon
Post by Tony
An acquaintance was pulled up two or three months ago on a motorway for doing
11kph over the speed limit. He was unhappy because it was 8am on a Sunday
morning and traffic was extremely light. However on reflection he said "fair
enough, I should have been more careful". And so say most of us.
After all speeding is a major cause of crashes and can cause death.
Now we have a young person who has disobeyed a legal imperative to stay
at
home
and at least one other person who has done something very similar, also in
breach of a regulation or law (I don't care which). We have been warned
tirelessly for about a year about how serious that behaviour can be; it
can
be
deadly we have been told and indeed it can.
But apparently we have to be kind because we might be guilty of singling people
out or something obscure like that.
Balance is needed. Jump on these people like a ton of bricks and they will
not be keen to tell where they have been.
Who said anything about a ton of bricks? I am not advocating heavy punishment
therefore "Ton of bricks" does not apply.
Thanks for clarifying that, Tony.
I clarified nothing, it was Gordon who suggested overreaction not me.
Indeed you are correct - you clarified nothing.
Because there was nothing to clarify. However you simply implied that there was
- a lie therefore.
Post by Rich80105
"Ton of bricks" means
different things to different people - and as the excellent article by
"And these sorts of prosecutions do occur; apparently there’s been
over 800 of them since Covid-19 hit our shores a year ago. Of course,
that’s only a small sample of total lockdown breaches as police
practice has been to only prosecute egregious, or repeat, offenders.
Which probably is fair enough if we want to avoid completely clogging
up our courts. "
We cannot tell just what those prosecuted had done, but it is far from
"doing nothing," and then to an important issue relating to this
I have not suggested that it is doing nothing. Where did you get that lie from?
Post by Rich80105
____________
"The problem here is balancing incentives for people to comply with
the self-isolation rules against getting information from those who
fail to do so, in order to minimise any damage done. Because, if the
consequence of telling contact tracers how and when you breached a
self-isolation requirement is prosecution and potential jail time or a
hefty fine … well, would you do it? And without that information, it
will be harder to track the potential spread of the virus through the
community, which may lead to even longer and wider lockdowns.
How, then, do you solve that particular calculation? Are any deterred
self-isolation breaches worth the lost information about whatever
breaches occur in spite of the law? When giving your answer to this
problem, show your workings."
________________
So there we have it - what is best for the country overall? A fine of
up to $4000 is possibly trivial to some wealthy people, but just the
thterat of it may be enough to have someone on a benefit or minimum
wage doing everything they can to avoid any possibility of being
charged . . . Is the prospect of one or more fines of "up to $4000",
worth a life?
So there we have nothing....Except that people are allowed to get away without
no consequences when they infect others despite a lawful regulation.
And you think that is OK.
You will not have seen the post from James Christophers who has given
a good example of where a lawful regulation can be intelligently
administered. In the case of these regulations, there have been 800
prosecutions - it does appear possible that they are being
intelligently administered.
Post by Tony
I have already explained the simple truth that whatever the regulation allows
is what should be considered by the authorities, it could not be simpler could
it?
Clearly it is being considered, and where appropriate applied - see
above.
Post by Tony
Otherwsie cancel the regulation. Ah so it could be simple after all.
Why cancel a regulation that is being actively used - 800 prosecutions
not enough for you?
Post by Tony
You only care about your precious Labour party, you do not give a damn about
the people of this country - evidenced in this thread several times.
Now you are just reverting to your mode of being offensive; I do not
believe any political party is advocating flooding the court system
with prosecutions that are unlikely to be succesful.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
So what do you think an appropriate
punishment would be?
Post by Tony
Post by Gordon
The enemy is Covid, and in fighting will let it take a foothold.
Post by Tony
We are however exhorted to tell the police about drivers who behave badly.
Perhaps next time I should be kind and not alert the non-existent team
of
five
million via the authorities if I see someone breaking the law and putting
people's lives at risk.
In fact why don't we all just ignore the science and have a mass parade down
our nearest city streets in an attempt to persuade the city council to abandon
regulations and encourage people to have parties of thousands - after
all
it
would be the kind thing to do.
By the way, the behaviour of the last week or two puts the lie to the
"team
of
five million myth", it is a much tinier than that.
Having a bad day?
No. Merely trying to save lives. You?
John Bowes
2021-03-01 10:22:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
An acquaintance was pulled up two or three months ago on a motorway for doing
11kph over the speed limit. He was unhappy because it was 8am on a Sunday
morning and traffic was extremely light. However on reflection he said "fair
enough, I should have been more careful". And so say most of us.
After all speeding is a major cause of crashes and can cause death.
Now we have a young person who has disobeyed a legal imperative to stay at home
and at least one other person who has done something very similar, also in
breach of a regulation or law (I don't care which). We have been warned
tirelessly for about a year about how serious that behaviour can be; it can be
deadly we have been told and indeed it can.
But apparently we have to be kind because we might be guilty of singling people
out or something obscure like that.
We are however exhorted to tell the police about drivers who behave badly.
Perhaps next time I should be kind and not alert the non-existent team of five
million via the authorities if I see someone breaking the law and putting
people's lives at risk.
In fact why don't we all just ignore the science and have a mass parade down
our nearest city streets in an attempt to persuade the city council to abandon
regulations and encourage people to have parties of thousands - after all it
would be the kind thing to do.
By the way, the behaviour of the last week or two puts the lie to the "team of
five million myth", it is a much tinier than that.
It's time the government stopped virtue signalling and started expecting everyone to take responsibility for their own actions. Regrettably we have an angry PM more interested in photo ops who hasn't got the nouce to expect people to take responsibility for their actions. Hell the little darling doesn't expect her ministers to do that and doesn't do it herself!
James Christophers
2021-03-02 04:15:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
An acquaintance was pulled up two or three months ago on a motorway for doing
11kph over the speed limit. He was unhappy because it was 8am on a Sunday
morning and traffic was extremely light. However on reflection he said "fair
enough, I should have been more careful". And so say most of us.
There was a time when traffic policing accorded with that view, as they did with me more than 40 years ago on the A3 out of London at 2am on a dry Sunday morning, when on an otherwise deserted dual carriageway I had poked a little over the 70mph speed limit. I was pulled in and a young plod phoned my details into base to see if had any "previouses". There were none so he simply gave me a warning: "You were momentarily inattentive and this offence is now recorded and if it happens again within 6 months you can expect a penalty. Remain clear for that 6 months and the record is automatically cleared". Wrote out a docket bearing the same advice and cheerily sent me on my way, warned, chastened and all the better advised for it. Commonsense all round, and kudos to the cop. In any civilised country, isn't this the way things should be?
Post by Tony
After all speeding is a major cause of crashes and can cause death.
Now we have a young person who has disobeyed a legal imperative to stay at home
and at least one other person who has done something very similar, also in
breach of a regulation or law (I don't care which). We have been warned
tirelessly for about a year about how serious that behaviour can be; it can be
deadly we have been told and indeed it can.
But apparently we have to be kind because we might be guilty of singling people
out or something obscure like that.
Strange, isn't it, that on the one hand we have people - yes, on this group as well - who will, in essence, say Covid-19 rules violators should be horsewhipped to within an inch of their lives, only then in the same breath say that government taking a hard line is a sign of a grisly conspiracy to violate and confiscate our rights and freedoms.

So, just WTF do these bugger's muddles want?
Tony
2021-03-03 02:56:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
An acquaintance was pulled up two or three months ago on a motorway for doing
11kph over the speed limit. He was unhappy because it was 8am on a Sunday
morning and traffic was extremely light. However on reflection he said "fair
enough, I should have been more careful". And so say most of us.
There was a time when traffic policing accorded with that view, as they did
with me more than 40 years ago on the A3 out of London at 2am on a dry Sunday
morning, when on an otherwise deserted dual carriageway I had poked a little
over the 70mph speed limit. I was pulled in and a young plod phoned my details
into base to see if had any "previouses". There were none so he simply gave me
a warning: "You were momentarily inattentive and this offence is now recorded
and if it happens again within 6 months you can expect a penalty. Remain clear
for that 6 months and the record is automatically cleared". Wrote out a docket
bearing the same advice and cheerily sent me on my way, warned, chastened and
all the better advised for it. Commonsense all round, and kudos to the cop. In
any civilised country, isn't this the way things should be?
Has happened to many and rightly so. There has to be some discretion. On this
tropic however there has been nothing but discretion for the best part of a
year. No wonder people ignore the rules when they can reasonably expect their
failures to comply to be ignored. I am of course referring to the MIQ as well
as the poor behaviour in isolation.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
After all speeding is a major cause of crashes and can cause death.
Now we have a young person who has disobeyed a legal imperative to stay at home
and at least one other person who has done something very similar, also in
breach of a regulation or law (I don't care which). We have been warned
tirelessly for about a year about how serious that behaviour can be; it can be
deadly we have been told and indeed it can.
But apparently we have to be kind because we might be guilty of singling people
out or something obscure like that.
Strange, isn't it, that on the one hand we have people - yes, on this group
as well - who will, in essence, say Covid-19 rules violators should be
horsewhipped to within an inch of their lives, only then in the same breath say
that government taking a hard line is a sign of a grisly conspiracy to violate
and confiscate our rights and freedoms.
Not strange in this group but I am neither of those extremes. I believe the
time has come to make an example and have said nothing more.
Post by James Christophers
So, just WTF do these bugger's muddles want?
I don't know, you need to ask them, not me.
James Christophers
2021-03-03 03:38:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
An acquaintance was pulled up two or three months ago on a motorway for doing
11kph over the speed limit. He was unhappy because it was 8am on a Sunday
morning and traffic was extremely light. However on reflection he said "fair
enough, I should have been more careful". And so say most of us.
There was a time when traffic policing accorded with that view, as they did
with me more than 40 years ago on the A3 out of London at 2am on a dry Sunday
morning, when on an otherwise deserted dual carriageway I had poked a little
over the 70mph speed limit. I was pulled in and a young plod phoned my details
into base to see if had any "previouses". There were none so he simply gave me
a warning: "You were momentarily inattentive and this offence is now recorded
and if it happens again within 6 months you can expect a penalty. Remain clear
for that 6 months and the record is automatically cleared". Wrote out a docket
bearing the same advice and cheerily sent me on my way, warned, chastened and
all the better advised for it. Commonsense all round, and kudos to the cop. In
any civilised country, isn't this the way things should be?
Has happened to many and rightly so. There has to be some discretion. On this
tropic however there has been nothing but discretion for the best part of a
year. No wonder people ignore the rules when they can reasonably expect their
failures to comply to be ignored. I am of course referring to the MIQ as well
as the poor behaviour in isolation.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
After all speeding is a major cause of crashes and can cause death.
Now we have a young person who has disobeyed a legal imperative to stay at home
and at least one other person who has done something very similar, also in
breach of a regulation or law (I don't care which). We have been warned
tirelessly for about a year about how serious that behaviour can be; it can be
deadly we have been told and indeed it can.
But apparently we have to be kind because we might be guilty of singling people
out or something obscure like that.
Strange, isn't it, that on the one hand we have people - yes, on this group
as well - who will, in essence, say Covid-19 rules violators should be
horsewhipped to within an inch of their lives, only then in the same breath say
that government taking a hard line is a sign of a grisly conspiracy to violate
and confiscate our rights and freedoms.
Not strange in this group but I am neither of those extremes.
I have identified no-one specifically and had no need to since those who are at it know who they are. So what's your point?
Post by Tony
I believe the time has come to make an example and have said nothing more.
That much you have made plain all along. So, again, what's your point?
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
So, just WTF do these bugger's muddles want?
I don't know, you need to ask them, not me.
No need is there? Most have no trouble spotting a rhetorical device used in discourse when they see it.
Tony
2021-03-03 04:32:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
An acquaintance was pulled up two or three months ago on a motorway for doing
11kph over the speed limit. He was unhappy because it was 8am on a Sunday
morning and traffic was extremely light. However on reflection he said "fair
enough, I should have been more careful". And so say most of us.
There was a time when traffic policing accorded with that view, as they did
with me more than 40 years ago on the A3 out of London at 2am on a dry Sunday
morning, when on an otherwise deserted dual carriageway I had poked a little
over the 70mph speed limit. I was pulled in and a young plod phoned my details
into base to see if had any "previouses". There were none so he simply gave me
a warning: "You were momentarily inattentive and this offence is now recorded
and if it happens again within 6 months you can expect a penalty. Remain clear
for that 6 months and the record is automatically cleared". Wrote out a docket
bearing the same advice and cheerily sent me on my way, warned, chastened and
all the better advised for it. Commonsense all round, and kudos to the cop. In
any civilised country, isn't this the way things should be?
Has happened to many and rightly so. There has to be some discretion. On this
tropic however there has been nothing but discretion for the best part of a
year. No wonder people ignore the rules when they can reasonably expect their
failures to comply to be ignored. I am of course referring to the MIQ as well
as the poor behaviour in isolation.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
After all speeding is a major cause of crashes and can cause death.
Now we have a young person who has disobeyed a legal imperative to stay
at
home
and at least one other person who has done something very similar, also in
breach of a regulation or law (I don't care which). We have been warned
tirelessly for about a year about how serious that behaviour can be; it
can
be
deadly we have been told and indeed it can.
But apparently we have to be kind because we might be guilty of singling people
out or something obscure like that.
Strange, isn't it, that on the one hand we have people - yes, on this group
as well - who will, in essence, say Covid-19 rules violators should be
horsewhipped to within an inch of their lives, only then in the same breath say
that government taking a hard line is a sign of a grisly conspiracy to violate
and confiscate our rights and freedoms.
Not strange in this group but I am neither of those extremes.
I have identified no-one specifically and had no need to since those who are
at it know who they are. So what's your point?
I would love to see in real text what your imagination apparently tells you.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
I believe the time has come to make an example and have said nothing more.
That much you have made plain all along. So, again, what's your point?
Obvious to all who can read.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
So, just WTF do these bugger's muddles want?
I don't know, you need to ask them, not me.
No need is there?
I believe there is. But feel free to just drop words hither and thither without
cause.
Post by James Christophers
Most have no trouble spotting a rhetorical device used in discourse when they
see it.
Including me but this was not rhetorical, or if it was it was poorly spun.
James Christophers
2021-03-03 06:08:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
An acquaintance was pulled up two or three months ago on a motorway for doing
11kph over the speed limit. He was unhappy because it was 8am on a Sunday
morning and traffic was extremely light. However on reflection he said "fair
enough, I should have been more careful". And so say most of us.
There was a time when traffic policing accorded with that view, as they did
with me more than 40 years ago on the A3 out of London at 2am on a dry Sunday
morning, when on an otherwise deserted dual carriageway I had poked a little
over the 70mph speed limit. I was pulled in and a young plod phoned my details
into base to see if had any "previouses". There were none so he simply gave me
a warning: "You were momentarily inattentive and this offence is now recorded
and if it happens again within 6 months you can expect a penalty. Remain clear
for that 6 months and the record is automatically cleared". Wrote out a docket
bearing the same advice and cheerily sent me on my way, warned, chastened and
all the better advised for it. Commonsense all round, and kudos to the cop. In
any civilised country, isn't this the way things should be?
Has happened to many and rightly so. There has to be some discretion. On this
tropic however there has been nothing but discretion for the best part of a
year. No wonder people ignore the rules when they can reasonably expect their
failures to comply to be ignored. I am of course referring to the MIQ as well
as the poor behaviour in isolation.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
After all speeding is a major cause of crashes and can cause death.
Now we have a young person who has disobeyed a legal imperative to stay
at
home
and at least one other person who has done something very similar, also in
breach of a regulation or law (I don't care which). We have been warned
tirelessly for about a year about how serious that behaviour can be; it
can
be
deadly we have been told and indeed it can.
But apparently we have to be kind because we might be guilty of singling people
out or something obscure like that.
Strange, isn't it, that on the one hand we have people - yes, on this group
as well - who will, in essence, say Covid-19 rules violators should be
horsewhipped to within an inch of their lives, only then in the same breath say
that government taking a hard line is a sign of a grisly conspiracy to violate
and confiscate our rights and freedoms.
Not strange in this group but I am neither of those extremes.
I have identified no-one specifically and had no need to since those who are
at it know who they are. So what's your point?
I would love to see in real text what your imagination apparently tells you.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
I believe the time has come to make an example and have said nothing more.
That much you have made plain all along. So, again, what's your point?
Obvious to all who can read.
Quite so, and as you now confirm: obviously none!
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
So, just WTF do these bugger's muddles want?
I don't know, you need to ask them, not me.
No need is there?
I believe there is. But feel free to just drop words hither and thither without
cause.
Post by James Christophers
Most have no trouble spotting a rhetorical device used in discourse when they
see it.
Including me but this was not rhetorical, or if it was it was poorly spun.
So you say, but only to prop up your too-contrived responses for lack of any meaningful imagination or inspiration on your part.

So to me this segment of the topic is talked out, but by all means continue talking to yourself if that is all that's left to you, as too often seems to be case with you.
Tony
2021-03-03 19:03:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
An acquaintance was pulled up two or three months ago on a motorway
for
doing
11kph over the speed limit. He was unhappy because it was 8am on a Sunday
morning and traffic was extremely light. However on reflection he said "fair
enough, I should have been more careful". And so say most of us.
There was a time when traffic policing accorded with that view, as they did
with me more than 40 years ago on the A3 out of London at 2am on a dry Sunday
morning, when on an otherwise deserted dual carriageway I had poked a little
over the 70mph speed limit. I was pulled in and a young plod phoned my details
into base to see if had any "previouses". There were none so he simply
gave
me
a warning: "You were momentarily inattentive and this offence is now recorded
and if it happens again within 6 months you can expect a penalty. Remain clear
for that 6 months and the record is automatically cleared". Wrote out a docket
bearing the same advice and cheerily sent me on my way, warned,
chastened
and
all the better advised for it. Commonsense all round, and kudos to the
cop.
In
any civilised country, isn't this the way things should be?
Has happened to many and rightly so. There has to be some discretion. On this
tropic however there has been nothing but discretion for the best part of a
year. No wonder people ignore the rules when they can reasonably expect their
failures to comply to be ignored. I am of course referring to the MIQ as well
as the poor behaviour in isolation.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
After all speeding is a major cause of crashes and can cause death.
Now we have a young person who has disobeyed a legal imperative to stay
at
home
and at least one other person who has done something very similar,
also
in
breach of a regulation or law (I don't care which). We have been warned
tirelessly for about a year about how serious that behaviour can be; it
can
be
deadly we have been told and indeed it can.
But apparently we have to be kind because we might be guilty of
singling
people
out or something obscure like that.
Strange, isn't it, that on the one hand we have people - yes, on this group
as well - who will, in essence, say Covid-19 rules violators should be
horsewhipped to within an inch of their lives, only then in the same
breath
say
that government taking a hard line is a sign of a grisly conspiracy to violate
and confiscate our rights and freedoms.
Not strange in this group but I am neither of those extremes.
I have identified no-one specifically and had no need to since those who are
at it know who they are. So what's your point?
I would love to see in real text what your imagination apparently tells you.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
I believe the time has come to make an example and have said nothing more.
That much you have made plain all along. So, again, what's your point?
Obvious to all who can read.
Quite so, and as you now confirm: obviously none!
No, that is your sociopathy talking.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
So, just WTF do these bugger's muddles want?
I don't know, you need to ask them, not me.
No need is there?
I believe there is. But feel free to just drop words hither and thither without
cause.
Post by James Christophers
Most have no trouble spotting a rhetorical device used in discourse when they
see it.
Including me but this was not rhetorical, or if it was it was poorly spun.
So you say, but only to prop up your too-contrived responses for lack of any
meaningful imagination or inspiration on your part.
As I have made clear more than once in this newsgroup that is your sociopathy
talking.
Post by James Christophers
So to me this segment of the topic is talked out, but by all means continue
talking to yourself if that is all that's left to you, as too often seems to be
case with you.
Thanks for your admission that you got it 100% wrong - again. Go away coward.
Rich80105
2021-03-03 21:54:54 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 02 Mar 2021 20:56:13 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
An acquaintance was pulled up two or three months ago on a motorway for doing
11kph over the speed limit. He was unhappy because it was 8am on a Sunday
morning and traffic was extremely light. However on reflection he said "fair
enough, I should have been more careful". And so say most of us.
There was a time when traffic policing accorded with that view, as they did
with me more than 40 years ago on the A3 out of London at 2am on a dry Sunday
morning, when on an otherwise deserted dual carriageway I had poked a little
over the 70mph speed limit. I was pulled in and a young plod phoned my details
into base to see if had any "previouses". There were none so he simply gave me
a warning: "You were momentarily inattentive and this offence is now recorded
and if it happens again within 6 months you can expect a penalty. Remain clear
for that 6 months and the record is automatically cleared". Wrote out a docket
bearing the same advice and cheerily sent me on my way, warned, chastened and
all the better advised for it. Commonsense all round, and kudos to the cop. In
any civilised country, isn't this the way things should be?
Has happened to many and rightly so. There has to be some discretion. On this
tropic however there has been nothing but discretion for the best part of a
year. No wonder people ignore the rules when they can reasonably expect their
failures to comply to be ignored. I am of course referring to the MIQ as well
as the poor behaviour in isolation.
I previously posted:
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/how-best-to-get-covid-19-contacts-to-do-the-right-thing

From that article:

"First of all, we need to distinguish targeted self-isolation rules
from the general level three lockdown rules that apply to everyone in
Auckland this week. These latter rules have been applied through an
order under the Covid-19 Public Health Act 2020. Anyone who
intentionally breaches these rules can be prosecuted, with a potential
penalty of up to six months imprisonment or a $4000 fine.

And these sorts of prosecutions do occur; apparently there’s been over
800 of them since Covid-19 hit our shores a year ago. Of course,
that’s only a small sample of total lockdown breaches as police
practice has been to only prosecute egregious, or repeat, offenders.
Which probably is fair enough if we want to avoid completely clogging
up our courts. "

Over 800 prosecutions is hardly "nothing but discretion", Tony.

After all, let us remember that the Subject of this thread is "Yes,
let's be fair".
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
After all speeding is a major cause of crashes and can cause death.
Now we have a young person who has disobeyed a legal imperative to stay at home
and at least one other person who has done something very similar, also in
breach of a regulation or law (I don't care which). We have been warned
tirelessly for about a year about how serious that behaviour can be; it can be
deadly we have been told and indeed it can.
But apparently we have to be kind because we might be guilty of singling people
out or something obscure like that.
Strange, isn't it, that on the one hand we have people - yes, on this group
as well - who will, in essence, say Covid-19 rules violators should be
horsewhipped to within an inch of their lives, only then in the same breath say
that government taking a hard line is a sign of a grisly conspiracy to violate
and confiscate our rights and freedoms.
Not strange in this group but I am neither of those extremes. I believe the
time has come to make an example and have said nothing more.
Post by James Christophers
So, just WTF do these bugger's muddles want?
I don't know, you need to ask them, not me.
Tony
2021-03-04 01:25:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 02 Mar 2021 20:56:13 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
An acquaintance was pulled up two or three months ago on a motorway for doing
11kph over the speed limit. He was unhappy because it was 8am on a Sunday
morning and traffic was extremely light. However on reflection he said "fair
enough, I should have been more careful". And so say most of us.
There was a time when traffic policing accorded with that view, as they did
with me more than 40 years ago on the A3 out of London at 2am on a dry Sunday
morning, when on an otherwise deserted dual carriageway I had poked a little
over the 70mph speed limit. I was pulled in and a young plod phoned my details
into base to see if had any "previouses". There were none so he simply gave me
a warning: "You were momentarily inattentive and this offence is now recorded
and if it happens again within 6 months you can expect a penalty. Remain clear
for that 6 months and the record is automatically cleared". Wrote out a docket
bearing the same advice and cheerily sent me on my way, warned, chastened and
all the better advised for it. Commonsense all round, and kudos to the cop. In
any civilised country, isn't this the way things should be?
Has happened to many and rightly so. There has to be some discretion. On this
tropic however there has been nothing but discretion for the best part of a
year. No wonder people ignore the rules when they can reasonably expect their
failures to comply to be ignored. I am of course referring to the MIQ as well
as the poor behaviour in isolation.
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/how-best-to-get-covid-19-contacts-to-do-the-right-thing
"First of all, we need to distinguish targeted self-isolation rules
from the general level three lockdown rules that apply to everyone in
Auckland this week. These latter rules have been applied through an
order under the Covid-19 Public Health Act 2020. Anyone who
intentionally breaches these rules can be prosecuted, with a potential
penalty of up to six months imprisonment or a $4000 fine.
It's an opinion. No better or more valid than those who are calling for
consequences.
Post by Rich80105
And these sorts of prosecutions do occur; apparently there’s been over
800 of them since Covid-19 hit our shores a year ago.
Cite?
In particular what sort of penalties have been imposed? An essential bit of the
question.
Post by Rich80105
Of course,
that’s only a small sample of total lockdown breaches as police
practice has been to only prosecute egregious, or repeat, offenders.
Which probably is fair enough if we want to avoid completely clogging
up our courts. "
Over 800 prosecutions is hardly "nothing but discretion", Tony.
It is if there is no consequence.
Post by Rich80105
After all, let us remember that the Subject of this thread is "Yes,
let's be fair".
That is what I am hoping to see, precious little of it in your responses.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
After all speeding is a major cause of crashes and can cause death.
Now we have a young person who has disobeyed a legal imperative to stay at home
and at least one other person who has done something very similar, also in
breach of a regulation or law (I don't care which). We have been warned
tirelessly for about a year about how serious that behaviour can be; it
can
be
deadly we have been told and indeed it can.
But apparently we have to be kind because we might be guilty of singling people
out or something obscure like that.
Strange, isn't it, that on the one hand we have people - yes, on this group
as well - who will, in essence, say Covid-19 rules violators should be
horsewhipped to within an inch of their lives, only then in the same breath say
that government taking a hard line is a sign of a grisly conspiracy to violate
and confiscate our rights and freedoms.
Not strange in this group but I am neither of those extremes. I believe the
time has come to make an example and have said nothing more.
Post by James Christophers
So, just WTF do these bugger's muddles want?
I don't know, you need to ask them, not me.
Rich80105
2021-03-04 02:14:00 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 03 Mar 2021 19:25:34 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 02 Mar 2021 20:56:13 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
An acquaintance was pulled up two or three months ago on a motorway for doing
11kph over the speed limit. He was unhappy because it was 8am on a Sunday
morning and traffic was extremely light. However on reflection he said "fair
enough, I should have been more careful". And so say most of us.
There was a time when traffic policing accorded with that view, as they did
with me more than 40 years ago on the A3 out of London at 2am on a dry Sunday
morning, when on an otherwise deserted dual carriageway I had poked a little
over the 70mph speed limit. I was pulled in and a young plod phoned my details
into base to see if had any "previouses". There were none so he simply gave me
a warning: "You were momentarily inattentive and this offence is now recorded
and if it happens again within 6 months you can expect a penalty. Remain clear
for that 6 months and the record is automatically cleared". Wrote out a docket
bearing the same advice and cheerily sent me on my way, warned, chastened and
all the better advised for it. Commonsense all round, and kudos to the cop. In
any civilised country, isn't this the way things should be?
Has happened to many and rightly so. There has to be some discretion. On this
tropic however there has been nothing but discretion for the best part of a
year. No wonder people ignore the rules when they can reasonably expect their
failures to comply to be ignored. I am of course referring to the MIQ as well
as the poor behaviour in isolation.
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/how-best-to-get-covid-19-contacts-to-do-the-right-thing
"First of all, we need to distinguish targeted self-isolation rules
from the general level three lockdown rules that apply to everyone in
Auckland this week. These latter rules have been applied through an
order under the Covid-19 Public Health Act 2020. Anyone who
intentionally breaches these rules can be prosecuted, with a potential
penalty of up to six months imprisonment or a $4000 fine.
It's an opinion. No better or more valid than those who are calling for
consequences.
Did you read the article? It was all about consequences, and arguments
both for and against making changes to existing penalties . . . As to
validity, the author has demonstrated over a number of articles a
fairly good knowledge of the law and its effects . . .
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
And these sorts of prosecutions do occur; apparently there’s been over
800 of them since Covid-19 hit our shores a year ago.
Cite?
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/how-best-to-get-covid-19-contacts-to-do-the-right-thing
Sorry, I put the quoted two paragraphs in quote marks, but perhaps I
should have said "see the following two paragraphs from the article:
to make it clearer for you.
Post by Tony
In particular what sort of penalties have been imposed? An essential bit of the
question.
Post by Rich80105
Of course,
that’s only a small sample of total lockdown breaches as police
practice has been to only prosecute egregious, or repeat, offenders.
Which probably is fair enough if we want to avoid completely clogging
up our courts. "
Over 800 prosecutions is hardly "nothing but discretion", Tony.
It is if there is no consequence.
And your cite for that?
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
After all, let us remember that the Subject of this thread is "Yes,
let's be fair".
That is what I am hoping to see, precious little of it in your responses.
What part of the Andrew Geddes article do you disagree with?
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
After all speeding is a major cause of crashes and can cause death.
Now we have a young person who has disobeyed a legal imperative to stay at home
and at least one other person who has done something very similar, also in
breach of a regulation or law (I don't care which). We have been warned
tirelessly for about a year about how serious that behaviour can be; it
can
be
deadly we have been told and indeed it can.
But apparently we have to be kind because we might be guilty of singling people
out or something obscure like that.
Strange, isn't it, that on the one hand we have people - yes, on this group
as well - who will, in essence, say Covid-19 rules violators should be
horsewhipped to within an inch of their lives, only then in the same breath say
that government taking a hard line is a sign of a grisly conspiracy to violate
and confiscate our rights and freedoms.
Not strange in this group but I am neither of those extremes. I believe the
time has come to make an example and have said nothing more.
Post by James Christophers
So, just WTF do these bugger's muddles want?
I don't know, you need to ask them, not me.
Tony
2021-03-04 05:31:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 03 Mar 2021 19:25:34 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 02 Mar 2021 20:56:13 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
An acquaintance was pulled up two or three months ago on a motorway for doing
11kph over the speed limit. He was unhappy because it was 8am on a Sunday
morning and traffic was extremely light. However on reflection he said "fair
enough, I should have been more careful". And so say most of us.
There was a time when traffic policing accorded with that view, as they did
with me more than 40 years ago on the A3 out of London at 2am on a dry Sunday
morning, when on an otherwise deserted dual carriageway I had poked a little
over the 70mph speed limit. I was pulled in and a young plod phoned my details
into base to see if had any "previouses". There were none so he simply
gave
me
a warning: "You were momentarily inattentive and this offence is now recorded
and if it happens again within 6 months you can expect a penalty. Remain clear
for that 6 months and the record is automatically cleared". Wrote out a docket
bearing the same advice and cheerily sent me on my way, warned, chastened and
all the better advised for it. Commonsense all round, and kudos to the
cop.
In
any civilised country, isn't this the way things should be?
Has happened to many and rightly so. There has to be some discretion. On this
tropic however there has been nothing but discretion for the best part of a
year. No wonder people ignore the rules when they can reasonably expect their
failures to comply to be ignored. I am of course referring to the MIQ as well
as the poor behaviour in isolation.
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/how-best-to-get-covid-19-contacts-to-do-the-right-thing
"First of all, we need to distinguish targeted self-isolation rules
from the general level three lockdown rules that apply to everyone in
Auckland this week. These latter rules have been applied through an
order under the Covid-19 Public Health Act 2020. Anyone who
intentionally breaches these rules can be prosecuted, with a potential
penalty of up to six months imprisonment or a $4000 fine.
It's an opinion. No better or more valid than those who are calling for
consequences.
Did you read the article? It was all about consequences, and arguments
both for and against making changes to existing penalties . . . As to
validity, the author has demonstrated over a number of articles a
fairly good knowledge of the law and its effects . . .
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
And these sorts of prosecutions do occur; apparently there’s been over
800 of them since Covid-19 hit our shores a year ago.
Cite?
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/how-best-to-get-covid-19-contacts-to-do-the-right-thing
Sorry, I put the quoted two paragraphs in quote marks, but perhaps I
to make it clearer for you.
Post by Tony
In particular what sort of penalties have been imposed? An essential bit of the
question.
Post by Rich80105
Of course,
that’s only a small sample of total lockdown breaches as police
practice has been to only prosecute egregious, or repeat, offenders.
Which probably is fair enough if we want to avoid completely clogging
up our courts. "
Over 800 prosecutions is hardly "nothing but discretion", Tony.
It is if there is no consequence.
And your cite for that?
AIrrelevant, answer the question I put.
How many people have suffered consequences for breakinbg the law, or if you
prefer something simpler, how many of the so-called 800 were convicted.
That is the only measure of value.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
After all, let us remember that the Subject of this thread is "Yes,
let's be fair".
That is what I am hoping to see, precious little of it in your responses.
What part of the Andrew Geddes article do you disagree with?
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
After all speeding is a major cause of crashes and can cause death.
Now we have a young person who has disobeyed a legal imperative to stay
at
home
and at least one other person who has done something very similar, also in
breach of a regulation or law (I don't care which). We have been warned
tirelessly for about a year about how serious that behaviour can be; it
can
be
deadly we have been told and indeed it can.
But apparently we have to be kind because we might be guilty of singling people
out or something obscure like that.
Strange, isn't it, that on the one hand we have people - yes, on this group
as well - who will, in essence, say Covid-19 rules violators should be
horsewhipped to within an inch of their lives, only then in the same
breath
say
that government taking a hard line is a sign of a grisly conspiracy to violate
and confiscate our rights and freedoms.
Not strange in this group but I am neither of those extremes. I believe the
time has come to make an example and have said nothing more.
Post by James Christophers
So, just WTF do these bugger's muddles want?
I don't know, you need to ask them, not me.
James Christophers
2021-03-04 06:12:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 03 Mar 2021 19:25:34 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 02 Mar 2021 20:56:13 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
An acquaintance was pulled up two or three months ago on a motorway for doing
11kph over the speed limit. He was unhappy because it was 8am on a Sunday
morning and traffic was extremely light. However on reflection he said "fair
enough, I should have been more careful". And so say most of us.
There was a time when traffic policing accorded with that view, as they did
with me more than 40 years ago on the A3 out of London at 2am on a dry Sunday
morning, when on an otherwise deserted dual carriageway I had poked a little
over the 70mph speed limit. I was pulled in and a young plod phoned my
details
into base to see if had any "previouses". There were none so he simply
gave
me
a warning: "You were momentarily inattentive and this offence is now recorded
and if it happens again within 6 months you can expect a penalty. Remain clear
for that 6 months and the record is automatically cleared". Wrote out a docket
bearing the same advice and cheerily sent me on my way, warned, chastened and
all the better advised for it. Commonsense all round, and kudos to the
cop.
In
any civilised country, isn't this the way things should be?
Has happened to many and rightly so. There has to be some discretion. On this
tropic however there has been nothing but discretion for the best part of a
year. No wonder people ignore the rules when they can reasonably expect their
failures to comply to be ignored. I am of course referring to the MIQ as well
as the poor behaviour in isolation.
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/how-best-to-get-covid-19-contacts-to-do-the-right-thing
"First of all, we need to distinguish targeted self-isolation rules
from the general level three lockdown rules that apply to everyone in
Auckland this week. These latter rules have been applied through an
order under the Covid-19 Public Health Act 2020. Anyone who
intentionally breaches these rules can be prosecuted, with a potential
penalty of up to six months imprisonment or a $4000 fine.
It's an opinion. No better or more valid than those who are calling for
consequences.
Did you read the article? It was all about consequences, and arguments
both for and against making changes to existing penalties . . . As to
validity, the author has demonstrated over a number of articles a
fairly good knowledge of the law and its effects . . .
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
And these sorts of prosecutions do occur; apparently there’s been over
800 of them since Covid-19 hit our shores a year ago.
Cite?
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/how-best-to-get-covid-19-contacts-to-do-the-right-thing
Sorry, I put the quoted two paragraphs in quote marks, but perhaps I
to make it clearer for you.
Post by Tony
In particular what sort of penalties have been imposed? An essential bit of the
question.
Post by Rich80105
Of course,
that’s only a small sample of total lockdown breaches as police
practice has been to only prosecute egregious, or repeat, offenders.
Which probably is fair enough if we want to avoid completely clogging
up our courts. "
Over 800 prosecutions is hardly "nothing but discretion", Tony.
It is if there is no consequence.
And your cite for that?
AIrrelevant, answer the question I put.
How many people have suffered consequences for breakinbg the law, or if you
prefer something simpler, how many of the so-called 800 were convicted.
Try:

***@otago.ac.nz
Rich80105
2021-03-04 08:52:11 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 03 Mar 2021 23:31:47 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 03 Mar 2021 19:25:34 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 02 Mar 2021 20:56:13 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
An acquaintance was pulled up two or three months ago on a motorway for doing
11kph over the speed limit. He was unhappy because it was 8am on a Sunday
morning and traffic was extremely light. However on reflection he said "fair
enough, I should have been more careful". And so say most of us.
There was a time when traffic policing accorded with that view, as they did
with me more than 40 years ago on the A3 out of London at 2am on a dry Sunday
morning, when on an otherwise deserted dual carriageway I had poked a little
over the 70mph speed limit. I was pulled in and a young plod phoned my details
into base to see if had any "previouses". There were none so he simply
gave
me
a warning: "You were momentarily inattentive and this offence is now recorded
and if it happens again within 6 months you can expect a penalty. Remain clear
for that 6 months and the record is automatically cleared". Wrote out a docket
bearing the same advice and cheerily sent me on my way, warned, chastened and
all the better advised for it. Commonsense all round, and kudos to the
cop.
In
any civilised country, isn't this the way things should be?
Has happened to many and rightly so. There has to be some discretion. On this
tropic however there has been nothing but discretion for the best part of a
year. No wonder people ignore the rules when they can reasonably expect their
failures to comply to be ignored. I am of course referring to the MIQ as well
as the poor behaviour in isolation.
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/how-best-to-get-covid-19-contacts-to-do-the-right-thing
"First of all, we need to distinguish targeted self-isolation rules
from the general level three lockdown rules that apply to everyone in
Auckland this week. These latter rules have been applied through an
order under the Covid-19 Public Health Act 2020. Anyone who
intentionally breaches these rules can be prosecuted, with a potential
penalty of up to six months imprisonment or a $4000 fine.
It's an opinion. No better or more valid than those who are calling for
consequences.
Did you read the article? It was all about consequences, and arguments
both for and against making changes to existing penalties . . . As to
validity, the author has demonstrated over a number of articles a
fairly good knowledge of the law and its effects . . .
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
And these sorts of prosecutions do occur; apparently there’s been over
800 of them since Covid-19 hit our shores a year ago.
Cite?
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/how-best-to-get-covid-19-contacts-to-do-the-right-thing
Sorry, I put the quoted two paragraphs in quote marks, but perhaps I
to make it clearer for you.
Post by Tony
In particular what sort of penalties have been imposed? An essential bit of the
question.
Post by Rich80105
Of course,
that’s only a small sample of total lockdown breaches as police
practice has been to only prosecute egregious, or repeat, offenders.
Which probably is fair enough if we want to avoid completely clogging
up our courts. "
Over 800 prosecutions is hardly "nothing but discretion", Tony.
It is if there is no consequence.
And your cite for that?
AIrrelevant, answer the question I put.
How many people have suffered consequences for breakinbg the law, or if you
prefer something simpler, how many of the so-called 800 were convicted.
That is the only measure of value.
You can;t have it both ways, Tony. First your claim implied that there
had been no prosecutions; that appears to be wrong; now you claim that
there may have been no penalties imposed - but you have no cites for
either statement.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
After all, let us remember that the Subject of this thread is "Yes,
let's be fair".
That is what I am hoping to see, precious little of it in your responses.
What part of the Andrew Geddes article do you disagree with?
Tony, no answer from you - I presume you now agree that {a} there have
been some consequences, {b} it is not clear whther current
consequences are having the desired effect, and (b) it is not clear
that greater and better known penalties would not have an adverse
effectas regards gaining information for covid-tracing. So which do
you favour, Tony, some more dollars for the government from fines,
less net costs of imprisonment, or a higher level of deaths?

As Geddes said, do show your workings for your favoured solution . . .
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
After all speeding is a major cause of crashes and can cause death.
Now we have a young person who has disobeyed a legal imperative to stay
at
home
and at least one other person who has done something very similar, also in
breach of a regulation or law (I don't care which). We have been warned
tirelessly for about a year about how serious that behaviour can be; it
can
be
deadly we have been told and indeed it can.
But apparently we have to be kind because we might be guilty of singling people
out or something obscure like that.
Strange, isn't it, that on the one hand we have people - yes, on this group
as well - who will, in essence, say Covid-19 rules violators should be
horsewhipped to within an inch of their lives, only then in the same
breath
say
that government taking a hard line is a sign of a grisly conspiracy to violate
and confiscate our rights and freedoms.
Not strange in this group but I am neither of those extremes. I believe the
time has come to make an example and have said nothing more.
Post by James Christophers
So, just WTF do these bugger's muddles want?
I don't know, you need to ask them, not me.
Tony
2021-03-04 19:39:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 03 Mar 2021 23:31:47 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 03 Mar 2021 19:25:34 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 02 Mar 2021 20:56:13 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
An acquaintance was pulled up two or three months ago on a motorway
for
doing
11kph over the speed limit. He was unhappy because it was 8am on a Sunday
morning and traffic was extremely light. However on reflection he said "fair
enough, I should have been more careful". And so say most of us.
There was a time when traffic policing accorded with that view, as they did
with me more than 40 years ago on the A3 out of London at 2am on a dry Sunday
morning, when on an otherwise deserted dual carriageway I had poked a little
over the 70mph speed limit. I was pulled in and a young plod phoned my details
into base to see if had any "previouses". There were none so he simply
gave
me
a warning: "You were momentarily inattentive and this offence is now recorded
and if it happens again within 6 months you can expect a penalty. Remain clear
for that 6 months and the record is automatically cleared". Wrote out a docket
bearing the same advice and cheerily sent me on my way, warned,
chastened
and
all the better advised for it. Commonsense all round, and kudos to the
cop.
In
any civilised country, isn't this the way things should be?
Has happened to many and rightly so. There has to be some discretion. On this
tropic however there has been nothing but discretion for the best part of a
year. No wonder people ignore the rules when they can reasonably expect their
failures to comply to be ignored. I am of course referring to the MIQ as well
as the poor behaviour in isolation.
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/how-best-to-get-covid-19-contacts-to-do-the-right-thing
"First of all, we need to distinguish targeted self-isolation rules
from the general level three lockdown rules that apply to everyone in
Auckland this week. These latter rules have been applied through an
order under the Covid-19 Public Health Act 2020. Anyone who
intentionally breaches these rules can be prosecuted, with a potential
penalty of up to six months imprisonment or a $4000 fine.
It's an opinion. No better or more valid than those who are calling for
consequences.
Did you read the article? It was all about consequences, and arguments
both for and against making changes to existing penalties . . . As to
validity, the author has demonstrated over a number of articles a
fairly good knowledge of the law and its effects . . .
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
And these sorts of prosecutions do occur; apparently there’s been over
800 of them since Covid-19 hit our shores a year ago.
Cite?
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/how-best-to-get-covid-19-contacts-to-do-the-right-thing
Sorry, I put the quoted two paragraphs in quote marks, but perhaps I
to make it clearer for you.
Post by Tony
In particular what sort of penalties have been imposed? An essential bit of the
question.
Post by Rich80105
Of course,
that’s only a small sample of total lockdown breaches as police
practice has been to only prosecute egregious, or repeat, offenders.
Which probably is fair enough if we want to avoid completely clogging
up our courts. "
Over 800 prosecutions is hardly "nothing but discretion", Tony.
It is if there is no consequence.
And your cite for that?
AIrrelevant, answer the question I put.
How many people have suffered consequences for breakinbg the law, or if you
prefer something simpler, how many of the so-called 800 were convicted.
That is the only measure of value.
You can;t have it both ways, Tony. First your claim implied that there
had been no prosecutions; that appears to be wrong; now you claim that
there may have been no penalties imposed - but you have no cites for
either statement.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
After all, let us remember that the Subject of this thread is "Yes,
let's be fair".
That is what I am hoping to see, precious little of it in your responses.
What part of the Andrew Geddes article do you disagree with?
Tony, no answer from you - I presume you now agree that {a} there have
been some consequences, {b} it is not clear whther current
consequences are having the desired effect, and (b) it is not clear
that greater and better known penalties would not have an adverse
effectas regards gaining information for covid-tracing. So which do
you favour, Tony, some more dollars for the government from fines,
less net costs of imprisonment, or a higher level of deaths?
This thread was from the beginning about deterrence and you know it.
Now go away unless you can answer my question. What consequences have there
been. That is what deterrence is about and what this thread is about.
Nothing else except in your mind.
Post by Rich80105
As Geddes said, do show your workings for your favoured solution . . .
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
After all speeding is a major cause of crashes and can cause death.
Now we have a young person who has disobeyed a legal imperative to stay
at
home
and at least one other person who has done something very similar,
also
in
breach of a regulation or law (I don't care which). We have been warned
tirelessly for about a year about how serious that behaviour can be; it
can
be
deadly we have been told and indeed it can.
But apparently we have to be kind because we might be guilty of
singling
people
out or something obscure like that.
Strange, isn't it, that on the one hand we have people - yes, on this group
as well - who will, in essence, say Covid-19 rules violators should be
horsewhipped to within an inch of their lives, only then in the same
breath
say
that government taking a hard line is a sign of a grisly conspiracy to violate
and confiscate our rights and freedoms.
Not strange in this group but I am neither of those extremes. I believe the
time has come to make an example and have said nothing more.
Post by James Christophers
So, just WTF do these bugger's muddles want?
I don't know, you need to ask them, not me.
Rich80105
2021-03-04 21:39:42 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 13:39:05 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 03 Mar 2021 23:31:47 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 03 Mar 2021 19:25:34 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 02 Mar 2021 20:56:13 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
An acquaintance was pulled up two or three months ago on a motorway
for
doing
11kph over the speed limit. He was unhappy because it was 8am on a Sunday
morning and traffic was extremely light. However on reflection he said "fair
enough, I should have been more careful". And so say most of us.
There was a time when traffic policing accorded with that view, as they did
with me more than 40 years ago on the A3 out of London at 2am on a dry Sunday
morning, when on an otherwise deserted dual carriageway I had poked a little
over the 70mph speed limit. I was pulled in and a young plod phoned my details
into base to see if had any "previouses". There were none so he simply
gave
me
a warning: "You were momentarily inattentive and this offence is now recorded
and if it happens again within 6 months you can expect a penalty. Remain clear
for that 6 months and the record is automatically cleared". Wrote out a docket
bearing the same advice and cheerily sent me on my way, warned,
chastened
and
all the better advised for it. Commonsense all round, and kudos to the
cop.
In
any civilised country, isn't this the way things should be?
Has happened to many and rightly so. There has to be some discretion. On this
tropic however there has been nothing but discretion for the best part of a
year. No wonder people ignore the rules when they can reasonably expect their
failures to comply to be ignored. I am of course referring to the MIQ as well
as the poor behaviour in isolation.
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/how-best-to-get-covid-19-contacts-to-do-the-right-thing
"First of all, we need to distinguish targeted self-isolation rules
from the general level three lockdown rules that apply to everyone in
Auckland this week. These latter rules have been applied through an
order under the Covid-19 Public Health Act 2020. Anyone who
intentionally breaches these rules can be prosecuted, with a potential
penalty of up to six months imprisonment or a $4000 fine.
It's an opinion. No better or more valid than those who are calling for
consequences.
Did you read the article? It was all about consequences, and arguments
both for and against making changes to existing penalties . . . As to
validity, the author has demonstrated over a number of articles a
fairly good knowledge of the law and its effects . . .
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
And these sorts of prosecutions do occur; apparently there’s been over
800 of them since Covid-19 hit our shores a year ago.
Cite?
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/how-best-to-get-covid-19-contacts-to-do-the-right-thing
Sorry, I put the quoted two paragraphs in quote marks, but perhaps I
to make it clearer for you.
Post by Tony
In particular what sort of penalties have been imposed? An essential bit of the
question.
Post by Rich80105
Of course,
that’s only a small sample of total lockdown breaches as police
practice has been to only prosecute egregious, or repeat, offenders.
Which probably is fair enough if we want to avoid completely clogging
up our courts. "
Over 800 prosecutions is hardly "nothing but discretion", Tony.
It is if there is no consequence.
And your cite for that?
AIrrelevant, answer the question I put.
How many people have suffered consequences for breakinbg the law, or if you
prefer something simpler, how many of the so-called 800 were convicted.
That is the only measure of value.
You can;t have it both ways, Tony. First your claim implied that there
had been no prosecutions; that appears to be wrong; now you claim that
there may have been no penalties imposed - but you have no cites for
either statement.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
After all, let us remember that the Subject of this thread is "Yes,
let's be fair".
That is what I am hoping to see, precious little of it in your responses.
What part of the Andrew Geddes article do you disagree with?
Tony, no answer from you - I presume you now agree that {a} there have
been some consequences, {b} it is not clear whther current
consequences are having the desired effect, and (b) it is not clear
that greater and better known penalties would not have an adverse
effectas regards gaining information for covid-tracing. So which do
you favour, Tony, some more dollars for the government from fines,
less net costs of imprisonment, or a higher level of deaths?
This thread was from the beginning about deterrence and you know it.
Right from the start, the Subject of this thread is about being fair.
A major concern of government is to save lives from the Covid-19
pandemic; deterrence is one aspect of that issue, but far from the
only one. We do not measure the success of a school by how many are
expelled, suspended or placed in detention. Similarly we cannot
measure success of the pandemic response by the number of offenders
fined or imprisoned. The "Team of 5 million" has been a brilliant
expression of trust and a way of passing on responsibility for common
sense behaviour to all New Zealanders - our police and other officials
cannot police all of us all the time. It is up to those who understand
what is needed to bring that to the attention of our family and
friends who may be at risk of infection if they do not act in
accordance with rules and recommendations from the health experts.
Many are upset about the adults who walked together when they should
have been within their bubble, or who let their children mingle
outside their bubble - we wonder at a parent that could put their own
family at risk in that way. Where were the responsible members of the
"team of 5 million" - these people let us down.

Then we have other examples. I have some sympathy for Tamaki for
example - he is correct that technically he did not break any laws;
but the reality is that he left Auckland after it was announced that
it was going into level 3 but before that order took effect. He went
to Rotorua and then had a meeting with 26 people; technically putting
them at some risk. It was apparently his wife that used the word
"escaped" with respect to getting out of Auckland, but Tamaki, who
purports to be a church leader, merely argued the legal position; not
being sufficiently self-aware that he was being judged on his moral
position.

So this thread is about being fair; seeing the views of others with
empathy, and recognising that we do not want the sort of authoritarian
legal hypocrisy that thinks legal sanctions are all that is needed.
The Americal prohibition era showed that simplistic over-the-top laws
that are widely flouted are inherently undesirable. The article by
Andrew Geddes illustrates exactly why your authoritarian 'legal
consequences' approach is simplistic and likely to be
counter-productive.

Currently the 'team of 5 million' is working very well; we have a very
low death toll, and economically we have come through in a very good
position. We do have idiots that see that success as indicating that
Covid is just a hoax (they somehow ignore that horror of the high
death rates elsewhere around the world), and at times the same people
then turning around and calling for much higher sanctions and claiming
that the government should be locking us down at higher levels for
longer . . . It is hard to tell whether these are just playing stupid
partisan politics (which as we saw with dirty politics ultimately
diminishes parties that are seen as promoting such behaviour, or
whether they are genuinely deranged. Like it or not, the experience of
Trump has linked such behaviours to parties of the authoritarian right
- the price of embracing and feeding the desperate, ignorant and
deranged for political purposes.
Post by Tony
Now go away unless you can answer my question. What consequences have there
been. That is what deterrence is about and what this thread is about.
Nothing else except in your mind.
Post by Rich80105
As Geddes said, do show your workings for your favoured solution . . .
You are asking for answers to the wrong question, Tony. The thread is
about the best response to Covid, deterrence is a side issue that
forms a small part ofthe whole, and as Geddes has pointed out, does
not have a single answer. You enjoy demanding answers to questions but
seem strangely reluctant to express your own views on what changes to
policy settings you want. Perhaps you realise that, just as for a
school, punishment may sometimes be the correct response, but it is
often the last resort, and signifies failure of more productive ways
of dealing with the need for others to learn, grow and become more
responsible.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
After all speeding is a major cause of crashes and can cause death.
Now we have a young person who has disobeyed a legal imperative to stay
at
home
and at least one other person who has done something very similar,
also
in
breach of a regulation or law (I don't care which). We have been warned
tirelessly for about a year about how serious that behaviour can be; it
can
be
deadly we have been told and indeed it can.
But apparently we have to be kind because we might be guilty of
singling
people
out or something obscure like that.
Strange, isn't it, that on the one hand we have people - yes, on this group
as well - who will, in essence, say Covid-19 rules violators should be
horsewhipped to within an inch of their lives, only then in the same
breath
say
that government taking a hard line is a sign of a grisly conspiracy to violate
and confiscate our rights and freedoms.
Not strange in this group but I am neither of those extremes. I believe the
time has come to make an example and have said nothing more.
Post by James Christophers
So, just WTF do these bugger's muddles want?
I don't know, you need to ask them, not me.
Tony
2021-03-04 22:46:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 13:39:05 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 03 Mar 2021 23:31:47 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 03 Mar 2021 19:25:34 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 02 Mar 2021 20:56:13 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
An acquaintance was pulled up two or three months ago on a motorway
for
doing
11kph over the speed limit. He was unhappy because it was 8am on a Sunday
morning and traffic was extremely light. However on reflection he
said
"fair
enough, I should have been more careful". And so say most of us.
There was a time when traffic policing accorded with that view, as
they
did
with me more than 40 years ago on the A3 out of London at 2am on a dry Sunday
morning, when on an otherwise deserted dual carriageway I had poked a little
over the 70mph speed limit. I was pulled in and a young plod phoned
my
details
into base to see if had any "previouses". There were none so he simply
gave
me
a warning: "You were momentarily inattentive and this offence is now recorded
and if it happens again within 6 months you can expect a penalty.
Remain
clear
for that 6 months and the record is automatically cleared". Wrote out
a
docket
bearing the same advice and cheerily sent me on my way, warned,
chastened
and
all the better advised for it. Commonsense all round, and kudos to the
cop.
In
any civilised country, isn't this the way things should be?
Has happened to many and rightly so. There has to be some discretion.
On
this
tropic however there has been nothing but discretion for the best part
of
a
year. No wonder people ignore the rules when they can reasonably expect their
failures to comply to be ignored. I am of course referring to the MIQ
as
well
as the poor behaviour in isolation.
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/how-best-to-get-covid-19-contacts-to-do-the-right-thing
"First of all, we need to distinguish targeted self-isolation rules
from the general level three lockdown rules that apply to everyone in
Auckland this week. These latter rules have been applied through an
order under the Covid-19 Public Health Act 2020. Anyone who
intentionally breaches these rules can be prosecuted, with a potential
penalty of up to six months imprisonment or a $4000 fine.
It's an opinion. No better or more valid than those who are calling for
consequences.
Did you read the article? It was all about consequences, and arguments
both for and against making changes to existing penalties . . . As to
validity, the author has demonstrated over a number of articles a
fairly good knowledge of the law and its effects . . .
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
And these sorts of prosecutions do occur; apparently there’s been over
800 of them since Covid-19 hit our shores a year ago.
Cite?
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/how-best-to-get-covid-19-contacts-to-do-the-right-thing
Sorry, I put the quoted two paragraphs in quote marks, but perhaps I
to make it clearer for you.
Post by Tony
In particular what sort of penalties have been imposed? An essential bit
of
the
question.
Post by Rich80105
Of course,
that’s only a small sample of total lockdown breaches as police
practice has been to only prosecute egregious, or repeat, offenders.
Which probably is fair enough if we want to avoid completely clogging
up our courts. "
Over 800 prosecutions is hardly "nothing but discretion", Tony.
It is if there is no consequence.
And your cite for that?
AIrrelevant, answer the question I put.
How many people have suffered consequences for breakinbg the law, or if you
prefer something simpler, how many of the so-called 800 were convicted.
That is the only measure of value.
You can;t have it both ways, Tony. First your claim implied that there
had been no prosecutions; that appears to be wrong; now you claim that
there may have been no penalties imposed - but you have no cites for
either statement.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
After all, let us remember that the Subject of this thread is "Yes,
let's be fair".
That is what I am hoping to see, precious little of it in your responses.
What part of the Andrew Geddes article do you disagree with?
Tony, no answer from you - I presume you now agree that {a} there have
been some consequences, {b} it is not clear whther current
consequences are having the desired effect, and (b) it is not clear
that greater and better known penalties would not have an adverse
effectas regards gaining information for covid-tracing. So which do
you favour, Tony, some more dollars for the government from fines,
less net costs of imprisonment, or a higher level of deaths?
This thread was from the beginning about deterrence and you know it.
Right from the start, the Subject of this thread is about being fair.
Yes and I wrote that. It was intended to suggest to anybody with any
intelligence that fairness is to the whole country, not just a few.
At the time I started this thread there were people who were, apparently, not
doing what they were told. Costing the country hundreds of millions of dollars
and putting people's lives at risk.
Since then some things may have changed but that is not yet completely clear.
You have consistently refused to acknowledge any of that.
I ask you again, how many of the 800 (that you, not I, mentioned) were found to
be in breach of the law or regulation. If most were not then there is no
deterrence.
Anything other than that question is irrelevant to this thread.
That is all I have been sayiing.
Nonsense removed because it is clearly off tapoic and as usual intended to
distract this thread.
More distraction removed. Please do try to keep to the topic.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Now go away unless you can answer my question. What consequences have there
been. That is what deterrence is about and what this thread is about.
Nothing else except in your mind.
Post by Rich80105
As Geddes said, do show your workings for your favoured solution . . .
You are asking for answers to the wrong question, Tony. The thread is
about the best response to Covid, deterrence is a side issue that
forms a small part ofthe whole, and as Geddes has pointed out, does
not have a single answer. You enjoy demanding answers to questions but
seem strangely reluctant to express your own views on what changes to
policy settings you want. Perhaps you realise that, just as for a
school, punishment may sometimes be the correct response, but it is
often the last resort, and signifies failure of more productive ways
of dealing with the need for others to learn, grow and become more
responsible.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
After all speeding is a major cause of crashes and can cause death.
Now we have a young person who has disobeyed a legal imperative to stay
at
home
and at least one other person who has done something very similar,
also
in
breach of a regulation or law (I don't care which). We have been warned
tirelessly for about a year about how serious that behaviour can be; it
can
be
deadly we have been told and indeed it can.
But apparently we have to be kind because we might be guilty of
singling
people
out or something obscure like that.
Strange, isn't it, that on the one hand we have people - yes, on this group
as well - who will, in essence, say Covid-19 rules violators should be
horsewhipped to within an inch of their lives, only then in the same
breath
say
that government taking a hard line is a sign of a grisly conspiracy
to
violate
and confiscate our rights and freedoms.
Not strange in this group but I am neither of those extremes. I believe the
time has come to make an example and have said nothing more.
Post by James Christophers
So, just WTF do these bugger's muddles want?
I don't know, you need to ask them, not me.
John Bowes
2021-03-04 22:49:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 13:39:05 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 03 Mar 2021 23:31:47 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 03 Mar 2021 19:25:34 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 02 Mar 2021 20:56:13 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
An acquaintance was pulled up two or three months ago on a motorway
for
doing
11kph over the speed limit. He was unhappy because it was 8am on a
Sunday
morning and traffic was extremely light. However on reflection he said
"fair
enough, I should have been more careful". And so say most of us.
There was a time when traffic policing accorded with that view, as they did
with me more than 40 years ago on the A3 out of London at 2am on a dry
Sunday
morning, when on an otherwise deserted dual carriageway I had poked a
little
over the 70mph speed limit. I was pulled in and a young plod phoned my
details
into base to see if had any "previouses". There were none so he simply
gave
me
a warning: "You were momentarily inattentive and this offence is now
recorded
and if it happens again within 6 months you can expect a penalty. Remain
clear
for that 6 months and the record is automatically cleared". Wrote out a
docket
bearing the same advice and cheerily sent me on my way, warned,
chastened
and
all the better advised for it. Commonsense all round, and kudos to the
cop.
In
any civilised country, isn't this the way things should be?
Has happened to many and rightly so. There has to be some discretion. On this
tropic however there has been nothing but discretion for the best part of a
year. No wonder people ignore the rules when they can reasonably expect their
failures to comply to be ignored. I am of course referring to the MIQ as well
as the poor behaviour in isolation.
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/how-best-to-get-covid-19-contacts-to-do-the-right-thing
"First of all, we need to distinguish targeted self-isolation rules
from the general level three lockdown rules that apply to everyone in
Auckland this week. These latter rules have been applied through an
order under the Covid-19 Public Health Act 2020. Anyone who
intentionally breaches these rules can be prosecuted, with a potential
penalty of up to six months imprisonment or a $4000 fine.
It's an opinion. No better or more valid than those who are calling for
consequences.
Did you read the article? It was all about consequences, and arguments
both for and against making changes to existing penalties . . . As to
validity, the author has demonstrated over a number of articles a
fairly good knowledge of the law and its effects . . .
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
And these sorts of prosecutions do occur; apparently there’s been over
800 of them since Covid-19 hit our shores a year ago.
Cite?
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/how-best-to-get-covid-19-contacts-to-do-the-right-thing
Sorry, I put the quoted two paragraphs in quote marks, but perhaps I
to make it clearer for you.
Post by Tony
In particular what sort of penalties have been imposed? An essential bit of the
question.
Post by Rich80105
Of course,
that’s only a small sample of total lockdown breaches as police
practice has been to only prosecute egregious, or repeat, offenders.
Which probably is fair enough if we want to avoid completely clogging
up our courts. "
Over 800 prosecutions is hardly "nothing but discretion", Tony.
It is if there is no consequence.
And your cite for that?
AIrrelevant, answer the question I put.
How many people have suffered consequences for breakinbg the law, or if you
prefer something simpler, how many of the so-called 800 were convicted.
That is the only measure of value.
You can;t have it both ways, Tony. First your claim implied that there
had been no prosecutions; that appears to be wrong; now you claim that
there may have been no penalties imposed - but you have no cites for
either statement.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
After all, let us remember that the Subject of this thread is "Yes,
let's be fair".
That is what I am hoping to see, precious little of it in your responses.
What part of the Andrew Geddes article do you disagree with?
Tony, no answer from you - I presume you now agree that {a} there have
been some consequences, {b} it is not clear whther current
consequences are having the desired effect, and (b) it is not clear
that greater and better known penalties would not have an adverse
effectas regards gaining information for covid-tracing. So which do
you favour, Tony, some more dollars for the government from fines,
less net costs of imprisonment, or a higher level of deaths?
This thread was from the beginning about deterrence and you know it.
Right from the start, the Subject of this thread is about being fair.
<party political broadcast and fake news snipped>
You Rich know nothing about being fair much like most of which you post in this forum!
James Christophers
2021-03-05 00:35:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 13:39:05 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
(large snip)
Post by Rich80105
(Tony) This thread was from the beginning about deterrence and you know it.
(Rich) Right from the start, the Subject of this thread is about being fair.
The essence of the topic is about approaching rule breaching with an equitable balance between two elements: fair and reasonable application of law; and nature of penalty on conviction. Bound up in both are the nature and the degree of severity of both breach and deterrence. This implies introducing regulatory measures that simultaneously satisfy all four requirements. A decidedly tough ask, and I think it is, at least in part, the combination and teasing out of these elements that has the government in a bind.

(snip to get to the nub of this segment of the thread)
Post by Rich80105
(...) Geddes has pointed out (he) does not have a single answer.
To be fair to the estimable Geddes, this is not surprising when considering the content of my preceding para, and its implications.
Post by Rich80105
You enjoy demanding answers to questions but
seem strangely reluctant to express your own views on what changes to
policy settings you want.
That said, what **does** Tony Unknown **really** want? It would be good to know. After all, it is he who has introduced the topic, but in doing so seems to have forgotten that when so forcefully prosecuting such a singular line of critique, it's a good idea to have a convincing answer or two of your own held in reserve before placing such an open-ended question on a public forum. Otherwise, don't be surprised when the thread quickly degenerates into a bugger's muddle of distractions and off-track noises which in any case is never what progressive and honestly intended debate is about.

(large snip)
Tony
2021-03-05 01:17:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 13:39:05 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
(large snip)
Post by Rich80105
(Tony) This thread was from the beginning about deterrence and you know it.
(Rich) Right from the start, the Subject of this thread is about being fair.
The essence of the topic is about approaching rule breaching with an equitable
balance between two elements: fair and reasonable application of law; and
nature of penalty on conviction. Bound up in both are the nature and the degree
of severity of both breach and deterrence. This implies introducing regulatory
measures that simultaneously satisfy all four requirements. A decidedly tough
ask, and I think it is, at least in part, the combination and teasing out of
these elements that has the government in a bind.
(snip to get to the nub of this segment of the thread)
Post by Rich80105
(...) Geddes has pointed out (he) does not have a single answer.
To be fair to the estimable Geddes, this is not surprising when considering
the content of my preceding para, and its implications.
Post by Rich80105
You enjoy demanding answers to questions but
seem strangely reluctant to express your own views on what changes to
policy settings you want.
That said, what **does** Tony Unknown **really** want? It would be good to
know. After all, it is he who has introduced the topic, but in doing so seems
to have forgotten that when so forcefully prosecuting such a >singular line of
critique, it's a good idea to have a convincing answer or two of your own held
in reserve before placing such an open-ended question on a public forum.
Otherwise, don't be surprised when the >thread quickly degenerates into a
bugger's muddle
Which you and Rich have caused in its entirety.
Rich tried to drive the subject off course and you have done your usual nasty
work of looking for anything to criticise that takes your insatiable fancy -
just for fun.
Post by James Christophers
of distractions and off-track noises which in any case is never what
progressive and honestly intended debate is about.
(large snip)
James Christophers
2021-03-05 01:54:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 13:39:05 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
(large snip)
Post by Rich80105
(Tony) This thread was from the beginning about deterrence and you know it.
(Rich) Right from the start, the Subject of this thread is about being fair.
The essence of the topic is about approaching rule breaching with an equitable
balance between two elements: fair and reasonable application of law; and
nature of penalty on conviction. Bound up in both are the nature and the degree
of severity of both breach and deterrence. This implies introducing regulatory
measures that simultaneously satisfy all four requirements. A decidedly tough
ask, and I think it is, at least in part, the combination and teasing out of
these elements that has the government in a bind.
(snip to get to the nub of this segment of the thread)
Post by Rich80105
(...) Geddes has pointed out (he) does not have a single answer.
To be fair to the estimable Geddes, this is not surprising when considering
the content of my preceding para, and its implications.
Post by Rich80105
You enjoy demanding answers to questions but
seem strangely reluctant to express your own views on what changes to
policy settings you want.
That said, what **does** Tony Unknown **really** want? It would be good to
know. After all, it is he who has introduced the topic, but in doing so seems
to have forgotten that when so forcefully prosecuting such a singular line of
critique, it's a good idea to have a convincing answer or two of your own held
in reserve before placing such an open-ended question on a public forum.
Otherwise, don't be surprised when the thread quickly degenerates into a
bugger's muddle
Which you and Rich have caused in its entirety.
You feast off distraction as if it were your last gasp meal, stretching it to its ultimate chaos-strewn exhaustion if that's what it takes for you to get the last word.
Post by Tony
Rich tried to drive the subject off course and you have done your usual nasty
work of looking for anything to criticise that takes your insatiable fancy -
just for fun.
There is no nastiness in my preceding material except that contrived in your warped, self-serving imagination. As you will see, I dispassionately review your efforts, separating and defining the different elements they embody, so stop making shit up.

As to "fun" - you are not a fun person, Tony. Never have been have you? Myopic, self-obsessed, single-track binaries seldom if ever are.

So now you know where you stand, you'll do infinitely better for yourself by getting back to **your** topic by providing a convincing answer or two to the conundrum you have introduced but which I, not you, have disassembled into its four component elements for your and anyone else's reasoned consideration and constructive response.

You might even find it... eerrrr...fun!
Tony
2021-03-05 02:13:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 13:39:05 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
(large snip)
Post by Rich80105
(Tony) This thread was from the beginning about deterrence and you know it.
(Rich) Right from the start, the Subject of this thread is about being fair.
The essence of the topic is about approaching rule breaching with an equitable
balance between two elements: fair and reasonable application of law; and
nature of penalty on conviction. Bound up in both are the nature and the degree
of severity of both breach and deterrence. This implies introducing regulatory
measures that simultaneously satisfy all four requirements. A decidedly tough
ask, and I think it is, at least in part, the combination and teasing out of
these elements that has the government in a bind.
(snip to get to the nub of this segment of the thread)
Post by Rich80105
(...) Geddes has pointed out (he) does not have a single answer.
To be fair to the estimable Geddes, this is not surprising when considering
the content of my preceding para, and its implications.
Post by Rich80105
You enjoy demanding answers to questions but
seem strangely reluctant to express your own views on what changes to
policy settings you want.
That said, what **does** Tony Unknown **really** want? It would be good to
know. After all, it is he who has introduced the topic, but in doing so seems
to have forgotten that when so forcefully prosecuting such a singular line of
critique, it's a good idea to have a convincing answer or two of your own held
in reserve before placing such an open-ended question on a public forum.
Otherwise, don't be surprised when the thread quickly degenerates into a
bugger's muddle
Which you and Rich have caused in its entirety.
You feast off distraction as if it were your last gasp meal, stretching it to
its ultimate chaos-strewn exhaustion if that's what it takes for you to get the
last word.
I note you cannot dispute what I posted. I will take that as an admission.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Rich tried to drive the subject off course and you have done your usual nasty
work of looking for anything to criticise that takes your insatiable fancy -
just for fun.
Abuse from Keith Warren removed. After all he is the only person here who
regulalry posts under more than one name - just to make fun of the other
posters.
Keith has done that to every single regular poster here. Something of a record
which no doubt causes him to chuckle in his bed at night.
Rich80105
2021-03-05 04:06:26 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 20:13:55 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 13:39:05 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
(large snip)
Post by Rich80105
(Tony) This thread was from the beginning about deterrence and you know it.
(Rich) Right from the start, the Subject of this thread is about being fair.
The essence of the topic is about approaching rule breaching with an equitable
balance between two elements: fair and reasonable application of law; and
nature of penalty on conviction. Bound up in both are the nature and the degree
of severity of both breach and deterrence. This implies introducing regulatory
measures that simultaneously satisfy all four requirements. A decidedly tough
ask, and I think it is, at least in part, the combination and teasing out of
these elements that has the government in a bind.
(snip to get to the nub of this segment of the thread)
Post by Rich80105
(...) Geddes has pointed out (he) does not have a single answer.
To be fair to the estimable Geddes, this is not surprising when considering
the content of my preceding para, and its implications.
Post by Rich80105
You enjoy demanding answers to questions but
seem strangely reluctant to express your own views on what changes to
policy settings you want.
That said, what **does** Tony Unknown **really** want? It would be good to
know. After all, it is he who has introduced the topic, but in doing so seems
to have forgotten that when so forcefully prosecuting such a singular line of
critique, it's a good idea to have a convincing answer or two of your own held
in reserve before placing such an open-ended question on a public forum.
Otherwise, don't be surprised when the thread quickly degenerates into a
bugger's muddle
Which you and Rich have caused in its entirety.
You feast off distraction as if it were your last gasp meal, stretching it to
its ultimate chaos-strewn exhaustion if that's what it takes for you to get the
last word.
I note you cannot dispute what I posted. I will take that as an admission.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Rich tried to drive the subject off course and you have done your usual nasty
work of looking for anything to criticise that takes your insatiable fancy -
just for fun.
Abuse from Keith Warren removed. After all he is the only person here who
regulalry posts under more than one name - just to make fun of the other
posters.
Keith has done that to every single regular poster here. Something of a record
which no doubt causes him to chuckle in his bed at night.
I don't bother even trying to figure out when someone is pretending to
be someone else. Based on previous postings, it is possible that the
post previous to this purporting to come from Tony may be from John B,
but I ignore that and if I wanted to respond would assume that it has
been posted as shown by Tony. I suspect such poor behaviour is
actually a lot less than some make out, but I was certainly very
concerned when some time ago an idiot posted using my posting name.

Certainly it does appear that having initiated this thread on an
important topic Tony gave up some time ago.
Tony
2021-03-05 04:17:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 20:13:55 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 13:39:05 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
(large snip)
Post by Rich80105
(Tony) This thread was from the beginning about deterrence and you
know
it.
(Rich) Right from the start, the Subject of this thread is about being fair.
The essence of the topic is about approaching rule breaching with an equitable
balance between two elements: fair and reasonable application of law; and
nature of penalty on conviction. Bound up in both are the nature and the degree
of severity of both breach and deterrence. This implies introducing regulatory
measures that simultaneously satisfy all four requirements. A decidedly tough
ask, and I think it is, at least in part, the combination and teasing out of
these elements that has the government in a bind.
(snip to get to the nub of this segment of the thread)
Post by Rich80105
(...) Geddes has pointed out (he) does not have a single answer.
To be fair to the estimable Geddes, this is not surprising when considering
the content of my preceding para, and its implications.
Post by Rich80105
You enjoy demanding answers to questions but
seem strangely reluctant to express your own views on what changes to
policy settings you want.
That said, what **does** Tony Unknown **really** want? It would be good to
know. After all, it is he who has introduced the topic, but in doing so seems
to have forgotten that when so forcefully prosecuting such a singular
line
of
critique, it's a good idea to have a convincing answer or two of your own held
in reserve before placing such an open-ended question on a public forum.
Otherwise, don't be surprised when the thread quickly degenerates into a
bugger's muddle
Which you and Rich have caused in its entirety.
You feast off distraction as if it were your last gasp meal, stretching it to
its ultimate chaos-strewn exhaustion if that's what it takes for you to get the
last word.
I note you cannot dispute what I posted. I will take that as an admission.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Rich tried to drive the subject off course and you have done your usual nasty
work of looking for anything to criticise that takes your insatiable fancy -
just for fun.
Abuse from Keith Warren removed. After all he is the only person here who
regulalry posts under more than one name - just to make fun of the other
posters.
Keith has done that to every single regular poster here. Something of a record
which no doubt causes him to chuckle in his bed at night.
I don't bother even trying to figure out when someone is pretending to
be someone else. Based on previous postings, it is possible that the
post previous to this purporting to come from Tony may be from John B,
but I ignore that and if I wanted to respond would assume that it has
been posted as shown by Tony. I suspect such poor behaviour is
actually a lot less than some make out, but I was certainly very
concerned when some time ago an idiot posted using my posting name.
Anybody who has even a tiny bit of intellect knows what Keith Warren does and
he is still posting with two names at least. He does it because it "amuses"
him. A sure sign of a sociopath, several sociopathic symptoms are displayed by
him. He is an abusive manipulative creature and you know that is true but it
suits your twisted life to play along.
Post by Rich80105
Certainly it does appear that having initiated this thread on an
important topic Tony gave up some time ago.
A lie. I have not given up - you have refused to answer a pertinent question.
This topic was about whether people believe there would be any consequences to
not following reasonable instructions. You have provide zero evidence that
there are any consequences and that failure indicates I am correct in stating
there is no deterrence. And that is all I ever tried to demonstrate.
So answer the question - how many of the 800 were convicted? You raised that
number so stop your cowardice and provide some evidence to demonstrate that
zero consequences is a good idea. So far zilch.
Rich80105
2021-03-05 09:28:16 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 22:17:35 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 20:13:55 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 13:39:05 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
(large snip)
Post by Rich80105
(Tony) This thread was from the beginning about deterrence and you
know
it.
(Rich) Right from the start, the Subject of this thread is about being fair.
The essence of the topic is about approaching rule breaching with an equitable
balance between two elements: fair and reasonable application of law; and
nature of penalty on conviction. Bound up in both are the nature and the degree
of severity of both breach and deterrence. This implies introducing regulatory
measures that simultaneously satisfy all four requirements. A decidedly tough
ask, and I think it is, at least in part, the combination and teasing out of
these elements that has the government in a bind.
(snip to get to the nub of this segment of the thread)
Post by Rich80105
(...) Geddes has pointed out (he) does not have a single answer.
To be fair to the estimable Geddes, this is not surprising when considering
the content of my preceding para, and its implications.
Post by Rich80105
You enjoy demanding answers to questions but
seem strangely reluctant to express your own views on what changes to
policy settings you want.
That said, what **does** Tony Unknown **really** want? It would be good to
know. After all, it is he who has introduced the topic, but in doing so seems
to have forgotten that when so forcefully prosecuting such a singular
line
of
critique, it's a good idea to have a convincing answer or two of your own held
in reserve before placing such an open-ended question on a public forum.
Otherwise, don't be surprised when the thread quickly degenerates into a
bugger's muddle
Which you and Rich have caused in its entirety.
You feast off distraction as if it were your last gasp meal, stretching it to
its ultimate chaos-strewn exhaustion if that's what it takes for you to get the
last word.
I note you cannot dispute what I posted. I will take that as an admission.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Rich tried to drive the subject off course and you have done your usual nasty
work of looking for anything to criticise that takes your insatiable fancy -
just for fun.
Abuse from Keith Warren removed. After all he is the only person here who
regulalry posts under more than one name - just to make fun of the other
posters.
Keith has done that to every single regular poster here. Something of a record
which no doubt causes him to chuckle in his bed at night.
I don't bother even trying to figure out when someone is pretending to
be someone else. Based on previous postings, it is possible that the
post previous to this purporting to come from Tony may be from John B,
but I ignore that and if I wanted to respond would assume that it has
been posted as shown by Tony. I suspect such poor behaviour is
actually a lot less than some make out, but I was certainly very
concerned when some time ago an idiot posted using my posting name.
Anybody who has even a tiny bit of intellect knows what Keith Warren does and
he is still posting with two names at least. He does it because it "amuses"
him. A sure sign of a sociopath, several sociopathic symptoms are displayed by
him. He is an abusive manipulative creature and you know that is true but it
suits your twisted life to play along.
Post by Rich80105
Certainly it does appear that having initiated this thread on an
important topic Tony gave up some time ago.
A lie. I have not given up - you have refused to answer a pertinent question.
This topic was about whether people believe there would be any consequences to
not following reasonable instructions. You have provide zero evidence that
there are any consequences and that failure indicates I am correct in stating
there is no deterrence. And that is all I ever tried to demonstrate.
So answer the question - how many of the 800 were convicted? You raised that
number so stop your cowardice and provide some evidence to demonstrate that
zero consequences is a good idea. So far zilch.
There have now been 1000:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/437610/covid-19-police-prosecute-nearly-1000-breaches

The number fined, and the total amount of penalties has not been
given, but it would be silly to think, as you have asserted, that it
was zero - for that you had no evidence, or at least refused to give
any evidence.

But read the whole article, Tony, it may improve your knowledge and
assist you to understand what you clearly could not from the Andrew
Geddes article - there is a difficult balance required; and those
concerned about saving lives don't want the longer lockdowns and
greater risk of deaths that could result from discouragng people from
collecting or giving information.
Tony
2021-03-05 19:11:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 22:17:35 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 20:13:55 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 13:39:05 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
(large snip)
Post by Rich80105
(Tony) This thread was from the beginning about deterrence and you
know
it.
(Rich) Right from the start, the Subject of this thread is about
being
fair.
The essence of the topic is about approaching rule breaching with an equitable
balance between two elements: fair and reasonable application of law; and
nature of penalty on conviction. Bound up in both are the nature and
the
degree
of severity of both breach and deterrence. This implies introducing regulatory
measures that simultaneously satisfy all four requirements. A decidedly tough
ask, and I think it is, at least in part, the combination and teasing
out
of
these elements that has the government in a bind.
(snip to get to the nub of this segment of the thread)
Post by Rich80105
(...) Geddes has pointed out (he) does not have a single answer.
To be fair to the estimable Geddes, this is not surprising when considering
the content of my preceding para, and its implications.
Post by Rich80105
You enjoy demanding answers to questions but
seem strangely reluctant to express your own views on what changes to
policy settings you want.
That said, what **does** Tony Unknown **really** want? It would be good to
know. After all, it is he who has introduced the topic, but in doing so seems
to have forgotten that when so forcefully prosecuting such a singular
line
of
critique, it's a good idea to have a convincing answer or two of your
own
held
in reserve before placing such an open-ended question on a public forum.
Otherwise, don't be surprised when the thread quickly degenerates into a
bugger's muddle
Which you and Rich have caused in its entirety.
You feast off distraction as if it were your last gasp meal, stretching it to
its ultimate chaos-strewn exhaustion if that's what it takes for you to
get
the
last word.
I note you cannot dispute what I posted. I will take that as an admission.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Rich tried to drive the subject off course and you have done your usual nasty
work of looking for anything to criticise that takes your insatiable
fancy
-
just for fun.
Abuse from Keith Warren removed. After all he is the only person here who
regulalry posts under more than one name - just to make fun of the other
posters.
Keith has done that to every single regular poster here. Something of a record
which no doubt causes him to chuckle in his bed at night.
I don't bother even trying to figure out when someone is pretending to
be someone else. Based on previous postings, it is possible that the
post previous to this purporting to come from Tony may be from John B,
but I ignore that and if I wanted to respond would assume that it has
been posted as shown by Tony. I suspect such poor behaviour is
actually a lot less than some make out, but I was certainly very
concerned when some time ago an idiot posted using my posting name.
Anybody who has even a tiny bit of intellect knows what Keith Warren does and
he is still posting with two names at least. He does it because it "amuses"
him. A sure sign of a sociopath, several sociopathic symptoms are displayed by
him. He is an abusive manipulative creature and you know that is true but it
suits your twisted life to play along.
Post by Rich80105
Certainly it does appear that having initiated this thread on an
important topic Tony gave up some time ago.
A lie. I have not given up - you have refused to answer a pertinent question.
This topic was about whether people believe there would be any consequences to
not following reasonable instructions. You have provide zero evidence that
there are any consequences and that failure indicates I am correct in stating
there is no deterrence. And that is all I ever tried to demonstrate.
So answer the question - how many of the 800 were convicted? You raised that
number so stop your cowardice and provide some evidence to demonstrate that
zero consequences is a good idea. So far zilch.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/437610/covid-19-police-prosecute-nearly-1000-breaches
The number fined, and the total amount of penalties has not been
given, but it would be silly to think, as you have asserted, that it
was zero - for that you had no evidence, or at least refused to give
any evidence.
You are a liar. I have asserted nothing of the sort. Find a quote from me or
bugger off to your smelly little hidey hole.
I asked you how many had been penalised because that is the only measure of
deterrence. You have failed to do that. Period.
Stu[pid off topic stuff removed.
Rich is incapable of keeping to a subject, especially when he has lost an
argument.
James Christophers
2021-03-05 23:16:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 22:17:35 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 20:13:55 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 13:39:05 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
(large snip)
Post by Rich80105
(Tony) This thread was from the beginning about deterrence and you
know
it.
(Rich) Right from the start, the Subject of this thread is about
being
fair.
The essence of the topic is about approaching rule breaching with an
equitable
balance between two elements: fair and reasonable application of law; and
nature of penalty on conviction. Bound up in both are the nature and
the
degree
of severity of both breach and deterrence. This implies introducing
regulatory
measures that simultaneously satisfy all four requirements. A decidedly
tough
ask, and I think it is, at least in part, the combination and teasing
out
of
these elements that has the government in a bind.
(snip to get to the nub of this segment of the thread)
Post by Rich80105
(...) Geddes has pointed out (he) does not have a single answer.
To be fair to the estimable Geddes, this is not surprising when considering
the content of my preceding para, and its implications.
Post by Rich80105
You enjoy demanding answers to questions but
seem strangely reluctant to express your own views on what changes to
policy settings you want.
That said, what **does** Tony Unknown **really** want? It would be good to
know. After all, it is he who has introduced the topic, but in doing so
seems
to have forgotten that when so forcefully prosecuting such a singular
line
of
critique, it's a good idea to have a convincing answer or two of your
own
held
in reserve before placing such an open-ended question on a public forum.
Otherwise, don't be surprised when the thread quickly degenerates into a
bugger's muddle
Which you and Rich have caused in its entirety.
But which you have initiated and fomented in your own entirety of stoush-mindedness from your opening post and onward.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
You feast off distraction as if it were your last gasp meal, stretching it to
its ultimate chaos-strewn exhaustion if that's what it takes for you to
get
the
last word.
I note you cannot dispute what I posted. I will take that as an admission.
From the outset there has been no intention on my part to dispute, as my foregoing postings clearly show. Again, your posturing imputing and presumptuousness fall flat.

As for deterrence, for most detection and a stern warning are sufficient. For the hard cases, there can be no effective penalty other than a custodial sentence or other appropriate social forfeit. Even then the recidivist is always with us. Thus the open society.

Who would prefer any other kind?

You?
Post by Tony
Rich is incapable of keeping to a subject, especially when he has lost an
argument.
Fact is, you are the everytime loser since you allow Rich to get the better of you, falling as you do for his diversions and other tricks of the disputatious. Disputatiousness is also decidedly salient in your own makeup. You are made for each other which is why you can never get past it.

That said, there is no genuinely intended argument in your opening post. All you offer is an example of a deja-vu scenario followed by an anti-government diatribe of souring sarcastic rhetoric bordering on malice. There is no other perceivable purpose or intent from the outset, no substance, no well-reasoned, set-out guidelines, no sign of wanting of honest, constructive debate.

This is why yet another of your directionless "topics" has immediately slipped from your febrile grasp to be dealt with and to by others as they please.

It has been stoushing not debating you have plainly been seeking, so what other responses did you expect?

But you can do better.

Introduce your topics with facts and structured reasoning reinforced by one or two substantive ideas/propositions of your own, and you'll then merit worthwhile added-value discourse. Otherwise, continue mired in the directionless chaos that you more often than not gratuitously invite, only then to further foment.

Because, if you're honest about it, this errant behaviour is what pleasures you most.
Tony
2021-03-05 23:35:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 22:17:35 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 20:13:55 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 13:39:05 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
(large snip)
Post by Rich80105
(Tony) This thread was from the beginning about deterrence and you
know
it.
(Rich) Right from the start, the Subject of this thread is about
being
fair.
The essence of the topic is about approaching rule breaching with an
equitable
balance between two elements: fair and reasonable application of
law;
and
nature of penalty on conviction. Bound up in both are the nature and
the
degree
of severity of both breach and deterrence. This implies introducing
regulatory
measures that simultaneously satisfy all four requirements. A decidedly
tough
ask, and I think it is, at least in part, the combination and teasing
out
of
these elements that has the government in a bind.
(snip to get to the nub of this segment of the thread)
Post by Rich80105
(...) Geddes has pointed out (he) does not have a single answer.
To be fair to the estimable Geddes, this is not surprising when
considering
the content of my preceding para, and its implications.
Post by Rich80105
You enjoy demanding answers to questions but
seem strangely reluctant to express your own views on what changes to
policy settings you want.
That said, what **does** Tony Unknown **really** want? It would be
good
to
know. After all, it is he who has introduced the topic, but in doing so
seems
to have forgotten that when so forcefully prosecuting such a singular
line
of
critique, it's a good idea to have a convincing answer or two of your
own
held
in reserve before placing such an open-ended question on a public forum.
Otherwise, don't be surprised when the thread quickly degenerates
into
a
bugger's muddle
Which you and Rich have caused in its entirety.
Abuse thrown to the sewer it came from.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
You feast off distraction as if it were your last gasp meal, stretching
it
to
its ultimate chaos-strewn exhaustion if that's what it takes for you to
get
the
last word.
I note you cannot dispute what I posted. I will take that as an admission.
From the outset there has been no intention on my part to dispute, as my
foregoing postings clearly show. Again, your posturing imputing and
presumptuousness fall flat.
A simple lie by Keith (a very simple person).
Post by James Christophers
As for deterrence, for most detection and a stern warning are sufficient. For
the hard cases, there can be no effective penalty other than a custodial
sentence or other appropriate social forfeit. Even then the recidivist is
always with us. Thus the open society.
Not universally agreed, in fact more than most would dispute tyhat overly
simple and poorly thought through idea.
It is obvious that unless warnings are, in fact, followed up from time to time
then they are without value and will fail. Hence this thread.
Post by James Christophers
Who would prefer any other kind?
You?
Don't be so damn stupid, you know what I have asked and you have studiously
disregarded it.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Rich is incapable of keeping to a subject, especially when he has lost an
argument.
Nonsense and lies removed
Post by James Christophers
That said, there is no genuinely intended argument in your opening post. All
you offer is an example of a deja-vu scenario followed by an anti-government
diatribe of souring sarcastic rhetoric bordering on malice. There is no other
perceivable purpose or intent from the outset, no substance, no well-reasoned,
set-out guidelines, no sign of wanting of honest, constructive debate.
Wrong you really are a sociopath, it is clear in your every post.
Nonsense sent back.
Post by James Christophers
Because, if you're honest about it, this errant behaviour is what pleasures you most.
You don't even begin to understand me but you posture and abuse and tell lies
and your buddy Rich will join you in your pathetic games. It just happens to be
my turn.
Please do us a favour and forget your petty childish vendettas.
James Christophers
2021-03-06 00:39:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 22:17:35 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 20:13:55 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 13:39:05 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot
net
(large snip)
Post by Rich80105
(Tony) This thread was from the beginning about deterrence and
you
know
it.
(Rich) Right from the start, the Subject of this thread is about
being
fair.
The essence of the topic is about approaching rule breaching with an
equitable
balance between two elements: fair and reasonable application of
law;
and
nature of penalty on conviction. Bound up in both are the nature and
the
degree
of severity of both breach and deterrence. This implies introducing
regulatory
measures that simultaneously satisfy all four requirements. A
decidedly
tough
ask, and I think it is, at least in part, the combination and teasing
out
of
these elements that has the government in a bind.
(snip to get to the nub of this segment of the thread)
Post by Rich80105
(...) Geddes has pointed out (he) does not have a single answer.
To be fair to the estimable Geddes, this is not surprising when
considering
the content of my preceding para, and its implications.
Post by Rich80105
You enjoy demanding answers to questions but
seem strangely reluctant to express your own views on what changes
to
policy settings you want.
That said, what **does** Tony Unknown **really** want? It would be
good
to
know. After all, it is he who has introduced the topic, but in doing
so
seems
to have forgotten that when so forcefully prosecuting such a singular
line
of
critique, it's a good idea to have a convincing answer or two of your
own
held
in reserve before placing such an open-ended question on a public
forum.
Otherwise, don't be surprised when the thread quickly degenerates
into
a
bugger's muddle
Which you and Rich have caused in its entirety.
Abuse thrown to the sewer it came from.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
You feast off distraction as if it were your last gasp meal, stretching
it
to
its ultimate chaos-strewn exhaustion if that's what it takes for you to
get
the
last word.
I note you cannot dispute what I posted. I will take that as an admission.
From the outset there has been no intention on my part to dispute, as my
foregoing postings clearly show. Again, your posturing imputing and
presumptuousness fall flat.
A simple lie by Keith (a very simple person).
Post by James Christophers
As for deterrence, for most detection and a stern warning are sufficient. For
the hard cases, there can be no effective penalty other than a custodial
sentence or other appropriate social forfeit. Even then the recidivist is
always with us. Thus the open society.
Not universally agreed, in fact more than most would dispute tyhat overly
simple and poorly thought through idea.
You'll be better qualified to judge me and others after you have posted your first ever well-thought-through idea. Until then, your remark remains as worthless as the pitiable vacancy that gives voice to it.
Post by Tony
It is obvious that unless warnings are, in fact, followed up from time to time
then they are without value and will fail. Hence this thread.
..but, again, a thread opened, not with a well-thought-through reasoned proposal, but solely with sardonic rhetoric and vaulting sarcasm - each remarkable in its own way for its sheer inadequacy and conceit.
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Who would prefer any other kind?
You?
Don't be so damn stupid...
Only the stupid fail to recognise the rhetorical query.
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
...you know what I have asked and you have studiously
disregarded it.
You have asked nothing whatever in your opening post, you buffoon, other than that others should take on board the lunatic unreferenced ranting it comprises. Little wonder you've received the comeuppance you justly merit.
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Rich is incapable of keeping to a subject, especially when he has lost an
argument.
Fact is, you are the everytime loser since you allow Rich to get the better of you, falling as you do for his diversions and other > > >tricks of the disputatious. Disputatiousness is also decidedly salient in your own makeup. You are made for each other which > > >is why you can never get past it.
That said, there is no genuinely intended argument in your opening post. All
you offer is an example of a deja-vu scenario followed by an anti-government
diatribe of souring sarcastic rhetoric bordering on malice. There is no other
perceivable purpose or intent from the outset, no substance, no well-reasoned,
set-out guidelines, no sign of wanting of honest, constructive debate.
Wrong you really are a sociopath, it is clear in your every post.
You're lost for material, aren't you? And little wonder, anyway, since you started your topic with none. A fool's errand writ large.
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Because, if you're honest about it, this errant behaviour is what pleasures you most.
You don't even begin to understand me but you posture and abuse and tell lies
and your buddy Rich will join you in your pathetic games. It just happens to be
my turn.
You have now made even further sport of yourself by reinforcing what pleasures you most.
Post by Tony
Please do us a favour and forget your petty childish vendettas.
Because of your own behaviour, your entire response is now up there in lights for all to mock and deride - perhaps even pity, bless you! - as a classic example of that which I have told you pleasures you most.

Congratulations!
Tony
2021-03-06 00:50:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 22:17:35 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 20:13:55 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 13:39:05 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon
dot
net
(large snip)
Post by Rich80105
(Tony) This thread was from the beginning about deterrence
and
you
know
it.
(Rich) Right from the start, the Subject of this thread is about
being
fair.
The essence of the topic is about approaching rule breaching with
an
equitable
balance between two elements: fair and reasonable application of
law;
and
nature of penalty on conviction. Bound up in both are the nature
and
the
degree
of severity of both breach and deterrence. This implies introducing
regulatory
measures that simultaneously satisfy all four requirements. A
decidedly
tough
ask, and I think it is, at least in part, the combination and
teasing
out
of
these elements that has the government in a bind.
(snip to get to the nub of this segment of the thread)
Post by Rich80105
(...) Geddes has pointed out (he) does not have a single answer.
To be fair to the estimable Geddes, this is not surprising when
considering
the content of my preceding para, and its implications.
Post by Rich80105
You enjoy demanding answers to questions but
seem strangely reluctant to express your own views on what
changes
to
policy settings you want.
That said, what **does** Tony Unknown **really** want? It would be
good
to
know. After all, it is he who has introduced the topic, but in
doing
so
seems
to have forgotten that when so forcefully prosecuting such a
singular
line
of
critique, it's a good idea to have a convincing answer or two of
your
own
held
in reserve before placing such an open-ended question on a public
forum.
Otherwise, don't be surprised when the thread quickly degenerates
into
a
bugger's muddle
Which you and Rich have caused in its entirety.
Abuse thrown to the sewer it came from.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
You feast off distraction as if it were your last gasp meal, stretching
it
to
its ultimate chaos-strewn exhaustion if that's what it takes for you to
get
the
last word.
I note you cannot dispute what I posted. I will take that as an admission.
From the outset there has been no intention on my part to dispute, as my
foregoing postings clearly show. Again, your posturing imputing and
presumptuousness fall flat.
A simple lie by Keith (a very simple person).
Post by James Christophers
As for deterrence, for most detection and a stern warning are sufficient. For
the hard cases, there can be no effective penalty other than a custodial
sentence or other appropriate social forfeit. Even then the recidivist is
always with us. Thus the open society.
Not universally agreed, in fact more than most would dispute tyhat overly
simple and poorly thought through idea.
You'll be better qualified to judge me and others after you have posted your
first ever well-thought-through idea. Until then, your remark remains as
worthless as the pitiable vacancy that gives voice to it.
You are easy to judge. You are a sociopathic old man that gets his only jollies
from being offensive and custic to others.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
It is obvious that unless warnings are, in fact, followed up from time to time
then they are without value and will fail. Hence this thread.
..but, again, a thread opened, not with a well-thought-through reasoned
proposal, but solely with sardonic rhetoric and vaulting sarcasm - each
remarkable in its own way for its sheer inadequacy and conceit.
As above, caustic and sociopathic Keith Warren special.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Who would prefer any other kind?
You?
Don't be so damn stupid...
Only the stupid fail to recognise the rhetorical query.
WHich is why you missed it.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
...you know what I have asked and you have studiously
disregarded it.
You have asked nothing whatever in your opening post, you buffoon, other than
that others should take on board the lunatic unreferenced ranting it comprises.
Little wonder you've received the comeuppance you justly merit.
Comeuppance? From you? Guffaw.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Rich is incapable of keeping to a subject, especially when he has lost an
argument.
Fact is, you are the everytime loser since you allow Rich to get the better
of you, falling as you do for his diversions and other > > >tricks of the
disputatious. Disputatiousness is also decidedly salient in your own makeup.
You are made for each other which > > >is why you can never get past it.
That said, there is no genuinely intended argument in your opening post. All
you offer is an example of a deja-vu scenario followed by an
anti-government
diatribe of souring sarcastic rhetoric bordering on malice. There is no other
perceivable purpose or intent from the outset, no substance, no well-reasoned,
set-out guidelines, no sign of wanting of honest, constructive debate.
Wrong you really are a sociopath, it is clear in your every post.
You're lost for material, aren't you? And little wonder, anyway, since you
started your topic with none. A fool's errand writ large.
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Because, if you're honest about it, this errant behaviour is what pleasures you most.
You don't even begin to understand me but you posture and abuse and tell lies
and your buddy Rich will join you in your pathetic games. It just happens to be
my turn.
You have now made even further sport of yourself by reinforcing what pleasures you most.
At least I don't enjoy what pleasures you when you are alone in what passes for
a mind.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Please do us a favour and forget your petty childish vendettas.
Congratulations!
Thank you, I know I have got you to rights and your acknowledgement of that is
accepted.
James Christophers
2021-03-06 01:40:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 22:17:35 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 20:13:55 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 13:39:05 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon
dot
net
(large snip)
Post by Rich80105
(Tony) This thread was from the beginning about deterrence
and
you
know
it.
(Rich) Right from the start, the Subject of this thread is
about
being
fair.
The essence of the topic is about approaching rule breaching with
an
equitable
balance between two elements: fair and reasonable application of
law;
and
nature of penalty on conviction. Bound up in both are the nature
and
the
degree
of severity of both breach and deterrence. This implies
introducing
regulatory
measures that simultaneously satisfy all four requirements. A
decidedly
tough
ask, and I think it is, at least in part, the combination and
teasing
out
of
these elements that has the government in a bind.
(snip to get to the nub of this segment of the thread)
Post by Rich80105
(...) Geddes has pointed out (he) does not have a single
answer.
To be fair to the estimable Geddes, this is not surprising when
considering
the content of my preceding para, and its implications.
Post by Rich80105
You enjoy demanding answers to questions but
seem strangely reluctant to express your own views on what
changes
to
policy settings you want.
That said, what **does** Tony Unknown **really** want? It would
be
good
to
know. After all, it is he who has introduced the topic, but in
doing
so
seems
to have forgotten that when so forcefully prosecuting such a
singular
line
of
critique, it's a good idea to have a convincing answer or two of
your
own
held
in reserve before placing such an open-ended question on a public
forum.
Otherwise, don't be surprised when the thread quickly degenerates
into
a
bugger's muddle
Which you and Rich have caused in its entirety.
Abuse thrown to the sewer it came from.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
You feast off distraction as if it were your last gasp meal,
stretching
it
to
its ultimate chaos-strewn exhaustion if that's what it takes for you
to
get
the
last word.
I note you cannot dispute what I posted. I will take that as an
admission.
From the outset there has been no intention on my part to dispute, as my
foregoing postings clearly show. Again, your posturing imputing and
presumptuousness fall flat.
A simple lie by Keith (a very simple person).
Post by James Christophers
As for deterrence, for most detection and a stern warning are sufficient. For
the hard cases, there can be no effective penalty other than a custodial
sentence or other appropriate social forfeit. Even then the recidivist is
always with us. Thus the open society.
Not universally agreed, in fact more than most would dispute tyhat overly
simple and poorly thought through idea.
You'll be better qualified to judge me and others after you have posted your
first ever well-thought-through idea. Until then, your remark remains as
worthless as the pitiable vacancy that gives voice to it.
You are easy to judge. You are a sociopathic old man that gets his only jollies
from being offensive and custic to others.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
It is obvious that unless warnings are, in fact, followed up from time to time
then they are without value and will fail. Hence this thread.
..but, again, a thread opened, not with a well-thought-through reasoned
proposal, but solely with sardonic rhetoric and vaulting sarcasm - each
remarkable in its own way for its sheer inadequacy and conceit.
As above, caustic and sociopathic Keith Warren special.
Nope. Mine is robust fact-based argument, and you can't show otherwise.
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Who would prefer any other kind?
You?
Don't be so damn stupid...
Only the stupid fail to recognise the rhetorical query.
WHich is why you missed it.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
...you know what I have asked and you have studiously
disregarded it.
You have asked nothing whatever in your opening post, you buffoon, other than
that others should take on board the lunatic unreferenced ranting it comprises.
Little wonder you've received the comeuppance you justly merit.
Comeuppance? From you? Guffaw.
So you lamely plead for want of argument, but the critique doesn't alter one jot, and you know it.
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Rich is incapable of keeping to a subject, especially when he has lost an
argument.
Fact is, you are the everytime loser since you allow Rich to get the better
of you, falling as you do for his diversions and other > > >tricks of the
disputatious. Disputatiousness is also decidedly salient in your own makeup.
You are made for each other which > > >is why you can never get past it.
That said, there is no genuinely intended argument in your opening post. All
you offer is an example of a deja-vu scenario followed by an anti-government
diatribe of souring sarcastic rhetoric bordering on malice. There is no other
perceivable purpose or intent from the outset, no substance, no well-reasoned,
set-out guidelines, no sign of wanting an honest, constructive debate.
Wrong you really are a sociopath, it is clear in your every post.
To the born paranoiac, doubtless. But to the reasoning and the rational, facts are facts as I have plainly shown you in the foregoing. And it is facts that are far too often absent from your postings as the ever-generous Crash has previously warned and advised you of - so shape up and sort yourself.
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
You're lost for material, aren't you? And little wonder, anyway, since you
started your topic with none. A fool's errand writ large.
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Because, if you're honest about it, this errant behaviour is what pleasures
you most.
You don't even begin to understand me but you posture and abuse and tell lies
and your buddy Rich will join you in your pathetic games. It just happens to be
my turn.
To play what **you** say are pathetic games? Well, at least you've got that one right, haven't you? So, once more...
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
...you have now made even further sport of yourself by reinforcing what pleasures
you most.
At least I don't enjoy what pleasures you when you are alone in what passes for
a mind.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Please do us a favour and forget your petty childish vendettas.
Congratulations!
Thank you, I know I have got you to rights and your acknowledgement of that is
accepted.
So, with that further specious iteration of your deluded presumptuousness, you make it plain to all and sundry that your only remaining recourse is to indulge in what the French once dubbed, 'le vice anglais'.

IOW, moral degeneration, to be swiftly followed by decline and fall.

Is this **really** what you crave most of all?
Tony
2021-03-06 01:50:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 22:17:35 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 20:13:55 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 13:39:05 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at
orcon
dot
net
(large snip)
Post by Rich80105
(Tony) This thread was from the beginning about deterrence
and
you
know
it.
(Rich) Right from the start, the Subject of this thread is
about
being
fair.
The essence of the topic is about approaching rule breaching
with
an
equitable
balance between two elements: fair and reasonable application
of
law;
and
nature of penalty on conviction. Bound up in both are the
nature
and
the
degree
of severity of both breach and deterrence. This implies
introducing
regulatory
measures that simultaneously satisfy all four requirements. A
decidedly
tough
ask, and I think it is, at least in part, the combination and
teasing
out
of
these elements that has the government in a bind.
(snip to get to the nub of this segment of the thread)
Post by Rich80105
(...) Geddes has pointed out (he) does not have a single
answer.
To be fair to the estimable Geddes, this is not surprising
when
considering
the content of my preceding para, and its implications.
Post by Rich80105
You enjoy demanding answers to questions but
seem strangely reluctant to express your own views on what
changes
to
policy settings you want.
That said, what **does** Tony Unknown **really** want? It
would
be
good
to
know. After all, it is he who has introduced the topic, but in
doing
so
seems
to have forgotten that when so forcefully prosecuting such a
singular
line
of
critique, it's a good idea to have a convincing answer or two
of
your
own
held
in reserve before placing such an open-ended question on a
public
forum.
Otherwise, don't be surprised when the thread quickly
degenerates
into
a
bugger's muddle
Which you and Rich have caused in its entirety.
Abuse thrown to the sewer it came from.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
You feast off distraction as if it were your last gasp meal,
stretching
it
to
its ultimate chaos-strewn exhaustion if that's what it takes for
you
to
get
the
last word.
I note you cannot dispute what I posted. I will take that as an
admission.
From the outset there has been no intention on my part to dispute, as my
foregoing postings clearly show. Again, your posturing imputing and
presumptuousness fall flat.
A simple lie by Keith (a very simple person).
Post by James Christophers
As for deterrence, for most detection and a stern warning are
sufficient.
For
the hard cases, there can be no effective penalty other than a custodial
sentence or other appropriate social forfeit. Even then the recidivist is
always with us. Thus the open society.
Not universally agreed, in fact more than most would dispute tyhat overly
simple and poorly thought through idea.
You'll be better qualified to judge me and others after you have posted your
first ever well-thought-through idea. Until then, your remark remains as
worthless as the pitiable vacancy that gives voice to it.
You are easy to judge. You are a sociopathic old man that gets his only jollies
from being offensive and custic to others.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
It is obvious that unless warnings are, in fact, followed up from time to time
then they are without value and will fail. Hence this thread.
..but, again, a thread opened, not with a well-thought-through reasoned
proposal, but solely with sardonic rhetoric and vaulting sarcasm - each
remarkable in its own way for its sheer inadequacy and conceit.
As above, caustic and sociopathic Keith Warren special.
Nope. Mine is robust fact-based argument, and you can't show otherwise.
No need. you show it all of the time.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Who would prefer any other kind?
You?
Don't be so damn stupid...
Only the stupid fail to recognise the rhetorical query.
WHich is why you missed it.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
...you know what I have asked and you have studiously
disregarded it.
You have asked nothing whatever in your opening post, you buffoon, other than
that others should take on board the lunatic unreferenced ranting it comprises.
Little wonder you've received the comeuppance you justly merit.
Comeuppance? From you? Guffaw.
So you lamely plead for want of argument, but the critique doesn't alter one
jot, and you know it.
And you know I am right. But to admit to being a sociopathic inverted snob is
not something you can do because your sociopathy is in control of your damaged
mind.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Rich is incapable of keeping to a subject, especially when he has lost an
argument.
Fact is, you are the everytime loser since you allow Rich to get the better
of you, falling as you do for his diversions and other > > >tricks of the
disputatious. Disputatiousness is also decidedly salient in your own makeup.
You are made for each other which > > >is why you can never get past it.
That said, there is no genuinely intended argument in your opening post. All
you offer is an example of a deja-vu scenario followed by an anti-government
diatribe of souring sarcastic rhetoric bordering on malice. There is no other
perceivable purpose or intent from the outset, no substance, no well-reasoned,
set-out guidelines, no sign of wanting an honest, constructive debate.
Wrong you really are a sociopath, it is clear in your every post.
Stupidity removed
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
You're lost for material, aren't you? And little wonder, anyway, since you
started your topic with none. A fool's errand writ large.
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Because, if you're honest about it, this errant behaviour is what pleasures
you most.
You don't even begin to understand me but you posture and abuse and tell lies
and your buddy Rich will join you in your pathetic games. It just happens
to
be
my turn.
To play what **you** say are pathetic games? Well, at least you've got that
one right, haven't you?
Yes your games are pathetic, thank you for that acknowledgement. They are
actually much worse than pathetic, they come from a sickness.
Post by James Christophers
So, once more...
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
...you have now made even further sport of yourself by reinforcing what pleasures
you most.
At least I don't enjoy what pleasures you when you are alone in what passes
for
a mind.
James Christophers
2021-03-06 02:55:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 22:17:35 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 20:13:55 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot
net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 13:39:05 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at
orcon
dot
net
(large snip)
Post by Rich80105
(Tony) This thread was from the beginning about deterrence
and
you
know
it.
(Rich) Right from the start, the Subject of this thread is
about
being
fair.
The essence of the topic is about approaching rule breaching
with
an
equitable
balance between two elements: fair and reasonable application
of
law;
and
nature of penalty on conviction. Bound up in both are the
nature
and
the
degree
of severity of both breach and deterrence. This implies
introducing
regulatory
measures that simultaneously satisfy all four requirements. A
decidedly
tough
ask, and I think it is, at least in part, the combination and
teasing
out
of
these elements that has the government in a bind.
(snip to get to the nub of this segment of the thread)
Post by Rich80105
(...) Geddes has pointed out (he) does not have a single
answer.
To be fair to the estimable Geddes, this is not surprising
when
considering
the content of my preceding para, and its implications.
Post by Rich80105
You enjoy demanding answers to questions but
seem strangely reluctant to express your own views on what
changes
to
policy settings you want.
That said, what **does** Tony Unknown **really** want? It
would
be
good
to
know. After all, it is he who has introduced the topic, but in
doing
so
seems
to have forgotten that when so forcefully prosecuting such a
singular
line
of
critique, it's a good idea to have a convincing answer or two
of
your
own
held
in reserve before placing such an open-ended question on a
public
forum.
Otherwise, don't be surprised when the thread quickly
degenerates
into
a
bugger's muddle
Which you and Rich have caused in its entirety.
Abuse thrown to the sewer it came from.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
You feast off distraction as if it were your last gasp meal,
stretching
it
to
its ultimate chaos-strewn exhaustion if that's what it takes for
you
to
get
the
last word.
I note you cannot dispute what I posted. I will take that as an
admission.
From the outset there has been no intention on my part to dispute, as my
foregoing postings clearly show. Again, your posturing imputing and
presumptuousness fall flat.
A simple lie by Keith (a very simple person).
Post by James Christophers
As for deterrence, for most detection and a stern warning are
sufficient.
For
the hard cases, there can be no effective penalty other than a custodial
sentence or other appropriate social forfeit. Even then the recidivist is
always with us. Thus the open society.
Not universally agreed, in fact more than most would dispute tyhat overly
simple and poorly thought through idea.
You'll be better qualified to judge me and others after you have posted your
first ever well-thought-through idea. Until then, your remark remains as
worthless as the pitiable vacancy that gives voice to it.
You are easy to judge. You are a sociopathic old man that gets his only jollies
from being offensive and custic to others.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
It is obvious that unless warnings are, in fact, followed up from time to time
then they are without value and will fail. Hence this thread.
..but, again, a thread opened, not with a well-thought-through reasoned
proposal, but solely with sardonic rhetoric and vaulting sarcasm - each
remarkable in its own way for its sheer inadequacy and conceit.
As above, caustic and sociopathic Keith Warren special.
Nope. Mine is robust fact-based argument, and you can't show otherwise.
No need. you show it all of the time.
Facts are facts, no matter how inconvenient you find them and try to pervert and distort them. I write as I find. What could be fairer or more honest than that? How you may interpret my contributions is down solely to your own preconceptions and prejudices through your lamentable lifetime of negative preconditioning.

And BTW, it's 'all the time'. The use 'of' is applied only to pronouns. This clumsy hobbling of speech has only recently insinuated itself into the language, it seems for no good reason.

But in any case, you have long since talked your own failed topic out, so I leave you to commiserate, with yourself as your sole audience.
Tony
2021-03-06 03:21:28 UTC
Permalink
James Christophers <***@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, 6 March 2021 at 14:50:22 UTC+13, undefined wrote:
Lost in time nonsense removed.
Post by James Christophers
Facts are facts, no matter how inconvenient you find them and try to pervert
and distort them. I write as I find. What could be fairer or more honest than
that? How you may interpret my contributions is down solely to your own
preconceptions and prejudices through your lamentable lifetime of negative
preconditioning.
And BTW, it's 'all the time'. The use 'of' is applied only to pronouns. This
clumsy hobbling of speech has only recently insinuated itself into the
language, it seems for no good reason.
More off topic attempt to distract. It is all you have (well you almost have
it).
Post by James Christophers
But in any case, you have long since talked your own failed topic out, so I
leave you to commiserate, with yourself as your sole audience.
Thank you for your acceptance that you were wrong, not merely wrong but
insultingly wrong. As in wrong wrong wrong. See
https://www.google.com/search?gs_ssp=eJzj4tVP1zc0TKnIKrM0Kq8yYPQSLC_Kz0tXQCIBv5ALqg&q=wrong+wrong+wrong&rlz=1C1CHBF_enNZ771NZ771&oq=wrong+wrong+wrong&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j46j0l5j0i390l3.11530j1j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
For a little lesson in intelligent discourse, not that you will understand the
nuances.
You have provided not one single fact, and that is OK. Shame you think that
facts are the most important part of discourse - obviously they are not (and
that's a fact!).
Rich80105
2021-03-06 02:51:49 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 05 Mar 2021 13:11:47 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 22:17:35 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 20:13:55 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 13:39:05 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
(large snip)
Post by Rich80105
(Tony) This thread was from the beginning about deterrence and you
know
it.
(Rich) Right from the start, the Subject of this thread is about
being
fair.
The essence of the topic is about approaching rule breaching with an
equitable
balance between two elements: fair and reasonable application of law; and
nature of penalty on conviction. Bound up in both are the nature and
the
degree
of severity of both breach and deterrence. This implies introducing
regulatory
measures that simultaneously satisfy all four requirements. A decidedly tough
ask, and I think it is, at least in part, the combination and teasing
out
of
these elements that has the government in a bind.
(snip to get to the nub of this segment of the thread)
Post by Rich80105
(...) Geddes has pointed out (he) does not have a single answer.
To be fair to the estimable Geddes, this is not surprising when considering
the content of my preceding para, and its implications.
Post by Rich80105
You enjoy demanding answers to questions but
seem strangely reluctant to express your own views on what changes to
policy settings you want.
That said, what **does** Tony Unknown **really** want? It would be good to
know. After all, it is he who has introduced the topic, but in doing so seems
to have forgotten that when so forcefully prosecuting such a singular
line
of
critique, it's a good idea to have a convincing answer or two of your
own
held
in reserve before placing such an open-ended question on a public forum.
Otherwise, don't be surprised when the thread quickly degenerates into a
bugger's muddle
Which you and Rich have caused in its entirety.
You feast off distraction as if it were your last gasp meal, stretching it to
its ultimate chaos-strewn exhaustion if that's what it takes for you to
get
the
last word.
I note you cannot dispute what I posted. I will take that as an admission.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Rich tried to drive the subject off course and you have done your usual nasty
work of looking for anything to criticise that takes your insatiable
fancy
-
just for fun.
Abuse from Keith Warren removed. After all he is the only person here who
regulalry posts under more than one name - just to make fun of the other
posters.
Keith has done that to every single regular poster here. Something of a record
which no doubt causes him to chuckle in his bed at night.
I don't bother even trying to figure out when someone is pretending to
be someone else. Based on previous postings, it is possible that the
post previous to this purporting to come from Tony may be from John B,
but I ignore that and if I wanted to respond would assume that it has
been posted as shown by Tony. I suspect such poor behaviour is
actually a lot less than some make out, but I was certainly very
concerned when some time ago an idiot posted using my posting name.
Anybody who has even a tiny bit of intellect knows what Keith Warren does and
he is still posting with two names at least. He does it because it "amuses"
him. A sure sign of a sociopath, several sociopathic symptoms are displayed by
him. He is an abusive manipulative creature and you know that is true but it
suits your twisted life to play along.
Post by Rich80105
Certainly it does appear that having initiated this thread on an
important topic Tony gave up some time ago.
A lie. I have not given up - you have refused to answer a pertinent question.
This topic was about whether people believe there would be any consequences to
not following reasonable instructions. You have provide zero evidence that
there are any consequences and that failure indicates I am correct in stating
there is no deterrence. And that is all I ever tried to demonstrate.
So answer the question - how many of the 800 were convicted? You raised that
number so stop your cowardice and provide some evidence to demonstrate that
zero consequences is a good idea. So far zilch.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/437610/covid-19-police-prosecute-nearly-1000-breaches
The number fined, and the total amount of penalties has not been
given, but it would be silly to think, as you have asserted, that it
was zero - for that you had no evidence, or at least refused to give
any evidence.
You are a liar. I have asserted nothing of the sort. Find a quote from me or
bugger off to your smelly little hidey hole.
I asked you how many had been penalised because that is the only measure of
deterrence. You have failed to do that. Period.
Stu[pid off topic stuff removed.
Rich is incapable of keeping to a subject, especially when he has lost an
argument.
You have drifted so far from the topic of "Yes, let's be fair" that I
do not intend to respond again to this thread; I am happy to let you
continue to talk to yourself.
Tony
2021-03-06 03:13:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 05 Mar 2021 13:11:47 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 22:17:35 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 20:13:55 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 13:39:05 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
(large snip)
Post by Rich80105
(Tony) This thread was from the beginning about deterrence and you
know
it.
(Rich) Right from the start, the Subject of this thread is about
being
fair.
The essence of the topic is about approaching rule breaching with an
equitable
balance between two elements: fair and reasonable application of law; and
nature of penalty on conviction. Bound up in both are the nature and
the
degree
of severity of both breach and deterrence. This implies introducing
regulatory
measures that simultaneously satisfy all four requirements. A
decidedly
tough
ask, and I think it is, at least in part, the combination and teasing
out
of
these elements that has the government in a bind.
(snip to get to the nub of this segment of the thread)
Post by Rich80105
(...) Geddes has pointed out (he) does not have a single answer.
To be fair to the estimable Geddes, this is not surprising when considering
the content of my preceding para, and its implications.
Post by Rich80105
You enjoy demanding answers to questions but
seem strangely reluctant to express your own views on what changes to
policy settings you want.
That said, what **does** Tony Unknown **really** want? It would be
good
to
know. After all, it is he who has introduced the topic, but in doing
so
seems
to have forgotten that when so forcefully prosecuting such a singular
line
of
critique, it's a good idea to have a convincing answer or two of your
own
held
in reserve before placing such an open-ended question on a public forum.
Otherwise, don't be surprised when the thread quickly degenerates
into
a
bugger's muddle
Which you and Rich have caused in its entirety.
You feast off distraction as if it were your last gasp meal, stretching
it
to
its ultimate chaos-strewn exhaustion if that's what it takes for you to
get
the
last word.
I note you cannot dispute what I posted. I will take that as an admission.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Rich tried to drive the subject off course and you have done your
usual
nasty
work of looking for anything to criticise that takes your insatiable
fancy
-
just for fun.
Abuse from Keith Warren removed. After all he is the only person here who
regulalry posts under more than one name - just to make fun of the other
posters.
Keith has done that to every single regular poster here. Something of a record
which no doubt causes him to chuckle in his bed at night.
I don't bother even trying to figure out when someone is pretending to
be someone else. Based on previous postings, it is possible that the
post previous to this purporting to come from Tony may be from John B,
but I ignore that and if I wanted to respond would assume that it has
been posted as shown by Tony. I suspect such poor behaviour is
actually a lot less than some make out, but I was certainly very
concerned when some time ago an idiot posted using my posting name.
Anybody who has even a tiny bit of intellect knows what Keith Warren does and
he is still posting with two names at least. He does it because it "amuses"
him. A sure sign of a sociopath, several sociopathic symptoms are displayed by
him. He is an abusive manipulative creature and you know that is true but it
suits your twisted life to play along.
Post by Rich80105
Certainly it does appear that having initiated this thread on an
important topic Tony gave up some time ago.
A lie. I have not given up - you have refused to answer a pertinent question.
This topic was about whether people believe there would be any consequences to
not following reasonable instructions. You have provide zero evidence that
there are any consequences and that failure indicates I am correct in stating
there is no deterrence. And that is all I ever tried to demonstrate.
So answer the question - how many of the 800 were convicted? You raised that
number so stop your cowardice and provide some evidence to demonstrate that
zero consequences is a good idea. So far zilch.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/437610/covid-19-police-prosecute-nearly-1000-breaches
The number fined, and the total amount of penalties has not been
given, but it would be silly to think, as you have asserted, that it
was zero - for that you had no evidence, or at least refused to give
any evidence.
You are a liar. I have asserted nothing of the sort. Find a quote from me or
bugger off to your smelly little hidey hole.
I asked you how many had been penalised because that is the only measure of
deterrence. You have failed to do that. Period.
Stu[pid off topic stuff removed.
Rich is incapable of keeping to a subject, especially when he has lost an
argument.
You have drifted so far from the topic of "Yes, let's be fair" that I
do not intend to respond again to this thread; I am happy to let you
continue to talk to yourself.
In fact, it was you that took the subject away into the void.
Great, thank you for your agreement that I was in fact correct. Just as Keith
has agreed.
Pity you could not privide any evidence of consequences for breaking the rules
set by the government. Oh well, not unusual.
James Christophers
2021-03-06 05:18:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 05 Mar 2021 13:11:47 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 22:17:35 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 20:13:55 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 13:39:05 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot
net
(large snip)
Post by Rich80105
(Tony) This thread was from the beginning about deterrence and
you
know
it.
(Rich) Right from the start, the Subject of this thread is about
being
fair.
The essence of the topic is about approaching rule breaching with an
equitable
balance between two elements: fair and reasonable application of law;
and
nature of penalty on conviction. Bound up in both are the nature and
the
degree
of severity of both breach and deterrence. This implies introducing
regulatory
measures that simultaneously satisfy all four requirements. A
decidedly
tough
ask, and I think it is, at least in part, the combination and teasing
out
of
these elements that has the government in a bind.
(snip to get to the nub of this segment of the thread)
Post by Rich80105
(...) Geddes has pointed out (he) does not have a single answer.
To be fair to the estimable Geddes, this is not surprising when
considering
the content of my preceding para, and its implications.
Post by Rich80105
You enjoy demanding answers to questions but
seem strangely reluctant to express your own views on what changes
to
policy settings you want.
That said, what **does** Tony Unknown **really** want? It would be
good
to
know. After all, it is he who has introduced the topic, but in doing
so
seems
to have forgotten that when so forcefully prosecuting such a singular
line
of
critique, it's a good idea to have a convincing answer or two of your
own
held
in reserve before placing such an open-ended question on a public
forum.
Otherwise, don't be surprised when the thread quickly degenerates
into
a
bugger's muddle
Which you and Rich have caused in its entirety.
You feast off distraction as if it were your last gasp meal, stretching
it
to
its ultimate chaos-strewn exhaustion if that's what it takes for you to
get
the
last word.
I note you cannot dispute what I posted. I will take that as an admission.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Rich tried to drive the subject off course and you have done your
usual
nasty
work of looking for anything to criticise that takes your insatiable
fancy
-
just for fun.
Abuse from Keith Warren removed. After all he is the only person here who
regulalry posts under more than one name - just to make fun of the other
posters.
Keith has done that to every single regular poster here. Something of a record
which no doubt causes him to chuckle in his bed at night.
I don't bother even trying to figure out when someone is pretending to
be someone else. Based on previous postings, it is possible that the
post previous to this purporting to come from Tony may be from John B,
but I ignore that and if I wanted to respond would assume that it has
been posted as shown by Tony. I suspect such poor behaviour is
actually a lot less than some make out, but I was certainly very
concerned when some time ago an idiot posted using my posting name.
Anybody who has even a tiny bit of intellect knows what Keith Warren does and
he is still posting with two names at least. He does it because it "amuses"
him. A sure sign of a sociopath, several sociopathic symptoms are displayed by
him. He is an abusive manipulative creature and you know that is true but
it
suits your twisted life to play along.
Post by Rich80105
Certainly it does appear that having initiated this thread on an
important topic Tony gave up some time ago.
A lie. I have not given up - you have refused to answer a pertinent question.
This topic was about whether people believe there would be any consequences to
not following reasonable instructions. You have provide zero evidence that
there are any consequences and that failure indicates I am correct in stating
there is no deterrence. And that is all I ever tried to demonstrate.
So answer the question - how many of the 800 were convicted? You raised that
number so stop your cowardice and provide some evidence to demonstrate that
zero consequences is a good idea. So far zilch.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/437610/covid-19-police-prosecute-nearly-1000-breaches
The number fined, and the total amount of penalties has not been
given, but it would be silly to think, as you have asserted, that it
was zero - for that you had no evidence, or at least refused to give
any evidence.
You are a liar. I have asserted nothing of the sort. Find a quote from me or
bugger off to your smelly little hidey hole.
I asked you how many had been penalised because that is the only measure of
deterrence. You have failed to do that. Period.
Stu[pid off topic stuff removed.
Rich is incapable of keeping to a subject, especially when he has lost an
argument.
You have drifted so far from the topic of "Yes, let's be fair" that I
do not intend to respond again to this thread; I am happy to let you
continue to talk to yourself.
In fact, it was you that took the subject away into the void.
In fact, exactly as now observed, you lose control of your own topics because your introductions lack fact, substance and a clear, unequivocal sense of purpose and direction. Wild, rhetorical insinuation and casual imputing from the get-go, and your specious "only my opinion" hit-and-run remarks, are no basis for rational debate. They amount to no more than provocative shit-stirring. Chaos inevitably ensues with all sorts of irrelevancies and distractions and side-issues crowding in, completely subsuming and distorting your original but inadequately conveyed intentions.

So, sort the way you introduce your topics by having facts and further augmenting and substantiating material immediately to hand. You may then expect to find you have more effective control of what is, after all, your thread.

Absent these and a ready acceptance and implementation of the similar advice you received from Crash some months ago, you can expect no better than what you have now - to be treated as sport purely for the hell of it.

So shape up and you'll come across as less of a whingeing martyr and more of a genuine debater.

(So, with that encouraging salutation, I'm out.)
Tony
2021-03-06 06:11:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 05 Mar 2021 13:11:47 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 22:17:35 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 20:13:55 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 13:39:05 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot
net
(large snip)
Post by Rich80105
(Tony) This thread was from the beginning about deterrence and
you
know
it.
(Rich) Right from the start, the Subject of this thread is about
being
fair.
The essence of the topic is about approaching rule breaching with an
equitable
balance between two elements: fair and reasonable application of law;
and
nature of penalty on conviction. Bound up in both are the nature and
the
degree
of severity of both breach and deterrence. This implies introducing
regulatory
measures that simultaneously satisfy all four requirements. A
decidedly
tough
ask, and I think it is, at least in part, the combination and teasing
out
of
these elements that has the government in a bind.
(snip to get to the nub of this segment of the thread)
Post by Rich80105
(...) Geddes has pointed out (he) does not have a single answer.
To be fair to the estimable Geddes, this is not surprising when
considering
the content of my preceding para, and its implications.
Post by Rich80105
You enjoy demanding answers to questions but
seem strangely reluctant to express your own views on what changes
to
policy settings you want.
That said, what **does** Tony Unknown **really** want? It would be
good
to
know. After all, it is he who has introduced the topic, but in doing
so
seems
to have forgotten that when so forcefully prosecuting such a singular
line
of
critique, it's a good idea to have a convincing answer or two of your
own
held
in reserve before placing such an open-ended question on a public
forum.
Otherwise, don't be surprised when the thread quickly degenerates
into
a
bugger's muddle
Which you and Rich have caused in its entirety.
You feast off distraction as if it were your last gasp meal, stretching
it
to
its ultimate chaos-strewn exhaustion if that's what it takes for you to
get
the
last word.
I note you cannot dispute what I posted. I will take that as an admission.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Rich tried to drive the subject off course and you have done your
usual
nasty
work of looking for anything to criticise that takes your insatiable
fancy
-
just for fun.
Abuse from Keith Warren removed. After all he is the only person here who
regulalry posts under more than one name - just to make fun of the other
posters.
Keith has done that to every single regular poster here. Something of
a
record
which no doubt causes him to chuckle in his bed at night.
I don't bother even trying to figure out when someone is pretending to
be someone else. Based on previous postings, it is possible that the
post previous to this purporting to come from Tony may be from John B,
but I ignore that and if I wanted to respond would assume that it has
been posted as shown by Tony. I suspect such poor behaviour is
actually a lot less than some make out, but I was certainly very
concerned when some time ago an idiot posted using my posting name.
Anybody who has even a tiny bit of intellect knows what Keith Warren
does
and
he is still posting with two names at least. He does it because it "amuses"
him. A sure sign of a sociopath, several sociopathic symptoms are
displayed
by
him. He is an abusive manipulative creature and you know that is true but
it
suits your twisted life to play along.
Post by Rich80105
Certainly it does appear that having initiated this thread on an
important topic Tony gave up some time ago.
A lie. I have not given up - you have refused to answer a pertinent question.
This topic was about whether people believe there would be any
consequences
to
not following reasonable instructions. You have provide zero evidence that
there are any consequences and that failure indicates I am correct in stating
there is no deterrence. And that is all I ever tried to demonstrate.
So answer the question - how many of the 800 were convicted? You raised that
number so stop your cowardice and provide some evidence to demonstrate that
zero consequences is a good idea. So far zilch.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/437610/covid-19-police-prosecute-nearly-1000-breaches
The number fined, and the total amount of penalties has not been
given, but it would be silly to think, as you have asserted, that it
was zero - for that you had no evidence, or at least refused to give
any evidence.
You are a liar. I have asserted nothing of the sort. Find a quote from me or
bugger off to your smelly little hidey hole.
I asked you how many had been penalised because that is the only measure of
deterrence. You have failed to do that. Period.
Stu[pid off topic stuff removed.
Rich is incapable of keeping to a subject, especially when he has lost an
argument.
You have drifted so far from the topic of "Yes, let's be fair" that I
do not intend to respond again to this thread; I am happy to let you
continue to talk to yourself.
In fact, it was you that took the subject away into the void.
(So, with that encouraging salutation, I'm out.)
You have been nothing other than out for about 20 years.
Goodbye.............for now.

John Bowes
2021-03-06 05:18:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 05 Mar 2021 13:11:47 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 22:17:35 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 20:13:55 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 13:39:05 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
(large snip)
Post by Rich80105
(Tony) This thread was from the beginning about deterrence and you
know
it.
(Rich) Right from the start, the Subject of this thread is about
being
fair.
The essence of the topic is about approaching rule breaching with an
equitable
balance between two elements: fair and reasonable application of law; and
nature of penalty on conviction. Bound up in both are the nature and
the
degree
of severity of both breach and deterrence. This implies introducing
regulatory
measures that simultaneously satisfy all four requirements. A decidedly
tough
ask, and I think it is, at least in part, the combination and teasing
out
of
these elements that has the government in a bind.
(snip to get to the nub of this segment of the thread)
Post by Rich80105
(...) Geddes has pointed out (he) does not have a single answer.
To be fair to the estimable Geddes, this is not surprising when
considering
the content of my preceding para, and its implications.
Post by Rich80105
You enjoy demanding answers to questions but
seem strangely reluctant to express your own views on what changes to
policy settings you want.
That said, what **does** Tony Unknown **really** want? It would be good
to
know. After all, it is he who has introduced the topic, but in doing so
seems
to have forgotten that when so forcefully prosecuting such a singular
line
of
critique, it's a good idea to have a convincing answer or two of your
own
held
in reserve before placing such an open-ended question on a public forum.
Otherwise, don't be surprised when the thread quickly degenerates into a
bugger's muddle
Which you and Rich have caused in its entirety.
You feast off distraction as if it were your last gasp meal, stretching it to
its ultimate chaos-strewn exhaustion if that's what it takes for you to
get
the
last word.
I note you cannot dispute what I posted. I will take that as an admission.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Rich tried to drive the subject off course and you have done your usual
nasty
work of looking for anything to criticise that takes your insatiable
fancy
-
just for fun.
Abuse from Keith Warren removed. After all he is the only person here who
regulalry posts under more than one name - just to make fun of the other
posters.
Keith has done that to every single regular poster here. Something of a record
which no doubt causes him to chuckle in his bed at night.
I don't bother even trying to figure out when someone is pretending to
be someone else. Based on previous postings, it is possible that the
post previous to this purporting to come from Tony may be from John B,
but I ignore that and if I wanted to respond would assume that it has
been posted as shown by Tony. I suspect such poor behaviour is
actually a lot less than some make out, but I was certainly very
concerned when some time ago an idiot posted using my posting name.
Anybody who has even a tiny bit of intellect knows what Keith Warren does and
he is still posting with two names at least. He does it because it "amuses"
him. A sure sign of a sociopath, several sociopathic symptoms are displayed by
him. He is an abusive manipulative creature and you know that is true but it
suits your twisted life to play along.
Post by Rich80105
Certainly it does appear that having initiated this thread on an
important topic Tony gave up some time ago.
A lie. I have not given up - you have refused to answer a pertinent question.
This topic was about whether people believe there would be any consequences to
not following reasonable instructions. You have provide zero evidence that
there are any consequences and that failure indicates I am correct in stating
there is no deterrence. And that is all I ever tried to demonstrate.
So answer the question - how many of the 800 were convicted? You raised that
number so stop your cowardice and provide some evidence to demonstrate that
zero consequences is a good idea. So far zilch.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/437610/covid-19-police-prosecute-nearly-1000-breaches
The number fined, and the total amount of penalties has not been
given, but it would be silly to think, as you have asserted, that it
was zero - for that you had no evidence, or at least refused to give
any evidence.
You are a liar. I have asserted nothing of the sort. Find a quote from me or
bugger off to your smelly little hidey hole.
I asked you how many had been penalised because that is the only measure of
deterrence. You have failed to do that. Period.
Stu[pid off topic stuff removed.
Rich is incapable of keeping to a subject, especially when he has lost an
argument.
You have drifted so far from the topic of "Yes, let's be fair" that I
do not intend to respond again to this thread; I am happy to let you
continue to talk to yourself.
Wrong again Rich. Keith will continue making his long winded and pointless posts till his stupidity and boorishness peters out in it's usual way. Poor old bastards education was a waste of time for his teachers and Keith knows it :)
John Bowes
2021-03-05 06:17:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 20:13:55 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 13:39:05 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
(large snip)
Post by Rich80105
(Tony) This thread was from the beginning about deterrence and you know
it.
(Rich) Right from the start, the Subject of this thread is about being fair.
The essence of the topic is about approaching rule breaching with an equitable
balance between two elements: fair and reasonable application of law; and
nature of penalty on conviction. Bound up in both are the nature and the degree
of severity of both breach and deterrence. This implies introducing regulatory
measures that simultaneously satisfy all four requirements. A decidedly tough
ask, and I think it is, at least in part, the combination and teasing out of
these elements that has the government in a bind.
(snip to get to the nub of this segment of the thread)
Post by Rich80105
(...) Geddes has pointed out (he) does not have a single answer.
To be fair to the estimable Geddes, this is not surprising when considering
the content of my preceding para, and its implications.
Post by Rich80105
You enjoy demanding answers to questions but
seem strangely reluctant to express your own views on what changes to
policy settings you want.
That said, what **does** Tony Unknown **really** want? It would be good to
know. After all, it is he who has introduced the topic, but in doing so seems
to have forgotten that when so forcefully prosecuting such a singular line of
critique, it's a good idea to have a convincing answer or two of your own held
in reserve before placing such an open-ended question on a public forum.
Otherwise, don't be surprised when the thread quickly degenerates into a
bugger's muddle
Which you and Rich have caused in its entirety.
You feast off distraction as if it were your last gasp meal, stretching it to
its ultimate chaos-strewn exhaustion if that's what it takes for you to get the
last word.
I note you cannot dispute what I posted. I will take that as an admission.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Rich tried to drive the subject off course and you have done your usual nasty
work of looking for anything to criticise that takes your insatiable fancy -
just for fun.
Abuse from Keith Warren removed. After all he is the only person here who
regulalry posts under more than one name - just to make fun of the other
posters.
Keith has done that to every single regular poster here. Something of a record
which no doubt causes him to chuckle in his bed at night.
I don't bother even trying to figure out when someone is pretending to
be someone else. Based on previous postings, it is possible that the
post previous to this purporting to come from Tony may be from John B,
but I ignore that and if I wanted to respond would assume that it has
been posted as shown by Tony. I suspect such poor behaviour is
actually a lot less than some make out, but I was certainly very
concerned when some time ago an idiot posted using my posting name.
Certainly it does appear that having initiated this thread on an
important topic Tony gave up some time ago.
Don't be stupider than usual Rich. If Tony had given up you and Keith would be busy giving each other blow jo... hm. You and Keith are as usual giving the aforementioned jobs yet again. A comedian and a sock puppet is what you and Keith come across as whenever you do your double act on the long suffering and still winning Tony!
James Christophers
2021-03-04 02:01:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 02 Mar 2021 20:56:13 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
An acquaintance was pulled up two or three months ago on a motorway for doing
11kph over the speed limit. He was unhappy because it was 8am on a Sunday
morning and traffic was extremely light. However on reflection he said "fair
enough, I should have been more careful". And so say most of us.
There was a time when traffic policing accorded with that view, as they did
with me more than 40 years ago on the A3 out of London at 2am on a dry Sunday
morning, when on an otherwise deserted dual carriageway I had poked a little
over the 70mph speed limit. I was pulled in and a young plod phoned my details
into base to see if had any "previouses". There were none so he simply gave me
a warning: "You were momentarily inattentive and this offence is now recorded
and if it happens again within 6 months you can expect a penalty. Remain clear
for that 6 months and the record is automatically cleared". Wrote out a docket
bearing the same advice and cheerily sent me on my way, warned, chastened and
all the better advised for it. Commonsense all round, and kudos to the cop. In
any civilised country, isn't this the way things should be?
Has happened to many and rightly so. There has to be some discretion. On this
tropic however there has been nothing but discretion for the best part of a
year. No wonder people ignore the rules when they can reasonably expect their
failures to comply to be ignored. I am of course referring to the MIQ as well
as the poor behaviour in isolation.
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/how-best-to-get-covid-19-contacts-to-do-the-right-thing
"First of all, we need to distinguish targeted self-isolation rules
from the general level three lockdown rules that apply to everyone in
Auckland this week. These latter rules have been applied through an
order under the Covid-19 Public Health Act 2020. Anyone who
intentionally breaches these rules can be prosecuted, with a potential
penalty of up to six months imprisonment or a $4000 fine.
And these sorts of prosecutions do occur; apparently there’s been over
800 of them since Covid-19 hit our shores a year ago. Of course,
that’s only a small sample of total lockdown breaches as police
practice has been to only prosecute egregious, or repeat, offenders.
Which probably is fair enough if we want to avoid completely clogging
up our courts. "
Over 800 prosecutions is hardly "nothing but discretion", Tony.
After all, let us remember that the Subject of this thread is "Yes,
let's be fair".
This applies equally to those who are not being fair - the rule breachers.


In doing her best to keep the nation onside getting the Covid-19 under control, Ardern can at least be credited with having treated all New Zealanders with trust and common respect in expecting each to do their duty to maintain security against the virus. In a very few cases that trust has been breached and common respect violated, sometimes inadvertently (forgetfulness), too often wantonly, deliberately and, worse, with contempt, (even malice, this directed personally at Ardern).

Let's be fair also means let's be reasonable. It also means that same reasonableness shall inform us both of, and in, the need to act, with legitimate force, judicial or physical, if necessary against patently wanton violaters of the rules which, after all, are introduced for the good of all, including the violators themselves.

It's not for me here and now to propose what such remedies should be or how they be applied, but it is surely not beyond the wit of those in charge to know what measures must now to be taken and how they are to be formulated and applied, rigorously if need be. It's been more than a year, and some clarity is needed, and PDQ. Otherwise, mutual goodwill will surely evaporate and with it the original common-goal intitative, leading the way to mass violations met with draconian emergency laws actioned under force of arms resulting in custodial remand and, ultimately exemplary jail time.

And all of it for want of no more than a modicum of mutual respect between adults. Or is this really too much to ask?
Loading...