Comments on: Garrett lying to his own supporters

By: Steve Withers

Steve Withers — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 09:27:15 +0000

I would have thought anyone who supported ACT would – by definition – be confused and mislead. Almost all their policies are based on either folklore at odds with verifiable reality or market theories shown to be failures when implemented as they would implement them.

From climate change to crime, ACT definitely are not an evidence-based party and in that light Garrett’s ignoring the verifiable evidence is consistent and to be expected.

By: Graeme

Graeme — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 04:12:44 +0000

They had rape. Just not attempted rape, nor assault with intent to rape.

By: the sprout

the sprout — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 03:34:36 +0000

John, you’re about as lucid as Garrett himself

By: Draco T Bastard

Draco T Bastard — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 02:49:59 +0000

meh, delete this post if possible

By: Rex Widerstrom

Rex Widerstrom — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 02:21:22 +0000

Yes of course it’s all National’s fault, buggering up (oops, sorry, that’s reserved for vulnerable prisoners in GarrettWorld, isn’t it?) a perfect and logical policy.

A policy which had smacking as a “strike” offence but not rape. Yet many of the same voices of the right who demonised Sue Bradford are cheering David Garrett. Odd that. Almost… masochistic.

Anyway, clearly a great deal of considered thought went into Act’s original Bill. It wasn’t just thrown together while someone had a bit of an erection over how “tough” they were going to look when they announced it or anything.

By: Graeme

Graeme — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 00:57:11 +0000

Which is a major reason why I’m opposed to three strikes in any form. But there’s no need to accuse Garrett of lying when he isn’t.

By: ak

ak — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 00:43:41 +0000

Yes, as you say, a perfectly reasonable claim that is true. A version of that other perfectly reasonable claim that if we locked up sufficient people, all crime could be eliminated. Both perfectly reasonable, and equally useful.

By: BLiP

BLiP — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 00:33:59 +0000

Its the creation of a climate of fear in your distorting of truth in the publicity material so slavishly splashed across the media by indolent journalists, whipping up support for the supposed solution to the apparently out of control crime wave. The “three strikes” was going to be the answer, you told the pensioners, it would have saved 78 lives, you told the pensioners, the longer the policy is not implented the longer there would be the increased risk of murder, you told the pensioners.

Geddit?

I don’t blame Alf and his army of rednecks only – the media itself has a lot to do with it. If they had bothered to fact check the vomit put out by the SST many thousands of pensioners would not feel scared.

By: John

John — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 00:19:41 +0000

Try and change what you originally meant?? What was it that I originally meant BLiP?

By the way, how the fuck does the ‘three strike policy’ scare pensioners? I am not quite drawing the link.

By: BLiP

BLiP — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 00:15:05 +0000

Ha! Classic. Try and change what you originally meant as if that’s some kind of argument. Why don’t you go back to scaring pensioners, you big brave crusader for justice, you.

By: John

John — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 00:08:38 +0000

Settle down BLiP, no need to pop a blood vessel.

“It was Garret who politicised whether or not the policy would have saved lives”

It is not about whether or not the policy would have saved lives. In its original form, the policy WOULD have saved lives. Got it?

“The reality is that its silly little twats like you who, for whatever sicko reason, are seekling to keep the public terrfied”

Yes that is my main aim in life. Retard.

By: Strike three, and out! « g.blog

Strike three, and out! « g.blog — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 23:59:12 +0000

[...] just for good measure, as Tane at The Standard has just pointed out, the Garrotte has also now been caught out lying to his own [...]

By: John

John — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 23:57:55 +0000

“ACT politicised the claim by headlining it”

ACT simply put out a policy, that is what political parties do. The policy which they made public meant that 78 lives would have been saved if it had been in place.

“And since the argument around the issue has been mostly devoid of fact, if a verifiable claim looks wrong I can’t blame people for seizing on it”

The argument around the issue has not been devoid of fact. If this policy had been in place, then 78 lives would have been saved. Simple as that.

By: BLiP

BLiP — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 23:57:35 +0000

What relevance is it? Well, lets consider the final sentence in your original comment:

Politicising whether or not Garrett’s policy would have saved these lives seems like a petty issue to be focusing on.

It was Garret who politicised whether or not the policy would have saved lives. I simply was agreeing with you – it was petty. I’m seeking to understand why he would have done that. If you don’t know either, just say so.

As it turns out the Labour crime policy has resulted in a huge drop in the murder rate.

The reality is that its silly little twats like you who, for whatever sicko reason, are seekling to keep the public terrfied. Alf Garnett and the SST have left more people more scared to live in their own homes than any William Bell.

Thanks, for that. You’ve made significant negative contribution to the lifestyle of many thousands of pensioners with your obfuscation of reality. What a champ.

By: lyndon

lyndon — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 23:50:36 +0000

ACT politicised the claim by headlining it. And since the argument around the issue has been mostly devoid of fact, if a verifiable claim looks wrong I can’t blame people for seizing on it