[lprent: because you are banned for previous stupid comments. Adding you to the auto-moderation. Read policy and stop being a fuckwit]

It’s good, but he takes a cutesy allegorical route to avoid naming names. Which means he can’t include the fact that after the questions are put, the SST responded without answering.

It should be up on his blog at some point.

http://waitakerenews.blogspot.com/2009/03/sensible-sentencing-trust-and-charities.html

Strike one?

The question was that since the GEO Group donated to groups in the US advocating changes to sentencing, were they doing the same for a group in NZ that espouse exactly the same changes.

Since those changes would benefit the operation of a private prisons, and GEO Group is trying to run private prisons here, it is a question that has some relevance to the transparency of policy making.

Instead of speculating yourself, why don’t you make those claims and see if the DO confirm or deny.

I suspect you know full well they will deny it…. now why don’t they do the same to the much less wild speculation on their funding?

I say we throw the book at them, THE BOOK I tells ya…

Come to think of it I dont think I’ve ever seen an SST supporter other than Garth McVicar.

Confused? I definately am.

Random house to house searches of everyone everywhere will show us who the law breakers are. On the spot executions (bullet to the head) of everyone found in possession of detectable molecules of illegal plants will send a powerful message and will quickly lower the number of evil doers in the world.

Mass exterminations are clean and simple. Mass incarcerations are just a big mess.

Why, because they (the SST) are not declaring their donors does it mean that the CEO Group is a donor?

Where is the link or evidence?

If I speculated that the SST had themes similar to some Islamic groups espousing elements of Sharia’h law and then they did not either confirm or deny, does that make it true?

It’s all just wild (extremely wild) speculation.

XChequer
http://thenzhomeoffice.blogspot.com/

Nope – I think that press release of McVicar’s is too literate to be a product of Cameron Slater. Besides it doesn’t have a boob shot to try and raise site awareness

Actually most people on the left seem to consider that I’m a conservative or even a neo-lib. Has something to do with the dinky sports-car, business background, MBA etc.

I just have a complete intolerance for fools. That also means I avoid the ‘right’ like the stuck in the past plague that they are, and makes me wonder about a nutter who can put out the type of press release that McVicar did. It is almost a d4j level. In fact it looks like the work of the bloated one. I was going over to have a look at style, but it looks like Cameron’s site is offline again. Technically incompetent…

Also the Charities website states under reasons for seeking registration “[o]nly charities registered with the Charities Commission can call themselves a “registered charitable entity” and display their unique Charities Commission registration number.”

The link is at http://www.charities.govt.nz/guidance/unregistered.html#should_i_apply_to_register

The Sensible Sentencing Trust is a registered charitable trust with IRD approved donee status

Be interesting to figure out the actual status. But the effect is the same – they aren’t under the Charities Act, therefore they don’t have to disclose donations. Anyone could be financing them.