Daily Review 20/02/2019

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, February 20th, 2019 - 134 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

134 comments on “Daily Review 20/02/2019 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. WILD KATIPO 1
    20 February 2019 at 6:34 pm

    Summit interesting. Ancient politics…

    The Exodus Decoded (Biblical Documentary) | Timeline – YouTube

  2. Ad 2
    20 February 2019 at 6:59 pm

    Big electoral day tomorrow with the tax package.

    Landing well, the tax package will liberate hundreds of thousands of low income Kiwis.

    Landing badly, a much lower chance that Ardern will return to power.

  3. BM 3
    20 February 2019 at 7:08 pm

    Landing well, the tax package will liberate hundreds of thousands of low income Kiwis.

    In what way?
    Low-income Kiwis are already so heavily subsidised by other taxpayers it’s not funny.

    • Ad 3.1
      20 February 2019 at 7:12 pm

      Yes they are. And with all that subsidy our poverty stats are still shit.

      People should be liberated to spend their own money their own way – especially the poor and fined income people.

      • BM 3.1.1
        20 February 2019 at 7:19 pm

        If Ardern and Labour want to continuously take more money of the people who actually play net taxes and give it to those who are a drag on the state, they will get hammered in the polls and rightly so.

        The issue is NZ is not the level of income, it’s the cost of living, that’s where all the focus should be at.

        Fix that and Labour will rule for the foreseeable future, taking money of one group and giving to another group does nothing but breed hostility and resentment.

        • KJT 3.1.1.1
          20 February 2019 at 7:24 pm

          Yes. we could tax those who are a drag on the State, but they, the bankers and speculators, will never allow it.

          • BM 3.1.1.1.1
            20 February 2019 at 7:29 pm

            So what? keep raping the income of middle NZ to prop up poor unskilled people?

            We’re sort of reaching the stage where the best bet career wise is to just get a minimum wage job, poke out 2 or 3 kids, claim your WFF and kick back.

            • Pat 3.1.1.1.1.1
              20 February 2019 at 7:36 pm

              if that were remotely true thats what the entrepreneurs would be doing…oddly they dont appear to be….think you may be overselling the minimum wage jobs a bit there BM

            • AB 3.1.1.1.1.2
              20 February 2019 at 7:37 pm

              The poor are not necessarily unskilled and the rich are not necessarily skilled. Capitalism doesn’t work like that. The rich predominantly have ownership of income-producing assets that appreciate in capital value. The poor don’t. The worried mass in the middle generally sound like you.

            • Sabine 3.1.1.1.1.3
              20 February 2019 at 7:45 pm

              what about he farmers holding signs up “she is a pretty communist’ with 8 kids and on WFF? Are they too raping middle NZ to prop up prolific baby makers, unskilled or not?

            • Sacha 3.1.1.1.1.4
              20 February 2019 at 7:47 pm

              Look, that poor person is taking your pie!

            • KJT 3.1.1.1.1.5
              20 February 2019 at 7:57 pm

              If you can live on that. Good luck.

              Or we can introduce a CGT and wealth taxes, and cut taxes to the middle, who pay 60% of all taxes.

              And, increase wages, so we do not have to subsidise the wage bill of low paying employers.

              It is not the poor who are eating your lunch, it is the rich.

              • BM …
                20 February 2019 at 8:08 pm

                Is that going to happen no it isn’t, so it’s all back on Mr and Mrs Middle income.

                And, increase wages, so we do not have to subsidise the wage bill of low paying employers.

                For fuck’s sake, It’s the cost of living that’s the issue, that’s what needs to be solved.

                Income -expenses= your current financial state

                Income is only half of the equation.

                • Sabine …
                  20 February 2019 at 8:16 pm

                  its both BM, cost of living, and low wages. They go hand in hand.

                  and for what its worth, cost of living is going up. I think we will see fruit and veggie prices go up with the drought. We might have milk/butter/eggs go up again as heat stressed animals give less.
                  Water costs might go up as waste water treatment plants need more chemicals to treat water etc etc etc
                  and this will continue so as long as we want to pretend that the only people in this country that matter are Mr and Mrs Middle income who already can only survive with an Accommodation benefit and Working For Families.

                  and just so you know, you too can get yourself a Missus, have babies and apply for these benefits, and I – a net tax payer for one would not mind, as i would want you and your family not have to decide to either pay rent or food.

            • patricia bremner 3.1.1.1.1.6
              20 February 2019 at 9:30 pm

              BM, You would have to sleep in your car on that budget.

          • Tamati Tautuhi 3.1.1.1.2
            20 February 2019 at 8:26 pm

            You’er right KJT we need to tax the parasites.

        • SpaceMonkey 3.1.1.2
          20 February 2019 at 11:26 pm

          It’s not one or the other… it’s both. But we are a low wage economy – I recall Bill English boasting about it. And the reason…? I’d wager it’s linked to the amount of profit made in NZ that disappears overseas.

    • KJT 3.2
      20 February 2019 at 7:22 pm

      Low income Kiwi’s, are “subsidising” employers and others, by working for less than a living wage.

      Meanwhile according to the IRD, some of the wealthiest people in New Zealand declare taxeable incomes of less than 70k. Who is subsidising who, again?

      • Shadrach 3.2.1
        20 February 2019 at 7:42 pm

        In NZ we are taxed on income, not wealth. What IRD information are you reading?

        • Sabine 3.2.1.1
          20 February 2019 at 7:49 pm

          Well according to Gareth Morgan, rich people in NZ don’t declare income thanks to good accountants and many many loop holes in our Tax laws, and thus they don’t pay tax at all.

          https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/business/only-half-of-nz-s-most-wealthy-paying-top-tax-rate-6200604

          “Inland Revenue monitors 200 New Zealanders worth more than $50 million each. Yet 46.5% of those multi-millionaires earn less than $70,000 a year, meaning they avoid paying the top income tax rate.”

          • Shadrach 3.2.1.1.1
            20 February 2019 at 8:10 pm

            Yes but their ‘wealth’ is irrelevant. Because they are taxed on their income, not their wealth.

            • Sabine 3.2.1.1.1.1
              20 February 2019 at 8:17 pm

              no they are taxed on what the accountant can’t hide under wealth.

              • Shadrach …
                20 February 2019 at 9:04 pm

                Wealth and income are very different things. It is entirely possible to have large wealth and only modest income.

                • McFlock …
                  20 February 2019 at 9:21 pm

                  That was KJT’s point.

                  • Shadrach …
                    21 February 2019 at 9:27 am

                    No, his point is about wealthy people ‘dodging’ tax. See his comment at 3.2.1.2.

                    • McFlock …
                      21 February 2019 at 2:23 pm

                      Yes, exactly. Having enormous wealth but structuring it so they are in a low income bracket.

                      E.g. as long as they say a word about business, the expensive three hour lunch goes on the consultancy they run, not out of the paycheque they declare.

                    • Shadrach …
                      21 February 2019 at 5:46 pm

                      HOw does having enormous wealth relate your example? Any contractor with minimal assets could do exactly as you describe.

                    • McFlock …
                      21 February 2019 at 5:52 pm

                      Smaller contractors can’t afford to take three hours for lunch.

                    • Shadrach …
                      21 February 2019 at 6:14 pm

                      I don’t know any consultants who can either! Or for that matter who would give up three hours chargeable time for an expensive lunch.

                    • McFlock …
                      21 February 2019 at 6:17 pm

                      Try working hospo sometime.

                      Everyone should. One of them life experiences.

                    • Shadrach …
                      21 February 2019 at 6:19 pm

                      How do you know they are having tax deductible lunches?

                      My sons a chef btw. It is a very different work environment, that’s for sure.

                    • McFlock …
                      21 February 2019 at 6:23 pm

                      Amazing what you overhear sometimes. Particularly with that sort of oik.

                    • McFlock …
                      21 February 2019 at 6:59 pm

                      Or to phrase it in a way you’re fond of: it is possible to structure one’s wealth so that some personal benefit derives from that wealth in a functionally identical way to benefit derived from personal income, while the bulk of one’s wealth continues to increase in currently tax-free value.

                    • Shadrach …
                      21 February 2019 at 7:53 pm

                      Of course. And no doubt the same level of inventiveness will go into avoiding paying CGT. Particularly at 33%!

                    • McFlock …
                      21 February 2019 at 8:14 pm

                      Indeed. But it’s also entirely possible that CGT will still generate hunfreds of millions of dollars in government revenue from previously untaxed privately controlled funds. It’s possible that such revenue will help pay for underresourced public services such as education or the in-debt DHBs.

                    • Shadrach …
                      21 February 2019 at 8:50 pm

                      Many things are possible. It is possible a CGT could cause rents to rise. It is possible a CGT could mean business owners invest less back into their businesses. It’s all speculation.

                    • McFlock …
                      21 February 2019 at 9:09 pm

                      And thus you explode in cartesian self-doubt…

                    • Shadrach …
                      21 February 2019 at 9:37 pm

                      Thus in my view the benefits of a CGT are generally overstated, and the downsides under stated.

                    • McFlock …
                      21 February 2019 at 10:22 pm

                      Interesting conclusion to get from “many things are possible”

          • Shadrach 3.2.1.2.1
            20 February 2019 at 8:12 pm

            If high income people are evading paying their share of income tax, what will prevent them evading paying their share of a CGT?

            There is also a very important point made by Peter Dunne at the end of the article you referenced:

            “Revenue Minister Peter Dunne said the figures did not include tax that may have been paid on income from trusts and dividends.” Rather a large omission right there.

            • KJT 3.2.1.2.1.1
              20 February 2019 at 9:50 pm

              So. Why don’t we cancel income tax? After all, wealthy people just dodge it.

              • SpaceMonkey …
                20 February 2019 at 11:33 pm

                Great idea. Then replace it with a land tax of some sort.

              • Shadrach …
                21 February 2019 at 9:24 am

                Did you not understand the point of Peter Dunne’s comment? The numbers in the article you referenced excluded tax paid on trust income and dividends. In other words the figures you relied on were incomplete.

                • KJT …
                  21 February 2019 at 9:33 am

                  Peter Dunne doesn’t seem to understand our tax system..

                  Not unusual in a politician.

                  Taxes paid by trusts and shares are imputation credits on personal income taxes. I.e. They are included.

                  • Shadrach …
                    21 February 2019 at 10:26 am

                    Peter Dunne was the Revenue Minister. The point he was making is that if the income is earned by a trust, for example, then that will not be recorded as tax paid by that individual. The figures you relied on were incomplete.

                    • KJT …
                      21 February 2019 at 10:37 am

                      You really don’t understand, do you.

                      If income is taken from a trust, by an individual, it has to be declared, and taxed, as personal income.

                      The individual is credited, from his total tax to pay, any tax already paid by the trust. That is what, imputation, means.

                      If you leave income in a trust, it increases your personal wealth, your share in the trust, but it is not, personal income.

                      The problem is that the lack of a comprehensive CGT, allows individuals to leave income in a business or property, increasing it’s final value, which they can then take out as untaxed capital gains.
                      Tax dodging.

                    • Shadrach …
                      21 February 2019 at 11:25 am

                      You really don’t understand that what you just wrote confirms what Peter Dunne said!

                    • KJT …
                      21 February 2019 at 2:31 pm

                      IRD said personal income tax paid.

                      That includes tax on ALL, personal income FFS.

                      It is horrifying how much power we give to lying ignorant twits like Dunne, and Bridges.

                    • Shadrach …
                      21 February 2019 at 5:51 pm

                      KJT you do realise that income earned in a trust is subject to tax. If a wealthy person has their assets in a trust, and the trust generates income, tax is paid on that income. If, and only if, the trust then distributes income to the individual, that individual pays tax on those distributions, net of imputation credits. You seem to be tying yourself in knots.

                    • KJT …
                      21 February 2019 at 8:56 pm

                      You are getting amusing. You just repeated what I, and IRD, said.

                      See Alwyns comment on politicians.

                    • Shadrach …
                      21 February 2019 at 9:34 pm

                      Not at all. You misused the IRD material.

      • Sabine 3.2.2
        20 February 2019 at 7:43 pm

        tax payers are subsidising employers.

        We are paying the difference between the living wage and the current minimum wage by offering Accomodation Benefits, heating allowances, Working for Families, Hardship grants, food allowances, and and and.

        Low income people – literally anyone on a minimum wage, and that would include skilled wokers – would love to earn more.

        The real government bludgers are businesses that need workers but don’t want to pay them their due and expect the rest of society to pick up the tab for them.

        I agree with BWaghorn further up, the first 15.000 should not be taxes, in fact i would go so far and say that the first 25.000 should not be taxed as that is what a standard rental costs on average per year.

    • Exkiwiforces 3.3
      20 February 2019 at 7:45 pm

      You heartless muppet, most are not there by choice, but by policy of the last government through lack of investment in training, paper work/ policy’s ofincome support while for there in between part time or seasonal jobs and to a point where it’s less hassle just to stay on the dole than try to make a go off it.

      Then you’re got 30 odd yrs of Neo Lib/Con economic BS where everyone kicked the can and people down the rd.

      I really don’t know what the fuss is IRT this CGT, when just about every country in the OECD has it in one form or another.

      Personally I would have CGT on base on the Australian one, but exempt on Shares at the Stockmarket to encourage start up companies or SME’s who want Capital to expand either in NZ or overseas. Get rid of the WHT on peoples super, bank savings therefore in encourage people to save and NZ base share dividends to encourage NZ companies or individuals to envest in NZ companies on the stock market.

      • OnceWasTim 3.3.1
        20 February 2019 at 9:36 pm

        You can’t put a heart or soul into a dolt @ exkiwi…
        You might be able to equip them with some sort of religion or ideology, but not an absent spirit.

    • Cinny 3.4
      20 February 2019 at 9:08 pm

      Fixed it for you BM:)

      Low-income High income Kiwis are already so heavily subsidised by other taxpayers it’s not funny.

      Like the person who buys and sells property, and doesn’t pay tax.

      Or like the person who can afford a very good accountant/lawyer and avoid paying tax by exploiting loop holes which national were happy to leave open.

      • Naki man 3.4.1
        21 February 2019 at 9:30 am

        “Like the person who buys and sells property, and doesn’t pay tax.”

        Anyone who buys and sells property within five years already pays CGT

        • KJT 3.4.1.1
          21 February 2019 at 10:42 am

          If that is already the case, why are people so worried about it.

          • Naki man 3.4.1.1.1
            21 February 2019 at 12:21 pm

            “If that is already the case, why are people so worried about it.”

            Because these muppets don’t just want to tax speculators who should be taxed but they want to get their grubby hands into nearly everyone’s pocket.

            • KJT 3.4.1.1.1.1
              21 February 2019 at 2:34 pm

              That is National.

              How much did Key playing with the dollar cost us again.

              In fact CGT will allow, actual, workers, to get a tax cut. Without borrowing.

              You do care about real hard working Kiwi’s, don’t you?

    • patricia bremner 3.5
      20 February 2019 at 9:21 pm

      BM, No…it is sad, as greedies take any small gains.

  4. Anne 4
    20 February 2019 at 7:09 pm

    Oh look… it’s happened again.

    I look forward to Simon Bridges and his henchmen/women kicking up as much fuss as they did over the AIr NZ China problem:

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12205676

    • Kat 4.1
      20 February 2019 at 7:34 pm

      Yes Anne, it will be all whimper and no bark from the Bridges and Bennett show on this one.

    • Graeme 4.2
      20 February 2019 at 7:42 pm

      Yeah, Air New Zealand are starting to look like a pack of muppets again. I know people who would say they have always been a pack of muppets, and they have done some really stupid things in the past, but I thought they were getting their shit together.

      You’ve got to wonder about the governance of the outfit with this sort of thing going on, especially if the Taiwan reason was correct for the China one.

  5. Sacha 5
    20 February 2019 at 7:45 pm

    Comrade Trotter seems rather confused about how a CGT actually works: http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com/2019/02/just-like-rogernomics-capital-gains-tax.html

  6. Muttonbird 6
    20 February 2019 at 7:46 pm

    Question: Why is company tax not progressive also?

    • KJT 6.1
      20 February 2019 at 8:01 pm

      In New Zealand, company tax paid is imputation credits for shareholders personal taxes.

      • Muttonbird 6.1.1
        20 February 2019 at 9:10 pm

        Thanks for the explanation, KJT.

      • Andre 6.1.2
        20 February 2019 at 9:40 pm

        Which basically means in NZ, company profits are only taxed once, and it’s more or less a matter of semantics whether the entity actually paying the tax is the company or the shareholder receiving dividends.

        Whereas in the US, companies pay tax on their profit, then the shareholders pay their income tax on the dividends they receive. So Uncle Sam takes two bites at it (setting aside all the loopholes for tax minimisation; that’s a whole ‘nother topic).

  7. WILD KATIPO 7
    20 February 2019 at 8:37 pm

    This guy…

    Rodney Dangerfield at the Top of His Game (1980) – YouTube

  8. Morrissey 8
    20 February 2019 at 8:41 pm

    The Maleficent Seven has just become the Hateful Eight

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47300832

  9. Jilly Bee 9
    20 February 2019 at 8:47 pm

    Thank you Sabine +++++++.

  10. Muttonbird 10
    20 February 2019 at 9:18 pm

    Looks like AT is running out of patience with Lime.

    The burden of proof (of safety) should be on Lime, unless they can prove with immediacy there is no problem, then they should be removed.

    – Lester Levy

    Also didn’t know Mike Williams acted as lobbyist for the introduction of the Lime trial!

    https://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018683382/lime-told-to-prove-safety-of-e-scooters-or-remove-them

    I think they create further problems on footpaths which, let’s face it, by definition are meant for pedestrians.

    Won’t be sorry to see them go.

    • Jimmy 10.1
      21 February 2019 at 9:07 am

      I’ve used Lime scooters about 4 times and think they are great. Like cars, or bicycles you have to be sensible the way you ride them.

  11. Macro 11
    20 February 2019 at 9:34 pm

    You have to wonder at the intelligence of some RWNJ’s and Tinfoil hatters sometimes.
    Roger Stone appeared to threaten his judge on Instagram. She’s now ordered him back to court.

  12. joe90 12
    20 February 2019 at 10:00 pm

    heh

    Blue-Green Party

    A Blue-Green Party? Sounds as likely as an algal bloom in a capitalist’s spa pool.

    NOEL SHEPHERD
    Whanganui

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/wanganui-chronicle/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503426&objectid=12204657

  13. millsy 13
    20 February 2019 at 10:27 pm

    The low income earners that BM so scornfully derides up-thread are paying 50-90% of their income to rent the houses that ‘middle NZ’ so generously provides for them. And the rest are going on their horrendous power bills to the companies that ‘middle NZ’ bought shares in.

    They all go towards paying for that ‘retirement nest egg’. A nest egg that their tenants and customers will never build up.

    So who is the real bludger?

  14. Drowsy M. Kram 14
    20 February 2019 at 10:52 pm

    Dr Smith rejected TWICE in one day – hard working, that one.

    Nick Smith kicked out for saying Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern was ‘lying’

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/110738498/nick-smith-says-prime-minister-jacinda-ardern-is-lying

    And then, around 10 pm this evening, towards the end of: Crimes Amendment Bill — In Committee — Part 2 (Poto Williams in the Chair)

    Oh the pain, the pain of it all.

  15. CHCoff 15
    20 February 2019 at 10:59 pm

    It may be, that if Jenny Shipley, & other such like political alumni, were Chinese citizens in China, conducting their business private interest operations the way they have in liason with NZ companies or state businesses, they would be behind Communist bars.

    https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/other/peters-firm-on-criticism-of-dame-shipley-article-in-chinese-publication/ar-BBTPEmR?li=BBSVtLJ

  16. Cinny 16
    20 February 2019 at 11:27 pm

    “Multiple unnamed “whistleblowers” have come forward to warn about White House attempts to speed the transfer of highly sensitive US nuclear technology to build new nuclear power plants in Saudi Arabia, according to the staff report by the House Oversight and Reform Committee.” !!!!!!!!

  17. The Al1en 17
    21 February 2019 at 12:59 am

    I don’t usually agree with tory ministers, but when you’re right, you’re right.
    The decision to revoke the UK citizenship of the isil bride is righteously just.

    She can complain it’s unfair, but if you leave the country you then make war against, you’ve made your bed, and when you’ve removed the decapitated heads from it, you’re welcome to lie in it.

    See ya.

    • Gabby 17.1
      21 February 2019 at 11:06 am

      Wooden wanna beeya.

    • Cinny 17.2
      21 February 2019 at 12:02 pm

      She was 15 years old when brainwashed by isis, and manipulated into leaving the UK to be an isis bride.

      Now at age 19 she’s given birth to three babies, two of them died.

      I liken her situation to any person involved in a mentally and physically violent relationship. Or even an abused child, at 15 years old even her brain wasn’t fully developed.

      Once she reached isis I doubt they would have let her go, she would have been naught but a baby making machine to them. They don’t and wouldn’t have given a shite about her. And now here she is just nineteen years old, with a little baby.

      Yeah let’s just ship her off to where ever, like that’s gonna help.

      It is a breach of human rights to revoke citizenship if any person has just one country they are a citizen of. Such is international law.

      How many countries is she a citizen of with the paper work for? Just one.

      • The Al1en 17.2.1
        21 February 2019 at 12:05 pm

        She’s entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship up to the age of 21 by birthright on her mothers side.
        If she really wants out of the refugee camp, all she has to do is go claim it.

        The age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales is 10 years old. Being 15 is no defence for becoming radicalised.

        • marty mars 17.2.1.1
          21 February 2019 at 1:21 pm

          The law – jeeze sounding a bit nazzish there bro

          • The Al1en 17.2.1.1.1
            21 February 2019 at 5:45 pm

            Mentioned because of presumptions in a doctrine known as doli incapax where – A child under the age of seven was presumed incapable of committing a crime. Children aged seven to under fourteen were presumed incapable of committing a crime but the presumption was rebuttable. The prosecution could overcome the presumption by proving that the child understood what they were doing and that it was wrong.

            Whether she should be let back in is one thing, but I don’t think her age at the time of radicalising is so relevant – Young children know decapitating people and throwing gays off rooftops is wrong, even if unaware of current geopolitics.

            • marty mars 17.2.1.1.1.1
              21 February 2019 at 7:00 pm

              “Young children know decapitating people and throwing gays off rooftops is wrong, even if unaware of current geopolitics.”

              You’d think they would but alas anyone can get indoctrinated with poisonous beliefs. And the young more than most.

              I don’t know if she should be allowed home probably I’d say yes because there are already much much worse than her over there – in all colors and creeds and beliefs. Mate it’s a nesting site.

        • McFlock 17.2.1.2
          21 February 2019 at 1:33 pm

          10?! fucksake.

          • The Al1en 17.2.1.2.1
            21 February 2019 at 5:45 pm

            In Scotland it’s 8

            • McFlock 17.2.1.2.1.1
              21 February 2019 at 5:50 pm

              gobsmacking

              • The Al1en …
                21 February 2019 at 6:00 pm

                And from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youth_justice_in_New_Zealand

                A child under the age of ten cannot be convicted of an offence.[6] If the child is aged 10 or 11, they can be prosecuted for murder or manslaughter. If the offender is aged 12 or 13, they can only be prosecuted for an offence if the maximum penalty is 14 years imprisonment or more, or if the maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment or more if they are a repeat offender and the previous offence had a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment or more.[7] All children aged between 10 and 13 have a rebuttable presumption of incapacity to commit a crime.[8] Young persons aged 14 to 16 may be prosecuted for any crime, unless a higher age limit is stated in the specific legislation

                • McFlock …
                  21 February 2019 at 6:10 pm

                  Yeah I never liked the idea of prosecuting pre-teens especially, but ideally not under about 16/17. For any reason.

                  Throw social workers at them, even do juvenile detention, but trying them as adults is just draconian bullshit that helps people not look at why they were acting like that in the first place.

                • Cinny …
                  21 February 2019 at 6:11 pm

                  Ms Begum, who is of Bangladeshi heritage, was born in the UK, has “never had a Bangladeshi passport”, and does not have dual citizenship.

                  ISLAMIC State bride Shamima Begum is not a Bangladeshi citizen and will be blocked from entering the country, Bangladesh’s foreign ministry has said.

                  https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1090024/shamima-begum-latest-bangladesh-british-citizenship-islamic-state-isis-bride

                  ‘The decision is a major blow to the Home Office which had reportedly stripped Ms Begum of her British citizenship on the understanding she had dual nationality.

                  International law prohibits governments from rendering people stateless by revoking their only citizenship.’

                  • The Al1en …
                    21 February 2019 at 6:15 pm

                    No wonder they don’t want her either, but regardless

                    “Is Shamima Begum entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship?
                    By Clive Coleman, BBC legal correspondent

                    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47312207

                    Lawyers have told the BBC that under Bangladesh law, a UK national born to a Bangladeshi parent is automatically a Bangladeshi citizen – a dual national – but the Bangladeshi authorities assert that’s not the case for Ms Begum.

                    Under this “blood line” law, Bangladeshi nationality and citizenship lapse when a person reaches the age of 21, unless they make active efforts to retain it.

                    So, it is Ms Begum’s age, 19, that is likely – in part – to have given Home Office lawyers and the home secretary reassurance there was a legal basis for stripping her of her UK citizenship.

                    In 2017, the government lost an appeal case brought by two British citizens of Bangladeshi origin who were stripped of their citizenship when they were abroad.

                    The Special Immigration Appeals Commission ruled that E3 and N3 had not tried to retain their citizenship before they reached the age of 21, and so it had automatically lapsed.

                    That meant that the decision to strip them of their UK citizenship had rendered them stateless.

                    Ms Begum’s case is different. Her Bangladeshi citizenship, if established, would remain intact until she reaches 21, even if she has never visited the country or made active efforts to retain her citizenship.”

                    • Cinny …
                      21 February 2019 at 6:30 pm

                      It’s for those two countries to sort out her citizenship, but it is against human rights to revoke citizenship of a person who only has one citizenship.

                    • The Al1en …
                      21 February 2019 at 6:33 pm

                      And the point is she’s already qualified for Bangladeshi citizenship.
                      She has 2 years left to just go get it.

                • Drowsy M. Kram …
                  21 February 2019 at 8:23 pm

                  The UK should be the ‘bigger country‘ (IMHO).

                  Prosecuted for any crime in NZ if 14 years or older! Presumably because from 14 years up they should know better.

                  Then how about giving them the vote? They grow up so fast.

                  BTW, any progress on restoring the right of (some) imprisoned NZers to vote?

                  https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/375579/prisoners-right-to-vote-currently-not-a-priority-for-parliament-little

                  Well, look at that – a National party MP (Quinn, 2010) justifying their proposed legislation based on “social contract theory”.

                  “In the decision Taylor v Attorney-General on July 24, 2015 Justice Heath in the Auckland High Court issued a formal declaration that the blanket ban on prisoners’ voting was inconsistent with section 12(a) of the Bill of Rights. This is that every New Zealand citizen over the age of 18 years has the right to vote in periodic elections of member of the House of Representatives, which elections shall be by equal suffrage.

                  The appeal to the finding that the 2010 blanket ban was inconsistent with the section 12(a) of the Bill of Rights was dismissed on May 26, 2017 in Taylor v Attorney General NZCA 215. Additionally, the appellant was made to pay the second to fifth’s respondents’ costs for a complex appeal on a Band A basis with usual disbursements.”

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_of_prisoners_in_New_Zealand

                  • The Al1en …
                    21 February 2019 at 8:45 pm

                    “Prosecuted for any crime in NZ if 14 years or older! Presumably because from 14 years up they should know better.

                    Then how about giving them the vote? They grow up so fast.”

                    I don’t think it’s because they should know better, more knowing right from wrong, like being aware that stabbing someone, for example, is a bad thing with serious consequences… Or locking someone in a cage and setting them alight is barbaric and inhuman.

                    How that relates to voting eligibility, I don’t know. There are probably parallel arguments relating to the age of sexual consent not being 14, but If you want to campaign for 14 year olds to get the vote, go for it.

                    • Drowsy M. Kram …
                      21 February 2019 at 10:38 pm

                      Isn’t “knowing right from wrong” part of ‘knowing better’? And, if a 14-year old doesn’t know right from wrong, is imprisonment the best option? Seems like an admission of failure.

                    • The Al1en …
                      22 February 2019 at 12:56 am

                      In NZ, it’s the legal age the law states you know right from wrong.
                      If you’re 14 and you don’t know the difference, then I would imagine the law is applied in the same way as for a 22, 38 or 64 year old.

                      I’d agree prison wouldn’t be the best places for these people.

                    • McFlock …
                      22 February 2019 at 1:24 am

                      The law says nothing about knowing right from wrong.

                      But it’s a handy way to get kids into prison earlier, and for a longer time.

                    • The Al1en …
                      22 February 2019 at 6:00 am

                      In NZ, ages 10 – 13 have rebuttable presumption of incapacity to commit a crime, which means it can be shown they know right from wrong when committing a crime. 14 and above don’t as they they are presumed to know otherwise, but yeah you’re correct, the law as written doesn’t actually say ‘know right from wrong’.

                    • McFlock …
                      22 February 2019 at 1:25 pm

                      It’s more than right from wrong.

                      We’re talking about imprisoning kids in the long term when they have a basic physiological impairment in calculating the consequences of their actions, inadequate or even incorrect information on which to assess the situations in which they find themselves, and have usually been severely deprived and alienated from mainstream society in some way. But we throw the book at them when they fuck up.

                    • The Al1en …
                      22 February 2019 at 2:56 pm

                      Though I’m not talking about locking up kids. I mentioned the age of criminal responsibility to counter an argument, showing how a 15 year old, in the eyes of the law, knows joining Isis is a bad thing.

      • bwaghorn 17.2.2
        21 February 2019 at 12:16 pm

        She reportedly recently backed the Arianna Grande bombing . It’s a big risk letting her back also ot sends a message to other foolish teens.

  18. WILD KATIPO 18
    21 February 2019 at 1:07 am

    The working class?

    Common yeoman?

    Destroying the flower of Europe and the reptile ruling classes with a simple stick …?

    The destruction of the snobbery of the ancient elite?

    Leave it to the English working class to lead the way, and their poor cousins across the Atlantic, aka Bernie boy…I wish him well.

    MIDIEVAL WEAPONS AND COMBAT – The Longbow (MIDDLE AGES …

    • The Al1en 18.1
      21 February 2019 at 1:11 am

      From serfs, to hard as f*ck, to voting for brexit.
      Still, better than the welsh and the jocks 😆

        • WILD KATIPO 18.1.1.1
          21 February 2019 at 3:24 am

          I like this one,… as so far as anthropology goes…

          Again , sticking it to those who think they got power under their belts to feed in perpetuity to their progeny in inheritance … they fail to recognize that all races of man are equal under their creator…

          Despite the wanks who still adhere to ‘Manifest Destiny ‘ or Imperialist designs… or some stupid atheistic communistic idiot bastard’s mutterings … but cos God says so. Call him Jehovah , Jesus or the ‘Great Spirit’… the answer lies in a child like faith.

          History of the Indian wars – YouTube

      • Gabby 18.1.2
        21 February 2019 at 12:14 pm

        Better at twat, Al0on?
        Whingeing?