Garrett lying to his own supporters

25 comments on “Garrett lying to his own supporters ”

• Comments are now closed

1. BLiP 1

   7 April 2009 at 10:28 am

   David “Alf” Garrett strikes again. The man’s an oik.
2. the sprout 2

   7 April 2009 at 10:53 am

   lock ‘im up and throw away the Key 🙂
3. John 3

   7 April 2009 at 11:08 am

   It is my understanding that the ACT ‘Three Strike Policy’ as it stood at that time would have meant that 78 killers would have been prevented from killing their victims. It is the combination of National’s policy and ACT’s policy which now means that this is no longer the case. Regardless of whether or not Garret is lying, I think a much bigger issue lies in the fact that there are too many people with prior convictions, and on parole, killing innocent victims. Politicising whether or not Garrett’s policy would have saved these lives seems like a petty issue to be focusing on.
   • BLiP 3.1

     7 April 2009 at 11:22 am

     It was Alf Garnet that politicised his policy during the election saying it would have saved 78 lives. I agree, it was petty and, as it turns out, based on lies. Perhaps you can explain why the SST acted the way it did?
     • John 3.1.1

       7 April 2009 at 11:32 am

       ”Perhaps you can explain why the SST acted the way it did?”

       What relevance is that to this issue? I couldn’t care a less about what the SST did. What i do care about is repeat offenders not being given the opportunity to commit these crimes. The ‘three strike policy’ is at least trying to come up with some sort of solution. The labour ‘infinite strike policy’ was not achieving much was it?
       • the sprout 3.1.1.1

         7 April 2009 at 11:38 am

         sure hope Garrett doesn’t get any more chances to repeat his offending lies
       • lyndon 3.1.1.2

         7 April 2009 at 11:50 am

         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
         • John 3.1.1.2.1

           7 April 2009 at 11:57 am

           “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.
         • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1.2.2

           7 April 2009 at 2:49 pm

           meh, delete this post if possible
       • BLiP 3.1.1.3

         7 April 2009 at 11:57 am

         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.
   • the sprout 3.2

     7 April 2009 at 11:26 am

     i think a much bigger issue is that we’re never going to get on top of these issues as long as liars and fools like Garrett are anywhere near the issue, let alone calling the shots.
     no bloody wonder folks like Garrett and his supporters rely so heavily on ‘god help us’, if we had to rely on Garrett we’d all be in it really deep.
4. Graeme 4

   7 April 2009 at 11:21 am

   John has it pretty much correct.

   It’s also more than a little dishonest to take his email that much out of context. His email pointed out the difference between ACT policy and the bill that was introduced, and told people they should submit and ask the Select Committee to recommend that the bill be changed to ACT policy.

   In that light (and also taking into account that he advised the basis for his figures as arising from information received from Corrections at a time when ACT’s policy existed and the Government’s bill did not) means his claim about the lives that would have been saved is perfectly reasonable.
   • BLiP 4.1

     7 April 2009 at 11:25 am

     A perfectly reasonable lie?
     • Graeme 4.1.1

       7 April 2009 at 11:41 am

       No. A perfectly reasonable claim that is true.

       If ACT’s three strikes policy had been in effect, the killers of at least 77 people would have been in prison serving sentences of life imprisonment, with minimum non-parole period of 25 years at the times those homicides occured.

       Garrett’s response follows beloe (hat-tip to a kiwiblog comment):

       ACT New Zealand Law & Order spokesman David Garrett today thanked Rethinking Crime and Punishment’s Kim Workman for pointing out that only ACT’s ‘Three Strikes’ law would have saved 78 murder victims had it been in place at the time they were killed.

       “Mr Workman has pointed out the differences between the original ACT version of ‘Three Strikes’ and that of National – which would NOT have saved those victims,” Mr Garrett said.

       “Mr Workman claims that none of the 423 prisoners currently serving life sentences would have been stopped by the ‘Three Strikes’ component of the Sentencing and Parole Bill. He is correct: the definition of violent crime was modified when ‘Three Strikes’ was incorporated into the current Bill.

       “The Bill is currently before Select Committee and during this process the Bill can be further modified to better achieve its purpose or remove unintended consequences. The public has its say through submissions – and, contrary to Mr Workman’s claims, I have not instructed anyone on what to say.

       “Further, evidence for the pre-election claim that 77 victims – now 78 – would have been saved had my ‘Three Strikes’ law been in place when they were killed lies in two letters from the Corrections Department in response to questions asked by me under the Official Information ACT. I am happy to provide copies of those letters to Mr Workman or anyone who asks.

       “Mr Workman is clearly aware that National’s ‘Three Strikes’ is significantly different to ACT’s. It is heartening to see that he is now trying to help ACT highlight that fact, and I welcome his support,” Mr Garrett said.

       ref: http://www.act.org.nz/news/garrett-welcomes-workmans-support

       I oppose three strikes. In ACT’s form especially, but also in the current form, but you don’t need idiotic arguments like this to do it.
       • ak 4.1.1.1

         7 April 2009 at 12:43 pm

         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.
         • Graeme 4.1.1.1.1

           7 April 2009 at 12:57 pm

           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.
       • Rex Widerstrom 4.1.1.2

         7 April 2009 at 2:21 pm

         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.
         • Graeme 4.1.1.2.1

           7 April 2009 at 4:12 pm

           They had rape. Just not attempted rape, nor assault with intent to rape.
5. John 5

   7 April 2009 at 12:08 pm

   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.
   • BLiP 5.1

     7 April 2009 at 12:15 pm

     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.
     • John 5.1.1

       7 April 2009 at 12:19 pm

       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.
       • BLiP 5.1.1.1

         7 April 2009 at 12:33 pm

         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.
     • the sprout 5.1.2

       7 April 2009 at 3:34 pm

       John, you’re about as lucid as Garrett himself 🙂
6. Steve Withers 6

   7 April 2009 at 9:27 pm

   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.

Links to post

1. Strike three, and out! « g.blog: posted on 7 April 2009 at 11:59 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS