"Or any reason. Irrelevant, in fact." You've shown a remarkable lack of intellect in this discussion, but that comment takes the cake. One's income today surely determines, at least to some degree, their ability to avoid homelessness tomorrow. "Actually, ...
"Of the rest, it’s hard to say in this context..." You're a liar. You quoted a figure for National (although you gave no source). Why can't you quote a figure for Labour and the Greens?
It was as far as Jesus was concerned. Clearly.
Oh but I'd like YOU to do it. What was the Labour and the Greens proportion? And if Labour + Greens was a 'decent proportion', how do you define the rest who are now in government? Come on now, you did half the sums.
She lied to WINZ. She most likely lied to the Law Society. She profited financially as a result. Are you comfortable with that?
"She came clean, so you won’t believe anything she says?" She didn't 'come clean'. She confessed to lying and fraud. There is more she didn't admit to initially.
If she isn't a fraudster and liar, then she is a fool. I'll leave it to you to decide which.
"If household incomes are rising and homelessness is rising, what does that tell you?" That household incomes are not the only reason for homelessness. "All citizens. Universal. Basic. Income." You clearly don;t understand the debate that is going on ...
Effectively, yes.
"... it is you who are defending the accusation of flagrant bias against Metiria." I'm not defending anything. If you want to justify fraud by leveling allegations against other people you cannot prove, then fill your boots.
"Bill English’s role in trying to “cover up” spying on Kim Dotcom faces scrutiny..." 'Scrutiny'. Guilty until proven innocent?
"We know that these things happened – they’re well documented. " You do know how weak that sounds.
I don't believe what she says because she is self confessed liar.
No, come on. What was their number? How did it compare with the number you quoted for national? Come on, if they represent a 'decent number', let's see that number and line them up.
Oh no, he's more than a prat. But he's out at the next election. Is Metiria going to resign for comitting fraud?
"How would you study this now that personal experience has been ruled out?" I haven't. I've ruled out unsubstantiated anecdotes.
"I thought Jesus showed tolerance of publicly-condemned behaviour,..." Not at all. That is a very common misconception. Jesus loved the sinner, but hated the sin. "10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, ‘Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?’ ...
"These are all three well-documented." So provide evidence. References to the charges. Evidence of guilt. Come on, if they truly stole, where are the charges?
So you don't understand that someone could have no reason to mis trust Metiria before finding out she was dodgy, and then change their mind afterward? Do you still trust her?
"Define ‘reputable’. " With independent recognition. You would need to show that there was a 'routine', widespread attitude that was systemic.
Ah, but she didn't tell all the truth straight up, did she.
"In fact there is an abundance of evidence – it’s very hard to keep secrets in a little country like NZ, even when the journalists are MIA." So post it. And why there was no prosecution.
When did Todd Barclay commit fraud? I mean he's a prat, but there's no law against that.
Evidence.
It's a turn of phrase. I had no reason to mistrust her before. Now we have every reason. She lied to WINZ, repeatedly. She committed fraud for financial gain. What other evidence would you need?
"Define what would constitute ‘proof’ to your personal tiny little satisfaction." Documentary evidence of a systemic attempt to alienate beneficiaries. A reputable study.
"So, you’re not concerned about crooks –" You claimed that both Joyce and English stole from the taxpayers. You have not a shred of evidence.
Are you seriously suggesting we should not call out a fraudster who lied repeatedly and then kept it secret for 20+years?
"You claim household incomes are somehow relevant to people without houses to hold" Of course they are. If household incomes are rising, that impacts on those who may be struggling and therefore be at risk of being homeless in the future. "The funniest bit...
"After all, ~29% of the electorate voted for the National Party in 2014." Again, an obsession the government. BTW, what was Labour's number then? Or the Greens for that matter? I think what we've seen over the past week is a rising up by ordinary NZ'ers ...
Not so. I have a lot of time for David Shearer, but this was an excellent response to his piece http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/editorials/7457141/Editorial-Shearer-missing-the-point. If there is a systemic approach to alienate beneficiaries ...
Recent Comments