Sensible Sentencing Trust in drag?

Written By: - Date published: 7:44 pm, October 19th, 2008 - 29 comments
Categories: act, election 2008, election funding - Tags:

Act have run an anti-crime protest outside of Mt Eden today and it was particularly theatrical by the sound of it with lots of coffin lids and whatnot.

ACT have never done anything like this before. But the Sensible Sentencing Trust certainly has.

I’ve asked before why the trust has refused to register as a third party (or even as a charitable trust) because there is no other reason for them to refuse to do so except to ensure they are not exposed to transparency. That means we don’t know who funds them, how much they are spending or in support of which party.

What we do know from documents released by the EPMU is that ACT has been courting the anti-crime groups for some time and we also know that ACT’s number five on the list, David Garret, is a senior SST advisor.

So my question is who funded and organised today’s protest? Because if the SST is organising and campaigning for ACT in the hope of winning our votes then we have a democratic right to know that and to know who is funding the SST.

29 comments on “Sensible Sentencing Trust in drag? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. dad4justice 1
    19 October 2008 at 7:50 pm

    Just as the TAXPAYER has a democratic right to know who is funding the Labour Party? Unions and rich pricks !!

  2. randal 2
    19 October 2008 at 7:58 pm

    hey dforjay ya didin’t answer the question. are yew in drag?

  3. dad4justice 3
    19 October 2008 at 8:05 pm

    Yes randal I am in the drag line business very busy at present trying to a haul a stubborn hag from her throne. I hope that clarifies all matters lickspittle wombat.

  4. Ianmac 4
    19 October 2008 at 8:09 pm

    Should a protest be part of election cost? Did it promote a Party? Is this sort of thing what the EFA was hoping to prevent? How is it different from the Exclusive Brethren? And is this protest in collusion with the National Party given their declaration re 2 strikes and they are out? Are the people involved with SST, Act, Family First all the same people?

  5. Ianmac 5
    19 October 2008 at 8:20 pm

    And by the way what an interesting Economy debate tonight with Kim Hill. She followed up with questions, shared the turns around, and it seemed to me Bill was not able to explain his position very well. And the background noise was minimal.
    And the winner is tra tra: Kim Hill. By virtue of competent moderating. What a different outcome had the two in the Leaders Debate had such competency! (Sorry for the Digression.)

  6. Felix 6
    19 October 2008 at 8:25 pm

    There’s something really strange about that SST “protest”.

    Perhaps it’s that all of the signs were written by the same person (or company)?

    Any pics of the ACT version?

  7. Michael 7
    19 October 2008 at 8:35 pm

    Since I’m here anyway, I’ll answer the questions.

    First, I’ll note that they were coffin bases, not lids.

    Second, today’s protest cost us nothing. The bases were lent to us at no charge by a coffin manufacturer (provided they didn’t get wet). The truck was (I understand) on it’s way to place hoardings anyway.

    As far as I’m aware we receive no contributions from the Sensible Sentencing Trust (although I suppose I wouldn’t know if we did). I do know for certain that they did not contribute in any way to this stunt, with the exception of the attendance of David Garrett, who is an ACT candidate (and future MP come the 8th of November) regardless.

    We have consulted the SST and the AAG (but, as far as I’m aware, not Family First) however they do not dictate our policies or run our campaigns.

    Michael

  9. Gooner 9
    19 October 2008 at 9:00 pm

    Oh Michael, go away and let them play Ian Wishart for a few days. I need a(nother) good laugh.

  10. Felix 10
    19 October 2008 at 9:09 pm

    Thanks Michael.

    Heh. It looks like the prison officers “tolerated” a bit of trespassing by Rodney.

  11. the sprout 11
    19 October 2008 at 9:38 pm

    It looked pretty pathetic to me, and reeked of “we have absolutely NO new ideas”.

    And to end an abysmal day for ACT trying to get any attention at all, Roger Douglas got completely savaged on the RNZ debate tonight. He sounded like a dottery old man waaaay out of his depth.

  13. RT 13
    19 October 2008 at 9:45 pm

    The Coffins belong to a business. That business would have to charge for the use of the coffins at market rates. The charge would then have to be attributed to Act campaign expenses for that electorate.

  14. Michael 14
    19 October 2008 at 9:54 pm

    the sprout, I’ll listen to that in a few days once my ADSL billing cycle rolls around (cut across my 5GB cap, but only 3 or so days away from the next cycle).

    RT, first, the coffin cases are being returned to the business, at no charge to us. Secondly, we’re using this to promote the party vote only. There was no electorate campaign advertised at this launch, and therefore it doesn’t go towards the campaign expenses for any electorate. I’m unsure of where the market rates for hiring 77 coffin bases (not sure how you’d establish this, but never mind) need to be attributed to the campaign, however I can assure you regardless that although we’d love to have the resources to be up against the $2.4 million campaign spending mark, we’re almost an order of magnitude off that.

  15. Michael 15
    19 October 2008 at 9:55 pm

    That should be ‘whether’, not ‘where’, before ‘the market rates’.

  16. Felix 16
    19 October 2008 at 10:38 pm

    I don’t imagine there’s much demand for a coffin-base hire company in the current economic climate.

    Most customers need the whole coffin and they don’t tend to return them in very good condition.

  17. Rex Widerstrom 17
    19 October 2008 at 10:52 pm

    Felix, that’s an absolutely unsupportable smear against vampires.

    Just don’t get me started on them stinkin’ zombies, though. Talk about messy… you spend all day hosing out bits of flesh before you can use their coffins to make some sort of vague, irrational and hyperbolic point about crims and “soft” sentences.

  18. appleboy 18
    19 October 2008 at 11:10 pm

    re post from dad4justice – can we please get the sicko off here – he’s a nasty piece of work and we don’t need vile utterances and short sighted narrow minded hypocrits here. Calling her a hag…your ex has left you very bitter indeed ..seek professional help, tough but it will work out in the longrun.

  19. rebap 19
    20 October 2008 at 12:25 am

    I was in a room with Hide the other day and he said that they had basically agreed to everything the Sensible Sentencing Trust wanted. The Trust pretty much wrote their “law and order” policies.

  20. Mike Collins 20
    20 October 2008 at 8:49 am

    “that they had basically agreed to everything the Sensible Sentencing Trust wanted.”

    And in news just in… Labour is supported by unions which have an influence on policy making.

  21. MikeE 21
    20 October 2008 at 9:14 am

    “So my question is who funded and organised today’s protest? Because if the SST is organising and campaigning for ACT in the hope of winning our votes then we have a democratic right to know that and to know who is funding the SST.”

    Todays protest cost nothing. The coffin bases were borrowed. The labour was volunteer (you can see myself and one other setting everything up).

    SST had nothing to do with it.

    Would be nice if the SST were some mysterious source of endless cash. …. unfortunately they aren’t.

    Oh, and I have nothing to do with the SST. They say some particularily nutty things about drug laws in particular.

    Feel like putting your tinfoil hats away yet?

  22. Robinsod 22
    20 October 2008 at 9:35 am

    And in news just in Labour is supported by unions which have an influence on policy making.

    Yeah and the unions have registered as third parties and put authorisation statements on their stuff. They don’t hide their affiliations either. SST and ACT could learn a few things about transparency from them eh?

  23. randal 23
    20 October 2008 at 10:22 am

    the sst is a gang of right wing religious nutters who beleive that they know everything there is to know about crime. well if that is the case why dont they produce some sort of plan to stop it rather than pander to the idiotes who would like to get their jollies with capital punishment and other punitive measures. Basically the sst are just troublemakers with no credence and no substance.

  24. Dom 24
    20 October 2008 at 11:53 am

    So how much does the SST do in terms of meaningful rehabilitation – or is it all just ‘lock ’em up and throw away the key’?

  25. randal 25
    20 October 2008 at 12:02 pm

    that ones just a red herring dom. they are the same group opposing taxes so their real agenda is capital punishment only they are too gutless to come right out and say it.

  26. MikeE 26
    20 October 2008 at 12:15 pm

    Randal – I think you’d be hard pressed to find people in ACT (Actually in ACT rather than say a redneck supporter from up north) who support capital punishment. There might be the odd person in SST who supports it, but – as we have made clear time and time again the SST is NOT ACT, they are two seperate organisations, which can and do have different approaches as organisations, althought there might be indviduals who support both.

    ACT is against increasing the power of the state over the individual, Capital punishment is exactly the opposite of that, giving the state the power to kill.

    Violence is unacceptable, it should only be used when absolutely neccesary, and only in self defence – never revenge.

    Capital punishment is revenge, not justice. I can’t see ACT ever support it, if they did – I’d have nothing to do with them.

  27. Matthew Pilott 27
    20 October 2008 at 4:08 pm

    “Violence is unacceptable, it should only be used when absolutely neccesary, and only in self defence – never revenge. ”

    So all this stuff about victim’s rights is actually against what ACT stands for? I guess so, since it’s just a way of dressing up retribution in place of rehabilitation.

  28. MikeE 28
    21 October 2008 at 4:33 pm

    Matt – some people can’t be rehibilitated, that said – I can’t see anywhere in ACT’s policy where it is retribution/revenge focused.

    Retribution has no place in a functioning society.

  29. baddnz 29
    5 November 2008 at 8:25 pm

    Randal

    You are sadly uneducated, SST are the voices and victims and survivors of violent crime, they are not religious or nutters, they are sad and hurt and trying to change NZ, and prevent more suffering.

    They are the faces of the last 20 years of violent crime, coleen burrows, teresa cormack, rsa killings, Jane Young, the names go on and on, and you forget because the next new story comes along to pique your interest.

    SST is not an angry lynch mob, but a proud bunch of everyday kiwi battlers, in pain and grieving. I know, because I belong – my husband along with our two mates were killed by a four times convicted drink driver, my husband suffered and was co-herent, and then he died in front of me because the driver was so pissed, and he had three kids in the car, who saw our friend’s arm and leg come off, we do provide plans if you only bothered to research what your saying.

    If you went through the hell that SST members have gone through, what would you do, Nothing? and where would you go?
    One particular focus is rehab, and making sure it happens. And act and Rodney Hide have been to me personally very empathetic and caring, where as Helen Clarke ignored me.
    Labour weekend SST members held a sausage sizzle to RAISE funds for SST to create awareness and change, please get educated.