good question.
In this context I'll limit it to a series of posters on here that generally flavour politics of the right. That does include yourself of course
Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics
- Thread starter wizard of Tauranga
- Start date
In this context I'll limit it to a series of posters on here that generally flavour politics of the right. That does include yourself of course
NZWarriors.com
Back on track to a regressive mythical land that never existed, only for a select few privileged groups. Actually, that does sound familiar.
NZWarriors.com
What is the right?
Well, she was a criminal defence barrister, so she used to go to court and argue why her client didn't commit the crime. Or why evidence / testimony from a victim is lies, and/or they can't be trusted
You can be a lawyer and go down several different paths. Like be a prosecutor, and take down the bad guys. Or you can specialise in defence and get paid by them.
She obviously was comfortable getting paid by war criminals to keep them out of jail. She's entitled to do that of course. But it does take a type of person to do that. I don't think I could!
Less mythical as the hypothetical land you seem to be chasing I would suggest. As others have posted that's your perspective. It appears more polled NZers than not think we are heading in the right direction than the previous 6 years.
NZWarriors.com
Here's a short example of two people she has defended:
Radovan Karadžić
- Convicted of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, and sentenced to 40 years imprisonment.
- Found guilty of genocide for the Srebrenica massacre, which aimed to kill "every able-bodied male" in the town and systematically exterminate the Bosnian Muslim community. 7,500 Muslims killed
- He was also convicted of persecution, extermination, deportation and forcible transfer (ethnic cleansing), and murder in connection with his campaign to drive Bosnian Muslims and Croats out of villages claimed by Serb forces.
- Convicted for incitement to commit genocide by urging Hutus to exterminate Tutsis in Rwanda. 500,000 - 800,000 Tutsi died
She might go ok defending herself in court.
So again, what part of her job is she not doing?
NZWarriors.com
More on the flat tax that comes from right wing think tanks, you know, the ones that want to make sure neoliberalism never goes away - https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2402/S00001/on-acts-flat-tax-fever.htm
I'm not taking this discussion further with you. I'll leave you to debate with the others on this forum
Its a war on the poor.
NZWarriors.com
yeah sorry, I just think that's an attack line that's been used by a sector as a form of abuse, attack and conspiracy, most often not factually correct and not particularly fair. If that's not your intent then no worries.
I blame the coalition.....dang autopilot ai
LOL what was the last few years then? Where they were all relatively worse off? The reality doesn't seem to match the rhetoric?
NZWarriors.com
Incompetence. It wasn't a targeted war like this one.
Interesting to see how this plays out. I was on a building site this morning and got talking to the painter. He's currently considering which of two parties (or both of them) he should take to the Small Claims tribunal or the Tenancy Tribunal (if that's even possible since he's not the property manager, landlord or tenant).
The pervious tenants handed in their notice to shift back into a parent's house in order to save for the deposit for their own place. Before the end of the tenancy, they allowed the property manager to have open homes to find new tenants. Before the old tenants shifted out, a young couple viewed the house a number of times and signed an agreement to rent the house. There was still furniture in the house when they signed the rental agreement.
They didn't like the wallpaper which hadn't been replaced since the house was built some 25 years ago and had started to lift at some of the joints.
The property manager emailed them explaining that lifting wallpaper wasn't a maintenance issue and wasn't the landlords responsibility to remove, replaster the walls where needed and provide new paint.... provided the new tenants didn't lessen the value of the property, it was their choice of what paint to use and they would have to pay for it. As per the latest rental changes last year, provided they didn't lessen the value or do any work that would require a building consent, the new tenants could do what they wanted and they didn't require the landlord's permission.
So, they got a couple of quotes and decided on the painter I was talking too.
At the end of his work, the new tenants refused to pay him and said he would be required to get the money owed to him from the landlord. Their excuse was that the landlord would benefit financially from money they would have put into the property and that the job was larger than expected because the full extent of what was required wasn't able to be seen because the pervious tenant had "hidden" damage to the walls behind furniture. To get the "deposit" paid to the painter back from the landlord, they are refusing to pay rent for a few weeks.
The property manager is saying he's not responsible as they were shown the house on numerous occasions and should have made themselves aware of the condition of the walls/wallpaper.
The landlord is saying that he's not responsible as it's not a maintenance issue, he didn't authorise the work and also had no opportunity to review the quotes or decide on colours.
So, at the moment, the poor painter is out over $7,000 but still has to pay his employees and for the materials.
TBH, I don't know who should be responsible for the bill. Ultimately, the landlord benefits financially but the changes to work on rental properties brought in last year, means the tenants can choose to do the work and they pay for it. Or is the property manager responsible as he should have seen the damage to the walls during inspections (that's what he's paid for). Or do the previous tenants lose their bond but it can't be proven whether they (or tenants before them) caused the damage not picked up during inspections.
The pervious tenants handed in their notice to shift back into a parent's house in order to save for the deposit for their own place. Before the end of the tenancy, they allowed the property manager to have open homes to find new tenants. Before the old tenants shifted out, a young couple viewed the house a number of times and signed an agreement to rent the house. There was still furniture in the house when they signed the rental agreement.
They didn't like the wallpaper which hadn't been replaced since the house was built some 25 years ago and had started to lift at some of the joints.
The property manager emailed them explaining that lifting wallpaper wasn't a maintenance issue and wasn't the landlords responsibility to remove, replaster the walls where needed and provide new paint.... provided the new tenants didn't lessen the value of the property, it was their choice of what paint to use and they would have to pay for it. As per the latest rental changes last year, provided they didn't lessen the value or do any work that would require a building consent, the new tenants could do what they wanted and they didn't require the landlord's permission.
So, they got a couple of quotes and decided on the painter I was talking too.
At the end of his work, the new tenants refused to pay him and said he would be required to get the money owed to him from the landlord. Their excuse was that the landlord would benefit financially from money they would have put into the property and that the job was larger than expected because the full extent of what was required wasn't able to be seen because the pervious tenant had "hidden" damage to the walls behind furniture. To get the "deposit" paid to the painter back from the landlord, they are refusing to pay rent for a few weeks.
The property manager is saying he's not responsible as they were shown the house on numerous occasions and should have made themselves aware of the condition of the walls/wallpaper.
The landlord is saying that he's not responsible as it's not a maintenance issue, he didn't authorise the work and also had no opportunity to review the quotes or decide on colours.
So, at the moment, the poor painter is out over $7,000 but still has to pay his employees and for the materials.
TBH, I don't know who should be responsible for the bill. Ultimately, the landlord benefits financially but the changes to work on rental properties brought in last year, means the tenants can choose to do the work and they pay for it. Or is the property manager responsible as he should have seen the damage to the walls during inspections (that's what he's paid for). Or do the previous tenants lose their bond but it can't be proven whether they (or tenants before them) caused the damage not picked up during inspections.
It's all good. I don't have an anti-Golriz agenda. I actually thought her bowing out of politics and her owning the allegations was really refreshing and commendable. Most politicians try to pretend something didn't happen or that it was really minor. She didn't
At the same time I'm not sentimental about her, given her choice of previous career
Anyway, back to politics
NZWarriors.com
This is also a bit lol. Poor painter.
Sorry edit - for the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) - run by the UN, she was only an intern for the defence team. She worked for the UN, and the UN provided defence council to the accused to ensure they had fair representation.
A similar situation with Radovan Karadžić, who was tried by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), run by the UN. She was part of the defence team.
Last edited:
