Noitall
π€
Was put in place in 2015 so only really the last government having their whole term as government with the 501 deportee legislation in place
Politics π³οΈ NZ Politics
- Thread starter wizard of Tauranga
- Start date
marv.
ποΈ
i agree with you here in part.
also, i donβt know but i would imagine very few people are forced to join gangs out of desperation.
the highlife, feeling intimidating, party 24/7 drugs booze girls, and ill gotten gains would be the biggest selling points iβd have thought.
not to mention little to no accountability for most wrongdoing.
miket12
ποΈ
The brother of my bestman was on the board of trustees for a school damaged in the Christchurch earthquakes. While some of the buildings were able to be repaired, others were condemned and had to be replaced. Before they could do anything else, they had to prove to the Ministry of Education that they had enough potential returning students to justify the expense... which I feel was the right thing to do.
After around two years of reports and emails flowing between the princiapal and his board and the Ministry, they finally got the go ahead to start the process. They then went to the community to get their views, spoke with staff and took just over a year preparing a report outlining the scope of the project including that neither the staff nor the community wanted open learning classrooms. This was sent to Wellington and some 6-9 months after the Ministry received it, the Principal and some of the Board of Trustees went to the Ministry for a meeting with nine people, some employed directly by the MoE and some were consultants. It became very clear that none of the people from Wellington had read the report.
Although they had organised two Architectural firms in Christchurch to quote to design the buildings and the prepare documents for the consents and tenders, the MoE rejected these firms as there wasn't enough "ethnic diversity" in them..... one firm only had four staff members but a good record for designing and delivering award winning public buildings, yet, because only one of the staff members was from a minority, were unacceptable because the MoE required at last 1/3 of the staff to be from a minority.
The school was given three firms that were "acceptable" to choose from... two in Wellington and one in Auckland. The school choose one of the Wellington firms and sent the architects their ideas and scope of works. When they finally met the architect leading the project, it was clear he hadn't read the brief either as all the classrooms were open learning even though the documents what the architect had based his design on said they weren't to be.
The cost of the project then continued to blow out as the architect and contractors had to keep changing the design and building to match the everchanging requirements of the MoE.
And we wonder how a high school in Blenheim has had its cost double from when it was first signed off by Cabinet.
After around two years of reports and emails flowing between the princiapal and his board and the Ministry, they finally got the go ahead to start the process. They then went to the community to get their views, spoke with staff and took just over a year preparing a report outlining the scope of the project including that neither the staff nor the community wanted open learning classrooms. This was sent to Wellington and some 6-9 months after the Ministry received it, the Principal and some of the Board of Trustees went to the Ministry for a meeting with nine people, some employed directly by the MoE and some were consultants. It became very clear that none of the people from Wellington had read the report.
Although they had organised two Architectural firms in Christchurch to quote to design the buildings and the prepare documents for the consents and tenders, the MoE rejected these firms as there wasn't enough "ethnic diversity" in them..... one firm only had four staff members but a good record for designing and delivering award winning public buildings, yet, because only one of the staff members was from a minority, were unacceptable because the MoE required at last 1/3 of the staff to be from a minority.
The school was given three firms that were "acceptable" to choose from... two in Wellington and one in Auckland. The school choose one of the Wellington firms and sent the architects their ideas and scope of works. When they finally met the architect leading the project, it was clear he hadn't read the brief either as all the classrooms were open learning even though the documents what the architect had based his design on said they weren't to be.
The cost of the project then continued to blow out as the architect and contractors had to keep changing the design and building to match the everchanging requirements of the MoE.
And we wonder how a high school in Blenheim has had its cost double from when it was first signed off by Cabinet.
Noitall
π€
A brief look at the harm Australiaβs 501 policy has caused
What are 501s and why is the policy so controversial?
thespinoff.co.nz
An article from a couple of years ago but highlights some of the outcomes itβs had on our criminal landscape
Noitall
π€
Didnβt see it but my work mate told me that series on the poor NZ building practices was an eye opener. The Christchurch rebuild has been a shambles
miket12
ποΈ
I actually think it's appalling that we don't have in place better services for 501's and released prisoners in NZ. I think if we spent more money at the "top of cliff" we wouldn't have to spend so much more on the ambulances at the bottom of the cliff (i.e. police, victims, justice, jail).
Noitall
π€
Apparently given the same amount of money when they walk out the prison gates from the last 30 years and told good luck. With the route weβre about to take by the looks, Iβm not feeling like thereβs going to be a lot of emphasis on reforming the criminals in question
miket12
ποΈ
The Licensed Building Practitioner scheme was originally designed that every person working on a building would need to be a LBP to work on areas such as design, site management, building envelope etc. The exemption was going to be for unqualified apprentices who would need to be supervised. They were also only supposed to be working to the level of the license. For example, I've got a Design 2 LBP license which means I can prepare documents for buildings up to 10m tall.
Then they changed the rules to say that LBP's are able to work on buildings above their license level provided the owner engaging them was satisfied of their "competence". That means I could design and provide the entire documentation for a 50 Storey high building if the person engaging me thought I was capable of doing so.
The other part they changed was that not everyone had to be licensed but someone without a License could untake work, even if they had no experience in it, provided they were "supervised" by a LBP.
The Licensed Building Practitioner scheme was designed to stop another "leaky homes/building" scenario happening again but, to be honest, it hasn't. There would be a lot less apartments and houses still requiring remedial work if the original scheme requiring everyone working on a building was competent and not just the owner hoping the person is or a LBP supervising someone to do the work.
wizard of Tauranga
π
- Thread starter
- #6,789
Iβve been highly critical of the Ministry of education after my experience from operating childcare centres and being on a school board of trustees.
The place is stacked with people that base their ideas on an ideology basis. Everything to do with them is a shambles. Itβs so ingrained at all levels, I honestly donβt know how you sort it out.
They have a culture based on the process rather than results and itβs going to get even worse with the current thinking. This is educations leaky homes playing our right in front of us and the kids are paying.
This isnβt the teachers fault (although they vote for there unions that allow it all) this is the warped leadership from the Ministry.
National will be stonewalled. Only Labour can make things better but they are knee deep in it all. Alternatively charter schools but the unions and Labour will never allow them to show up their failures⦠pretty dire.
Okaying state seizure and reversing the onus of proof is the absolute fucking worst idea ever. This is Stalinist USSR laws.Labour imploding now and turning on each other:
They wouldnβt crack down on gangs because they didnβt want to unfairly target Maori.
All the soft on crime/ soft on gangs/ Maori preferential treatment is true. Glad we have a mature govt now to sort the country out.
'Bulls***': Former police minister Stuart Nash lets rip against Labour ex-colleagues
Nash says Chris Hipkins should have approved gang asset seizures under $30,000www.nzherald.co.nz
Again this is βharsh on crimeβ is nipping at the edges, giving police massive overreach, and eroding rights. Itβs cowardly in facts.
Why are you so scared of simply advocating for actual punishment? Kill the worst, cut the hands of these guys and move on.
So why are gang numbers up 50% under the last govt?
Must have been a pretty shit society under Labourβ¦
A bit of a story here as I used to run with the Manu Kaha back in the day. Iβll tie in some modern day psychology to.
The rise of gangs can be linked to state intervention in families. One factor is the rise of single mother households and the other is incarceration or mistreatment of males.
Strong male role models in families provide guidance we all know this, so when this guidance is missing, young men turn to the closest males to them, who display the characteristics that society tells them they should have. As for they lifestyle stuff, thatβs what society portrays as βlivingβ ie consumerism.
Iβve talked in other threads about the need for extended family and how just living with a few generations would solve a lot of the problems we are seeing now.
I becoming quite tradcon in my view of the family unit, even as down to Iβm not such a huge fan of rap music anymore despite listening my whole life. Iβm starting to think you canβt pump that shit into the ears of children 24/7 for years, make them susceptible, remove role models, and then expect them NOT to act it out.
marv.
ποΈ
all of those things for sure man. some people get dealt a super shitty hand, i get that.
iβve spent more time around gang members than most regular folk would have id say, a LOT of tattooing and partying, head hunters and killer beez moreso but still similar in most ways.
most seem to have parents, big brothers and uncles they looked up to in gangs and it starts there i guess.
the wanting of a particular lifestyle and not having to pay for it i 100% understand. who wouldnβt love that?
but where and when though does it become okay in the eyes of a budding or patched gang member to beat and rape women? to stand over the elderly, to intimidate the public, to destroy your community and those who grew up tough like you did by selling them methamphetine?
thatβs the part i cannot get behind, and those things are no oneβs choice and no oneβs fault but the person committing those crimes.
if a bunch of gang members kidnapped and put my wife, mother or sister on the block as they love to do, were caught and had sentences reduced because they were in a gang?!
we love to talk like poor gang members, the only wrong they do is steal bead to feed their families.
sorry, anyway my original point was why is being hard on gangs being unfair to mΔori but apparently no one else?
Ohhh donβt get me wrong, Iβm not *justifying* it, merely commenting on how it came to exist.
Iβm as ambivalent about summary executions as I am about restorative justice.
marv.
ποΈ
no, i know man. didnβt mean for it to sound as though i thought you were.
Privatisation is always the aim
Here's how they are going in the UK.
View: https://x.com/ellieshearer/status/1757081036402344210?s=20
Noitall
π€
What a piss poor attempt at an accent. And not even an inkling of it ever there now
