Politics NZ Politics

[defensivebomb]

Any particular reason for adding on the war criminals bit?

Well, I originally was going to leave that off and leave the comment neutral. But it is a fact that she has defended war criminals (of genocide, no less) at the Hague, so that is a relevant aspect of her character

"the left" don't have a problem here referencing politicians' pasts (ex tobacco lobbyists / airline CEOs / underage texters)

Good to see the right isn't actually concerned about the chaos this coalition is inflicting on New Zealand at all.

well, that depends on your perspective. you might call it chaos. polled NZers tend to think it is pointing in a better direction than the last 6 years

 

[MaybeTop8]

what is the right?

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

 

[MaybeTop8]

Well, I originally was going to leave that off and leave the comment neutral. But it is a fact that she has defended war criminals (of genocide, no less) at the Hague, so that is a relevant aspect of her character

"the left" don't have a problem here referencing politicians' pasts (ex tobacco lobbyists / airline CEOs / underage texters)


well, that depends on your perspective. you might call it chaos. polled NZers tend to think it is pointing in a better direction than the last 6 years

Isn't that what lawyers do?

Golriz Ghahraman - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[MaybeTop8]

More importantly we are getting Back on Track.

Back on track to a regressive mythical land that never existed, only for a select few privileged groups. Actually, that does sound familiar.

 

[Inruin]

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

What is the right?

 

[defensivebomb]

Isn't that what lawyers do?

Golriz Ghahraman - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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!

 

[Inruin]

Back on track to a regressive mythical land that never existed, only for a select few privileged groups. Actually, that does sound familiar.

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.

 

[defensivebomb]

Isn't that what lawyers do?

Golriz Ghahraman - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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.

Simon Bikindi

• Convicted for incitement to commit genocide by urging Hutus to exterminate Tutsis in Rwanda. 500,000 - 800,000 Tutsi died

So yeah, I'm not as sentimental as others when it comes to "human rights lawyer" Golriz. Most people forget to leave off the last part, that she specialises in criminal defence

 

[Mr. Brownstone]

So yeah, I'm not as sentimental as others when it comes to "human rights lawyer" Golriz. Most people forget to leave off the last part, that she specialises in criminal defence

She might go ok defending herself in court.

 

[MaybeTop8]

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.

Simon Bikindi

• Convicted for incitement to commit genocide by urging Hutus to exterminate Tutsis in Rwanda. 500,000 - 800,000 Tutsi died

So yeah, I'm not as sentimental as others when it comes to "human rights lawyer" Golriz. Most people forget to leave off the last part, that she specialises in criminal defence

So again, what part of her job is she not doing?

 

[MaybeTop8]

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

 

[defensivebomb]

So again, what part of her job is she not doing?

I'm not taking this discussion further with you. I'll leave you to debate with the others on this forum

 

[Lord Gnome of Waiheke]

Meanwhile, more importantly:
Act want to slash tax for the rich: https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2024/02/...society-welcome-to-atlas-network-doublespeak/

The coalition have taken us on a war footing

They've attacked workers rights

They've rolled back public transport initiatives

They've rolled back 3 waters and replaced it with.....nothing, while council infrastructure is falling apart everywhere

They're cutting funding for parliament's own watchdog

They're introducing tax cuts no one asked for and that nz cannot afford

They're subsidising landlords and attacking renter's rights.


They are rolling back climate change initiatives in favour of fossil fuels

Corrupt, of the rich, by the rich, for the rich.

Its a war on the poor.

 

[MaybeTop8]

I'm not taking this discussion further with you. I'll leave you to debate with the others on this forum

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.

 

[MaybeTop8]

I blame the coalition.....dang autopilot ai

 

[Inruin]

Its a war on the poor.

LOL what was the last few years then? Where they were all relatively worse off? The reality doesn't seem to match the rhetoric?

 

[MaybeTop8]

LOL what was the last few years then? Where they were all relatively worse off? The reality doesn't seem to match the rhetoric?

Incompetence. It wasn't a targeted war like this one.

 

[miket12]

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.

 

[defensivebomb]

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.

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

 

[Rizzah]

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.

This is also a bit lol. Poor painter.