A history of intimidating behaviour towards the public -- check.
Criminal associations -- possibly check.
Initiation of patched members -- check.
What do you think? Should we make exemptions for faith-based gangs? Or
just say a gang is a gang is a gang?
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 03:25:21 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<[email protected]d> wrote:
A history of intimidating behaviour towards the public -- check.
Criminal associations -- possibly check.
Initiation of patched members -- check.
What do you think? Should we make exemptions for faith-based gangs? Or
just say a gang is a gang is a gang?
Is it a 'faith-based' organisation? For those that stormed the
Rainbow meeting, what elements of Christianity were evident? I had a Christian upbringing and cannot ever recall this sort of behaviour as
being acceptable.
Interestingly there is a suggestion that they should be stripped of charitable status:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/542613/labour-mp-calls-for-destiny-church-to-lose-charity-status?cid=newsletter
Personally I don't think this is good. The taking away of charitable
status is a legal issue, not a punitive one. Destiny should be dealt
with as lawbreakers first up. If they are a fake charity, that should
also be dealt with but separately.
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 03:25:21 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro ><[email protected]d> wrote:
A history of intimidating behaviour towards the public -- check.
Criminal associations -- possibly check.
Initiation of patched members -- check.
What do you think? Should we make exemptions for faith-based gangs? Or
just say a gang is a gang is a gang?
Is it a 'faith-based' organisation? For those that stormed the
Rainbow meeting, what elements of Christianity were evident? I had a >Christian upbringing and cannot ever recall this sort of behaviour as
being acceptable.
Interestingly there is a suggestion that they should be stripped of >charitable status:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/542613/labour-mp-calls-for-destiny-church-to-lose-charity-status?cid=newsletter
Personally I don't think this is good. The taking away of charitable
status is a legal issue, not a punitive one. Destiny should be dealt
with as lawbreakers first up. If they are a fake charity, that should
also be dealt with but separately.
Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 03:25:21 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >><[email protected]d> wrote:I agree, the Charities Service has the job of determining if an organisation is
A history of intimidating behaviour towards the public -- check.
Criminal associations -- possibly check.
Initiation of patched members -- check.
What do you think? Should we make exemptions for faith-based gangs? Or >>>just say a gang is a gang is a gang?
Is it a 'faith-based' organisation? For those that stormed the
Rainbow meeting, what elements of Christianity were evident? I had a >>Christian upbringing and cannot ever recall this sort of behaviour as
being acceptable.
Interestingly there is a suggestion that they should be stripped of >>charitable status:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/542613/labour-mp-calls-for-destiny-church-to-lose-charity-status?cid=newsletter
Personally I don't think this is good. The taking away of charitable >>status is a legal issue, not a punitive one. Destiny should be dealt
with as lawbreakers first up. If they are a fake charity, that should
also be dealt with but separately.
worthy of being a charity, it is not the place of government.
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 06:35:39 -0000 (UTC), TonyYes we all knew that. They have been the Charities Services for some time now.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 03:25:21 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>><[email protected]d> wrote:I agree, the Charities Service has the job of determining if an organisation >>is
A history of intimidating behaviour towards the public -- check.
Criminal associations -- possibly check.
Initiation of patched members -- check.
What do you think? Should we make exemptions for faith-based gangs? Or >>>>just say a gang is a gang is a gang?
Is it a 'faith-based' organisation? For those that stormed the
Rainbow meeting, what elements of Christianity were evident? I had a >>>Christian upbringing and cannot ever recall this sort of behaviour as >>>being acceptable.
Interestingly there is a suggestion that they should be stripped of >>>charitable status:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/542613/labour-mp-calls-for-destiny-church-to-lose-charity-status?cid=newsletter
Personally I don't think this is good. The taking away of charitable >>>status is a legal issue, not a punitive one. Destiny should be dealt >>>with as lawbreakers first up. If they are a fake charity, that should >>>also be dealt with but separately.
worthy of being a charity, it is not the place of government.
That is exactly why the MP has referred issues relating to at least
one Registered Charity to the Charities Commission.
However if there is a need to amend legislation then that would be upServices!
to government, not the Commission.
Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 03:25:21 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >><[email protected]d> wrote:I agree, the Charities Service has the job of determining if an organisation is
A history of intimidating behaviour towards the public -- check.
Criminal associations -- possibly check.
Initiation of patched members -- check.
What do you think? Should we make exemptions for faith-based gangs? Or >>>just say a gang is a gang is a gang?
Is it a 'faith-based' organisation? For those that stormed the
Rainbow meeting, what elements of Christianity were evident? I had a >>Christian upbringing and cannot ever recall this sort of behaviour as
being acceptable.
Interestingly there is a suggestion that they should be stripped of >>charitable status:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/542613/labour-mp-calls-for-destiny-church-to-lose-charity-status?cid=newsletter
Personally I don't think this is good. The taking away of charitable >>status is a legal issue, not a punitive one. Destiny should be dealt
with as lawbreakers first up. If they are a fake charity, that should
also be dealt with but separately.
worthy of being a charity, it is not the place of government.
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 06:35:39 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 03:25:21 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>><[email protected]d> wrote:I agree, the Charities Service has the job of determining if an organisation is
A history of intimidating behaviour towards the public -- check.
Criminal associations -- possibly check.
Initiation of patched members -- check.
What do you think? Should we make exemptions for faith-based gangs? Or >>>>just say a gang is a gang is a gang?
Is it a 'faith-based' organisation? For those that stormed the
Rainbow meeting, what elements of Christianity were evident? I had a >>>Christian upbringing and cannot ever recall this sort of behaviour as >>>being acceptable.
Interestingly there is a suggestion that they should be stripped of >>>charitable status:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/542613/labour-mp-calls-for-destiny-church-to-lose-charity-status?cid=newsletter
Personally I don't think this is good. The taking away of charitable >>>status is a legal issue, not a punitive one. Destiny should be dealt >>>with as lawbreakers first up. If they are a fake charity, that should >>>also be dealt with but separately.
worthy of being a charity, it is not the place of government.
I don't recall seeing any of the Man Up mob being arrested and
charged.
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 06:35:39 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 03:25:21 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>><[email protected]d> wrote:I agree, the Charities Service has the job of determining if an organisation >>is
A history of intimidating behaviour towards the public -- check.
Criminal associations -- possibly check.
Initiation of patched members -- check.
What do you think? Should we make exemptions for faith-based gangs? Or >>>>just say a gang is a gang is a gang?
Is it a 'faith-based' organisation? For those that stormed the
Rainbow meeting, what elements of Christianity were evident? I had a >>>Christian upbringing and cannot ever recall this sort of behaviour as >>>being acceptable.
Interestingly there is a suggestion that they should be stripped of >>>charitable status:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/542613/labour-mp-calls-for-destiny-church-to-lose-charity-status?cid=newsletter
Personally I don't think this is good. The taking away of charitable >>>status is a legal issue, not a punitive one. Destiny should be dealt >>>with as lawbreakers first up. If they are a fake charity, that should >>>also be dealt with but separately.
worthy of being a charity, it is not the place of government.
I don't recall seeing any of the Man Up mob being arrested and
charged.
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 15:44:44 +1300, Crash <[email protected]d>
wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 06:35:39 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 03:25:21 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>><[email protected]d> wrote:I agree, the Charities Service has the job of determining if an organisation is
A history of intimidating behaviour towards the public -- check.
Criminal associations -- possibly check.
Initiation of patched members -- check.
What do you think? Should we make exemptions for faith-based gangs? Or >>>>>just say a gang is a gang is a gang?
Is it a 'faith-based' organisation? For those that stormed the
Rainbow meeting, what elements of Christianity were evident? I had a >>>>Christian upbringing and cannot ever recall this sort of behaviour as >>>>being acceptable.
Interestingly there is a suggestion that they should be stripped of >>>>charitable status:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/542613/labour-mp-calls-for-destiny-church-to-lose-charity-status?cid=newsletter
Personally I don't think this is good. The taking away of charitable >>>>status is a legal issue, not a punitive one. Destiny should be dealt >>>>with as lawbreakers first up. If they are a fake charity, that should >>>>also be dealt with but separately.
worthy of being a charity, it is not the place of government.
I don't recall seeing any of the Man Up mob being arrested and
charged.
Neither do I, but there is photographic evidence, and an admission of >incitement by the head of the gang. The incident triggered a call for
greater clarity of what police should do in such situations. Are you
trying to claim that there is a cover-up? or that the government is
not acting properly?
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 17:58:36 +1300, Rich80105 <[email protected]>You did not recall seeing something - but I accept you may not have
wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 15:44:44 +1300, Crash <[email protected]d> >>wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 06:35:39 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 03:25:21 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>>><[email protected]d> wrote:I agree, the Charities Service has the job of determining if an organisation is
A history of intimidating behaviour towards the public -- check.
Criminal associations -- possibly check.
Initiation of patched members -- check.
What do you think? Should we make exemptions for faith-based gangs? Or >>>>>>just say a gang is a gang is a gang?
Is it a 'faith-based' organisation? For those that stormed the >>>>>Rainbow meeting, what elements of Christianity were evident? I had a >>>>>Christian upbringing and cannot ever recall this sort of behaviour as >>>>>being acceptable.
Interestingly there is a suggestion that they should be stripped of >>>>>charitable status:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/542613/labour-mp-calls-for-destiny-church-to-lose-charity-status?cid=newsletter
Personally I don't think this is good. The taking away of charitable >>>>>status is a legal issue, not a punitive one. Destiny should be dealt >>>>>with as lawbreakers first up. If they are a fake charity, that should >>>>>also be dealt with but separately.
worthy of being a charity, it is not the place of government.
I don't recall seeing any of the Man Up mob being arrested and
charged.
Neither do I, but there is photographic evidence, and an admission of >>incitement by the head of the gang. The incident triggered a call for >>greater clarity of what police should do in such situations. Are you
trying to claim that there is a cover-up? or that the government is
not acting properly?
No. I made no mention of a cover up - you invented that.
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 08:24:47 +1300, Crash <[email protected]d>Non-sequitur nonsense.
wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 17:58:36 +1300, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>wrote:You did not recall seeing something - but I accept you may not have
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 15:44:44 +1300, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 06:35:39 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><[email protected]> wrote:
Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 03:25:21 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>>>><[email protected]d> wrote:I agree, the Charities Service has the job of determining if an >>>>>organisation is
A history of intimidating behaviour towards the public -- check.
Criminal associations -- possibly check.
Initiation of patched members -- check.
What do you think? Should we make exemptions for faith-based gangs? Or >>>>>>>just say a gang is a gang is a gang?
Is it a 'faith-based' organisation? For those that stormed the >>>>>>Rainbow meeting, what elements of Christianity were evident? I had a >>>>>>Christian upbringing and cannot ever recall this sort of behaviour as >>>>>>being acceptable.
Interestingly there is a suggestion that they should be stripped of >>>>>>charitable status:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/542613/labour-mp-calls-for-destiny-church-to-lose-charity-status?cid=newsletter
Personally I don't think this is good. The taking away of charitable >>>>>>status is a legal issue, not a punitive one. Destiny should be dealt >>>>>>with as lawbreakers first up. If they are a fake charity, that should >>>>>>also be dealt with but separately.
worthy of being a charity, it is not the place of government.
I don't recall seeing any of the Man Up mob being arrested and
charged.
Neither do I, but there is photographic evidence, and an admission of >>>incitement by the head of the gang. The incident triggered a call for >>>greater clarity of what police should do in such situations. Are you >>>trying to claim that there is a cover-up? or that the government is
not acting properly?
No. I made no mention of a cover up - you invented that.
been referring to a cover up.
There are cover up concerns however about another aspect of the issues >raised: >https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2025/02/ipca-hides-behind-secrecy.htmlSo what has that to do with this thread?
If the government does decide to amend police instructions, it willYes, as demonstrated by the last government who did that multiple times. Fortunately this government is not doing that, we should be thankful but we need to be watchful, always.
hopefully be through the proper channels, but when a government gets a >reputation for making decisions without seeking independent advice, >transparency can get lost . . .
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:I did not think your response was that bad, all you did was not recall something that had not happened . . .
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 08:24:47 +1300, Crash <[email protected]d> >>wrote:Non-sequitur nonsense.
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 17:58:36 +1300, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>wrote:You did not recall seeing something - but I accept you may not have
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 15:44:44 +1300, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 06:35:39 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 03:25:21 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>>>>><[email protected]d> wrote:I agree, the Charities Service has the job of determining if an >>>>>>organisation is
A history of intimidating behaviour towards the public -- check. >>>>>>>>
Criminal associations -- possibly check.
Initiation of patched members -- check.
What do you think? Should we make exemptions for faith-based gangs? Or >>>>>>>>just say a gang is a gang is a gang?
Is it a 'faith-based' organisation? For those that stormed the >>>>>>>Rainbow meeting, what elements of Christianity were evident? I had a >>>>>>>Christian upbringing and cannot ever recall this sort of behaviour as >>>>>>>being acceptable.
Interestingly there is a suggestion that they should be stripped of >>>>>>>charitable status:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/542613/labour-mp-calls-for-destiny-church-to-lose-charity-status?cid=newsletter
Personally I don't think this is good. The taking away of charitable >>>>>>>status is a legal issue, not a punitive one. Destiny should be dealt >>>>>>>with as lawbreakers first up. If they are a fake charity, that should >>>>>>>also be dealt with but separately.
worthy of being a charity, it is not the place of government.
I don't recall seeing any of the Man Up mob being arrested and >>>>>charged.
Neither do I, but there is photographic evidence, and an admission of >>>>incitement by the head of the gang. The incident triggered a call for >>>>greater clarity of what police should do in such situations. Are you >>>>trying to claim that there is a cover-up? or that the government is
not acting properly?
No. I made no mention of a cover up - you invented that.
been referring to a cover up.
So what has that to do with this thread?
There are cover up concerns however about another aspect of the issues >>raised: >>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2025/02/ipca-hides-behind-secrecy.html
If you believe that then provide an example . . . I think you are
If the government does decide to amend police instructions, it will >>hopefully be through the proper channels, but when a government gets a >>reputation for making decisions without seeking independent advice, >>transparency can get lost . . .
Yes, as demonstrated by the last government who did that multiple times.
Fortunately this government is not doing that, we should be thankful but we >need to be watchful, always.This government is receiving policy advice from a lot of different
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 22:39:05 -0000 (UTC), TonyI referred to your non-sequitur nonsense. Your sarcasm and idiotic childishness is not part of this discussion, so leave it at home where it belongs..
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:I did not think your response was that bad, all you did was not recall >something that had not happened . . .
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 08:24:47 +1300, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>wrote:Non-sequitur nonsense.
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 17:58:36 +1300, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>wrote:You did not recall seeing something - but I accept you may not have
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 15:44:44 +1300, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 06:35:39 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 03:25:21 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>>>>>><[email protected]d> wrote:I agree, the Charities Service has the job of determining if an >>>>>>>organisation is
A history of intimidating behaviour towards the public -- check. >>>>>>>>>
Criminal associations -- possibly check.
Initiation of patched members -- check.
What do you think? Should we make exemptions for faith-based gangs? Or >>>>>>>>>just say a gang is a gang is a gang?
Is it a 'faith-based' organisation? For those that stormed the >>>>>>>>Rainbow meeting, what elements of Christianity were evident? I had a >>>>>>>>Christian upbringing and cannot ever recall this sort of behaviour as >>>>>>>>being acceptable.
Interestingly there is a suggestion that they should be stripped of >>>>>>>>charitable status:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/542613/labour-mp-calls-for-destiny-church-to-lose-charity-status?cid=newsletter
Personally I don't think this is good. The taking away of charitable >>>>>>>>status is a legal issue, not a punitive one. Destiny should be dealt >>>>>>>>with as lawbreakers first up. If they are a fake charity, that should >>>>>>>>also be dealt with but separately.
worthy of being a charity, it is not the place of government.
I don't recall seeing any of the Man Up mob being arrested and >>>>>>charged.
Neither do I, but there is photographic evidence, and an admission of >>>>>incitement by the head of the gang. The incident triggered a call for >>>>>greater clarity of what police should do in such situations. Are you >>>>>trying to claim that there is a cover-up? or that the government is >>>>>not acting properly?
No. I made no mention of a cover up - you invented that.
been referring to a cover up.
The IPCA are not involved.So what has that to do with this thread?
There are cover up concerns however about another aspect of the issues >>>raised: >>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2025/02/ipca-hides-behind-secrecy.html
The IPCA clearly thought that the police should have acted, and that
they could have acted differently, and that laws should be changed in
some unspecified way that they are not prepared to disclose in the
same way that policy advice is normally available under Freedom of >Information legislation . . .
Unnecessary, but try 3 watesr for a start, many more also.
If the government does decide to amend police instructions, it will >>>hopefully be through the proper channels, but when a government gets a >>>reputation for making decisions without seeking independent advice, >>>transparency can get lost . . .
Yes, as demonstrated by the last government who did that multiple times.If you believe that then provide an example . . . I think you are
wrong.
Barefaced lie, with zero evidence. Do what you ask of others and provide truth and evidence.Fortunately this government is not doing that, we should be thankful but we >>need to be watchful, always.This government is receiving policy advice from a lot of different
sources that it is not prepared to disclose - in the case of weakening >smoking restrictions there was a clear intention to put New Zealanders
at greater risk to provide a financial reward to Philip Morris rather
than better protect New Zealanders . . .
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:Yes they are involved in the conduct of the Police: See https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/542159/destiny-church-library-protest-intimidating-and-unacceptable-police
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 22:39:05 -0000 (UTC), TonyI referred to your non-sequitur nonsense. Your sarcasm and idiotic childishness
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:I did not think your response was that bad, all you did was not recall >>something that had not happened . . .
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 08:24:47 +1300, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>wrote:Non-sequitur nonsense.
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 17:58:36 +1300, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>>wrote:You did not recall seeing something - but I accept you may not have >>>>been referring to a cover up.
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 15:44:44 +1300, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>>wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 06:35:39 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 03:25:21 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>>>>>>><[email protected]d> wrote:I agree, the Charities Service has the job of determining if an >>>>>>>>organisation is
A history of intimidating behaviour towards the public -- check. >>>>>>>>>>
Criminal associations -- possibly check.
Initiation of patched members -- check.
What do you think? Should we make exemptions for faith-based gangs? Or
just say a gang is a gang is a gang?
Is it a 'faith-based' organisation? For those that stormed the >>>>>>>>>Rainbow meeting, what elements of Christianity were evident? I had a >>>>>>>>>Christian upbringing and cannot ever recall this sort of behaviour as >>>>>>>>>being acceptable.
Interestingly there is a suggestion that they should be stripped of >>>>>>>>>charitable status:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/542613/labour-mp-calls-for-destiny-church-to-lose-charity-status?cid=newsletter
Personally I don't think this is good. The taking away of charitable >>>>>>>>>status is a legal issue, not a punitive one. Destiny should be dealt >>>>>>>>>with as lawbreakers first up. If they are a fake charity, that should >>>>>>>>>also be dealt with but separately.
worthy of being a charity, it is not the place of government.
I don't recall seeing any of the Man Up mob being arrested and >>>>>>>charged.
Neither do I, but there is photographic evidence, and an admission of >>>>>>incitement by the head of the gang. The incident triggered a call for >>>>>>greater clarity of what police should do in such situations. Are you >>>>>>trying to claim that there is a cover-up? or that the government is >>>>>>not acting properly?
No. I made no mention of a cover up - you invented that.
is not part of this discussion, so leave it at home where it belongs..
The IPCA are not involved.
There are cover up concerns however about another aspect of the issues >>>>raised: >>>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2025/02/ipca-hides-behind-secrecy.html >>>So what has that to do with this thread?
The IPCA clearly thought that the police should have acted, and that
they could have acted differently, and that laws should be changed in
some unspecified way that they are not prepared to disclose in the
same way that policy advice is normally available under Freedom of >>Information legislation . . .
3 waters was an entirely different issue - I am not aware of anyUnnecessary, but try 3 watesr for a start, many more also.
wrong.
If the government does decide to amend police instructions, it will >>>>hopefully be through the proper channels, but when a government gets a >>>>reputation for making decisions without seeking independent advice, >>>>transparency can get lost . . .
Yes, as demonstrated by the last government who did that multiple times. >>If you believe that then provide an example . . . I think you are
You so easily forget the changes to stop the sinking lid on theBarefaced lie, with zero evidence. Do what you ask of others and provide truth >and evidence.
Fortunately this government is not doing that, we should be thankful but we >>>need to be watchful, always.This government is receiving policy advice from a lot of different
sources that it is not prepared to disclose - in the case of weakening >>smoking restrictions there was a clear intention to put New Zealanders
at greater risk to provide a financial reward to Philip Morris rather
than better protect New Zealanders . . .
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 06:11:53 -0000 (UTC), TonyObviously as a general comment (well done!), but they are not currently involved with this case. When they are feel free to comment. >https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/542159/destiny-church-library-protest-intimidating-and-unacceptable-police
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:Yes they are involved in the conduct of the Police: See
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 22:39:05 -0000 (UTC), TonyI referred to your non-sequitur nonsense. Your sarcasm and idiotic >>childishness
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:I did not think your response was that bad, all you did was not recall >>>something that had not happened . . .
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 08:24:47 +1300, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>wrote:Non-sequitur nonsense.
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 17:58:36 +1300, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>>>wrote:You did not recall seeing something - but I accept you may not have >>>>>been referring to a cover up.
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 15:44:44 +1300, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 06:35:39 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 03:25:21 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>>>>>>>><[email protected]d> wrote:I agree, the Charities Service has the job of determining if an >>>>>>>>>organisation is
A history of intimidating behaviour towards the public -- check. >>>>>>>>>>>
Criminal associations -- possibly check.
Initiation of patched members -- check.
What do you think? Should we make exemptions for faith-based gangs? >>>>>>>>>>>Or
just say a gang is a gang is a gang?
Is it a 'faith-based' organisation? For those that stormed the >>>>>>>>>>Rainbow meeting, what elements of Christianity were evident? I had a >>>>>>>>>>Christian upbringing and cannot ever recall this sort of behaviour as >>>>>>>>>>being acceptable.
Interestingly there is a suggestion that they should be stripped of >>>>>>>>>>charitable status:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/542613/labour-mp-calls-for-destiny-church-to-lose-charity-status?cid=newsletter
Personally I don't think this is good. The taking away of charitable >>>>>>>>>>status is a legal issue, not a punitive one. Destiny should be dealt >>>>>>>>>>with as lawbreakers first up. If they are a fake charity, that should
also be dealt with but separately.
worthy of being a charity, it is not the place of government.
I don't recall seeing any of the Man Up mob being arrested and >>>>>>>>charged.
Neither do I, but there is photographic evidence, and an admission of >>>>>>>incitement by the head of the gang. The incident triggered a call for >>>>>>>greater clarity of what police should do in such situations. Are you >>>>>>>trying to claim that there is a cover-up? or that the government is >>>>>>>not acting properly?
No. I made no mention of a cover up - you invented that.
is not part of this discussion, so leave it at home where it belongs..
The IPCA are not involved.
There are cover up concerns however about another aspect of the issues >>>>>raised: >>>>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2025/02/ipca-hides-behind-secrecy.html >>>>So what has that to do with this thread?
The IPCA clearly thought that the police should have acted, and that
they could have acted differently, and that laws should be changed in >>>some unspecified way that they are not prepared to disclose in the
same way that policy advice is normally available under Freedom of >>>Information legislation . . .
and >https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/541977/pride-and-rainbow-event-in-auckland-disrupted-by-destiny-church
Their report was in part prompted by the "Posy Parker" conflict and
the conduct of police there; they will certainly be involved in
reviewing actions of police following this latest "protest" by Destiny
church members.
There is little difference between the stated views of government and >opposition, but whether we have an open debate is yet to be seen - and >agreements on future actions decided in secret are not likely to be
very welcome . . .
3 waters was an entirely different issue - I am not aware of anyUnnecessary, but try 3 watesr for a start, many more also.
wrong.
If the government does decide to amend police instructions, it will >>>>>hopefully be through the proper channels, but when a government gets a >>>>>reputation for making decisions without seeking independent advice, >>>>>transparency can get lost . . .
Yes, as demonstrated by the last government who did that multiple times. >>>If you believe that then provide an example . . . I think you are
violent protests. What has happened since the election is of course
that we have found that promised government support all went to tax
breaks for landlords, and rates are going up to pay for the needed
work. Not much to involve the IPCA there . . .
You so easily forget the changes to stop the sinking lid on theBarefaced lie, with zero evidence. Do what you ask of others and provide >>truth
Fortunately this government is not doing that, we should be thankful but we >>>>need to be watchful, always.This government is receiving policy advice from a lot of different >>>sources that it is not prepared to disclose - in the case of weakening >>>smoking restrictions there was a clear intention to put New Zealanders
at greater risk to provide a financial reward to Philip Morris rather >>>than better protect New Zealanders . . .
and evidence.
ability to purchase cigarettes, and the changes to allow continued
purchases of some vapes by Chour to benefit one supplier that are now
causing medical problems . . . The 'evidence' on which the Minister
relied turned out to be partially irrelevant random articles from the >internet, that she eventually claimed that she had looked up herself
through and internet search . . .
A history of intimidating behaviour towards the public -- check.
Criminal associations -- possibly check.
Initiation of patched members -- check.
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 03:25:21 -0000 (UTC), I wrote:
A history of intimidating behaviour towards the public -- check.
Criminal associations -- possibly check.
Initiation of patched members -- check.
Speaking of criminal associations, there have finally been some
arrests of Destiny Church members as a result of their storming of the
drag event at that Auckland community centre. The cops are saying they
have nabbed four scumbags to start with, with more to follow.
<https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/four-arrested-over-destiny-church-linked-protest-at-auckland-childrens-event-at-te-atatu-community-centre/QE6D6DUOXVFNDI5P2DJWSJCZCY/>
Some of the charges include �indecent assault�. So much for claiming
to stand for �family values�, eh ...
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 03:04:06 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro ><[email protected]d> wrote:Are you claiming that members of the Destiny Church have been doing
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 03:25:21 -0000 (UTC), I wrote:
A history of intimidating behaviour towards the public -- check.
Criminal associations -- possibly check.
Initiation of patched members -- check.
Speaking of criminal associations, there have finally been some
arrests of Destiny Church members as a result of their storming of the
drag event at that Auckland community centre. The cops are saying they
have nabbed four scumbags to start with, with more to follow.
<https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/four-arrested-over-destiny-church-linked-protest-at-auckland-childrens-event-at-te-atatu-community-centre/QE6D6DUOXVFNDI5P2DJWSJCZCY/>
Some of the charges include �indecent assault�. So much for claiming
to stand for �family values�, eh ...
How about all the perverts and sexual deviants pushing their filth
onto little children?
If there were any real justice those obscene circus freaks would be
behind bars for a long time.
Bill.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 01:12:45 |
| Calls: | 12,098 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 15,003 |
| Messages: | 6,517,862 |