Thread: We could have been hunting under level 4 afterall

Originally Posted by possum_shooter

Ffs there are some people on here who felt they have been fucken robbed or something. What a pack of self centred wa****ers. I think the government did very well in these new and challenging times. Did they get very decision right? No they didn't but they did a bloody good job of keeping it under control. Sounds like a lot of you seem to think the way we should have gone is the way the US and Trump have gone. They are going to have people dying for months yet.
We only had to miss out on 6 weeks hunting, boo fucken hoo, think about the old people in hospital dying alone, the old people in rest homes who are locked in there rooms and not seen their or friends or famiily for the last 6 weeks. Would you be taking the same stance if it had ripped throunh NZ and killed a few of your family members?

Out of Curiosity, what is the threshold for you for a situation that it is permissible for the Government, and its police, to not be bound by its own laws?

Because those people who appeared before the select committee, who could not be with their dying family, or had a miscarriage alone, were also illegally separated from their loved ones.

I didn't five a flying fuck about hunting, what I cared about was during the level 4 lock-down my mother, who suffers from terrible anxiety and depression, was isolated from her family because she wasn't allowed to be visited due to keeping bubbles separated, by her family, none of whom were sick, and she deteriorated and ended up self harming, when it was not illegal for me to go over after work each day to have a cuppa with her, like I normally do, no all the doom and gloom made her feel like she as a fucking liability.

I still wasn't allow to see her until level 3

Originally Posted by possum_shooter

Ffs there are some people on here who felt they have been fucken robbed or something. What a pack of self centred wa****ers. I think the government did very well in these new and challenging times. Did they get very decision right? No they didn't but they did a bloody good job of keeping it under control. Sounds like a lot of you seem to think the way we should have gone is the way the US and Trump have gone. They are going to have people dying for months yet.
We only had to miss out on 6 weeks hunting, boo fucken hoo, think about the old people in hospital dying alone, the old people in rest homes who are locked in there rooms and not seen their or friends or famiily for the last 6 weeks. Would you be taking the same stance if it had ripped throunh NZ and killed a few of your family members?

Listen up retard - solo hunting and fishing poses zero risk to anyone, the obvious exception being an accident of some sort requiring external assistance. Had you noticed this is a hunting/fishing/shooting forum? All that was required of us would be common sense regarding difficult country or rivers. So, upon discovering that the government, the police and the dept of health all deliberately and in collusion, LIED TO THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY, AND INTENDED TO HIDE THAT FACT, you don't expect any outpouring of anger and betrayal? perhaps you are a Stalinda/labour/green acolyte?

Originally Posted by possum_shooter

Ffs there are some people on here who felt they have been fucken robbed or something. What a pack of self centred wa****ers. I think the government did very well in these new and challenging times. Did they get very decision right?

Mountain Biking:
- rated high in ACC accident statistics
- rated high in Mountain Safety Council accident statistics
- general considered a risky activity
- often requires travel out of 'home area'
- examples of MTBer needing to be rescued by helicopter in first week of Level 4 Lock down

Status during Level 4 and Level 3: Allowed activity

Why does this bother me? It's not so much I couldn't go hunting. It shows that decisions made by this government are not based on facts, but ideological and emotional preferences.

Lets not pull our punches, at the first opportunity this government seems dead keen to persecute hunters. So my concern is not just their behaviour during Covid-19, but what other excuses will they take advantage of now they've had a taste of the power they can wield against hunting and other activities they don't like.

Originally Posted by vulcannz

Mountain Biking:
- rated high in ACC accident statistics
- rated high in Mountain Safety Council accident statistics
- general considered a risky activity
- often requires travel out of 'home area'
- examples of MTBer needing to be rescued by helicopter in first week of Level 4 Lock down

Status during Level 4 and Level 3: Allowed activity

Why does this bother me? It's not so much I couldn't go hunting. It shows that decisions made by this government are not based on facts, but ideological and emotional preferences.

Lets not pull our punches, at the first opportunity this government seems dead keen to persecute hunters. So my concern is not just their behaviour during Covid-19, but what other excuses will they take advantage of now they've had a taste of the power they can wield against hunting and other activities they don't like.

That's the feeling I have, it's not that the Govt thinks hunting is inherently risky during the alleged illegal lockdown, it's because they don't like it.

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

That's the feeling I have, it's not that the Govt thinks hunting is inherently risky during the alleged illegal lockdown, it's because they don't like it.

Bingo right there.

I thought I'd stumbled onto a forum from the good ol' US of A for a minute there. I'm dumbfounded by some responses

Originally Posted by Hewie

I thought I'd stumbled onto a forum from the good ol' US of A for a minute there. I'm dumbfounded by some responses

You did, you're bloody lucky you're only dumbfounded, some would feel they've been drowned in drivel

We live in a democracy and part of that is that we have to follow the laws. If we break the law we have to face the consequences. The government has to do the same.
Note that for level 2 they are going to have to pass new legislation to enforce the “Level 2 guidelines” because the Health Act doesn’t give them the powers to enforce the restrictions on society they want to place on us.
Also note that the High Court, Law Society and a few other Legal groups have called into question the legality of Lockdown. I don’t think many of them are saying it was wrong, but that the legislation being used did not support the restrictions they imposed on society.

Good on Stug for asking the questions and challenging the status quo. But this whole thread is based on opinion and conjecture. Nothing is proven. Nothing has been tested. Legal opinions are worth nothing until tested. The Government are adamantly saying they acted legally. Who is correct? The Court will decide.

The basis for almost every comment on here has been hearsay and opinion garnered from the press - that most on here seem to despise.

We have a right to dislike or despise the Gov and to express it. But to talk in absolute terms about legal matters that have neither been tested or proven is rash.

I absolutely agree that the corner stone of democracy is that Government must act within the law. If they act outside of it, (and depending on the severity) they should be held to account by parliament, the crown and the voter. But we 'aint there yet.

Good on Stug for asking the questions and challenging the status quo. But this whole thread is based on opinion and conjecture. Nothing is proven. Nothing has been tested. Legal opinions are worth nothing until tested. The Government are adamantly saying they acted legally. Who is correct? The Court will decide.

True .. but its seems reasonably clear that they have deliberately ignored the legal opinion from their own Crown Law Office. And frankly the greater good argument might give them a pass in the court of stupefied public opinion, but the dangers here are substantive and considerable disquiet has been a part of our history for more minor matters in the past.. Fitzgerald v Muldoon for example

The basis for almost every comment on here has been hearsay and opinion garnered from the press - that most on here seem to despise.

As is every discussion about anything almost ever......Probably mostly from fringe media, typically not exactly the mainstream Jacinda cheerleaders.....

We have a right to dislike or despise the Gov and to express it. But to talk in absolute terms about legal matters that have neither been tested or proven is rash.

Hardly, nothing on here is conclusive. Discussion and information is a requirement of a society interested in making sure excesses are not tolerated and govts that seem to treat political perception as being more important than principle, need to hear the murmurings.

I absolutely agree that the corner stone of democracy is that Government must act within the law. If they act outside of it, (and depending on the severity) they should be held to account by parliament, the crown and the voter. But we 'aint there yet.

And if nobody talks about this stuff before it gets to court... then it won't get to court.

Originally Posted by Sidney

True .. but its seems reasonably clear that they have deliberately ignored the legal opinion from their own Crown Law Office. And frankly the greater good argument might give them a pass in the court of stupefied public opinion, but the dangers here are substantive and considerable disquiet has been a part of our history for more minor matters in the past.. Fitzgerald v Muldoon for example



As is every discussion about anything almost ever......Probably mostly from fringe media, typically not exactly the mainstream Jacinda cheerleaders.....



Hardly, nothing on here is conclusive. Discussion and information is a requirement of a society interested in making sure excesses are not tolerated and govts that seem to treat political perception as being more important than principle, need to hear the murmurings.



And if nobody talks about this stuff before it gets to court... then it won't get to court.

Its validating when you agree on every point, Sydney.

@Tahr we should now soon as the Health Orders have been challenged in the High Court.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/healt...virus-lockdown

The point is that this govt thinks that it knows best, and that it is not bound by the laws that it itself creates.

There is starting to be some considerable information out now that we have purely been lucky that we have not been decimated by this thing, but rather than acknowledging that, this corrupt govt will claim that as a result of their own response.

They had no choice, the tidal wave was obvious, the choices they made finally were purely a "hail-mary" but the on-going danger here is the willingness to lie because they know best.

The obviousness of that and the arrogance of it caused a slow response, caused a deliberate policy of lying and creates a willingness to do that about any number of issues. We have clearly seen it in the firearms issue already, the deliberate electioneering lying to gain office and the multiple failures of any number of policies that it has been responsible for.

But they think that they are above the law because they know best. That is extremely dangerous to our rights and choices in a system that is designed to protect our freedoms and choices.

Credit due - she conned the whole country, gave us a chance at minimising a very bad outcome - but not because the was interested in you - she is only interested in mass effect, and the chaos that would ensue in an unprepared heath system. She panicked but aint she a superb actress....??

There is almost nothing about her that this country needs to get out of this mess she has created..

Her only skillset is being a great liar.

To me it's less what they have done, than the spirit that they have done it in.

Missing out on the roar and duckshooting is neither here nor there so far as I am concerned.

If the Government had initiated and enforced the lockdown from a legally valid point of origin, I wouldn't be particularly worried.

It's that they and the Police seem to be trying it on/winging it/bluffing their way through/ refusing to give answers/ partly suspending democratic oversight.

To be sure they have done things right, but they promised to be transparent and accountable in their governance.

Originally Posted by Max Headroom

To me it's less what they have done, than the spirit that they have done it in.

Missing out on the roar and duckshooting is neither here nor there so far as I am concerned.

If the Government had initiated and enforced the lockdown from a legally valid point of origin, I wouldn't be particularly worried.

It's that they and the Police seem to be trying it on/winging it/bluffing their way through/ refusing to give answers/ partly suspending democratic oversight.

To be sure they have done things right, but they promised to be transparent and accountable in their governance.

You speak from a perspective that the Gov have actually acted outside of the law. That is only conjecture to support a subjective argument. What you claim will only gain real legitimacy when the court rules in the favour of your argument, and then accountability should flow from that.