In support of CYFSWATCH NZ and the right of Free Speech. First visit to Watching CYFSWATCH NZ? Visit our home page. Please visit our e/group at

Labours Answer To Drunk Teens…

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on May 11, 2007

As posted on CYFSWATCH NZ

Labours Answer To Drunk Teens…
Wednesday, 09.05.2007, 02:57pm (GMT12)

Labours Answer To Drunk Teens…

Labour, who supported Jenny Shipley near the end of her stint in the house by passing a law lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 now has its answer for the chaos caused by drunk teens….

It is thinking of increasing the tax on booze….

The MPs were told by intelligent people at the time the age was lowered that this would cause problems, that those younger than 18 would be drunk, but Shipley said the Police could deal with it, and besides, the age would be raised again if the new law was abused…

With kids as young as NINE being drunk on the streets, our MPs thought it was about time the age was raised again.

But of course, 18 to 21 year olds are voters, and no party wanted to lose votes, so the motion was defeated. It seems the votes were more important than any drunk children wandering the streets.

So, now, we have this idea, its been suggested before, but over the weekend, two 16 years old girls were killed at a wild booze party in Christchurch. Raise the tax…. young people wont be able to afford booze…

I’m not a drinking person, very rarely will you see a beer at my lips… but I fail to see the logic of this idea, why punish ALL booze drinkers because of a few kids getting out of control?

The real reason is that the Minister of Finance is rubbing his hands with glee thinking of all that extra tax he will rake in… Labour doesn’t care about the children, doesn’t care about the adults that have to pay more…

They care more about losing the 18-21 year old voters than they do about any children that are killed….

What’s so hard? Raise the drinking age to 21 again to protect our children, they are passing
Bradford’s bill against the wishes of the people for that reason, what’s the problem?

But then, they wont do anything about the gangs because that’s too hard for them to deal with as well! These gangs are killing our children, be it with drugs or drive by shootings. Children have been found in gang “P” labs, one exploded on the weekend, a child was found lying near a loaded pistol…

Again, what’s so hard? If these gang thugs want to live like animals and make the people living near them live in fear, then what’s the problem? The people would support such a move, make them like terrorists, and crack down on them, HARD, hound them into the grave, who cares? I don’t, I’d welcome such a move…

But Labour doesn’t want to lose the gang vote it seems… go figure, what other reason could there be for Labour protecting them…. other than totally losing the Maori vote.

So, Labour wants to come up with stupid solutions to stop youth drinking, and do nothing to crack down on gangs, BUT… they are willing to defy 80% of the people and crack down on decent parents who smack their children for purposes of correction!

This bill would have been defeated day one if Labour didn’t need the Greens to help them stay in power. That’s why
Clark was anti this bill before the election, and now that Taito Philip Fields is gone, she is supporting it.

She wont even allow her MPs the right to vote the way they see fit, lest it be defeated, and the Greens pull away from helping them stay in power.

This is MMP at work, its a corrupt system, one where deals are done behind closed doors and the result is that the people are screwed time and time again.

There’s SIXTY MPs in the house who no one voted for, Bradford is one of them, they lost the election because the electorate they were in decided, for whatever reason, that they didn’t want them, be it because they came across as insane (like Bradford did) or they didn’t trust the person (like they didn’t trust Bradford) and the result is the same. The voters didn’t want them in the house.

But then, people who used their party vote to support a party were fooled into thinking this was a good thing to do. WRONG! The Party, lets use the Greens as an example, used those votes to screw the people.

If a party gets 10% of the total party vote, but only have two elected MPs then they are allowed to insert 4 MPs into the house, 10% of 60 seats is 6, so they use the party vote. The first 4 MPs on the list are elected to Parliament UNLESS they won the seat. Position number 1 on any party list is always reserved for the leader, then the deputy leader etc etc.

This is how
Bradford was “elected”. Not by the people, but by the party giving her the number three spot on the party list.

She is effectively a Claytons MP! She doesn’t represent the people, but the party, who, by giving her a high spot on the list, elected her. She doesn’t owe anything to the people.

Sue Bradford was a COMMUNIST in her youth, and probably still is. She is laughing her head off at the system we use to elect our MPs.

Should this Claytons MP be allowed to introduce bills into the house? NO! She is only there to make up the numbers so should only be allowed to vote on the bills and laws REAL MPs put into the house.

Our system is corrupt, it need to be changed now, Bradford has NO RIGHT to have this bill in the house, and Labour is only supporting it so they can stay in power, but while time is wasted on this bill, our children are dying in drive by shootings, by drugs and booze.



web metrics


One Response to “Labours Answer To Drunk Teens…”

  1. Jay said

    Heck that’s only the half of it. According to a guy in the know, some of these punks have police scanners and know through text messages when cops are going to turn up to do them for whatever.
    I call them punks, because some who spoil it for the rest, rack up fines, then laugh all the way out of the courthouse, when judges give them a tap on the hand
    for racking up at times huge fines.
    What message does this send?
    Justice seen to be done! Nah, only
    more tax payers money going to defend these ratbags.
    What is they were only allowed legal aid for a couple of repeated offences?
    That would be more like justice.
    Fun & games is o/k. going over the invisible line is not

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: