Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 85600	2007-12-15 20:50:00	Children's Hospital turns down funds.	B.M. (505)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
621521	2007-12-15 22:57:00	I wonder how IRD will respond at the end of the financial year when I tell them that I have paid all due monies to a charity of my choosing instead of to the government:thumbs: ..... Up Winston, devious b#####d.	Scouse (83)
621522	2007-12-15 23:19:00	I wonder how IRD will respond at the end of the financial year when I tell them that I have paid all due monies to a charity of my choosing instead of to the government:thumbs: ..... Up Winston, devious b#####d. Glad to see you put politics ahead of children's health. :(	B.M. (505)
621523	2007-12-15 23:29:00	So answer me this B.M. - if a criminal robbed a bank, and then when he was caught gave the proceeds of his crime to Starship, what do you think should happen?	Erayd (23)
621524	2007-12-15 23:39:00	I usually agree with BM,but not on this,anything that silly bugger does needs to be watched.	Cicero (40)
621525	2007-12-16 00:27:00	So answer me this B . M . - if a criminal robbed a bank, and then when he was caught gave the proceeds of his crime to Starship, what do you think should happen? Goodness me, your logic looses me . :confused: If a criminal steals something then it is not theirs to give away . In this case all the politicians broke the rules, but none were under any obligation, other than a Moral Obligation, to return anything . No crime was committed . All of them had their noses in the same trough and they’re all as bad as each other . The irony is the queue of other charities lining up to take the money . :rolleyes: Obviously, only the management of StarShip walk the “Moral High Ground” . Giving the money away in this case is perfectly legal and I suppose the funds returned by the other parties have been diverted to a world tour by a Kapa Haka Party or attendance at a Hip hop convention . At least we would have known where the money had gone .	B.M. (505)
621526	2007-12-16 00:51:00	I would prefer the Hospital kept there head out of the political muck, Winston is still capable of making a legitimate donation. Hell, I can make a donation and not hang any pathitic bull**** baggage on it, I'll go do so right now.	Metla (12)
621527	2007-12-16 01:08:00	Goodness me, your logic looses me . :confused: If a criminal steals something then it is not theirs to give away . In this case all the politicians broke the rules, but none were under any obligation, other than a Moral Obligation, to return anything . No crime was committed . All of them had their noses in the same trough and they’re all as bad as each other . The irony is the queue of other charities lining up to take the money . :rolleyes: Obviously, only the management of StarShip walk the “Moral High Ground” . Giving the money away in this case is perfectly legal and I suppose the funds returned by the other parties have been diverted to a world tour by a Kapa Haka Party or attendance at a Hip hop convention . At least we would have known where the money had gone . As I understand the situation, the only reason "a crime was not committed" was because Winston's mate, Helen and her cronies enabled a change in the law to make it so . At the time of the 'incident', a crime was indeed committed .	johcar (6283)
621528	2007-12-16 01:12:00	We will never stop Politicians from taking cheap shots and pathetic points scoring . More the pity . As you say Metla, Starship should keep out of politics and be grateful for whatever comes their way . As it stands all they have achieved is giving $158,000 to some other charity . Didn’t realise they were in a position to do that . :(	B.M. (505)
621529	2007-12-16 01:26:00	Goodness me, your logic looses me. :confused: Then read it again. It's relatively straightforward. If a criminal steals something then it is not theirs to give away.Correct. In this case all the politicians broke the rulesYup. Those 'rules' being the laws that govern electoral finance. If it was legal, then retrospectively passing laws to legalise it would not have been needed. but none were under any obligation, other than a Moral Obligation, to return anything.No, they were under a legal obligation that was unenforcable. That's not the same as a moral obligation - in this case both morals and law had an impact here. No crime was committed.Breaking laws is usually considered a crime. If this isn't your definition, then what is? All of them had their noses in the same trough and they’re all as bad as each other.Except that they all paid back what they stole from the trough, except NZ First. In my opinion making no effort to rectify a crime instantly makes them worse than the rest in this respect. The irony is the queue of other charities lining up to take the money. :rolleyes: Yes - clearly you are not the only person in the country with flexible moral standards. Obviously, only the management of StarShip walk the “Moral High Ground”.And you arrived at this conclusion how? Given the evidence, the only thing you can conclude is that some people have flexible morals. Other charities with the same morals arent' even asking, and therefore can't be measured by the noise they're not making. Giving the money away in this case is perfectly legal...Can you justify this? Noting that they broke the law, there is no legal framework by which the proceeds of a crime can be transferred to an unrelated third party. ...and I suppose the funds returned by the other parties have been diverted to a world tour by a Kapa Haka Party or attendance at a Hip hop convention.These funds went back where they came from, to be used in accordance with the laws that control how our government uses taxpayers' money. Whether or not these laws allow for financing hip-hop tours or kapa-haka parties (they do, within limits) is outside the scope of this debate. At least we would have known where the money had gone.And if they pay it back, as they are obligated to do, you will also know where the money goes. This point is therefore completely irrelevant.	Erayd (23)
621530	2007-12-16 01:43:00	As I understand the situation, the only reason "a crime was not committed" was because Winston's mate, Helen and her cronies enabled a change in the law to make it so. At the time of the 'incident', a crime was indeed committed. I think your right Johcar. But I don’t recall any Political Party vigorously opposing the passing of the Bill that let them all off the hook. However, that is not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is that the Management at Starship took it upon themselves to get involved in politics and effectively give the money away. The kids, that had no say, are the only ones that will suffer. Grrrrrrr! :mad:	B.M. (505)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8