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
621531	2007-12-16 01:51:00	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.I disagree. I think that the management at Starship took it upon themselves not to get involved in politics or profit from the proceeds of a crime. If they had accepted the money, that would have been getting involved in politics.	Erayd (23)
621532	2007-12-16 01:58:00	Then read it again. It's relatively straightforward. Correct. Yup. 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. 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. Breaking laws is usually considered a crime. If this isn't your definition, then what is? 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. Yes - clearly you are not the only person in the country with flexible moral standards. 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. 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. 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. 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. You don’t comprehend do you Bletch. Let me clarify it for you. I don’t care about the political posturing. As far as I’m concerned the only person to ever enter parliament with honest intentions was Guy Fawkes. My ***** is that Starship poked its nose into politics and deprived the kids and medical teams of $158,000 they could have easily found good use for. Got it? :confused:	B.M. (505)
621533	2007-12-16 02:14:00	You don’t comprehend do you Bletch. Let me clarify it for you. I don’t care about the political posturing. As far as I’m concerned the only person to ever enter parliament with honest intentions was Guy Fawkes. My ***** is that Starship poked its nose into politics and deprived the kids and medical teams of $158,000 they could have easily found good use for. Got it? :confused:I understand your opinion completely - I just think it's wrong. By refusing to take a politically loaded windfall Starship did not deprive anyone. I'm not saying that they couldn't have put that money to good use - as indeed they could have - I'm simply saying that to do so would be extremely inappropriate. Let me offer you the following analogy: Assume you are a single mum with kids. You are reasonably poor, but by means of hard work and careful budgeting you manage to get by - you and your kids have a good diet, clothes, and a roof over their head. Your kids go to school - not the best school, but not the worst either, and as far as you can see they are getting a good education. You can always use more money, but you don't need it to survive. One day a politician comes along and offers you $500 if you're willing to publicly endorse their criminal activities. The money would certainly come in handy, but you don't need it. Would you accept? This case with Starship is no different to the above scenario. They get enough funding from the government and through fundraising and donations to do their job. That's not to say that they can't always use more money to improve things, but they also don't need it badly enough to sell their soul to every devil that comes knocking. Does this illustrate my point of view clearly? At the end of the day we may disagree, and that's life - not everyone shares the same opinion.	Erayd (23)
621534	2007-12-16 03:15:00	Mate, if the local pub gives you a shirt with Lion Red on it do you refuse to wear it because it may be giving the wrong message, or it was made by some under paid slave in China? In Peters’ case, he’s probably got more mileage out of them returning the money . Anyway, let me give you an analogy . I was in Aus a few months ago leaning on the Bar of the Ettamogah Pub . All of a sudden the place started to rock and I thought sheeeet an earthquake . Not so, it was 5000 Bikies, mostly on Harley’s, arriving for a beer . The noise of all those bikes and the way the ground throbbed was unbelievable . They apparently stretched 25km down the highway . The occasion was what I think was called “A Ride for Daniel” . (Daniel, as I understand it, was a young fellow who went missing from a Bus Stop a couple of years ago and they’re raising funds for a trust to try and find him) . Anyway each of these Bikies had fronted $15 to join the ride and the 4000 pillion pussies had fronted with $15 also . I would suggest that most of this money would have come from “The proceeds of crime” but the trust accepted it gratefully and the event was covered graciously by the Media . Now my question to you Bletch is “Should the Trust have taken the “Moral High Ground” and told them to stick their money, because it was probably the “proceeds of crime”? The highlight for me in this encounter was inspecting all the knee long beards and what can be accumulated in them over 40 years without a wash and also the traditional Bikie welcome given to about six carloads of cops and better still, the traditional Bikie farewell given them as they left minutes later . :D	B.M. (505)
621535	2007-12-16 03:43:00	No offense B.M, but your analogy makes no sense - why should we assume that the bikies/passengers are paying illegal money? There is a big difference between "I suspect your $15 is the result of criminal activity" and "I know your $158,000 is the result of criminal activity, as it has been proven to be so, and you are asking us to use it in an attempt to legitimise your crime in the eyes of the public." [Edit: I'm going to drop the argument now, it's clear that we have opposing points of view and any further debate would be pointless.]	Erayd (23)
621536	2007-12-16 04:13:00	I would suggest that most of this money would have come from “The proceeds of crime” but the trust accepted it gratefully and the event was covered graciously by the Media. Your now an idiot. Sorry, Buts some close minded bigoted bull**** spewed by someone who just spent a thread condoning breaking the law for headlines.	Metla (12)
621537	2007-12-16 04:15:00	Thread should have stopped in its tracks on post #19, It hits everything on the head perfectly. That aside, I spent 20 minutes trying to make a donation to the starship hospital, It repeatedly rejected my credit card, Perhaps because I own a loud Motorcycle, after all, My $50 must be the proceeds of crime.	Metla (12)
621538	2007-12-16 04:18:00	If I remember rightly, Starship Children's Hospital refused the donation as they considered that it wasn't given in the spirit of true philanthropy. And if I remember rightly, NZ First is challenging the ruling and the law about election spending Court - it's just that it has become clear that they will not have their case heard and have a judgment on the case before the general election next year. Also, I strongly suspect that the governance board of Starship Children's Hospital operates under a set of rules that governs what monies they can accept - and what they cannot. I think they've acted quite properly. They have a job to do and they've decided that $158,000 (which is less than a consultant specialist's annual salary) given as part of a political party's publicity campaign would detract more from getting their job done than it would help.	Deane F (8204)
621539	2007-12-16 04:36:00	Your now an idiot. Sorry, Buts some close minded bigoted bull**** spewed by someone who just spent a thread condoning breaking the law for headlines. What the hell are you on? Can't understand a word of that. :confused:	B.M. (505)
621540	2007-12-16 04:44:00	Thread should have stopped in its tracks on post #19, It hits everything on the head perfectly . That aside, I spent 20 minutes trying to make a donation to the starship hospital, It repeatedly rejected my credit card, Perhaps because I own a loud Motorcycle, after all, My $50 must be the proceeds of crime . I suppose it's my fault that your credit card's shot? Try paying what's owing on it . :lol: :lol: Loud motorbikes have got stuff all to do with it but the "Angels" wouldn't have a lot of legit money . Believe me, I know a couple . :lol: :lol:	B.M. (505)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8