Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Act List MP Unfit

hattip Lindsay Mitchell

According to the Sensible Sentencing Trust's latest illiterate press release, it's very own legal advisor should have his children (if he has any) taken away from him until he has been rendered 'alcohol free.'

Do you remember this fellow, the jerk who went out and got pissed at lunchtime and then proceeded to record a television current affairs interview? The guy who will 'never be asked back again?'







Well get this. His very own organisation, whose PR person would struggle even with basic NCEA English by the look of this effort -' ...imploring the public to report child abuse so it can be intervened with' - has issued an edict:

• Substance abusers must NOT be allowed to have unsupervised care of children until they have been PROVED to be drug/alcohol-free;

All of us at No Minister wish Mr Garrett well with his rehabilitation.

29 comments:

Inventory2 said...

Mr Rankin?

Anonymous said...

Lay off Adolf.

The enemy is not ACT it's Labour. What is it with you Nats that your MP's faeces doesn't smell, but everyone else's pongs to high heaven?

I could release some information on some National MP's that would make you shudder but I don't as we are supposed to be a team now.

Gooner

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Gooner, it's his idiot organisation I'm taking pot shots at.

adamsmith1922 said...

Whilst I do not agree with everything Adolf writes and I am equally sure he does not agree with everything I write, in this instance I am at one with him.

Garrett behaved abominably

ACT were rather foolish to put him on the list at 5, they must have had better candidates - are they beholden in some way to the SST.

I am no fan of the SST as at the end of the day they are at one end of the punishment spectrum whilst the Howard League is at the other end.

Whilst some people do need to be locked up, I do not think that the % of population we have locked up is anything to pride ourselves on.

Logic tells me that if you treat people badly, they will continue to be bad, firm and fair,not brutal would be my approach

I also favour the police actually enforcing laws

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Sorry IV. A momentary ideological burb, now corrected.

The Silent Majority said...

"it's his idiot organisation I'm taking pot shots at."

Thats not true. We all know you ARE taking pot shots at David Garrett. Are you one of those holier than thou purists who has never made a mistake in your life? You sound like one. And don't reply by telling me that anyone with a "past" should not stand for Parliament. That is boring old shit.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

TSM, kindly speak for yourself.

'We all know' is a device used by the collectivist weaklings from the left.

FAIRFACTS MEDIA said...

But Adolf, Mr Garrett is not a substance abuser.
He just turned up tiddly for a tv interview.
It seems you are taking a shot at the SST for its press release where you see an example of hypocrisy.
My reading of the release shows no hypocrisy, though it could be better written.

You need to hear Mr Garrett speak Adolf.
You will be quite illuminated and would no doubt nod in agreement.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

FFM, you just don't get it, do you!

One man's substance abuser is another mans 'just tiddly.'

The real issue here is 'who will decide whose kids will be taken away and on what grounds?

Where do you draw the line? I suggest to you that a person who turns up to a TV studio after having one or two too many has a problem. Perhaps he should have stuck to lemonade. Did he drive to the studio? I'll bet he did. Was he over the legal limit? I bet he was. Has he done this sort of thing before?

I don't want to upset Gooner but I've got to wonder (a)whether this chap was thoroughly vetted by the party and (b) what his next disastrous outing will be and what damage it will do to the Allies and their coalition. That's the personal issue I have with regard to his late addition to the list. I regret that he is looking far more like a liability than an asset. I think the party made a mistake but I hope he preforms well and proves me wrong. Somehow, I doubt it.

No I'm not in the slightest bit interested in hearing him speak. I've seen and heard enough already. Best Mr Hide keeps him well and truly locked down but you can bet the media will pursue him because they will smell blood. If he handles himself well over the next twelve months I will raise my hat and congratulate him.

FAIRFACTS MEDIA said...

Adolf, I agree he was very silly turning up tiddly/drunk for the tv interview.
He should be bollocked and I'm sure he was.
Remember, the interview happened before he became a MP.
But you seem a little obsessed in going for him a second time in a few days when he has done nothing new.
Even The Standard isn't gunning for Garrett like you are.

I am sure ACT HQ will be keeping a close eye on their number 5.
Are they Gooner?

Lucyna Maria said...

After reading the press release by the SST (which I originally thought meant the Sunday Star Times), I can see Adolf's point. It goes on about substance abuse and links alcohol with drug use. It also mentions being totally clear of drugs/alcohol before allowing children to go back to their parents.

I would totally agree had the press release only mentioned illegal drugs (including pot), but it assumes that the one drink a night person is a substance abuser.

If that's not the intention, maybe a clearer press release is in order.

Strange there's no mention of older women going after young boys to have as live in lovers either. I would have thought that would have been a huge red flag.

Psycho Milt said...

Ever get the feeling many people missed your point, Adolf?

Lucyna: you'd have agreed if it only mentioned illegal drugs? In other words, all those people who abuse their children every time they're pissed are OK, but someone who has a smoke now and then but has never touched his kids deserves to lose them?

dad4justice said...

Great to see the wacko Blair has set the moral standards of gummint 2 millimeters above the ground. Worms don't see much!

Told you a year ago psycho melt that your mental leader Miss Clap would fall.

Lucyna Maria said...

PM, touch a nerve did I?

Of course anyone who abuses their children deserves to lose them. Whether or not they are pissed, stoned or completely sober at the time.

However, the use of illegal drugs points to a potentially larger problem of the individuals involved.

Psycho Milt said...

...the use of illegal drugs points to a potentially larger problem of the individuals involved.

Why? Drugs are drugs. Which you prefer is exactly that - a matter of preference. Whether some busybodies in govt have declared your preference illegal or not is a legal question, not a logical or moral one.

It's not so much that you touched a nerve (I stick to the legal drugs these days) as that the drugs universally in use among the perps in pretty much all these cases are the legal ones. Singling out the illegal ones for attention seems singularly pointless under the circumstances.

Dad4Justice: if only you had a mental leader...

Lucyna Maria said...

PM, the use of illegal drugs shows poor judgement for one. If "drugs are drugs", why use the illegal ones?

Psycho Milt said...

Why smack your child if it's now illegal? Shows poor judgement, surely? Maybe a question better directed at Family Fist, in all fairness, but the principle's the same as with drugs - sometimes you simply should not bow to the busybodies who want to tell you they know best what choices you should make.

Anonymous said...

a doctor writes: he shows one of the characteristic signs of the heavy drinker - parotid hypertrophy.

Simon said...

substance abuser?

Adolf’s definition as good as anyones. Which I think is his point.

In Singapore Garrett would be taken off the streets and put in rehab.

Whatever you feel about Singapore Garrett wouldn’t last 5 minutes.

Lucyna Maria said...

PM, I believe we were talking about drugs and the differences between legal and illegal ones. I haven't heard your reasoning for preferring the illegal drugs over the legal if they are all the same anyway. But, I do not think they are the same and for that reason there are drugs that are rightly illegal and should never be made legal due to the harm done to society by their use, which goes beyond the "busy-body" argument. But that's my argument, not yours.

Psycho Milt said...

I think the fact that alcohol is so much worse in terms of social harm than some of the illegal drugs makes the question of why some drugs are illegal and some not a matter of politics rather than social harm. But that's just one mouthy git's opinion.

Lindsay said...

Lucyna, Alcohol does more quantifiable 'harm to society' than any other drug. By your definition of what should qualify, alcohol should be prohibited tomorrow.

Richard Goode said...

I haven't heard your reasoning for preferring the illegal drugs over the legal if they are all the same anyway.

They're not all the same, Lucyna. Most of the illegal drugs are better (and better for you) than alcohol and tobacco.

Heine said...

Adolf - it's going too far when you say that you're not attacking him, and then say you are not interested in hearing him speak as you're heard enough.

What is it, him or the organisation re is working for?

WAKE UP said...

Sigh...it all comes back to that phrase "drugs AND alcohol". It starts there.

Alcohol IS a bloody drug (bloody being the appropriate word) and as long as it retains its spuriously legal status (like nicotine), we'll never come to grips with the real problem, which is this - people behave badly, and they make excuses for it (or others make excuses for them).

(I remember years ago some guy got off a charge of smashing his car into a hotel front, precisely on the ground that he was drunk and wouldn't have done it if he was sober! Fortunately we've come a little way since then).

As for the recent event, I wouldn't care if the guy turned
up completely trolleyed if he had behaved well, was cogent, on topic and made sense - after all, we've all seen stone cold sober people say and do the most appalling, idiot things on tv, in real life, and in Parliament.

The question is: was he Wrong?, not Was he drunk?

You guys have been arguing about the wrong things here. The questions are:

* did what he said and did make sense, regardless of his condition?
(if they didn't, then that's the point, not his alcohol intake - look at what happened when alcohol loosened Mel Gibson's tongue)
* should alcohol be criminalised to give it parity with other drugs?
* or should other drugs be decriminalised to give them parity with alcohol?
* would we/the press/the public have had a different attitude to him if he'd been stoned instead of drunk?

"in vino veritas" and all that :)

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Heine, go away until you can learn to read. I did not say I was not attacking him. I happen to think he is, for many reasons, a substandard candidate. What I did say or imply, in comments, was that the organization he represents appears to be lacking in (a) competence and (b) any semblance of common sense. The whole point of the post, which all the frother's have missed, is that their silly recommendation would have resulted in Garrett having his kids taken away from him, along with thousands of other NZers.

Like Milt said, many people just don't seem to understand any message which requires intelligence beyond the occasional grunt and fart.

BTW, if I see anyone in the National Party who I think is not up to it, I'll let you know. I suspect the Gnats might have checked out a few things more thoroughly.

Dave Mann said...

Adolf, while I often disagree with you, I do enjoy your posts, and in this case I think you are spot on - as is the anonymous doctor with his observation of parotid hypertrophy.

When I saw the pic I thought "Oh no, old Adolf has found a photo of one of those pissed up tits-and-bums pommie comedians from the '70s!" - but it would be unfair to damn a man for his appearance alone.... so maybe I am being too harsh. Tempting, though.... lol

If, under any circumstances at all, this man has recently fronted up to a media interview while under the influence, then he should not be allowed anywhere near public office by any party which values its reputation. This is not so much a 'moral' judgement as one of pure common sense, I would have thought.

Anonymous said...

Do we know what has happened to david garrett since the story came out?
How has ACT responded?

pdq

WAKE UP said...

DAVE MANN, quoting you:
"If, under any circumstances at all, this man has recently fronted up to a media interview while under the influence, then he should not be allowed anywhere near public office by any party which values its reputation. This is not so much a 'moral' judgement as one of pure common sense, I would have thought. "

So your concern is for the party. Oh that's all right then. In which case, why don't you might your own damn business and let the party take care of itself?

Didn't we just get rid of the last government because of its excessive love of similar moralistic pontifications?