Here are a couple of quotes from the Herald which just couldn't be allowed to pass uncommented on:
John Key says:
"I do think the question is a bit ambiguous and could be read a number of different ways,"
and phil goff says:
"The question implies that if you vote `yes' that you're in favour of criminal sanctions being taken against reasonable parents - actually nobody believes that."
Well gentlemen, if that's your take on what is to me a fairly simple question, then I suggest you both go and see the the GG and hand in your resignations.
No not suggest, how about I DEMAND.
Because if you, who are responsible for creating legislation, find that question, misleading or ambiguous, or whatever, then you are obviously well below the intellectual level required to carry out your roles.
Also John says:
"There's only been the one now documented case and I'm satisfied that the law is working."
This statement is as misleading as any ever made by clark and whats more I think Key knows it.
The obvious retort is: "How many people have had the police on their doorstep, or been put through a CYFS investigation, or been left wondering whether they'll be charged and / or have their families split up, simply for doing what they believe is in the best interests of their families and could do so without fear of criminalisation before bradford's social engineering was legislated?
I'm sure there are more than a few but it'll take an OIA request to get the numbers. Might be worth a crack, but I bet I don't get an answer before the referendum
NZIER: water taxes will suck Otago & Canterbury dry
35 minutes ago