https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/pm-christopher-luxon-responds-to-mike-king-mental-health-alcohol-claims/AADID2CENNEILOHQMI3YYQV5WI/
Just because Mike King expresses views that some would find offensive
does not mean that the Government should respond with funding cuts.
Labour leader Hipkins can certainly express opposition to what King
said but calling for funding cuts is over the top. It seems he
subscribes to the notion that those who express opinions that are
different to his need to be punished for that.
On Fri, 01 Nov 2024 12:52:38 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>And a more complete history of the relationships between Mike King and government, and
wrote:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/pm-christopher-luxon-responds-to-mike-king-mental-health-alcohol-claims/AADID2CENNEILOHQMI3YYQV5WI/
Just because Mike King expresses views that some would find offensive
does not mean that the Government should respond with funding cuts.
Labour leader Hipkins can certainly express opposition to what King
said but calling for funding cuts is over the top. It seems he
subscribes to the notion that those who express opinions that are
different to his need to be punished for that.
Certainly Mike King delivered the endorsements expected from him, why
would he not expect support in turn from NZ First and now National? : >https://www.1news.co.nz/2020/09/14/nz-first-pledges-10m-to-mike-kings-mental-health-initiative-gumboot-friday-if-elected/
and for a different perspective, see: >https://thestandard.org.nz/whats-up-with-matt-doocey-mike-king-the-24mn/
On Fri, 01 Nov 2024 15:38:25 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>Your sarcsam is childish and entirely out of place.
wrote:
On Fri, 01 Nov 2024 12:52:38 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:And a more complete history of the relationships between Mike King and >government, and
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/pm-christopher-luxon-responds-to-mike-king-mental-health-alcohol-claims/AADID2CENNEILOHQMI3YYQV5WI/
Just because Mike King expresses views that some would find offensive >>>does not mean that the Government should respond with funding cuts. >>>Labour leader Hipkins can certainly express opposition to what King
said but calling for funding cuts is over the top. It seems he >>>subscribes to the notion that those who express opinions that are >>>different to his need to be punished for that.
Certainly Mike King delivered the endorsements expected from him, why
would he not expect support in turn from NZ First and now National? : >>https://www.1news.co.nz/2020/09/14/nz-first-pledges-10m-to-mike-kings-mental-health-initiative-gumboot-friday-if-elected/
and for a different perspective, see: >>https://thestandard.org.nz/whats-up-with-matt-doocey-mike-king-the-24mn/
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018962138/nz-drug-foundation-responds-to-mike-king-comments-on-alcohol
expressing concern by those that work with drugs and alcohol addiction
So Mike King is the Prime Ministers chosen expert in mental health -
having downsized other public sector spending in that area. . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Nov 2024 15:38:25 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:Your sarcsam is childish and entirely out of place.
On Fri, 01 Nov 2024 12:52:38 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:expressing concern by those that work with drugs and alcohol addiction
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/pm-christopher-luxon-responds-to-mike-king-mental-health-alcohol-claims/AADID2CENNEILOHQMI3YYQV5WI/
Just because Mike King expresses views that some would find offensive >>>>does not mean that the Government should respond with funding cuts. >>>>Labour leader Hipkins can certainly express opposition to what King >>>>said but calling for funding cuts is over the top. It seems he >>>>subscribes to the notion that those who express opinions that are >>>>different to his need to be punished for that.
Certainly Mike King delivered the endorsements expected from him, why >>>would he not expect support in turn from NZ First and now National? : >>>https://www.1news.co.nz/2020/09/14/nz-first-pledges-10m-to-mike-kings-mental-health-initiative-gumboot-friday-if-elected/
and for a different perspective, see: >>>https://thestandard.org.nz/whats-up-with-matt-doocey-mike-king-the-24mn/ >>And a more complete history of the relationships between Mike King and >>government, and
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018962138/nz-drug-foundation-responds-to-mike-king-comments-on-alcohol
So Mike King is the Prime Ministers chosen expert in mental health -
having downsized other public sector spending in that area. . . .
Mike King is doing a fantastic job, he may have spoken when he was stressed or >something but people like you who never do what he does and who don't care >about the people he helps are pathetic creatures and deserve zero respect.
On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:10:35 -0000 (UTC), TonyHave we seen any evidence as to whether he has delivered? $24 million
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Nov 2024 15:38:25 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:Your sarcsam is childish and entirely out of place.
On Fri, 01 Nov 2024 12:52:38 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:expressing concern by those that work with drugs and alcohol addiction
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/pm-christopher-luxon-responds-to-mike-king-mental-health-alcohol-claims/AADID2CENNEILOHQMI3YYQV5WI/
Just because Mike King expresses views that some would find offensive >>>>>does not mean that the Government should respond with funding cuts. >>>>>Labour leader Hipkins can certainly express opposition to what King >>>>>said but calling for funding cuts is over the top. It seems he >>>>>subscribes to the notion that those who express opinions that are >>>>>different to his need to be punished for that.
Certainly Mike King delivered the endorsements expected from him, why >>>>would he not expect support in turn from NZ First and now National? : >>>>https://www.1news.co.nz/2020/09/14/nz-first-pledges-10m-to-mike-kings-mental-health-initiative-gumboot-friday-if-elected/
and for a different perspective, see: >>>>https://thestandard.org.nz/whats-up-with-matt-doocey-mike-king-the-24mn/ >>>And a more complete history of the relationships between Mike King and >>>government, and
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018962138/nz-drug-foundation-responds-to-mike-king-comments-on-alcohol
So Mike King is the Prime Ministers chosen expert in mental health - >>>having downsized other public sector spending in that area. . . .
Mike King is doing a fantastic job, he may have spoken when he was stressed or
something but people like you who never do what he does and who don't care >>about the people he helps are pathetic creatures and deserve zero respect.
Rich completely missed my point as he does when Hipkins delivers a
political blunder. Hipkins is wrong to propose funding cuts to an >organisation headed by someone who makes a comment that he objects to
but otherwise delivers on what was funded.
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:10:35 -0000 (UTC), TonyExactly. The funding should continue as long as it is achieving its purpose, >all else is the worst sort of poltics.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Rich completely missed my point as he does when Hipkins delivers a >>political blunder. Hipkins is wrong to propose funding cuts to an >>organisation headed by someone who makes a comment that he objects to
On Fri, 01 Nov 2024 15:38:25 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:Your sarcsam is childish and entirely out of place.
On Fri, 01 Nov 2024 12:52:38 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:expressing concern by those that work with drugs and alcohol addiction
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/pm-christopher-luxon-responds-to-mike-king-mental-health-alcohol-claims/AADID2CENNEILOHQMI3YYQV5WI/
Just because Mike King expresses views that some would find offensive >>>>>>does not mean that the Government should respond with funding cuts. >>>>>>Labour leader Hipkins can certainly express opposition to what King >>>>>>said but calling for funding cuts is over the top. It seems he >>>>>>subscribes to the notion that those who express opinions that are >>>>>>different to his need to be punished for that.
Certainly Mike King delivered the endorsements expected from him, why >>>>>would he not expect support in turn from NZ First and now National? : >>>>>https://www.1news.co.nz/2020/09/14/nz-first-pledges-10m-to-mike-kings-mental-health-initiative-gumboot-friday-if-elected/
and for a different perspective, see: >>>>>https://thestandard.org.nz/whats-up-with-matt-doocey-mike-king-the-24mn/ >>>>And a more complete history of the relationships between Mike King and >>>>government, and
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018962138/nz-drug-foundation-responds-to-mike-king-comments-on-alcohol
So Mike King is the Prime Ministers chosen expert in mental health - >>>>having downsized other public sector spending in that area. . . .
Mike King is doing a fantastic job, he may have spoken when he was stressed >>>or
something but people like you who never do what he does and who don't care >>>about the people he helps are pathetic creatures and deserve zero respect. >>
but otherwise delivers on what was funded.
On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:10:35 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Nov 2024 15:38:25 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:Your sarcsam is childish and entirely out of place.
On Fri, 01 Nov 2024 12:52:38 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:expressing concern by those that work with drugs and alcohol addiction
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/pm-christopher-luxon-responds-to-mike-king-mental-health-alcohol-claims/AADID2CENNEILOHQMI3YYQV5WI/
Just because Mike King expresses views that some would find offensive >>>>>does not mean that the Government should respond with funding cuts. >>>>>Labour leader Hipkins can certainly express opposition to what King >>>>>said but calling for funding cuts is over the top. It seems he >>>>>subscribes to the notion that those who express opinions that are >>>>>different to his need to be punished for that.
Certainly Mike King delivered the endorsements expected from him, why >>>>would he not expect support in turn from NZ First and now National? : >>>>https://www.1news.co.nz/2020/09/14/nz-first-pledges-10m-to-mike-kings-mental-health-initiative-gumboot-friday-if-elected/
and for a different perspective, see: >>>>https://thestandard.org.nz/whats-up-with-matt-doocey-mike-king-the-24mn/ >>>And a more complete history of the relationships between Mike King and >>>government, and
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018962138/nz-drug-foundation-responds-to-mike-king-comments-on-alcohol
So Mike King is the Prime Ministers chosen expert in mental health - >>>having downsized other public sector spending in that area. . . .
Mike King is doing a fantastic job, he may have spoken when he was stressed >>or
something but people like you who never do what he does and who don't care >>about the people he helps are pathetic creatures and deserve zero respect.
Rich completely missed my point as he does when Hipkins delivers a
political blunder. Hipkins is wrong to propose funding cuts to an >organisation headed by someone who makes a comment that he objects to
but otherwise delivers on what was funded.
On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 07:48:01 -0000 (UTC), TonySo provide some evidence of that or go to hell you nasty little uncaring prick. You have never done anything for your community in your life. You don't care about the people Mike King helps. you are all politics and hate. Mike King is ten times the man you are, he cares, you don't - Marxist sociopaths like you are incapable of caring.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:10:35 -0000 (UTC), TonyExactly. The funding should continue as long as it is achieving its purpose, >>all else is the worst sort of poltics.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Rich completely missed my point as he does when Hipkins delivers a >>>political blunder. Hipkins is wrong to propose funding cuts to an >>>organisation headed by someone who makes a comment that he objects to
On Fri, 01 Nov 2024 15:38:25 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:Your sarcsam is childish and entirely out of place.
On Fri, 01 Nov 2024 12:52:38 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:expressing concern by those that work with drugs and alcohol addiction >>>>>
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/pm-christopher-luxon-responds-to-mike-king-mental-health-alcohol-claims/AADID2CENNEILOHQMI3YYQV5WI/
Just because Mike King expresses views that some would find offensive >>>>>>>does not mean that the Government should respond with funding cuts. >>>>>>>Labour leader Hipkins can certainly express opposition to what King >>>>>>>said but calling for funding cuts is over the top. It seems he >>>>>>>subscribes to the notion that those who express opinions that are >>>>>>>different to his need to be punished for that.
Certainly Mike King delivered the endorsements expected from him, why >>>>>>would he not expect support in turn from NZ First and now National? : >>>>>>https://www.1news.co.nz/2020/09/14/nz-first-pledges-10m-to-mike-kings-mental-health-initiative-gumboot-friday-if-elected/
and for a different perspective, see: >>>>>>https://thestandard.org.nz/whats-up-with-matt-doocey-mike-king-the-24mn/ >>>>>And a more complete history of the relationships between Mike King and >>>>>government, and
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018962138/nz-drug-foundation-responds-to-mike-king-comments-on-alcohol
So Mike King is the Prime Ministers chosen expert in mental health - >>>>>having downsized other public sector spending in that area. . . .
Mike King is doing a fantastic job, he may have spoken when he was stressed >>>>or
something but people like you who never do what he does and who don't care >>>>about the people he helps are pathetic creatures and deserve zero respect. >>>
but otherwise delivers on what was funded.
So how long should the public sector wait to see if it is achieving
any other purpose than political support for Winston Peters and
Christopher Luxon?
On Fri, 01 Nov 2024 20:06:32 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:10:35 -0000 (UTC), TonyHave we seen any evidence as to whether he has delivered? $24 million
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Rich completely missed my point as he does when Hipkins delivers a >>political blunder. Hipkins is wrong to propose funding cuts to an >>organisation headed by someone who makes a comment that he objects to
On Fri, 01 Nov 2024 15:38:25 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:Your sarcsam is childish and entirely out of place.
On Fri, 01 Nov 2024 12:52:38 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:expressing concern by those that work with drugs and alcohol addiction
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/pm-christopher-luxon-responds-to-mike-king-mental-health-alcohol-claims/AADID2CENNEILOHQMI3YYQV5WI/
Just because Mike King expresses views that some would find offensive >>>>>>does not mean that the Government should respond with funding cuts. >>>>>>Labour leader Hipkins can certainly express opposition to what King >>>>>>said but calling for funding cuts is over the top. It seems he >>>>>>subscribes to the notion that those who express opinions that are >>>>>>different to his need to be punished for that.
Certainly Mike King delivered the endorsements expected from him, why >>>>>would he not expect support in turn from NZ First and now National? : >>>>>https://www.1news.co.nz/2020/09/14/nz-first-pledges-10m-to-mike-kings-mental-health-initiative-gumboot-friday-if-elected/
and for a different perspective, see: >>>>>https://thestandard.org.nz/whats-up-with-matt-doocey-mike-king-the-24mn/ >>>>And a more complete history of the relationships between Mike King and >>>>government, and
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018962138/nz-drug-foundation-responds-to-mike-king-comments-on-alcohol
So Mike King is the Prime Ministers chosen expert in mental health - >>>>having downsized other public sector spending in that area. . . .
Mike King is doing a fantastic job, he may have spoken when he was stressed or
something but people like you who never do what he does and who don't care >>>about the people he helps are pathetic creatures and deserve zero respect. >>
but otherwise delivers on what was funded.
for one organisation is a lot of money . . .Was due process followed
- or was it just a return for favours received . . .?
On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 07:48:01 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:10:35 -0000 (UTC), TonyExactly. The funding should continue as long as it is achieving its purpose, >>all else is the worst sort of poltics.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Rich completely missed my point as he does when Hipkins delivers a >>>political blunder. Hipkins is wrong to propose funding cuts to an >>>organisation headed by someone who makes a comment that he objects to
On Fri, 01 Nov 2024 15:38:25 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:Your sarcsam is childish and entirely out of place.
On Fri, 01 Nov 2024 12:52:38 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:expressing concern by those that work with drugs and alcohol addiction >>>>>
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/pm-christopher-luxon-responds-to-mike-king-mental-health-alcohol-claims/AADID2CENNEILOHQMI3YYQV5WI/
Just because Mike King expresses views that some would find offensive >>>>>>>does not mean that the Government should respond with funding cuts. >>>>>>>Labour leader Hipkins can certainly express opposition to what King >>>>>>>said but calling for funding cuts is over the top. It seems he >>>>>>>subscribes to the notion that those who express opinions that are >>>>>>>different to his need to be punished for that.
Certainly Mike King delivered the endorsements expected from him, why >>>>>>would he not expect support in turn from NZ First and now National? : >>>>>>https://www.1news.co.nz/2020/09/14/nz-first-pledges-10m-to-mike-kings-mental-health-initiative-gumboot-friday-if-elected/
and for a different perspective, see: >>>>>>https://thestandard.org.nz/whats-up-with-matt-doocey-mike-king-the-24mn/ >>>>>And a more complete history of the relationships between Mike King and >>>>>government, and
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018962138/nz-drug-foundation-responds-to-mike-king-comments-on-alcohol
So Mike King is the Prime Ministers chosen expert in mental health - >>>>>having downsized other public sector spending in that area. . . .
Mike King is doing a fantastic job, he may have spoken when he was stressed >>>>or
something but people like you who never do what he does and who don't care >>>>about the people he helps are pathetic creatures and deserve zero respect. >>>
but otherwise delivers on what was funded.
So how long should the public sector wait to see if it is achieving
any other purpose than political support for Winston Peters and
Christopher Luxon?
On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:10:35 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Nov 2024 15:38:25 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:Your sarcsam is childish and entirely out of place.
On Fri, 01 Nov 2024 12:52:38 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:expressing concern by those that work with drugs and alcohol addiction
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/pm-christopher-luxon-responds-to-mike-king-mental-health-alcohol-claims/AADID2CENNEILOHQMI3YYQV5WI/
Just because Mike King expresses views that some would find offensive >>>>>does not mean that the Government should respond with funding cuts. >>>>>Labour leader Hipkins can certainly express opposition to what King >>>>>said but calling for funding cuts is over the top. It seems he >>>>>subscribes to the notion that those who express opinions that are >>>>>different to his need to be punished for that.
Certainly Mike King delivered the endorsements expected from him, why >>>>would he not expect support in turn from NZ First and now National? : >>>>https://www.1news.co.nz/2020/09/14/nz-first-pledges-10m-to-mike-kings-mental-health-initiative-gumboot-friday-if-elected/
and for a different perspective, see: >>>>https://thestandard.org.nz/whats-up-with-matt-doocey-mike-king-the-24mn/ >>>And a more complete history of the relationships between Mike King and >>>government, and
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018962138/nz-drug-foundation-responds-to-mike-king-comments-on-alcohol
So Mike King is the Prime Ministers chosen expert in mental health - >>>having downsized other public sector spending in that area. . . .
Mike King is doing a fantastic job, he may have spoken when he was stressed or
something but people like you who never do what he does and who don't care >>about the people he helps are pathetic creatures and deserve zero respect.
Rich completely missed my point as he does when Hipkins delivers a
political blunder. Hipkins is wrong to propose funding cuts to an organisation headed by someone who makes a comment that he objects to
but otherwise delivers on what was funded.
On 2024-11-01, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:10:35 -0000 (UTC), TonyI found it rather interesting that Hipkins, a leader from the left side of >the tracks, suggests that funding is cut to an organisation who is trying to >help the less well off. This is usually what the Labour Goverments have
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Rich completely missed my point as he does when Hipkins delivers a
On Fri, 01 Nov 2024 15:38:25 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:Your sarcsam is childish and entirely out of place.
On Fri, 01 Nov 2024 12:52:38 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:expressing concern by those that work with drugs and alcohol addiction
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/pm-christopher-luxon-responds-to-mike-king-mental-health-alcohol-claims/AADID2CENNEILOHQMI3YYQV5WI/
Just because Mike King expresses views that some would find offensive >>>>>>does not mean that the Government should respond with funding cuts. >>>>>>Labour leader Hipkins can certainly express opposition to what King >>>>>>said but calling for funding cuts is over the top. It seems he >>>>>>subscribes to the notion that those who express opinions that are >>>>>>different to his need to be punished for that.
Certainly Mike King delivered the endorsements expected from him, why >>>>>would he not expect support in turn from NZ First and now National? : >>>>>https://www.1news.co.nz/2020/09/14/nz-first-pledges-10m-to-mike-kings-mental-health-initiative-gumboot-friday-if-elected/
and for a different perspective, see: >>>>>https://thestandard.org.nz/whats-up-with-matt-doocey-mike-king-the-24mn/ >>>>And a more complete history of the relationships between Mike King and >>>>government, and
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018962138/nz-drug-foundation-responds-to-mike-king-comments-on-alcohol
So Mike King is the Prime Ministers chosen expert in mental health - >>>>having downsized other public sector spending in that area. . . .
Mike King is doing a fantastic job, he may have spoken when he was stressed or
something but people like you who never do what he does and who don't care >>>about the people he helps are pathetic creatures and deserve zero respect. >>
political blunder. Hipkins is wrong to propose funding cuts to an
organisation headed by someone who makes a comment that he objects to
but otherwise delivers on what was funded.
stood for.
On a wider note, there are some things like health which should be >bi-partisan as (good) health everyone is interested in.
On 1 Nov 2024 23:27:10 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-11-01, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:10:35 -0000 (UTC), TonyI found it rather interesting that Hipkins, a leader from the left side of >>the tracks, suggests that funding is cut to an organisation who is trying to >>help the less well off. This is usually what the Labour Goverments have >>stood for.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Rich completely missed my point as he does when Hipkins delivers a
On Fri, 01 Nov 2024 15:38:25 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:Your sarcsam is childish and entirely out of place.
On Fri, 01 Nov 2024 12:52:38 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:expressing concern by those that work with drugs and alcohol addiction >>>>>
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/pm-christopher-luxon-responds-to-mike-king-mental-health-alcohol-claims/AADID2CENNEILOHQMI3YYQV5WI/
Just because Mike King expresses views that some would find offensive >>>>>>>does not mean that the Government should respond with funding cuts. >>>>>>>Labour leader Hipkins can certainly express opposition to what King >>>>>>>said but calling for funding cuts is over the top. It seems he >>>>>>>subscribes to the notion that those who express opinions that are >>>>>>>different to his need to be punished for that.
Certainly Mike King delivered the endorsements expected from him, why >>>>>>would he not expect support in turn from NZ First and now National? : >>>>>>https://www.1news.co.nz/2020/09/14/nz-first-pledges-10m-to-mike-kings-mental-health-initiative-gumboot-friday-if-elected/
and for a different perspective, see: >>>>>>https://thestandard.org.nz/whats-up-with-matt-doocey-mike-king-the-24mn/ >>>>>And a more complete history of the relationships between Mike King and >>>>>government, and
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018962138/nz-drug-foundation-responds-to-mike-king-comments-on-alcohol
So Mike King is the Prime Ministers chosen expert in mental health - >>>>>having downsized other public sector spending in that area. . . .
Mike King is doing a fantastic job, he may have spoken when he was stressed or
something but people like you who never do what he does and who don't care >>>>about the people he helps are pathetic creatures and deserve zero respect. >>>
political blunder. Hipkins is wrong to propose funding cuts to an
organisation headed by someone who makes a comment that he objects to
but otherwise delivers on what was funded.
On a wider note, there are some things like health which should be >>bi-partisan as (good) health everyone is interested in.
Which does not address the issue - Crash said: ". . . an organisation
who is trying to help the less well off."
Nobody has been able to
demonstrate that; I hope it is true, but whether it is nobody is able
to demonstrate, and $24 million is a lot of money . . .
On Sat, 02 Nov 2024 13:47:55 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 1 Nov 2024 23:27:10 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-11-01, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:10:35 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:I found it rather interesting that Hipkins, a leader from the left side of >>>the tracks, suggests that funding is cut to an organisation who is trying to >>>help the less well off. This is usually what the Labour Goverments have >>>stood for.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Rich completely missed my point as he does when Hipkins delivers a
On Fri, 01 Nov 2024 15:38:25 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:Mike King is doing a fantastic job, he may have spoken when he was >>>>>stressed or
On Fri, 01 Nov 2024 12:52:38 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:expressing concern by those that work with drugs and alcohol addiction >>>>>>
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/pm-christopher-luxon-responds-to-mike-king-mental-health-alcohol-claims/AADID2CENNEILOHQMI3YYQV5WI/
Just because Mike King expresses views that some would find offensive >>>>>>>>does not mean that the Government should respond with funding cuts. >>>>>>>>Labour leader Hipkins can certainly express opposition to what King >>>>>>>>said but calling for funding cuts is over the top. It seems he >>>>>>>>subscribes to the notion that those who express opinions that are >>>>>>>>different to his need to be punished for that.
Certainly Mike King delivered the endorsements expected from him, why >>>>>>>would he not expect support in turn from NZ First and now National? : >>>>>>>https://www.1news.co.nz/2020/09/14/nz-first-pledges-10m-to-mike-kings-mental-health-initiative-gumboot-friday-if-elected/
and for a different perspective, see: >>>>>>>https://thestandard.org.nz/whats-up-with-matt-doocey-mike-king-the-24mn/ >>>>>>And a more complete history of the relationships between Mike King and >>>>>>government, and
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018962138/nz-drug-foundation-responds-to-mike-king-comments-on-alcohol
So Mike King is the Prime Ministers chosen expert in mental health - >>>>>>having downsized other public sector spending in that area. . . . >>>>>Your sarcsam is childish and entirely out of place.
something but people like you who never do what he does and who don't care >>>>>about the people he helps are pathetic creatures and deserve zero respect. >>>>
political blunder. Hipkins is wrong to propose funding cuts to an
organisation headed by someone who makes a comment that he objects to
but otherwise delivers on what was funded.
On a wider note, there are some things like health which should be >>>bi-partisan as (good) health everyone is interested in.
Which does not address the issue - Crash said: ". . . an organisation
who is trying to help the less well off."
Not true. That was Gordon.
Nobody has been able to
demonstrate that; I hope it is true, but whether it is nobody is able
to demonstrate, and $24 million is a lot of money . . .
Rich can you cite anything to suggest "I am Hope" is not delivering on
what it is funded to do?
On Sat, 02 Nov 2024 13:47:55 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 1 Nov 2024 23:27:10 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-11-01, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:10:35 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:I found it rather interesting that Hipkins, a leader from the left side of >>>the tracks, suggests that funding is cut to an organisation who is trying to >>>help the less well off. This is usually what the Labour Goverments have >>>stood for.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Rich completely missed my point as he does when Hipkins delivers a
On Fri, 01 Nov 2024 15:38:25 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:Mike King is doing a fantastic job, he may have spoken when he was stressed or
On Fri, 01 Nov 2024 12:52:38 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:expressing concern by those that work with drugs and alcohol addiction >>>>>>
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/pm-christopher-luxon-responds-to-mike-king-mental-health-alcohol-claims/AADID2CENNEILOHQMI3YYQV5WI/
Just because Mike King expresses views that some would find offensive >>>>>>>>does not mean that the Government should respond with funding cuts. >>>>>>>>Labour leader Hipkins can certainly express opposition to what King >>>>>>>>said but calling for funding cuts is over the top. It seems he >>>>>>>>subscribes to the notion that those who express opinions that are >>>>>>>>different to his need to be punished for that.
Certainly Mike King delivered the endorsements expected from him, why >>>>>>>would he not expect support in turn from NZ First and now National? : >>>>>>>https://www.1news.co.nz/2020/09/14/nz-first-pledges-10m-to-mike-kings-mental-health-initiative-gumboot-friday-if-elected/
and for a different perspective, see: >>>>>>>https://thestandard.org.nz/whats-up-with-matt-doocey-mike-king-the-24mn/ >>>>>>And a more complete history of the relationships between Mike King and >>>>>>government, and
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018962138/nz-drug-foundation-responds-to-mike-king-comments-on-alcohol
So Mike King is the Prime Ministers chosen expert in mental health - >>>>>>having downsized other public sector spending in that area. . . . >>>>>Your sarcsam is childish and entirely out of place.
something but people like you who never do what he does and who don't care >>>>>about the people he helps are pathetic creatures and deserve zero respect. >>>>
political blunder. Hipkins is wrong to propose funding cuts to an
organisation headed by someone who makes a comment that he objects to
but otherwise delivers on what was funded.
On a wider note, there are some things like health which should be >>>bi-partisan as (good) health everyone is interested in.
Which does not address the issue - Crash said: ". . . an organisation
who is trying to help the less well off."
Not true. That was Gordon.
Nobody has been able to
demonstrate that; I hope it is true, but whether it is nobody is able
to demonstrate, and $24 million is a lot of money . . .
Rich can you cite anything to suggest "I am Hope" is not delivering on
what it is funded to do?
On Sat, 02 Nov 2024 14:19:22 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 02 Nov 2024 13:47:55 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On 1 Nov 2024 23:27:10 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-11-01, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:10:35 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:I found it rather interesting that Hipkins, a leader from the left side of >>>>the tracks, suggests that funding is cut to an organisation who is trying to
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Nov 2024 15:38:25 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:Mike King is doing a fantastic job, he may have spoken when he was stressed or
On Fri, 01 Nov 2024 12:52:38 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>wrote:And a more complete history of the relationships between Mike King and >>>>>>>government, and
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/pm-christopher-luxon-responds-to-mike-king-mental-health-alcohol-claims/AADID2CENNEILOHQMI3YYQV5WI/
Just because Mike King expresses views that some would find offensive >>>>>>>>>does not mean that the Government should respond with funding cuts. >>>>>>>>>Labour leader Hipkins can certainly express opposition to what King >>>>>>>>>said but calling for funding cuts is over the top. It seems he >>>>>>>>>subscribes to the notion that those who express opinions that are >>>>>>>>>different to his need to be punished for that.
Certainly Mike King delivered the endorsements expected from him, why >>>>>>>>would he not expect support in turn from NZ First and now National? : >>>>>>>>https://www.1news.co.nz/2020/09/14/nz-first-pledges-10m-to-mike-kings-mental-health-initiative-gumboot-friday-if-elected/
and for a different perspective, see: >>>>>>>>https://thestandard.org.nz/whats-up-with-matt-doocey-mike-king-the-24mn/
expressing concern by those that work with drugs and alcohol addiction >>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018962138/nz-drug-foundation-responds-to-mike-king-comments-on-alcohol
So Mike King is the Prime Ministers chosen expert in mental health - >>>>>>>having downsized other public sector spending in that area. . . . >>>>>>Your sarcsam is childish and entirely out of place.
something but people like you who never do what he does and who don't care
about the people he helps are pathetic creatures and deserve zero respect.
Rich completely missed my point as he does when Hipkins delivers a
political blunder. Hipkins is wrong to propose funding cuts to an
organisation headed by someone who makes a comment that he objects to >>>>> but otherwise delivers on what was funded.
help the less well off. This is usually what the Labour Goverments have >>>>stood for.
On a wider note, there are some things like health which should be >>>>bi-partisan as (good) health everyone is interested in.
Which does not address the issue - Crash said: ". . . an organisation
who is trying to help the less well off."
Not true. That was Gordon.
Nobody has been able to
demonstrate that; I hope it is true, but whether it is nobody is able
to demonstrate, and $24 million is a lot of money . . .
Rich can you cite anything to suggest "I am Hope" is not delivering on
what it is funded to do?
Thanks Crash, that was just the point I was making, it seems nobody
can find anything to suggest that he is or is not delivering on
whatever it was his charity is funded to do.
See also: >https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/31-10-2024/the-king-and-his-god-complex >including the comments (again both for and against, and the Opinion
article that follows: >https://thespinoff.co.nz/media/02-11-2024/the-weekend-when-the-tide-turns
and >https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/31-10-2024/the-bleak-reality-of-working-in-mental-health-when-you-dont-have-mike-kings-funding
and >https://thespinoff.co.nz/the-bulletin/01-11-2024/the-mike-king-backlash-has-quickly-turned-political-will-it-change-anything
When the auditor-general has criticised the way the Charity was
funded, (see: >https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/in-depth/530265/unusual-and-inconsistent-process-to-justify-24m-gumboot-friday-contract-auditor-general-finds
)
should we not be careful and even a little suspicious?
On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 07:48:01 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:10:35 -0000 (UTC), TonyExactly. The funding should continue as long as it is achieving its purpose, >>all else is the worst sort of poltics.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Rich completely missed my point as he does when Hipkins delivers a >>>political blunder. Hipkins is wrong to propose funding cuts to an >>>organisation headed by someone who makes a comment that he objects to
On Fri, 01 Nov 2024 15:38:25 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:Your sarcsam is childish and entirely out of place.
On Fri, 01 Nov 2024 12:52:38 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:expressing concern by those that work with drugs and alcohol addiction >>>>>
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/pm-christopher-luxon-responds-to-mike-king-mental-health-alcohol-claims/AADID2CENNEILOHQMI3YYQV5WI/
Just because Mike King expresses views that some would find offensive >>>>>>>does not mean that the Government should respond with funding cuts. >>>>>>>Labour leader Hipkins can certainly express opposition to what King >>>>>>>said but calling for funding cuts is over the top. It seems he >>>>>>>subscribes to the notion that those who express opinions that are >>>>>>>different to his need to be punished for that.
Certainly Mike King delivered the endorsements expected from him, why >>>>>>would he not expect support in turn from NZ First and now National? : >>>>>>https://www.1news.co.nz/2020/09/14/nz-first-pledges-10m-to-mike-kings-mental-health-initiative-gumboot-friday-if-elected/
and for a different perspective, see: >>>>>>https://thestandard.org.nz/whats-up-with-matt-doocey-mike-king-the-24mn/ >>>>>And a more complete history of the relationships between Mike King and >>>>>government, and
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018962138/nz-drug-foundation-responds-to-mike-king-comments-on-alcohol
So Mike King is the Prime Ministers chosen expert in mental health - >>>>>having downsized other public sector spending in that area. . . .
Mike King is doing a fantastic job, he may have spoken when he was stressed >>>>or
something but people like you who never do what he does and who don't care >>>>about the people he helps are pathetic creatures and deserve zero respect. >>>
but otherwise delivers on what was funded.
So how long should the public sector wait to see if it is achieving
any other purpose than political support for Winston Peters and
Christopher Luxon?
On 2024-11-01, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 07:48:01 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:10:35 -0000 (UTC), TonyExactly. The funding should continue as long as it is achieving its purpose, >>>all else is the worst sort of poltics.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Rich completely missed my point as he does when Hipkins delivers a >>>>political blunder. Hipkins is wrong to propose funding cuts to an >>>>organisation headed by someone who makes a comment that he objects to >>>>but otherwise delivers on what was funded.
On Fri, 01 Nov 2024 15:38:25 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:Mike King is doing a fantastic job, he may have spoken when he was stressed
On Fri, 01 Nov 2024 12:52:38 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:expressing concern by those that work with drugs and alcohol addiction >>>>>>
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/pm-christopher-luxon-responds-to-mike-king-mental-health-alcohol-claims/AADID2CENNEILOHQMI3YYQV5WI/
Just because Mike King expresses views that some would find offensive >>>>>>>>does not mean that the Government should respond with funding cuts. >>>>>>>>Labour leader Hipkins can certainly express opposition to what King >>>>>>>>said but calling for funding cuts is over the top. It seems he >>>>>>>>subscribes to the notion that those who express opinions that are >>>>>>>>different to his need to be punished for that.
Certainly Mike King delivered the endorsements expected from him, why >>>>>>>would he not expect support in turn from NZ First and now National? : >>>>>>>https://www.1news.co.nz/2020/09/14/nz-first-pledges-10m-to-mike-kings-mental-health-initiative-gumboot-friday-if-elected/
and for a different perspective, see: >>>>>>>https://thestandard.org.nz/whats-up-with-matt-doocey-mike-king-the-24mn/ >>>>>>And a more complete history of the relationships between Mike King and >>>>>>government, and
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018962138/nz-drug-foundation-responds-to-mike-king-comments-on-alcohol
So Mike King is the Prime Ministers chosen expert in mental health - >>>>>>having downsized other public sector spending in that area. . . . >>>>>Your sarcsam is childish and entirely out of place.
or
something but people like you who never do what he does and who don't care >>>>>about the people he helps are pathetic creatures and deserve zero respect. >>>>
So how long should the public sector wait to see if it is achieving
any other purpose than political support for Winston Peters and
Christopher Luxon?
Why not generalise the question as in, "So how long should the public
sector wait to see if it is achieving the stated aim?
On Sat, 02 Nov 2024 14:39:22 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>The NZ First 2023 policy was "Provide mental health programme ‘Gumboot
wrote:
On Sat, 02 Nov 2024 14:19:22 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:So all you have got Rich is character assassination?
On Sat, 02 Nov 2024 13:47:55 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On 1 Nov 2024 23:27:10 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-11-01, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:10:35 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:I found it rather interesting that Hipkins, a leader from the left side of >>>>>the tracks, suggests that funding is cut to an organisation who is trying to
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Nov 2024 15:38:25 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:Mike King is doing a fantastic job, he may have spoken when he was stressed or
On Fri, 01 Nov 2024 12:52:38 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>>wrote:And a more complete history of the relationships between Mike King and >>>>>>>>government, and
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/pm-christopher-luxon-responds-to-mike-king-mental-health-alcohol-claims/AADID2CENNEILOHQMI3YYQV5WI/
Just because Mike King expresses views that some would find offensive >>>>>>>>>>does not mean that the Government should respond with funding cuts. >>>>>>>>>>Labour leader Hipkins can certainly express opposition to what King >>>>>>>>>>said but calling for funding cuts is over the top. It seems he >>>>>>>>>>subscribes to the notion that those who express opinions that are >>>>>>>>>>different to his need to be punished for that.
Certainly Mike King delivered the endorsements expected from him, why >>>>>>>>>would he not expect support in turn from NZ First and now National? : >>>>>>>>>https://www.1news.co.nz/2020/09/14/nz-first-pledges-10m-to-mike-kings-mental-health-initiative-gumboot-friday-if-elected/
and for a different perspective, see: >>>>>>>>>https://thestandard.org.nz/whats-up-with-matt-doocey-mike-king-the-24mn/
expressing concern by those that work with drugs and alcohol addiction >>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018962138/nz-drug-foundation-responds-to-mike-king-comments-on-alcohol
So Mike King is the Prime Ministers chosen expert in mental health - >>>>>>>>having downsized other public sector spending in that area. . . . >>>>>>>Your sarcsam is childish and entirely out of place.
something but people like you who never do what he does and who don't care
about the people he helps are pathetic creatures and deserve zero respect.
Rich completely missed my point as he does when Hipkins delivers a >>>>>> political blunder. Hipkins is wrong to propose funding cuts to an >>>>>> organisation headed by someone who makes a comment that he objects to >>>>>> but otherwise delivers on what was funded.
help the less well off. This is usually what the Labour Goverments have >>>>>stood for.
On a wider note, there are some things like health which should be >>>>>bi-partisan as (good) health everyone is interested in.
Which does not address the issue - Crash said: ". . . an organisation >>>>who is trying to help the less well off."
Not true. That was Gordon.
Nobody has been able to
demonstrate that; I hope it is true, but whether it is nobody is able >>>>to demonstrate, and $24 million is a lot of money . . .
Rich can you cite anything to suggest "I am Hope" is not delivering on >>>what it is funded to do?
Thanks Crash, that was just the point I was making, it seems nobody
can find anything to suggest that he is or is not delivering on
whatever it was his charity is funded to do.
See also: >>https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/31-10-2024/the-king-and-his-god-complex >>including the comments (again both for and against, and the Opinion
article that follows: >>https://thespinoff.co.nz/media/02-11-2024/the-weekend-when-the-tide-turns >>and >>https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/31-10-2024/the-bleak-reality-of-working-in-mental-health-when-you-dont-have-mike-kings-funding
and >>https://thespinoff.co.nz/the-bulletin/01-11-2024/the-mike-king-backlash-has-quickly-turned-political-will-it-change-anything
When the auditor-general has criticised the way the Charity was
funded, (see: >>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/in-depth/530265/unusual-and-inconsistent-process-to-justify-24m-gumboot-friday-contract-auditor-general-finds
)
should we not be careful and even a little suspicious?
So lets get to the bottom of this: funding was a commitment of the
coalition agreement between NZ First and National, which in turn came
from published NZ First policy (in their manifesto for the 2023
election).
https://www.nzfirst.nz/coalition-agreement >https://www.nzfirst.nz/2023_policies
Is there a connection between your citing of articles critical of Mike
King, and the fact that NZ First have singled out his charities for >government funding support?
Is there anyone in St Johns Ambulance that you can connect to NZ
First? After all, NZ First have both policy and Coalition Agreement
funding commitments.
On 2 Nov 2024 07:57:24 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Yes you have changed your language to make that point. Your original post was entirtely different.
On 2024-11-01, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 07:48:01 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:10:35 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Exactly. The funding should continue as long as it is achieving its >>>>purpose,
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Nov 2024 15:38:25 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:Mike King is doing a fantastic job, he may have spoken when he was >>>>>>stressed
On Fri, 01 Nov 2024 12:52:38 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>wrote:And a more complete history of the relationships between Mike King and >>>>>>>government, and
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/pm-christopher-luxon-responds-to-mike-king-mental-health-alcohol-claims/AADID2CENNEILOHQMI3YYQV5WI/
Just because Mike King expresses views that some would find offensive >>>>>>>>>does not mean that the Government should respond with funding cuts. >>>>>>>>>Labour leader Hipkins can certainly express opposition to what King >>>>>>>>>said but calling for funding cuts is over the top. It seems he >>>>>>>>>subscribes to the notion that those who express opinions that are >>>>>>>>>different to his need to be punished for that.
Certainly Mike King delivered the endorsements expected from him, why >>>>>>>>would he not expect support in turn from NZ First and now National? : >>>>>>>>https://www.1news.co.nz/2020/09/14/nz-first-pledges-10m-to-mike-kings-mental-health-initiative-gumboot-friday-if-elected/
and for a different perspective, see: >>>>>>>>https://thestandard.org.nz/whats-up-with-matt-doocey-mike-king-the-24mn/
expressing concern by those that work with drugs and alcohol addiction >>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018962138/nz-drug-foundation-responds-to-mike-king-comments-on-alcohol
So Mike King is the Prime Ministers chosen expert in mental health - >>>>>>>having downsized other public sector spending in that area. . . . >>>>>>Your sarcsam is childish and entirely out of place.
or
something but people like you who never do what he does and who don't >>>>>>care
about the people he helps are pathetic creatures and deserve zero respect.
Rich completely missed my point as he does when Hipkins delivers a >>>>>political blunder. Hipkins is wrong to propose funding cuts to an >>>>>organisation headed by someone who makes a comment that he objects to >>>>>but otherwise delivers on what was funded.
all else is the worst sort of poltics.
So how long should the public sector wait to see if it is achieving
any other purpose than political support for Winston Peters and
Christopher Luxon?
Why not generalise the question as in, "So how long should the public >>sector wait to see if it is achieving the stated aim?
Some of the issues raised by mental health professionals, and by the >auditor-general do need to be considered - see my post of 2:39, which >included this link: >https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/in-depth/530265/unusual-and-inconsistent-process-to-justify-24m-gumboot-friday-contract-auditor-general-finds
There are also indications that the money has resulted in mental
health professionals receiving less funding - which may be resulting
in an overall reduction in services.
My point is that we do not know what has been happening in terms of
the mental health services which were presumably contracted for, we do
not know what the money received has been used for; and it is not
clear whether there is any monitoring.
So yes it is a fairly general question, or looked at another way
series of questions, but they go to the heart of value for money from
a commitment of $24 million.
On Sat, 02 Nov 2024 15:21:54 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 02 Nov 2024 14:39:22 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:The NZ First 2023 policy was "Provide mental health programme ‘Gumboot >Friday’ with $10m over three years to go toward administering and
On Sat, 02 Nov 2024 14:19:22 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:So all you have got Rich is character assassination?
On Sat, 02 Nov 2024 13:47:55 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On 1 Nov 2024 23:27:10 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-11-01, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:10:35 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:I found it rather interesting that Hipkins, a leader from the left side of
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Nov 2024 15:38:25 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>wrote:Mike King is doing a fantastic job, he may have spoken when he was stressed or
On Fri, 01 Nov 2024 12:52:38 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:And a more complete history of the relationships between Mike King and >>>>>>>>>government, and
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/pm-christopher-luxon-responds-to-mike-king-mental-health-alcohol-claims/AADID2CENNEILOHQMI3YYQV5WI/
Just because Mike King expresses views that some would find offensive
does not mean that the Government should respond with funding cuts. >>>>>>>>>>>Labour leader Hipkins can certainly express opposition to what King >>>>>>>>>>>said but calling for funding cuts is over the top. It seems he >>>>>>>>>>>subscribes to the notion that those who express opinions that are >>>>>>>>>>>different to his need to be punished for that.
Certainly Mike King delivered the endorsements expected from him, why >>>>>>>>>>would he not expect support in turn from NZ First and now National? : >>>>>>>>>>https://www.1news.co.nz/2020/09/14/nz-first-pledges-10m-to-mike-kings-mental-health-initiative-gumboot-friday-if-elected/
and for a different perspective, see: >>>>>>>>>>https://thestandard.org.nz/whats-up-with-matt-doocey-mike-king-the-24mn/
expressing concern by those that work with drugs and alcohol addiction >>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018962138/nz-drug-foundation-responds-to-mike-king-comments-on-alcohol
So Mike King is the Prime Ministers chosen expert in mental health - >>>>>>>>>having downsized other public sector spending in that area. . . . >>>>>>>>Your sarcsam is childish and entirely out of place.
something but people like you who never do what he does and who don't care
about the people he helps are pathetic creatures and deserve zero respect.
Rich completely missed my point as he does when Hipkins delivers a >>>>>>> political blunder. Hipkins is wrong to propose funding cuts to an >>>>>>> organisation headed by someone who makes a comment that he objects to >>>>>>> but otherwise delivers on what was funded.
the tracks, suggests that funding is cut to an organisation who is trying to
help the less well off. This is usually what the Labour Goverments have >>>>>>stood for.
On a wider note, there are some things like health which should be >>>>>>bi-partisan as (good) health everyone is interested in.
Which does not address the issue - Crash said: ". . . an organisation >>>>>who is trying to help the less well off."
Not true. That was Gordon.
Nobody has been able to
demonstrate that; I hope it is true, but whether it is nobody is able >>>>>to demonstrate, and $24 million is a lot of money . . .
Rich can you cite anything to suggest "I am Hope" is not delivering on >>>>what it is funded to do?
Thanks Crash, that was just the point I was making, it seems nobody
can find anything to suggest that he is or is not delivering on
whatever it was his charity is funded to do.
See also: >>>https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/31-10-2024/the-king-and-his-god-complex >>>including the comments (again both for and against, and the Opinion >>>article that follows: >>>https://thespinoff.co.nz/media/02-11-2024/the-weekend-when-the-tide-turns >>>and >>>https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/31-10-2024/the-bleak-reality-of-working-in-mental-health-when-you-dont-have-mike-kings-funding
and >>>https://thespinoff.co.nz/the-bulletin/01-11-2024/the-mike-king-backlash-has-quickly-turned-political-will-it-change-anything
When the auditor-general has criticised the way the Charity was
funded, (see: >>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/in-depth/530265/unusual-and-inconsistent-process-to-justify-24m-gumboot-friday-contract-auditor-general-finds
)
should we not be careful and even a little suspicious?
So lets get to the bottom of this: funding was a commitment of the >>coalition agreement between NZ First and National, which in turn came
from published NZ First policy (in their manifesto for the 2023
election).
https://www.nzfirst.nz/coalition-agreement >>https://www.nzfirst.nz/2023_policies
Is there a connection between your citing of articles critical of Mike >>King, and the fact that NZ First have singled out his charities for >>government funding support?
delivering free counseling services for young people." That somehow
became $24 million, but promising the money comes with an
understanding / commitment to see that the results justify the
expenditure. What we do not know is whether that spending has been
justified with results or at least activity in the past year. We do
not know whether King is delivering on whatever it was his charity was >supposed to do - unless you have reason to believe it was given with
no checks and balances; I would find that very surprising.
Is there anyone in St Johns Ambulance that you can connect to NZ
First? After all, NZ First have both policy and Coalition Agreement >>funding commitments.
I have not followed any such results or seen any media reports - are
you concerned about their performance?
On Sat, 02 Nov 2024 22:43:15 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>Now you are being silly. Te Pati Maori and ACT did not push for this
wrote:
On Sat, 02 Nov 2024 15:21:54 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:You are the one making the accusation that the funding made available
On Sat, 02 Nov 2024 14:39:22 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:The NZ First 2023 policy was "Provide mental health programme ‘Gumboot >>Friday’ with $10m over three years to go toward administering and >>delivering free counseling services for young people." That somehow
On Sat, 02 Nov 2024 14:19:22 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:So all you have got Rich is character assassination?
On Sat, 02 Nov 2024 13:47:55 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
On 1 Nov 2024 23:27:10 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-11-01, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:10:35 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:I found it rather interesting that Hipkins, a leader from the left side of
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Nov 2024 15:38:25 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:Mike King is doing a fantastic job, he may have spoken when he was stressed or
On Fri, 01 Nov 2024 12:52:38 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>And a more complete history of the relationships between Mike King and
wrote:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/pm-christopher-luxon-responds-to-mike-king-mental-health-alcohol-claims/AADID2CENNEILOHQMI3YYQV5WI/
Just because Mike King expresses views that some would find offensive
does not mean that the Government should respond with funding cuts. >>>>>>>>>>>>Labour leader Hipkins can certainly express opposition to what King >>>>>>>>>>>>said but calling for funding cuts is over the top. It seems he >>>>>>>>>>>>subscribes to the notion that those who express opinions that are >>>>>>>>>>>>different to his need to be punished for that.
Certainly Mike King delivered the endorsements expected from him, why
would he not expect support in turn from NZ First and now National? :
https://www.1news.co.nz/2020/09/14/nz-first-pledges-10m-to-mike-kings-mental-health-initiative-gumboot-friday-if-elected/
and for a different perspective, see: >>>>>>>>>>>https://thestandard.org.nz/whats-up-with-matt-doocey-mike-king-the-24mn/
government, and
expressing concern by those that work with drugs and alcohol addictionhttps://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018962138/nz-drug-foundation-responds-to-mike-king-comments-on-alcohol
So Mike King is the Prime Ministers chosen expert in mental health - >>>>>>>>>>having downsized other public sector spending in that area. . . . >>>>>>>>>Your sarcsam is childish and entirely out of place.
something but people like you who never do what he does and who don't care
about the people he helps are pathetic creatures and deserve zero respect.
Rich completely missed my point as he does when Hipkins delivers a >>>>>>>> political blunder. Hipkins is wrong to propose funding cuts to an >>>>>>>> organisation headed by someone who makes a comment that he objects to >>>>>>>> but otherwise delivers on what was funded.
the tracks, suggests that funding is cut to an organisation who is trying to
help the less well off. This is usually what the Labour Goverments have >>>>>>>stood for.
On a wider note, there are some things like health which should be >>>>>>>bi-partisan as (good) health everyone is interested in.
Which does not address the issue - Crash said: ". . . an organisation >>>>>>who is trying to help the less well off."
Not true. That was Gordon.
Nobody has been able to
demonstrate that; I hope it is true, but whether it is nobody is able >>>>>>to demonstrate, and $24 million is a lot of money . . .
Rich can you cite anything to suggest "I am Hope" is not delivering on >>>>>what it is funded to do?
Thanks Crash, that was just the point I was making, it seems nobody
can find anything to suggest that he is or is not delivering on >>>>whatever it was his charity is funded to do.
See also: >>>>https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/31-10-2024/the-king-and-his-god-complex >>>>including the comments (again both for and against, and the Opinion >>>>article that follows: >>>>https://thespinoff.co.nz/media/02-11-2024/the-weekend-when-the-tide-turns >>>>and >>>>https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/31-10-2024/the-bleak-reality-of-working-in-mental-health-when-you-dont-have-mike-kings-funding
and >>>>https://thespinoff.co.nz/the-bulletin/01-11-2024/the-mike-king-backlash-has-quickly-turned-political-will-it-change-anything
When the auditor-general has criticised the way the Charity was
funded, (see: >>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/in-depth/530265/unusual-and-inconsistent-process-to-justify-24m-gumboot-friday-contract-auditor-general-finds
)
should we not be careful and even a little suspicious?
So lets get to the bottom of this: funding was a commitment of the >>>coalition agreement between NZ First and National, which in turn came >>>from published NZ First policy (in their manifesto for the 2023 >>>election).
https://www.nzfirst.nz/coalition-agreement >>>https://www.nzfirst.nz/2023_policies
Is there a connection between your citing of articles critical of Mike >>>King, and the fact that NZ First have singled out his charities for >>>government funding support?
became $24 million, but promising the money comes with an
understanding / commitment to see that the results justify the
expenditure. What we do not know is whether that spending has been >>justified with results or at least activity in the past year. We do
not know whether King is delivering on whatever it was his charity was >>supposed to do - unless you have reason to believe it was given with
no checks and balances; I would find that very surprising.
to King may not be value for money. I am simply pointing out the
provenance of that funding coming from a political party that is not
Labour or Greens is the reason you raise this issue.
Is there anyone in St Johns Ambulance that you can connect to NZ
First? After all, NZ First have both policy and Coalition Agreement >>>funding commitments.
I have not followed any such results or seen any media reports - are
you concerned about their performance?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 65:42:09 |
| Calls: | 9,813 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 13,754 |
| Messages: | 6,189,266 |