The government has realised that they may find themselves compensating private companies for law changes if the Regulatory Standards Bill
goes through
At the same time they have realised that vapes are keeping more people smoking. So they are reducing some sales - and that will affect
profits of the many many vape stores.
If the RSB was now in force they would be having to compensate all
those retailers for loss of income, and possibly also the
manufacturers - is that the real reason for reducing what can be sold
now?
Whether this hypocrisy has affected their popularity or just that they
are being caught out in lies about pay equity, building state houses
or a myriad of other policy issues?
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360728540/post-freshwater-strategy-poll-labour-pulls-ahead-national
The government has realised that they may find themselves compensating >private companies for law changes if the Regulatory Standards BillWhich government? Is that some fantasy country?
goes through
At the same time they have realised that vapes are keeping more people >smoking. So they are reducing some sales - and that will affectAs above.
profits of the many many vape stores.
If the RSB was now in force they would be having to compensate allAs above.
those retailers for loss of income, and possibly also the
manufacturers - is that the real reason for reducing what can be sold
now?
Whether this hypocrisy has affected their popularity or just that theyAs above.
are being caught out in lies about pay equity, building state houses
or a myriad of other policy issues?
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360728540/post-freshwater-strategy-poll-labour-pulls-ahead-national
The government has realised that they may find themselves compensating >private companies for law changes if the Regulatory Standards Bill
goes through
At the same time they have realised that vapes are keeping more people >smoking. So they are reducing some sales - and that will affect
profits of the many many vape stores.
If the RSB was now in force they would be having to compensate all
those retailers for loss of income, and possibly also the
manufacturers - is that the real reason for reducing what can be sold
now?
Whether this hypocrisy has affected their popularity or just that they
are being caught out in lies about pay equity, building state houses
or a myriad of other policy issues?
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360728540/post-freshwater-strategy-poll-labour-pulls-ahead-national
On 20 Jun 2025 01:11:44 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:You are in fantasy land. There will be no compensation resultying from any current or planned bill..
On 2025-06-19, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:What a good idea - see below.
The government has realised that they may find themselves compensatingThe suggestion is that the Government is going to pass a bill which would be >>detremental to the Government. (Shoot themselves in the foot).
private companies for law changes if the Regulatory Standards Bill
goes through
The process of getting the Bill to an ACT requires inspection and >>investigation and dare I say it, debate.
At the same time they have realised that vapes are keeping more people
smoking. So they are reducing some sales - and that will affect
profits of the many many vape stores.
If the RSB was now in force they would be having to compensate all
those retailers for loss of income, and possibly also the
manufacturers - is that the real reason for reducing what can be sold
now?
I was intrigued by how such "compensation" would be worked out.
Probably easy enough to get an estimate of profits generated from the >proportion of vapes that are being banned, but what term the
compensation should be for is not easy - while Labour have not
promised to repeal the laws as the first action of a new government,
what term of future profit is being foregone?
It would be a worry if the legislation encouraged retailers to find
products that are in danger of being prohibited, or for example
limited to sale under prescription, but there could be a lot of money
to be made.
Or your nonsense.You may have hit on where their policy ideas come from, Gordon!Or the dark side of the moon?
Whether this hypocrisy has affected their popularity or just that they
are being caught out in lies about pay equity, building state houses
or a myriad of other policy issues?
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360728540/post-freshwater-strategy-poll-labour-pulls-ahead-national
On 2025-06-19, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:What a good idea - see below.
The government has realised that they may find themselves compensatingThe suggestion is that the Government is going to pass a bill which would be >detremental to the Government. (Shoot themselves in the foot).
private companies for law changes if the Regulatory Standards Bill
goes through
The process of getting the Bill to an ACT requires inspection and >investigation and dare I say it, debate.
At the same time they have realised that vapes are keeping more people
smoking. So they are reducing some sales - and that will affect
profits of the many many vape stores.
If the RSB was now in force they would be having to compensate all
those retailers for loss of income, and possibly also the
manufacturers - is that the real reason for reducing what can be sold
now?
You may have hit on where their policy ideas come from, Gordon!Or the dark side of the moon?
Whether this hypocrisy has affected their popularity or just that they
are being caught out in lies about pay equity, building state houses
or a myriad of other policy issues?
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360728540/post-freshwater-strategy-poll-labour-pulls-ahead-national
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The Seymour / Peters government
The government has realised that they may find themselves compensating >>private companies for law changes if the Regulatory Standards BillWhich government? Is that some fantasy country?
goes through
The Seymour / Peters government again . . .As above.
At the same time they have realised that vapes are keeping more people >>smoking. So they are reducing some sales - and that will affect
profits of the many many vape stores.
The Seymour / Peters government yet again - how did you miss that,As above.
If the RSB was now in force they would be having to compensate all
those retailers for loss of income, and possibly also the
manufacturers - is that the real reason for reducing what can be sold
now?
Thankfully not everyone is as confused as you, Tony.As above.
Whether this hypocrisy has affected their popularity or just that they
are being caught out in lies about pay equity, building state houses
or a myriad of other policy issues?
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360728540/post-freshwater-strategy-poll-labour-pulls-ahead-national
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 01:30:37 -0000 (UTC), TonyImpossible, your description does not fit them or New Zealand. The NZ government bill does not do what you suggest.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The Seymour / Peters government
The government has realised that they may find themselves compensating >>>private companies for law changes if the Regulatory Standards BillWhich government? Is that some fantasy country?
goes through
Nonsense gone.As above.
At the same time they have realised that vapes are keeping more people >>>smoking. So they are reducing some sales - and that will affect
profits of the many many vape stores.
Nonsense gone.As above.
If the RSB was now in force they would be having to compensate all
those retailers for loss of income, and possibly also the
manufacturers - is that the real reason for reducing what can be sold >>>now?
Nonsense gone.As above.
Whether this hypocrisy has affected their popularity or just that they >>>are being caught out in lies about pay equity, building state houses
or a myriad of other policy issues?
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360728540/post-freshwater-strategy-poll-labour-pulls-ahead-national
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Read Clause 8(c) regarding the taking or impairment of property. The
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 01:30:37 -0000 (UTC), TonyImpossible, your description does not fit them or New Zealand. The NZ >government bill does not do what you suggest.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The Seymour / Peters government
The government has realised that they may find themselves compensating >>>>private companies for law changes if the Regulatory Standards BillWhich government? Is that some fantasy country?
goes through
You should try again, which country are you referring to?Look at this then: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/economy/unlucky-luxons-popularity-hits-new-low-matthew-hooton/NGVNC2II5NH7NBMPAA6PJBMVOQ/
You are the one that is confused.
Nonsense gone.
As above.
At the same time they have realised that vapes are keeping more people >>>>smoking. So they are reducing some sales - and that will affect
profits of the many many vape stores.
Nonsense gone.
As above.
If the RSB was now in force they would be having to compensate all >>>>those retailers for loss of income, and possibly also the
manufacturers - is that the real reason for reducing what can be sold >>>>now?
Nonsense gone.As above.
Whether this hypocrisy has affected their popularity or just that they >>>>are being caught out in lies about pay equity, building state houses
or a myriad of other policy issues?
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360728540/post-freshwater-strategy-poll-labour-pulls-ahead-national
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Only if there is no good justification for the taking or impairment -
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 02:49:31 -0000 (UTC), TonyIt is not mandatory.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Read Clause 8(c) regarding the taking or impairment of property. The >>proposed version of the 'takings' principle is:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 01:30:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Impossible, your description does not fit them or New Zealand. The NZ >>>government bill does not do what you suggest.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The Seymour / Peters government
The government has realised that they may find themselves compensating >>>>>>private companies for law changes if the Regulatory Standards Bill >>>>>>goes throughWhich government? Is that some fantasy country?
legislation should not take or impair, or authorise the taking or
impairing of, property without the consent of the owner unless–
(i) there is good justification for the taking or impairment; and
(ii) fair compensation for the taking or impairment is provided to the >>owner; and
(iii) the compensation is provided, to the extent practicable, by or
on behalf of the persons who obtain the benefit of the taking or
impairment
Thus a change of law that prohibited selling something that is
currently able to be sold is taking the ability to profit from such
sales, and there would need to be compensation from the government for
such a requirement.
No thanks. >>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/economy/unlucky-luxons-popularity-hits-new-low-matthew-hooton/NGVNC2II5NH7NBMPAA6PJBMVOQ/
You should try again, which country are you referring to?Look at this then:
You are the one that is confused.
Nonsense gone.
As above.
At the same time they have realised that vapes are keeping more people >>>>>>smoking. So they are reducing some sales - and that will affect >>>>>>profits of the many many vape stores.
Nonsense gone.
As above.
If the RSB was now in force they would be having to compensate all >>>>>>those retailers for loss of income, and possibly also the >>>>>>manufacturers - is that the real reason for reducing what can be sold >>>>>>now?
Nonsense gone.As above.
Whether this hypocrisy has affected their popularity or just that they >>>>>>are being caught out in lies about pay equity, building state houses >>>>>>or a myriad of other policy issues?
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360728540/post-freshwater-strategy-poll-labour-pulls-ahead-national
and >>https://www.thepress.co.nz/nz-news/360729815/acting-pm-compares-christchurch-council-staff-putin
and
https://nickrockel.substack.com/p/in-all-honesty
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 02:49:31 -0000 (UTC), TonyIt is not mandatory.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Read Clause 8(c) regarding the taking or impairment of property. The
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 01:30:37 -0000 (UTC), TonyImpossible, your description does not fit them or New Zealand. The NZ >>government bill does not do what you suggest.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The Seymour / Peters government
The government has realised that they may find themselves compensating >>>>>private companies for law changes if the Regulatory Standards Bill >>>>>goes throughWhich government? Is that some fantasy country?
proposed version of the 'takings' principle is:
legislation should not take or impair, or authorise the taking or
impairing of, property without the consent of the owner unless–
(i) there is good justification for the taking or impairment; and
(ii) fair compensation for the taking or impairment is provided to the
owner; and
(iii) the compensation is provided, to the extent practicable, by or
on behalf of the persons who obtain the benefit of the taking or
impairment
Thus a change of law that prohibited selling something that is
currently able to be sold is taking the ability to profit from such
sales, and there would need to be compensation from the government for
such a requirement.
No thanks. >https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/economy/unlucky-luxons-popularity-hits-new-low-matthew-hooton/NGVNC2II5NH7NBMPAA6PJBMVOQ/You should try again, which country are you referring to?Look at this then:
You are the one that is confused.
Nonsense gone.
As above.
At the same time they have realised that vapes are keeping more people >>>>>smoking. So they are reducing some sales - and that will affect >>>>>profits of the many many vape stores.
Nonsense gone.
As above.
If the RSB was now in force they would be having to compensate all >>>>>those retailers for loss of income, and possibly also the >>>>>manufacturers - is that the real reason for reducing what can be sold >>>>>now?
Nonsense gone.As above.
Whether this hypocrisy has affected their popularity or just that they >>>>>are being caught out in lies about pay equity, building state houses >>>>>or a myriad of other policy issues?
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360728540/post-freshwater-strategy-poll-labour-pulls-ahead-national
and >https://www.thepress.co.nz/nz-news/360729815/acting-pm-compares-christchurch-council-staff-putin
and
https://nickrockel.substack.com/p/in-all-honesty
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 08:35:01 -0000 (UTC), TonyMy point exactly. Well done, finally.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Only if there is no good justification for the taking or impairment
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 02:49:31 -0000 (UTC), TonyIt is not mandatory.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Read Clause 8(c) regarding the taking or impairment of property. The >>>proposed version of the 'takings' principle is:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 01:30:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Impossible, your description does not fit them or New Zealand. The NZ >>>>government bill does not do what you suggest.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The Seymour / Peters government
The government has realised that they may find themselves compensating >>>>>>>private companies for law changes if the Regulatory Standards Bill >>>>>>>goes throughWhich government? Is that some fantasy country?
legislation should not take or impair, or authorise the taking or >>>impairing of, property without the consent of the owner unless–
(i) there is good justification for the taking or impairment; and
(ii) fair compensation for the taking or impairment is provided to the >>>owner; and
(iii) the compensation is provided, to the extent practicable, by or
on behalf of the persons who obtain the benefit of the taking or >>>impairment
Thus a change of law that prohibited selling something that is
currently able to be sold is taking the ability to profit from such >>>sales, and there would need to be compensation from the government for >>>such a requirement.
-No that would be Labour.
are you saying that an ACT government would consistently lie to get
out of making a payment?
No thanks. >>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/economy/unlucky-luxons-popularity-hits-new-low-matthew-hooton/NGVNC2II5NH7NBMPAA6PJBMVOQ/
You should try again, which country are you referring to?Look at this then:
You are the one that is confused.
Nonsense gone.
As above.
At the same time they have realised that vapes are keeping more people >>>>>>>smoking. So they are reducing some sales - and that will affect >>>>>>>profits of the many many vape stores.
Nonsense gone.
As above.
If the RSB was now in force they would be having to compensate all >>>>>>>those retailers for loss of income, and possibly also the >>>>>>>manufacturers - is that the real reason for reducing what can be sold >>>>>>>now?
Nonsense gone.As above.
Whether this hypocrisy has affected their popularity or just that they >>>>>>>are being caught out in lies about pay equity, building state houses >>>>>>>or a myriad of other policy issues?
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360728540/post-freshwater-strategy-poll-labour-pulls-ahead-national
and >>>https://www.thepress.co.nz/nz-news/360729815/acting-pm-compares-christchurch-council-staff-putin
and
https://nickrockel.substack.com/p/in-all-honesty
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 13:08:58 |
| Calls: | 10,389 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,887 |
| Posted today: | 1 |