The women (attached to gang members) that Housing New Zealand are attempting to evict from a Taita street are taking legal action. We ain't going anywhere, they say.
They are apparently all on benefits so will qualify for legal aid. A certificate from Work and Income showing their gross income is less than $20,000 will take care of that. Although legal aid is supposed to be a loan it will likely be written off in this case. There is no owned property to make a charge against.
So the taxpayer is funding these women's benefits and their accommodation, both of which have been abused. They get away with the first abuse because of a legal ruling which defines their relationships as 'not in the nature of marriage'. Then, when they decide to fight the consequences of the secondary property abuse, the taxpayer has to foot their legal fees.
Just how far removed is all of this from a 'safety' net?
And in wades Parekura Horomia in his shadow Maori Minister role;
"I'm concerned about the effect on the women and children. Housing NZ have really really rushed this."
What a first-class apologist for manipulators this man is. These tenants and their partners have society over a barrel. They are not victims and they are not clueless. Children are hostages to and guarantors of their chosen lifestyles. It's a pig of a mess made worse by weak leaders like Horomia.
A Written New Zealand Constitution?
1 hour ago
7 comments:
Rather than worried about the women and families I am more worried about the private landlords who may end up with these scumbag tenants. I have no strong belief that children do better with their mothers whatever the circumstances (and lots of evidence that they don't), take the kids away until their parents shape up.
Spot-on Lindsay. I'm going to link back to this post, since you say it so much better than I did!
I have had it with these people. I am all for helping those that need it but if you chose a life with a gang member, someone who defines themselves as outside society, then you get no help from the state at all.
This may sound harsh but I have had enough of paying for these scum. They have children for the benefit not because they love them then drag the poor offspring up in gang households. Maybe the time has come for what some would call cold, heartless and draconian measures. You get paid for the first 2 kids but no more, I wonder how fast the birth rate would drop.
How much longer should we keep paying for these peoples lives?
Charmaine, I wonder if in the long run an open-ended welfare system isn't in fact the more 'cold, heartless and draconian', given the damage it does.
We're not doing kids a favour by subsidising the youngest, least educated and poorest to have more of them.
It's a huge problem and for a start I'd like to see the welfare queues brought back, if only to drive home the message to people that the money which appears in their bank accounts every fortnight isn't a wage, or their "pay" but a handout from the taxpayers.
Yes, there'd be a degree of humiliation involved--but not half as humiliating as I find it to be forced into virtual slavery to support the unproductive.
Sucking on the tit of the taxpayer in every way, shape, and form. I wonder how the lawyer representing these scum sleeps at night.
But will National change all of this? Nope, not going by what Paula Bennett has to say. At the end of the day, the Nat's are too go with the flow, and scared to offend to make any real difference. Labour light with a blue tint.
Generaly speaking, women who choose the life of a gang mole do so because they believe it enhances their "mana". They do not want to change and accept the bash as part of their duty. These women have learnt the trade of manipulating the welfare system and have no intention of changing. Other than the obvious, how else could these gutter trash show their men they love them?
Dirk
Post a Comment