Posts by FletcherB
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Graeme....
Looking at the actual registry of third parties that Keith linked to....It appears the "applicant" can supply a PO box, but the "financial agent" must supply a real street address...
Which in the case of the "Free Speech Coalition", looks a little bizzarre when they are the same person, but have supplied two differing addresses.
-
Yeah, I understand all that... and generally I think what we have is a better system...
I guess it all comes down to the "borders" of where ACC's coverage and AFFCO's alternative deal meet (or dont?).
It just seems illogical and unfair, intuitively, that my employer might be responsible for things that happen to me that are not of its making...
But ultimately, I realise that what seems intuitive is not always the legal case, and if the leagal beagles (sorry) have had their say and decided it's AFFCO's turn to pay, then so be it. They should just shut-up and pay.
I also wonder why AFFCO's making all the noise? Surely its the insurance company thats up for the million dollars? Or were they "self insured"? Or did they not insure themselves properly against all the risks they were relieving ACC of?
Also, they want to be carefull.... talk-back radio and questions in parliament are cheap, but If they kick up too much of a fuss they might spend more on PR and legal than the medical costs they are trying to get out of?
-
Re: Affco et-al
Its an interesting point that while I've heard of this case off-and-on over the last year or two, the 'minor detail' that AFFCO had opted out of the normal ACC plan and had insurance with another provider had entirely escaped me... I guess thier expensive PR was working, because that really does put an entirely different angle on it.
But it still strikes me that being the victim of crime isnt the sort of "work-place accident" that one normally associates with Employee protection.... unless its a crime related to the work-place like a bank teller or shop assistant being shot during a robbery... But I'll leave that up to the Lawyers.
My main point is, surely, being shot isnt actually an accident.... it was done on purpose.... and initial responsibility of costs should fall on the shooter....
Presumably, said gang member doesnt actually have the funds available.... but when the person responsible cant pay, thats when "the state" intervenes....
???
-
Can I also point out..... just as Keith and Russell have mentioned it 's Boscawen's championing thats pushed them over the edge....... that is in fact an argument that such legislation might not be needed...
Provided there is proper and adequate identification of the parties doing the spending.... does there really need to be a limit? When you see how much something is being shoved down your throat, nearly everyone turns against it...
Boscawen himself has made a point of saying "I've spent $$$$ so far".... and obviously most people paying to publicise their view wont be doing that.... but you can make a rough guess just from how many and how large the adds are... how frequently the pamphlets arrive in your letter box...
I think past a certain point, more spending is probably counter-productive and will turn more against you than it gains.... People have an inherent distrust of being told what to think.
Obviously this relies on reasonable reporting/identification of the people or bodies doing the spending, and maybe thats too much to expect?
It's arguably the attempt to hide their identity that was the Brethren's crime, not the fact they wanted to spend the money in the first place.
-
Might you be looking for the word "pawn" by any chance?
-
I think he was also aiming for ironic when he shot my cat.
Ironic was the name of your dog?
-
It thanks LN for helping expose crimes against police officers?
WTF
-
Have peoples minds been changed by a well reasoned argument on the intarwebby?
I know mine has.
180 degree turns are admittedly infrequent.. but by being exposed to the actual logic/explanation of opposing thoughts (as opposed to just the yes/no right/wrong headlines)... it allows me, and I presume others, to inform my own decisions. And frequently the degree or etrememty of my view, and/or or the distaste/abhorance of those with opposing views is often modified.
I frequently keep quiet if I see my point has been made by another... but If I think I have a point, even if a week one, its worth posting.... Someone else may back it up, or show you why its wrong.
-
We should have pushed to get "[redacted]" as word of the year
How timely... Completely unrelated to any topic at hand on PAS , its still fun to read this simply because of how much "[redacted]" has been used...
-
I have secret inside info....
I can reliably infor you the killer is [REDACTED].