Monday, June 18, 2007

Bureaucratic Drivel

Charles Chauvel, 38 year old homosexual is co-chair of Labour's Rainbow Sector Council, the party's gay wing. He lives with his partner of 11 years on Wellington's Oriental Parade and speaks proudly of his one year old son.

information & photo from

Here is his (2 November 2006) response to a letter from my sister and myself to him (25 October). Notice he spells Lydia's name wrong.

Dear Andrew and Lyndia

Thankyou for taking the time to write to me on 25 October with your views concerning Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1962. I do not happen to agree with your views but I appreciate having heard from you.

Yours sincerely

Oh yeah, this guy speaks for 83% of everyday mums and dads, Joe Bloggs Kiwi doesn't he. "Immature" was the first word that came to mind as I read this MPs pathetic drivel.

"I do not happen to agree with your views" - is this the thoughtless tripe that we pay MPs to say? They're there to represent the people... aren't they? Any MP's "views" should be the least of his concerns. They are in their position primarily to represent the views of the people.


In a 15 November 2006 letter to my then 12 year old brother, Clayton Cosgrove wrote the following:

Like the Prime Minister, I do not support a "ban on smacking", and this government has never proposed such a move.

Singing a different tune now, aren't we Mr. Cosgrove.


Allan said...

I wonder what these MPs would think is 'reasonable force' to use against a rebellious, undisciplined and deliberately immoral government? With what force can their paternal instructors, so to speak, place our hands on them to correct their obvious errors?

If these were our children would time out work? They have demonstrated years of defiance and rebellion against their 'parents'.

It's about time the voters stopped pretending they were in control and actually took their government back from the adolescent MPs who always think they know best.

Helen, you have disobeyed your parents, and you need a smack.

Now... who's actually got a smack capable of inflicting enough punishment of actually making these people feel like they have done wrong?

The way it stands I don't expect the election to do much. It serves to promote their good over their bad. Never does it actually tell them they were bad or wrong at all. It only tells them that we don't want to bother with them any more (kind of like the father who refuses to punish his kids and then ignores them when the cops show up to take them away – delegating parental responsibility).

Ok. I've had my rant. Not like words do much on their own to restrict naughty kids.

Andy Moore said...

I agree with you Allan. The way the politicians (especially the Labour/Greens/Maori) speak is...

Studies have shown, etcetera, and therefore we will be voting for this legislation.


Institutions such as Plunket and Barnadoes reccomend that we do this, so we will be voting for it.

Why is it that we don't hear the politicians saying...

The polls do appear to indicate that the majority of New Zealanders are not happy with the country moving this way, so we are planning to have a referendum.

Hah. It flippin blows your mind.

And I'll just reiterate some Bradford propaganda: "most of the emails I recieved were in favour of the bill. The way outnumbered the number of emails opposing the bill..."

Oh yeah, dream on Bradford.

Allan said...

Most of the emails she received... not including the ones her underlings filtered out for her. lol

Andy Moore said...

Very good point mate.

Write an article - anything you want regarding the Section59 debate, especially related to these latest two pieces of news:

And I'll post it here on the blog... just an idea...

Good on ya mate.

Dave said...

Chauvel is a lawyer. So how come he states that the Crimes Act is from 1962?

Andy Moore said...

uhhh... what difference does it make that he is a lawyer?...