Thread: We could have been hunting under level 4 afterall

Good on Stug for asking the questions and challenging the status quo. But this whole thread is based on opinion and conjecture. Nothing is proven. Nothing has been tested. Legal opinions are worth nothing until tested. The Government are adamantly saying they acted legally. Who is correct? The Court will decide.

True .. but its seems reasonably clear that they have deliberately ignored the legal opinion from their own Crown Law Office. And frankly the greater good argument might give them a pass in the court of stupefied public opinion, but the dangers here are substantive and considerable disquiet has been a part of our history for more minor matters in the past.. Fitzgerald v Muldoon for example

The basis for almost every comment on here has been hearsay and opinion garnered from the press - that most on here seem to despise.

As is every discussion about anything almost ever......Probably mostly from fringe media, typically not exactly the mainstream Jacinda cheerleaders.....

We have a right to dislike or despise the Gov and to express it. But to talk in absolute terms about legal matters that have neither been tested or proven is rash.

Hardly, nothing on here is conclusive. Discussion and information is a requirement of a society interested in making sure excesses are not tolerated and govts that seem to treat political perception as being more important than principle, need to hear the murmurings.

I absolutely agree that the corner stone of democracy is that Government must act within the law. If they act outside of it, (and depending on the severity) they should be held to account by parliament, the crown and the voter. But we 'aint there yet.

And if nobody talks about this stuff before it gets to court... then it won't get to court.