![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 3 of 3. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by alexandra_k on April 2, 2022, at 18:09:19
they don't train the officers to do the paperwork.
so they can't get any convictions.
that's the aim or goal.
that's the first hurdle out of police training college.
you write sh*tty substandard reports that will not be upheld in any court of law... else you quit the force.
if you make it through that hurdle then I imagine the next hurdle will be how you deal with things like... finding 5kg of meth. or was that finding 2kg of meth? etc.
i mean...
why would the government want to pay someone to do police-work when they can pay for someone to live off of sickness or disabilty?
we have to remember the main aim or goal or point or purpose of people... your loyal servants... to be kept as deprived as possible so they will do anything anything anything...
Posted by alexandra_k on April 2, 2022, at 18:17:51
In reply to bullying people out of the police, posted by alexandra_k on April 2, 2022, at 18:09:19
they did this thing whereby the speed devices were all... uncalibrated. or something. something like that.
so then people in the know would, upon receiving a speeding ticket, write a letter with legal firm letterhead saying that they were going to challenge it because the device was uncalibrated (so the police would need to supply evidence they checked it for calibration -- which they didn't / hadn't / would never do).
it was a way of making sure only the people kept poorly, the undesirable people would be given speeding tickets and criminal records for questioning them while the people 'in the know' just did whatever they f*ck*ng wanted.
i got a letter from the tertiary education commission the other day saying that the law gives the universities operational freedom to manage themselves as they see fit.
i was telling the tertiary education commission about the university practices involving them double-billing the tertiary education commission for studnets by forcing them to re-enrol for periods of time additional to those that had been contracted by withholding qualification completions. That they were refusing to get theses that had been submitted for examination out to external examiners in order to prevent and prohibit studnets from completing qualifications within the time they had contracted to tbe studying for (e.g., refusing to allow studnets to complete 1 year research degrees in 1 year by refusing to get the thesis to externals until it wasn't possible for the project to be signed off within 1 year so as to force the studnet to pay additional fees for additional enrolment).
It would be like quoting a price for building a house that would be built in 6 months time. And then refusing to order a building inspector to inspect the building had been competed to a satisfactory standard until some period of time after the 6 months... Then also requiring the people to pay the builders wages until such time as the building achieved sign-off.
So the whole project takes more like 12 months and runs over-cost x2.
Apparently this is acceptable business practice in NZ.
This is what the NZ government thinks is acceptable business proactice in NZ.
This is why it is not possible to do business in this jurisdiction.
Of course you likely can pay a little tidy sum to someone or someone else or whatever to get them to call the building inspecot a little earlier... Maybe a couple blow-jobs?
Posted by alexandra_k on April 2, 2022, at 18:23:13
In reply to Re: bullying people out of the police, posted by alexandra_k on April 2, 2022, at 18:17:51
and then, of course, it will always be found to be sub-standard.
because it is.
additionally to arranging for the inspector to be not allowed to inspect until things had been forced to run over-time...
additionally to that...
you will also find that they 'cut costs' or 'exceeded profits' by under-ordering or by selling off various of the building supplies, or whatever. so corners were cut, literally.
so whether you get the sign off at all is questionable...
you might find some dodgey sign-off. auckland city council was using 'prestige building compliance' to sign-off on electrical work -- when they were not electricians and were not authorised to be signing off on electrical work e.g., attesting to water-tightness of places where wires were going to be run so as to decrease liklihood of electrical fire)
otherwise...
well, you could burn it for the insurance money, i suppose.
if you could afford to pay for anyone to insure it in the first place. given teh obvious scummy scam nature of the whole thing.
would you like to invest in infrastructure development in new zealand?
build a new hospital?
motorway?yeah, right.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.