There was an article in the NZ Herald recently (which I can't find online - searching for "police" or "US police" produces 100s of results) which made this point.
There are over 80 thousand statutory governance entities in the US, most of which are municipality or county structures that maintain or contract law enforcement services. I learned this wee fact when examining the background to why emergency services cooperation across jurisdictions was historically a total cluster in the US.
No information resources should be excluded from libraries because of the opinions they express.
"Beating children is good for them" is an opinion.
"Beat your child using xyz implement when they do abc" is not an opinion, it's an instruction. There's a difference.
The Anarchist Cookbook was banned by the Office of Film and Literature Classification as unconditionally indecent in 1994.
Interesting. It's apparently also available through UBS. I'm concerned that such a major outlet apparently carries a banned book.
Do the Auckland Libraries hold a copy of the Anarchist Cookbook? If not, why not? It doesn't appear to be an "illegal" book in this country (you can buy it off Fish Pond), and it has the arguable benefit of historical value as well as being an instruction manual.
To Train up a Child is advocating illegal activity. It instructs the reader to assault their children, which is explicitly against NZ law.
I don't want the book banned, or censored, but I definitely question whether an instruction manual on how to get convicted for child assault belongs within the public library system. By all means house it amongst other sociology books within a tertiary library system, but there's something that makes me twitch about it being "endorsed" by ratepayers; and don't try to tell me that nobody considers the presence of a book within a library system to be an endorsement of the book.
For all the high-minded ideals of open information, there comes a point where telling people to break the law (not just how to) enters into very murky territory.
interview Hales and see what he said to his son about this criminal behaviour
You're assuming he knew. It's a matter of record that none of the boys or their parents were spoken to by the investigators. It's likely he knew, but far from certain. He definitely knows now, but whether he knew while the investigation was underway is not at all a given.
Do we know if any of these police have children themselves?
Why yes we do ,one Police Officer has a boy. His name is Beraiah Hales. He is one of the twits involved.
Unless I missed something I think you're conflating two separate things. Yes, the father of Hales is a police officer. However I suspect Ian was meaning any of the investigating officers and as far as we know Hales' father had nothing to do with the investigation.
I don’t think they need to stand 130 candidates or even that the greens need to stand any. I think the Greens in 2002 and 2005 only ran candidates to ensure there was momentum to get the vote out ..they don’t try and “win"them so to speak..
Of course they need 130-ish candidates if dual candidacy (list and electorate) is forbidden, so that they can contest every electorate and also fill their party list. Those are the rules you want. Not contesting a seat is pretty much unthinkable for the two big parties, both for appearance's sake and also so that new candidates can get the experience of contesting an election in an unwinnable seat; character-building for them, and also useful for the party apparatus to judge the candidate's mettle before potentially standing them in a more-winnable seat.
As for the Greens, they stand electorate candidates every time but only ever pitch for the party vote. They put them up in key seats, mostly, for party profile and also so they can try and swing the vote away from (lately) National; Epsom, Ohariu, etc. That's been their habit for at least the last five elections.
many candidates ( including Andrew Little ) were rejected at the polls but still in Parliament.
Thing is, there can only be one electorate MP. Jacinda and Nikki, for example, are both clearly very popular but only one of them could win. And look at Pull-ya Benefit and Carmel in 2011 where it was down to nine votes; that was far from a "rejection". Why should someone who was only barely less popular than the winner then be denied a seat in Parliament? Sure, there are electorate candidates who are very definitely "rejected" by the majority of voters, as evidenced by the results in deep-blue or deep-red electorates, but we do actually want elections to be a contest, not merely an enthroning.
And what of the Greens, who stand candidates who they know have no show of winning in what is, largely, a two-party race for any given seat, but by standing a candidate they get to promote the party at electorate debates. Without that they'd be limited to only such public debate time as was accorded to party leaders, and as we saw last year that can be one-eighth of bugger-all.
It's a common refrain, but it doesn't really stand up to much scrutiny. Not to mention that even National would struggle to field over 130 candidates should they be forced to run completely separate electorate and list candidates.
Why can’t they just make the committee bigger and have wider representation? It’s MMP after all.
Because the law says it's five members, being the PM, the Leader of the Opposition, two nominated by the PM, and one nominated by the LotO. It's not just a matter of casually re-drafting standing orders to expand the membership, it's a change in statute; and one that would be hard to do, because you need odd numbers on a committee to avoid deadlock and thus couldn't just make forward assumptions about how many parties would be in any future Parliament.
trees have the temerity to sit right where road builders want to build roads.
Which is their biggest sin. If the trees hadn't been there, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Bad trees! Naughty trees!