Posts by Dylan Reeve
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I've never found Starbucks to be all that bad really. It's probably never given me a stellar cup of coffee, but it's also never really failed to the extent of some of the suburban cafes I've been to either, where scalded milk and undrinkably hot cups are not that uncommon. There are some cafes where I consistently get really good coffee, and some where it's a real craps shoot. Starbucks at least delivers a consistently reasonable cup.
That said, I'm obviously no coffee connoisseur, but I do appreciate the odd cup, and I can at least taste a terrible coffee.
Of course the article is still absurd.
-
Dylan, look further:
<quote>excludes work performed, or services provided, in respect of the production of any programme intended initially for broadcast on television</quote>
Oh, did miss that... WTF?! That make absolutely no sense. The same people work for same companies making film and TV, why one and not the other, and why include game production and not video TV?
-
I find it bizarre that video games (all video games seemingly, not just ones related to films) are included, but TV productions aren't.
The Bill says:
film means a cinematograph film, a video recording, and any other material record of visual moving images that is capable of being used for the subsequent display of those images; and includes any part of any film, and any copy or part of a copy of the whole or any part of a filmThat seems to cover TV by my reading (I work in TV)
-
A roadside test (like the sniffer or the blow in the bag) for drug use wouldn't be a huge issue for application to "happy looking young men snacking late at night" but to essentially detain and transport them for an evidential test based on no clear suspicion is well past reasonable.
And how long does the test take to decide a result? What are the limits? Etc etc etc.
I was searched under misuse of drugs act once - it was only after the cop, who'd stopped me just to ask why I wasn't at school, found out I went to Metro college that he decided he had reason to believe I might have drugs on me. It was about 9:30 in the morning. The search was fruitless.
-
The thing that seemed staggeringly obvious with the pro-smacking referendum, especially once more people started to climb on, was how there was no way it could ever be binding, simply because it proposed no specific change. The pro-smackers then couldn't agree on where the border of reasonableness was, let alone propose any sort of resolution.
The same is true of this "Pro Democracy" movement (which I suspect is really just the pro-smacking one with a little extra stuff to broaden appeal) - they can't agree on what they want, and certainly can't provide the means to fix it.
And that's fundamentally the problem with referenda - they can't be verbose enough to really be binding. Unless we're to require voters to read draft legislation and vote on that - I think the turnout will be a lot smaller then (so of course the motivated-minority will win)
Inherantly a referendum is likely to be sucessful for the organiser I think. As those content with the status quo are much less likely to get involved, which is a massive argument against making them binding.
Can they all shut up now?
-
Justin - it is not in front of the court yet therefore there would be no court file.
I beg to disagree. Veitch appeared in court on the 18th where the charges were laid and he was remanded on bail. So there will be a court file, and it will include at the very least the charge sheet, and possibly a summary of facts, but I wouldn't not for sure as IANAL.
-
are not indexed in Google
-
So now, is Fairfax in contempt of court?
ScreenshotWhat about The NZ Herald?
ScreenshotGranted, they are indexed in Google, but that wasn't the rule was it?
-
It's all gone down in a very weird way I think.
Generally it feels like the things we heard, especially in the early weeks, were perhaps exaggerated at least. Hence it seems to appear to have been presented from the complainant's perspective. I certainly don't think it was 'front footing' the thing.
I don't think Veitch ever really did have an opportunity to put forward his side of the events, to do so would be self-incriminating, especially given that his public statements were before he was charged with a crime.
It will be interesting to see what happens between now and the trial, whenever that may be.
-
In some ways I still find this whole situation to be disproportionate - don't get me wrong, I don't approve of domestic assault of any kind, but the ramifications and speculation on this case are insane.
Perhaps (probably) Team Veitch did release the summary of facts to the media, but I still see that as a fair response in some ways. Up to this point all the details we've heard of the case (kicked down the stairs, broken back, in a wheelchair for months, lost job because of injury) have originated (at least in perspective) from Dunne-Powell's side. Veitch has been unable to offer any alternatives. In releasing the police summary they get a chance to refute, in some small way, some of the allegations, and the hinted allegations. No mention of 'down the stairs', some details on the other 'Male assaults Female' events.
Kicking someone isn't cool or alright, but how many other 'normal' people have done similar or worse and never face anything like the outcome that Veitch has. Business professionals, sports people even.