I'm not sure about that. Perhaps if the statement were along the lines of "we'll extradite him by lunchtime" there might be a case of predetermination, but when the statement at issue is instead "we won't extradite him if we become Government" it's hard to see who would challenge the resulting decision if there was follow-through (not Dotcom!) and given the wide discretion afforded by the Extradition Act, how it could be a successful challenge.
+1. The People acting for the United States in seeking extradition are the Crown Law Office. If a Green Party Justice Minister decides not to extradite, there's no way that Crown Law is going judicially review that decision.
I could understand the security management being wary of her and her friends on sighting their protest.
And accordingly stayed near the mayor for what purpose?
Presumably, someone looked at the handful protesters and decided they might be a problem (given that Penny Bright was involved, not necessarily a bad guess) so stuck a bit closer to the mayor
If you have information that leads you to believe Penny Bright represents some sort of threat to the mayor, you should make it public.
This is such a bizarre debate. Still, looking at the Wikipedia entry on Corporal punishment in the home and Where corporal punishment in the home is lawful I can see Australia, Canada, Ireland, South Africa, United Kingdom and the United States.
Do you think it’s the English language that drives this need to beat children or is there something deeper in the Anglosphere driving this urge?
I suspect it's the English language that drives people to edit the English language version of Wikipedia.
Wikipedia's coverage of the legality of child discipline appears to have a similar issue to its coverage of just about everything else little coverage of most of Africa, Asia, South America etc.
But seriously, how would a graduated system be anything but confusing and unclear?
Well, how did it work in Sweden? Their initial law change didn't amend their criminal law.
OK, so Kim Dotcom is just Bob Jones for hipsters? Good to know.
My comment was about the impossibility of Internet voting at this election.
Come to think of it, has anyone seen any hints of what the Internet Party’s policy (if any) might actually be towards Online Voting, given the degree of internet actually involved?
Whatever it is, it's not going to affect this election.
Has a political party ever bought banner ads on a website in NZ?
I've definitely seen it. United Future bought some ad space (and a blog post) on Kiwiblog last year. And I'm sure other parties have bought internet ads as well.
WAY TO KILL THE PARTY EDGELER. ;)
Well, I've not long finished the second of two media interviews about the party party, so it will be pretty obvious that Kim Dotcom has someone who is not me as his lawyer. I have heard through the media that it is Chen Palmer.
Well, duh. A lawyer didn’t breach his client’s confidence. I would have been astonished had Graeme answered Cameron Slater’s questions in any other way. To imply otherwise is either disingenuous or stupid.
I did not feel that Cameron’s reporting about me in any way suggested any impropriety. His reporting seems entirely fair.