Arguably lawyers are also obliged to tell their client they're being a dick.
Not just arguably. But really, a client who is allegedly prepared to dump toxic materials may just decide not take that considered advice on board. And then what?
Regardless, I think all parties have got the message now.
Lawyers are obliged to act in their clients' interests so I can't blame Carter Ruck for trying, but I LOVE the response they got. KA-BOOM!
...Nancy Mitford who acidly observed that when war was declared the only sound heard in the best houses was Joachim von Ribbentrop's signature being razored out of visitor's books. It's one thing admitting that you were a pro-isolationist in the US or in favour of appeasement (which in my opinion was an understandable if indefensible position with 20/20 hindsight), and were proved horribly wrong by events. But pretending you were never any such thing? Moral cretinism of the first water.
Honesty didn't do Nancy's sister much good though, did it. I can see why, in such a climate, people might take the pretending option.
(I mean Diana, not Unity, although honesty didn't end up doing Unity much good either).
Stephen, you just made my day.
In fact the land may still have to be bought for the tunnel. I don't know what the situation on that route is, but traditionally one owned land "...up to heaven and down to hell" although this has been heavily modified over the years to the point where it's not exactly true any longer (think flight paths etc).
But yes, a side issue most definitely.
Leaving aside the whole "It's the rich wot gets the benefits, it's the poor wot gets the..." ideology, can I point out here that land taken for road does need to be paid for, and at market value too. A route that achieves much the same outcome as the alternative but which costs four times less in land purchases is likely to carry weight, non? That's certainly how I run my budget.
I'm not blind to the effects on communities, but I don't think that the outcomes are primarily predicated on those in Remmers having influence over a current administration.
They banned a John Willie book! In 1995! Ridiculous! How can anyone think of banning a bondage comic featuring characters such as:
Sweet Gwendoline "Ah! Who will save her!"
Faithful Frederick (our hero).
Sir d'Arcy d'Arcy (the foul fiend).
Dad (poor but honest).
The Mysterious Countess.
Thanks Raymond! There's quite a bit of interesting stuff around the context of your ancestors' offences and punishments. Feel free to email me if you'd like some links.
Emma - I wonder if the privacy/shame perception split has arisen quite recently. I don't recall shame being the default even 15 years ago, which was about the time heroin chic and super-skinny models appeared and (apparently) started to alter our 'standards' for ourselves.
Stephen, you are my New Best Friend.
The odds of getting away with it were probably increased by the JP's ability to throw the complainant in jail until the trial, just to make sure they turned up. Not sure why that was dropped from the toolset...
...the thing about the NZ papers is that they cover everything...
I missed that so much when I was out of the country! It makes it sound 1) as though we care about what happens in our communities, and 2) as if our problems are pretty small. And I like that!
I think it also helps us keep things in perspective when Greg O'Connor or Garth McVicar open their mouths.