Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Every Five years.
-
The illuminati are in your BSA raising your denominator.
ASA.
An intriguing example of somewhere where voluntary compliance actually works - the Advertising Standards Authority doesn't actually have any power.
-
I'm not trying to demonstrate a state religion through God Defend New Zealand. We have no state religion.
I'm arguing that God Defend New Zealand, which was our National Hymn before it became one of our National Anthems, invokes a Christian God. No, it's not explicit, but nor are Abide with Me or Amazing Grace.
The "men of evry creed and race" bit, I hadn't thought of - but it can go the other way.
Men of every creed (including atheists) can come to New Zealand (as Bishop Tamaki has said they should be able to) - but once they get here, what should they do? Well, according to the National Anthem, pray (... to a Christian God - admittedly, implicity). You could argue that the National Anthem goes even further than Bishop Tamaki seeks (he doesn't want to force atheists to pray, just to not object when others do in public - like at the start of Parliament each day).
-
Ben - the word Christian may not appear in God Defend New Zealand, but the invocation of a Christian God (or at least a non-secular one) is pretty clear once you go past the first verse.
-
David Lange, of course, famously despised him and opposed him getting the nomination
I had thought (with little understanding why, but still) that Lange had opposed Field's nomination for 'his' Mangere in 1996. Field first entering Parliament under FPP as the member for Otara the previous election.
this prosecution is going to land on Labour, with serving Cabinet ministers probably having to give evidence, just in time for the election next year
I'm not so sure. People have certainly been speculating that Ministers might need to give evidence, and while we don't know the exact nature of the charges, I'm not particularly sure what they could add to the case for either prosecution or defence - perhaps importantly, I don't recall any news that ministers had been interviewed - it's possible it was kept quiet (or that Field will want to call them), but if a minister was to be called by the prosecution, then that minister would have been interviewed by police already.
-
catchiest damn beat ever.
You don't remember the days of Commodore 64 gaming then?
-
at the same time as National is bagging Clark for not rushing to the police the day after the story broke, Act's two MPs are alleging a conspiracy to influence the police in favour of prosecuting the MP because Clark wanted to see him dealt to.
Not just Act. Bill Ralston on Eye to Eye this morning had this to say:
In the Taito Phillip Field thing the interesting thing is that he was going to attack their South Auckland vote by setting up his own party by moving out of that caucus he was posing a huge threat to Labour in South Auckland - South Auckland won them the last election.
Would he be charged if he was still in that Labour caucus? I don't think so and I think one of the important questions we are seeing here is that the police are no longer politically independent. I don't think they've been independent for some time but it's been hastened under the Labour Government.
And I think the cops have moved in and they're charging this guy because he's a threat to the government, because they see the way clear to do so, they can take him out and they know they're going to get favours from it.
Massive call.
-
Thanks for the Hansard link Malcolm - some great stuff in there.
From Russel Fairbrother:
This is a report that Mr Field can wave around as a tribute to his integrity, and it suggests he will continue to be a profitable and good member of the House.
-
Also I note Section 103 states it's an offence to both accept and offer a bribe. Isn't it interesting that the police only want to lay charges against Field and no-one else?
Can we assume from that the Crown has offered immunity in exchange for testimony? I'll be interested to see how that pans out.
Immunity? Not a chance. It all but never happens in New Zealand (any offer has to be personally approved by the Solicitor-General, and offers can only be made where there is no other way to secure a conviction).
My guess is that some of the charges may relate to attempting to obtain bribes, which would not necessitate there being other parties to any alleged offending.
For all we moan about MPs, they (almost) all understand the need to be seen to act appropriately and avoid conflicts of interest (especially as Cabinet ministers), but it doesn't seem to have occurred to Field.
Helpfully for Field, he was cleared of any wrong-doing as a minister (that would have seen him face a potential 14 year prison term on each charge), and indeed cleared of conflicts of interest as a minister as well (I'd note too that Field was never in cabinet).
-
Rob - are you using Brash' support for mandatory saving to bolster the case for or the case against an expanded kiwisaver regime?