Posts by merc
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Christchurch: Is "quite good"…, in reply to Hebe,
John says his Govt. (sic) will pay for public amenities. John just hasn't said what they are yet. Gerry says sell, he just hasn't said what yet.
Seriously, these two are more weird than Dick and Bush. -
Hard News: Christchurch: Is "quite good"…,
Gerry says sell.
-
Legal Beagle: Presuming innocence, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Ah thank you, yes I read the Law Commission report in part, a lot has been done since 1999, and in the main the system seems to me to work.
Perhaps my issue is that one cannot legislate around political interference. The obvious one about it possibly not being in the interest of a private practice to discontinue a prosecution is probably mitigated by the collected experience of these types of practice.
Swings and roundabouts perhaps. -
Legal Beagle: Presuming innocence,
Police felt it necessary to publicly state that they had no concerns about the validity of complaint.
The Police become political pawns with these acts of publicly stated feelings. NZ, correct me if I am wrong has a unique situation in this regard and that of their ability to hire private lawyers for enacting public prosecutions. In the past this has allowed for the question as to impartiality on the part of those who may be chosen for such a service.
As in the Thomas case the hired prosecuting lawyer had to follow the evidence trail as posited by the Police (the cartridge case for one). We all know the outcome.
However would a DA situation improve matters? Probably not because the NZ Police have such a history in NZ, I don't see it possible to change it.
http://www.nzlii.org/nz/other/nzlc/report/R66/R66-4_.html may be apposite, need to read just wanted to get the link in before the PAS statute on comment editing limitations came into force ;-) -
Hard News: John Banks: The volunteer did…, in reply to Sacha,
Seriously, how do the Police justify not laying charges and letting a court judge the matter?
That's the problem with the system right there, they don't. Bought and paid for.
-
Hard News: It's not funny because it's…,
Bring out number weight and measure in a year of dearth.
William Blake
The shocking premise that we are in a year of dearth applies in no measure to why you would sell a company that returns 19% PA, for a loss. -
Legal Beagle: Johndotbanks - the law is…, in reply to DexterX,
Intent plays a large part in law I am told - and who is to profit from the act? I don't think Helen Clark's intention was to deceive or defraud (Paintergate). Mr Teapot on the other hand knew those donations were there and who they were from - by definition, not anonymous, however.
Now let's agree that Helen wanted that money from that painting to go to charity. For what purpose was the Dotcom donation made? Who was to gain?
None of these questions is small, but we will never know because the law is weak, however it takes a very cunning person to manipulate it so and a very ambiguous PM to not recognise this as such.
While all this goes on all politicians are tarred with the same brush though they may be of an altogether different disposition.
The silence to remedy the weak law is deafening. My solution at the least - all documents you sign, you are culpable for, simple. -
Hard News: It's not funny because it's…, in reply to Matthew Poole,
I really think opportunity cost sits well with ROI, it's about evaluating alternatives. I don't think DARPA is a good example, I have seen firsthand the military measure, and that is not what we want to think it is.
Crickey, any evaluation measure would be better than what we are getting now, surely? -
Hard News: It's not funny because it's…,
Funny thing is that with all these experts involved in all these money decisions, not once has any mention been made of good old opportunity cost, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost
I guess it's... -
Legal Beagle: Johndotbanks - the law is…, in reply to DeepRed,
Because Key needs to be covered and Banks is ACT, all very predictable.
In Key's case, he is several steps removed from what happened during the last Auckland mayoralty campaign - and can thus at least try to distance himself to a degree from Banks.
I see what he did there,
The public have become hardened to such realities and how major party leaders have to turn a blind eye to indiscretions by their minor party support partners. If they did not, Governments would topple at regular intervals.
From Todd in comments,
2.6 The Prime Minister alone has the right to advise the Governor-General to:a)appoint, dismiss, or accept the resignation of Ministers;
b)dissolve Parliament and call a general election.