But while we have you -- is there anyone else in Act whose alarming anti-Semitic beliefs we should know about?
I hope we have none but we don't check members "credentials." And yes, we do check candidates credentials.
What country is Trevor Loudon the president of? I've forgotten.
Oh, and Peterson too.
You can go to Danyl McLauchlan's blog (below) and read why medicinal Heroin is allowed but apparently medicinal Cannabis isn't.
I think conscience votes should be removed and replaced with intelligence votes. "Conscience" doesn't quite seem the right word a lot of the time.
Grant suggested that police have a policy of rescuing fallen comrades above anything else. That's pretty micro.
Basically the policy over all else is to protect life and property and they do this through many hundreds of procedures for many hundreds of different situations they are expected to encounter: key word = expected.
In a situation like this their policy response is cordon, control and contain. I think the main one there is always control - control over the scene and control over the offender. You have to know where he is and what he's doing. There was obviously plenty of evidence that Molenaar went rampaging down the street shhoting at Constables Diver and Miller, and the civvy neighbour. That is a police officers worst nightmare. If he reacted like that to officers running from his property, then it was likely he would have done so again had an attempt been made to rescue Len Snee.
But as I mentioned above, the key word on policy and procedure is expected. Their are manuals written on how to investigate at the scene of a homicide, aggravated robbery, sexual assault - all situations where standard procedure can and should be carried out. But this scene in Napier was one out of the box. And police officers are highly trained to follow the only procedure they know when the unexpected occurs: cordon, contain and control.
Sure it would have been heroic and made for a great Mark Sainsbury interview had an officer gone charging in and pulled Snee to safety. But unfortunately it would have been shocking police work.
I am not one to agree readily with you Russell but I do wholeheartedly in this piece. Thank you for putting some perspective back into it.
I feel that most commentators watch Jack Bauer or the latest James Bond flick (Grant, are you there?) and then they’re experts, and the cops, who have hundreds (thousands?) of years of combined experience are goofs and couldn’t find a shoe in a shoe box. And I say this as someone who spent six years on the frontline. I have read some truly embarrassing writings on this event - mostly on the blogs admittedly and perhaps that’s the problem.
The police did an exemplary job. They should get nothing but our full praise. I think this piece says it superbly.
In the circumstances, I agree, again, with No Right Turn that the answer to objectionable speech is more speech, in the form of protest...
So you find the Electoral Finance Act repugnant then?
Someone asked earlier on what the projected cost of the tens of thousands of LAQC's would be costing us in terms of the tax write offs.
I don't know. But, the tax benefits are no different than if the property was owned by individuals. The real benefit of LAQC's is not that the tax losses can be attributed against personal income (it would be in identical amounts in individual ownership), rather that a company gives creditor protection and also that the shares can be sold to a family trust once the property starts making profits. This means the property is not sold so depreciation clawbacks are not paid (the shares are sold instead).
The focus on LAQC's is somewhat of a red herring in terms of tax.
It's alright Russell, you didn;t need to explain.
I kind of feel I do, if only to explain that I've explained it before. It's the only Labour Party event I even attend, let alone participate in.
Yeah, one would be enough to do my head in too.
I look forward to your party vote for Act then this year Russell :-).
Isn't this the point of this 'story': that people who might practice religion or hold morally conservative beliefs in this country are, or have been, subject to ad hominen attacks and personal villification of such nature that they are now frightened to hold such views for fear of attack on their homes and/or family?
I think so.
Danyl, I totally agree and I'm against the bill.
The thing that *really* gets me is that in 1986 (or thereabouts) the Homosexual Law Reform Act was passed on the premise that the State had no business in your bedroom, which I concur with. Now the worm has turned and the State is right back in your house and we have the Labour Party supporting this intrusion when in 1986 they were active in opposing it.
That is one thing I can't fathom.