Posts by ScottY
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I remember the day Lennon was shot. I remember thinking "God, why couldn't you have taken Ringo instead?"
Seriously tho, I'll go as far as to agree Ringo has a solid tradesmanlike drumming style. But you aint gettin' more than that from me.
-
1. We missed Hello Sailor, but fuck I hate Adam Duritz.
He certainly needs to find a happy place and preferably stay there.
6. Zac Starkey is an almighty badass. Although I got into a small debate with the guy next to me who felt the need to dis Ringo while complimenting his son. 'Oh, Ringo was never really a drummer, he was always more of a character.' Actually, no. Listen to 'Rain' and hush it up, friend.
I'm afraid I would agree with the guy next to you. Someone (don't remember who) once quipped that Ringo wasn't even the best drummer in the Beatles. And how can we ever forgive the execrable "Octopus's Garden?"
His son though did a great job - no, he's no Keith Moon on drums, but then could anyone ever be?
-
Were Hello Sailor any good, 3410?
Missed both support acts.
I was lucky enough to catch all the acts.
Hello Sailor went down well with the crowd. They played the tunes everyone knew and loved.
The Counting Crows were alright, but the crowd felt a bit flat throughout. I'm not sure the band's earnest and introspective tunes were a good warmup for a kickass band like the Who.
And the Who did play with ferocious energy.
-
I've endured plenty of fleapits around the world, but here's one place I don't think I'll be staying any time soon:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2278438/Five-star-hotel-boss-slams-one-star-parked-cars
-
Still seems like a game, a case is constructed and not revealed till court day. Then is adversorial not finding out what happened.
Unlike in TV shows like Boston Legal or LA Law, there really aren't that many surprises in most trials. The process of discovery, and the depositions process, mean that each party normally has a fair idea what the other paty's angle is. And it's difficult to introduce new evidence without giving advance warning to the other side.
I'm not convinced the Civil Law system operating in countries such as France does a better job. The aim may well be to to find the truth, but isn't someone still making a decision based on the evidence put before them?
I may be biased (having worked all my career under common law systems), but I wouldn't rush to throw away several hundred years of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence.
I'm not suggesting our system is perfect. But it works most of the time.
-
And why is it the prosecution always goes first and the defence, has whatever time (in a fixed time period) is left after the prosecution to rattle thru their case.
The trial period is not fixed. A period is allocated for the trial, but overruns are frequent. As will inevitably be the case with the Bain retrial.
Maybe they should have posters around the police stations with catchy little slogans to that effect then.
Splendid idea.
-
I can't help but feel there's the makings of a decent test side in the current squad.
Another false dawn, I suspect. NZ cricket seems to have one or two per season. Please, God, prove me wrong! (and sorry God about dissing you in other threads. But this is really important)
-
So we are re-trying Bain on the say-so of the Privy Council
Yes, that's how our judicial system works. Criminal appeals often result in retrials. If a conviction is potentially suspect, but there's still strong evidence of guilt, the best course of action is often to hear the whole thing again.
If the PC had thought there was no evidential basis for the conviction they'd have let Bain walk.
-
My legal training doesn't extend to criminal procedure (I shun the limelight and prefer shuffling papers in the comfort of my own dark office), but here we go...
The word "exonerated" suggests that someone had been freed from blame or cleared of responsibility. In a criminal justice context the term is often used when someone has been proven not to have committed a crime.
Our court system doesn't really exonerate. You're either guilty or not guilty. A jury can't find you "innocent". A "not guilty" doesn't mean the court accepts you didn't commit a crime. It just means you've not been found beyond reasonable doubt to have committed a crime.
The Privy Council quashed Bain's conviction, but ordered a retrial. Essentially they've said "we're not sure the conviction is safe, but let's re-examine the whole thing just to be sure."
-
Since then, doubts have lingered about the conviction and he's been exonerated & is now being re-tried.
No, his conviction was quashed and a retrial was ordered. That's not an exoneration.