via Andrew Geddis s.168
The voter, having received a ballot paper,—
(a) shall immediately retire into one of the inner compartments provided for the purpose; and
(b) shall there alone and secretly vote—
There is a later bit about being able to take a carer in, but I don’t think you need your children to physically help you to vote…
Yeah - technically you aren't meant to bring your kids into the polling booth … but my experience last time around was that so long as they don't yell out who you are voting for, the people running the place are pretty relaxed about it.
Hey - don't worry! On the 15th, Kim Dotcom will ride in and deliver a big bag of pure, uncut … BZP? Kratom? Talcum-Powder mixed with crushed aspirin?
You cannot be prosecuted for breaching privacy, and Cameron Slater isn't being prosecuted for it.
Graeme's right. He's being crucified on a cross of namby pamby liberal angst.
Prediction: Slater will be successful in getting an injunction against "Rawshark", which I assume he'll then completely ignore. But he won't get one against the media organisations, because they're not going to print all the private trashy stuff, only the important political stuff.
Full disclosure: I am an idiot who may have no better a track record than a coin being spun.
although it’s not out of the question that McVicar could pull enough votes from Tremain to let Nash squeak through.
That would be an upset, given that Chris Tremain is quitting Parliament at this election! National's candidate for Napier is Wayne Walford (which is, apparently, a real name!)
Serious question though - when have the police ever actually progressed an Electoral Commission referral to the stage of pressing charges?
They do it sometimes in relation to people who "double vote". But in regards other matters … never, to my knowledge.
Hey - the system works!
That’s because it’s imported, tasteless, has an icky flavour and very difficult to stomach.
Tasteless and with an icky flavour! Act just can’t win, can they?
If it were so obviously illegal why wasn’t something done back then?
Not sure it is "so obviously illegal" ... there's an argument that if you are allowed onto Labour's network freely, then you are "authorised" under the Act to access anything that is publicly accessible. Sort of like if you're let into someone's house for a party, then it isn't unlawful to wander into their unlocked bedroom. So let's just say that it's arguable whether the activity was unlawful.
Why, then, was no complaint laid? Well, if you are Labour, would you want this issue in the news over the next few months?
Oh, dammit. You type too fast.
All that is required is that the access was done ‘knowing that he or she is not authorised’. This would include taking advantage of a poorly configured server to reveal documents that are clearly not meant to be publicly available.
Exactly. If someone pushes on a door, finds it’s unlocked, and walks through it to take whatever they can find inside, it seems a bit odd to say “well, of course if they leave it open you haven’t really done anything wrong!”