Would this extend to offering “futures contracts” on horse races, rugby games, or indeed IPL cricket matches?
They are specifically excluded from sports (all "entertainment" events, IIRC). E.g. they can't run stocks on Golden Globe winners.
..is the University essentially using its “standing” to gain a privileged exemption from gambling law?
You could spin it that way, but I don't think anyone believes VUW is making any real money from iPredict (AFAIK they operate it on an oily rag). The real beneficiaries are the backers who use it to (a) attempt to divine the future and massage their messages accordingly, and (b) generate press releases from stock movement.
Wild armchair speculation: came about because Hooten wanted a way to challenge Farrar's stangehold on nat data/polling.
Calling Dr Thomas Lumley, Dr Thomas Lumley to shady statistics aisle.
Puffed / Puffed Up.
We hit up the Harbourside Sculpture Trail in Te Atatu, it's a great morning out and the kids can run amok too.
A launch party scotched for fear of “treating”, while a PR expert advises the Nats to brighten up their youth recruitment “goodie bags”. So it’s not treating when you are literally giving out treats.
The Mana proposal is interesting though. Both sides must see it as a deal with the devil, guaranteed to make them players in a knife-edge parliment, but saddled with even more baggage then they already had.
God I love an election year.
If so, that would be beyond appalling.
Tau Henare handily confirmed the government's position on such matters.
…why should Govt pay a group to be critical of it? Pay them to help but don’t pay them to bag the hand that feeds them.
Of course, if they’re not using that funding for lobby work, then that’s invalid.
Is in concievable that the PGF will split into a services org and a lobby group? Theoretically that could allow the services side to continue to operate with minimal disruption, under some new branding.
...and it ever does fall, it's probably not going to fall on respectable white middle class people like me.
More concern-trolling doesn't negate the earlier concern-trolling.
"Bad things might happen - although they haven't yet - they might, and if they do, they might happen to [vulnerable group], and I'm implying that you think it will happen, and are ok with it, if you don't agree."
Graeme, you've got a serious case of concern-trolling. You should get that looked at.
As mentioned earlier, this isn't an academic argument. If you think the sky is falling, you need to provide the evidence.
Otherwise you're riding the same truthy boat as Colin Craig.
He's straight out of the school of it just has to sound truthy. Which is why he's getting cut up left and right.
But I worry that at least 5% of the population just doesn't care that it's not true because they still think it's right.
Arg, I see I've been beaten. But "actually" still actually has my vote. It actually conveys the current governments condescending response to actual concerns. Whenever JK says Actually you can pretty much guarantee that the next few words will be divorced from reality and common-sense.