Parata is like a walking cliché regurgitator. I actually groaned out loud when she said she could "unpack" those three dollars.
I've read it twice and I still don't know what her answer was. Is this how she got so far in her career? No one understands her so they assume she must know what she's talking about?
The media isn't allowed to say it's suicide.
Sections 71 to 73 of the Coroners Act 2006 restrict the publishing of details relating to suicides in New Zealand, unless the permission of a Coroner is first obtained. Permission may only be granted if publication is unlikely to be detrimental to public safety.
The Law Commission is currently reviewing it.
Your understanding of the law around assaults on animals is mistaken.
Sorry, all I read was "everything else you said was correct but I can't ever admit I'm wrong."
The problem with this "debate" is it's constantly framed as "good parents who give little Johnny a smack on the bum will go to jail." What we have is two forms of smacking: the aforementioned, which is antiquated and ineffective, but probably not going to cause serious harm to the child. And then we have the abuse that involves using a hose or piece of wood to thrash a child that pretty much every reasonable person would agree is harmful.
The problem? You can't legislate for one and not the other. Or rather, we tried, and the result was this murky "reasonable force" law that allowed the latter group to get off thanks to a jury of their peers. And so in an effort to stop the latter, we must legislate for both groups, and leave it up to police discretion to decide what gets prosecuted. I'm happy with that outcome. If the debate was framed this way, I dare say most of the country would be too.
But again, if the intention of the law isn't to criminalise parents who smack, it was an odd choice to pass a law that makes them criminals.
You've got it backwards. Assault is a crime. But before the law change, there was a part of the Crimes Act that specifically allowed adults to assault children. The law change removed that defense, bringing assault against children into line with assault against adults, or animals. It's on the pro-smacking crowd to justify why child assault should have an exemption, not the other way around.
And we needs to stop using the word "smacking". It's hitting. It's assault. "Smacking" is a word used to diminish the act, but it speaks volumes about our society that the only time it's used is when it's assault on children.
But it’s also important to keep these numbers in context: New Zealand’s Got Talent’s series total of 725,601 streams is less than the average 899,965 viewers it earned per broadcast episode.
Yeah, but at least those 725,601 streams equate to 725,601 people, unlike the Nielsen ratings which is what, 600 homes across the entire country? I know which figure I put more stock in.
Does New Zealand not have a parody defence like in the U.S.?
The link Bomber tweeted that they sent him states:
A person commits an offence who, without reasonable excuse, carries on an activity under an operating name that includes the word “Police” or the words “New Zealand Police”, in a manner likely to lead a person to believe that the activity is endorsed or authorised by the Police or any part of the Police.
Surely satire or protest is a "reasonable excuse". No one is going to think that's a real police ad, and if they do, boy does that say something about public perception of the police.
Are there transcripts of those videos anywhere? The sound is so bad I'm having trouble making out what they're saying.
I would've thought my subsequent suggestion of kneecapping children showed I was exaggerating for comic effect, but I guess not.
National's supporters don't care about the urgency thing. They voted for a Government to get things done, and they are. Democratic process is for pussies.
Also, unless conservatives know someone who's in the position of caring for a disabled person, they don't care. So obviously the solution is to kneecap every National voter's child.