Yes, as has been argued on this very blog before, the gaming of the OIA that has become standard operating procedure started in the last term of the last Labour Government. This is not a particularly current regime thing; it's a "people who govern don't seem to like to be questioned" thing.
I guess one easy-ish way to help Dr. Gilbert would be to for people to request, under the OIA, the relevant bits of information Gilbert and his researchers have asked for. I'm assuming the Police have their weird system in place for cases where researchers ask for large chunks of data (which might be troublesome to collate/collect/etc); if members of the public asked for small portions of that data under the OIA, that might end up circumventing/making a mockery of the Police's system.
Ideally, though, the Universities should band together to protest this. Chilling effects, yadda yadda yadda.
1. Which is to say, not that easy.
Well, it's nice to know my work on the Ben Rachinger material has been basically vindicated; I pointed out that the timeline Ben has presented has never actually made sense, and showed he was still working for/scamming Slater well after he claimed he wasn't.
I'm not sure why we're meant to be subsidising milk producers; even with my vegan hat off, the supposed health benefits of milk area widely disputed by nutritional experts, whilst we live in a region of the world where lactose intolerance is a serious problem for large sectors of our multicultural society. That, and the fact dairy production is environmental destructive and mostly takes place on land confiscated from Māori seems to rule out the idea we should be subsidising dairy...
Given the paucity of bike-stands, and thus having never seen a multitude of bikes parked anywhere, I saw that Utrecht image and thought "How on earth would I ever find my bike again in that!"
In which case, our quarrel is with Veitch's employers.
True. Although I think just a little opprobrium can also be expressed towards those who listen to him who happen to also be cognizant of the facts. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a little overlap between those who oppose Brown's entry to the country and yet happily listen to Veitch; a lot of the concern about the Chris Brown case is, I think, predicated entirely on how we are inconsistent when it comes to condemning such abuse. It seems some are going "But people like Veitch!" and then thinking "We should apply the same standard to Brown also!". Really, though, we should be applying the same standard to Veitch as we would to Brown.
Frankly, although this sounds like avant garde capital punishment, I think we should send all such abusers into deep space via a cannon or rail gun.
1. In cases where the perpetrator shows no remorse (or whose actions indicate their stated remorse is, in fact, insincere). I don't want to come across as someone who doesn't think people can change.
And whatever we feel about people, it is not just to punish them in perpetuity – hearing Tony Veitch on the radio might well make your skin crawl, but he does have a right to employment.
Whilst this is true (insofar as people have right to some kind of employment), the Veitch case is one where, as I have always maintained, his lack of remorse (and trying to paint himself as the real victim) raises the question "Are there really no other sports broadcasters who are just as good (or even almost as good) who could have done that job?"
This wasn't a case of giving Tony Veitch a job in shop or a factory making furniture; this was a case of giving Veitch another prominent media position, one in the public eye. Really, the only case for Veitch ever getting another media role, would have been if he was a) the only sports broadcaster in the country and b) we were legally mandated to have at least one sports broadcaster. As neither of those are the case, his remarkable return to the media really was a slight to the victims of domestic violence.
So, yes; he may well have the right to employment, but nothing about that right says it was justified to give him that particular job.
I don't know; I arguably subtweet about at least one person who not only doesn't follow me but claims to have blocked me. I think subtweeting is very much about intention rather than the practicalities.
Almost everyone thinks they care, even Roger Douglas. In fact, the declaration that he cares is the subject of chapter one of all his books. And if you think you care, well, you probably do care.
Douglas also continues to maintain he is a socialist (and the only real socialist interested in long term change of the system); if we allow people to self-select their categories most will identify as Centre because that's were the sensible people are at.
1. This reminds me of Jack Z. Bratich's arguments against Liberalism in "Conspiracy Panics"; Liberalism as a political thesis really doesn't like people on the "extremes" to the Left and Right because rational liberals should migrate towards to the consensual centre.
That argument, mutatis mutandis, applies to the Chinese names/foreign buyers debacles. Perceived to be racist, therefore racist.
Hold on Rob; you've both said "perception is reality" and "if people think they are centrists, then they are centrists". So, if both of those propositions are true, the fact that people slam Labour for engaging in dole bludger rhetoric (for example, that story about the roof layer) despite claims about policy means that if people perceive Labour's message as being all about hating people on Welfare, then that's the reality, no matter the claims about (unreleased) policy.