To Rosemary McDonald and Katharine Moody:
As an admitted solicitor for 15 years and current holder of a practicing certificate I feel I ought to respond to this.
- you clearly have not bothered to learn about what the Law Society does to discipline its members. I assure you, they are very very effective.
- all lawyers MUST ACT ON THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THEIR CLIENT. I doubt you would enjoy a legal system where this were not true.
- some lawyers are better than others (including Crown Prosecutors). But just because you don't like Simon Bridges performance of his current job does not mean he lacks ethics or was no good at his former job.
- It's hardly unusual for the Crown to ask for a much higher sentence than is handed down (likewise, the defence would typically ask for a lower sentence).
- the person with discretion on the appropriate sentence here was THE JUDGE. Not the prosecutor.
- the ultimate responsibility here is with parliament, who WROTE THE LAW INCLUDING THE SENTENCING ACT.
Lawyers of all kinds are the frequent butt of jokes and believe me we can take it. But by focusing on the individual here not only have you chosen the wrong person, you have taken your eye off the system.
Maybe you should start with it as simple as possible and then add things slowly if they make sense once you see how the route is used.
I agree with Bart - this route could end up being a cycle superhighway or a pedestrian paradise. Observation of its evolution is the best way to find out what is needed.
The average farm has increased its production of milksolids by 42 per cent over the last 10 years, while term liabilities have increased almost three-fold from $1.06 million to $2.96 million over the same period. Therefore, term liabilities have increased considerably faster than milk production for the average farm, increasing liquidity pressure on some farms.
From Dairy NZ Economic Survey 2012-13. So much information for those interested: http://www.dairynz.co.nz/publications/dairy-industry/dairynz-economic-survey-2012-13/
here is some more: Figure 5.10 shows the debt to asset distribution in 2012-13. The majority of farms are near the mean of 43.7 per cent, some farms
had very high debt to asset ratios or were in a negative equity situation, 13.5 per cent of farms have over 70 per cent debt/asset ratio.
My impression is there are a lot of large herds out there and farmers with multiple properties. Those people (some are corporates) are probably fairly heavily leveraged and have the biggest debt on the whole - tens of millions.
NZ on Air have just made their disapproval known as well, basically inviting people to complaint to Mediaworks. The statement says:
We have advised TV3 that we are disappointed that the focus has been taken off the music. We do not condone bullying.
We’re not allowed editorial input into any funded programme, but viewers can complain to Mediaworks here:
thanks for solving the last present problem Russell :)
Damn, he and his band knock out some great covers
At the Wine Cellar gig Laurence told the crowd that the band were doing a residency as the house covers band at the Golden Dawn in December.
So much yes to this.
oh god this is my fault isn't it... I've uncooled my entire suburb...
More seriously, this is visible in the inner West. I spent my student days around Ponsonby/Grey Lynn when it was super-studenty and quite grungy. No more. Where I live is possibly the only mixed income pocket of Freemans Bay left, but only because about 1/3 of the housing stock is rented, some from HNZ or a housing trust.
And thank goodness for all the students in the CBD, the place would be dead without them.
So, do we know what security clearance Mr De Joux has?
dude check yourself. I haven't seen one bit of ad hominem criticism directed at you. On the other hand, today you made "jokes" about checking Giovanni's papers and how feminists are oh so sensitive. If you listened more carefully you might have understood how that would go down.
Key is saying any data contributed by the GCSB would have been obtained by a warrant.
Information about New Zealanders supplied by the GCSB to the Five Eyes intelligence sharing network was limited to that gathered under a warrant.
"You could not gather information about New Zealanders without a warrant," he said.
Okay. The GCSB legislation seems to be specific about when information gathered legally can be retained and shared.
- section 23 says irrelevant material must be destroyed.
- section 25 sets out when "incidentally obtained intelligence" can be retained and shared. But incidentally obtained intelligence is "obtained in the course of gathering intelligence about the capabilities, intentions, or activities of foreign organisations or foreign persons". Not pursuant to warrants to intercept communications of NZ citizens or residents.
What I can't find in the legislation is any authority to share with any other person or agency information or intelligence obtained pursuant to a warrant. I understand that generally speaking evidence seized pursuant to warrants is not able to be shared willy nilly - there must be some kind of positive authority.
So, is what Key describing still illegal?
(any actual experts in the field please jump in now...)