starting a Twitter outrage
isn't that the point of twitter?
where Tyler verbally blasted an activist
So not just jumping on roofs - VERBAL BLASTING too.
Phew, I feel safer now.
is a complete crock
Oh, I don't know. It says right there in the story how this one time they climbed on top of the shop and ran from roof to roof. I don't know about you, but I don't want some fscking rapper jumping around on my roof like some Batman causing mayhem and riot in my backyard.
Anyone know at what point bike racks will be added to Auckland buses?
Never as far as I know.
3 News duly repeated the ‘Brown’s bodyguards’ spin tonight, as if Brewer had written the script.
Well, he did write the script. NZHerald and 3News just didn't question it.
Dick Cuthbert may have a long history of protest, but I don’t think he does his own reputation any credit by following Len Brown around with a placard demanding to know if the mayor is a “sex addict”. Another banner, visible in the photograph in the Herald, accuses him of being a “love rat” and features a series of pictures of the mayor morphing into a rat.
Sigh. What do these people want?
A kind-of related story I read this morning had this to say about the Dicks of this world (A Point of View: Sex and the French)
Puritanism is a sin against human nature, and the worst of it is that puritanism is the most leering and prurient of world views. Far from wanting to keep sex in the private sphere, the puritans can't wait to drag it out in public. Puritans are the least buttoned-up people in the world. They can't wait to pin a scarlet A for adultery on someone's clothing, or hold a public humiliation ritual.
Well, how did it work in Sweden? Their initial law change didn’t amend their criminal law.
Since you asked -
The change in Sweden happened gradually over about 20 years.
Before 1957 the law allowed parents to beat their children so long as they weren't injured.
From 1957 to 1966 the law allowed parents to 'correct' their children with means deemed appropriate considering the child's age and what they were 'corrected' for.
From 1966 to 1979 there was no exemption allowing the beating of one's children, but it was not explicitly banned.
In 1979 it became explicitly banned and covered by the same paragraph in criminal law as that of 'normal' assault.
This is such a bizarre debate. Still, looking at the Wikipedia entry on Corporal punishment in the home and Where corporal punishment in the home is lawful I can see Australia, Canada, Ireland, South Africa, United Kingdom and the United States.
Do you think it's the English language that drives this need to beat children or is there something deeper in the Anglosphere driving this urge?