And in terms of his achievements, Auckland has some of the most unaffordable residential property in the world; weak and expensive public transport (even thought it has improved to some degree); and gridlock. Shouldn’t these be the core issues that Brown and the council need to work on? Can anyone sincerely say the situation is getting better?
So, the unaffordable housing and gridlock is a new thing? Didn’t exist under John Banks, or Hubbard, Or Banks again before him or Tizzard?
These things have been happening slowly over time…
Is the outcome better? Perhaps not… is he trying to fix it? Seems like he’s the first one in a long time to try…. lets see if he’s successful.
What could screw Pharmac is rules requiring “Openness” of their criteria for funding, in their negotiations with Big Pharma, and allowing big pharma to appeal funding decision criteria.
So the people who are negotiating in secret, and insisting that it must remain secret... and that the public can't have a right to change it after negotiations finished .... are in fact (possibly?) negotiating rules about how (other) negotiations must be open and subject to appeal....
Laugh? I nearly wet myself....
Interesting... I arrived in NZ in 1981 at 12 years of age.. Our family watched Hudson and Halls, enjoyed the bawdy humour (I'm sure a good portion of it went over my head, but I "got" some of it) , and generally understood that while nothing was admitted publicly... it was more than just likely they were gay... On the other-hand, I've never heard of "Squeeze" until today...
It's amazing what can be so open and what stays hidden for so long...
__a chain drive are in the law directly,__
No shaft drives allowed?? Harsh! Or antiquated, more likely.
Or how about a rubber belt instead of chain?
I recall ~40 years ago I was riding a tricycle with pedals directly attached to the from wheel-hub… and the same is still available (my kids had them 5 years ago).
What about the semi-recent re-invention of kick bikes for little kids… no pedals at all?
Seems stupid, if its really a law at all?
Heres another tip for music festivals...
If two acts you want to see are playing at the same time.... you don't HAVE to miss out on one..... you can see some of both of them :)
Oh, well. In light of the Herald’s story today, let me think about that again.
Um, a quick google or herald search brings up nothing about Len Brown today... care to link, or give us a clue what you'e on about?
I love Laphroaig, but I'm not sure I'd recommend it for a whisky neophyte?
Lagavulin was developed as a rip-off of Laphroaig, but is in fact smoother (and frequently cheaper) and probably easier to take as a beginner?
Interesting that of all the different regions and styles available for possible recommendation the three with more than one mention so far (the two above L's, and Oban) are all from the isle of Islay... where all the whisky's are made over fires fueled from peat and all have (to a greater or lesser degree) peaty / smokey flavours compared to most mainland malts...
The additional element that must be proved in the more serious charge is that (in addition to knowing of the donations), Banks also knew they were incorrectly recorded.
And unless anyone has evidence counter to Banks' argument that he didn't read the forms he was signing, simply asked "Is this correct?" of the person who actually filled them out... surely the above all falls down there?
How come if us plebs sign, say, a mortgage or insurance agreement, without reading and understanding every single clause.... we get told well you're responsible because you signed it.... but when its some rich or (in)famous dude... he can't possibly be guilty because he didn't read what he's signing?
The buck has to stop somewhere.... if you sign a fraudulent document then you are responsible.
I beleive recent prosecution cases involving directors of failed finance companies have (at least partially) succeeded despite them saying "we signed the prospectus because the lawyers/accountants said it was OK" . No?
Even so, and without spending my morning parsing election results, I’d think that area has voted around 50% for right-wing parties in recent elections.
Even so... I'd like to think the vast majority of potential jurors, whether politically right or left leaning... would attempt to evaluate a case on it's merits (while obviously being subject to foibles and unconscious prejudices)...
I doubt many people are thinking "I voted Banks, so I'm going to find him not guilty no-matter how convincing the evidence" or indeed " I Voted against Banks, so I'm going to convict no matter how flimsy.... "
If the case is clear-cut, I have no doubt a jury would find the same as a judge... but if the facts are less clear, or what common sense says is corruption has been proved (or at least strongly suggested as likely) , but it doesn't quite match up with the wording in the statutes... A judge will not let their own personal opinion of Banks influence their finding.... but it may well influence members of the public in a jury who are having trouble deciding?
And just because you support the right or left, and vote for the candidate standing on that side, does not mean you think that person is a fine upstanding citizen... it's quite common to vote for the arse standing on the ticket you support instead of the arse standing for the other team...
On the topic of Bank not having signalled he's interested in a judge only trial, but still having that option...
It occurs to me (no legal training) that judges are more likely to follow the written word of a law even if it defies "common sense" and also, are more likely to know exactly what level of evidence constitutes proof beyond reasonable doubt as compared to say, merely suggesting something is likely.... They are also more likely to completely ignore someones public persona, and stick to what's presented in court, ignoring all "previous knowledge" of a subject.
On the other hand, a jury while trying to follow these ideals, is far more likely to let these things influence them.
If the evidence or points of law presented are at all marginal, or not quite as clear-cut as they seem to be (as presented in the media over the past few years), I think Banks reputation and public persona would likely see him more likely convicted by a jury than a judge, but his own opinion of his reputation and persona might not allow him to see this, or accept it if offered as advice.
Short version- I expect he probably thinks he has a better chance with a Jury, but in fact would have a better chance with a judge.