Hard News: A Strange Surprise
131 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
3410,
Just yer standard minijack. I am getting sound through the left ear and occasionally through the right, so it obviously something to do with the connection. Do you know if they can be repaired?
Yep. Chop it off, get a new jack from Dick Smith for ... $5.95?, solder it on (make sure you get your left / right correct.)
If that sounds like more trouble than it's worth, any repair place will be able to do that for peanuts.
-
Since we're posting videos...
This is the most ridiculous song I have heard all year. And I love it.
-
good to see the provocation defense has gone.
Anyone know who/why five MPs voted to keep it?ACT, which basically adopted the New Zealand Law Society's concerns.
-
Yeah, that was pretty much my reaction - "So if your mates are eating burgers and acting like dicks, the cops will think you're on drugs?" There's no indication (that I could see) that the guy did anything to warrant getting tested.
You must have been watching a different ad. Of course he did something to warrant being tested. He was young, male, and up after bedtime. </snark>
Normalised for use rates, the cohort most likely to be; arrested, then charged, and convicted, for cannabis use is young Maori males. This law will be no different.
There really is a dual justice system in NZ, where being rich, older, white, or a celebrity gets you one outcome, and being poor, young and brown gets you another. Nevertheless, that in itself isn't a reason to oppose this law - otherwise it would be a reason to oppose the entirety of criminal law in the country.
-
The section 58 offence only related to any class A drug.
The section 11A offence is any drug (including prescription medication), but requires proof of impairment.
Sorry, poor phrasing on my part. That's the point I wanted to get across too. My concern is that this will result in an additional offence on top of the Misuse of Drugs Act without need to establish that the substance detected in the blood test results in impairment of the ability to drive.
Fair enough, I think that operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of any substance should be a crime, but it strikes me as a little contrary to common sense to write an amendment to an existing law intended to deal with impairment of driving ability due to the use of substances, then include wording that seems to allow for charges to be laid even if impairment cannot be established. We have other laws that already cover that situation, there's no reason to add another.
-
There really is a dual justice system in NZ, where being rich, older, white, or a celebrity gets you one outcome, and being poor, young and brown gets you another. Nevertheless, that in itself isn't a reason to oppose this law - otherwise it would be a reason to oppose the entirety of criminal law in the country.
Racism is no reason to oppose a racist justice system? Cripes.
-
The section 58 offence only related to any class A drug.
The section 11A offence is any drug (including prescription medication), but requires proof of impairment.
Interesting. You've answered my questions.
...so cannabis isn't in there. Just having THC in your bloodstream isn't automatically an offense, although before they could test for it the police would have to have reasonable suspicion that you're impaired, and you'd have to have failed the impairment test.
Also interesting! My understanding from workplace drug testing regimes is that there is no way to actually test for impairment with cannabis. They can tell how much is swimming around in your system but not what it is doing to your brain.
otherwise it would be a reason to oppose the entirety of criminal law in the country.
Yes, that's why I often do. It's a crime to be poor.
-
Racism is no reason to oppose a racist justice system? Cripes.
The problem isn't in the law, it is in its application.
When I talk to politicians, they think of them laws as being applied reasonably. Thus, laws themselves seem perfectly reasonable, even when the outcomes are perverse.
-
My concern is that this will result in an additional offence on top of the Misuse of Drugs Act
-
My understanding from workplace drug testing regimes is that there is no way to actually test for impairment with cannabis. They can tell how much is swimming around in your system but not what it is doing to your brain.
They're not undertaking clinical tests for impairment.
The test for impairment is kinda like those one's Americans do on TV for alcohol - the walk in a straight line, stand on one foot kind of thing - fail one of those tests, and show up with drugs in your system and you'll probably be charged.
-
"ACT, which basically adopted the New Zealand Law Society's concerns."
I hate it when ACT take a reasoned or pricipled position (whether I agree or disagree with it). Thankfully this is becoming less and less as time goes bye.
-
"ACT, which basically adopted the New Zealand Law Society's concerns."
Can I ask what those were?
-
Can I ask what those were?
There's a quick rundown on their website (I was going to quote it, but it's worth reading in full.)
It's scary that I can agree with a party (ACT) whose typical supporter would quite happily abolish a large number of the services I rely on and support while the parties that are supposed to be my advocates play a short-sighted populist game.
-
Am I missing something? LTSA seem to have removed the ad from their site.
-
There's a quick rundown on their website (I was going to quote it, but it's worth reading in full.)
And the NZLS submission (.pdf) itself.
-
-
Am I missing something? LTSA seem to have removed the ad from their site.
It does appear to have been removed. The radio ads too.
Russell, now look what you've done!
-
NSFW language (and some blurry naked silhouettes too) but this is a great song to start your weekend off with.
EDIT: Argh, embed fail. try here for the most awesome music video you'll ever see.
-
3410,
It does appear to have been removed.
Works for me.
-
Russell, now look what you've done!
Just another day in the life of a super hero...
-
It's true that the Weatherston case brought the partial defence of provocation to the fore, but it's not as if the matter hadn't been debated before then.
The law was changed in a rush, but that doesn't mean the change is a bad one. The Law Commission report offers some pretty compelling reasons to do away with the partial defence.
Anyway, people will make their own minds up whether it's a good or bad thing.
-
It's true that the Weatherston case brought the partial defence of provocation to the fore, but it's not as if the matter hadn't been debated before then.
damn...so if my lady comes at me with a pair of scissors, i cant stab her 216 times and mutilate her corpse then claim provocation?
SUCKY!!!...then again, im about the same size as weatherston and my lady comparable to sophie so i guess i could disarm her quite comfortably, ok maybe suffer a little scratch if i'm pissed as
ummm..so would it then be OK in that instance to just slap her round a bit as maybe clayton shoulda done...if that were the case ?
-
ummm..so would it then be OK in that instance to just slap her round a bit as maybe clayton shoulda done...if that were the case ?
No.
Sorry, but advocating domestic violence, even in jest, isn't very funny.
-
It's true that the Weatherston case brought the partial defence of provocation to the fore, but it's not as if the matter hadn't been debated before then.
Which is retarded because Weatherston didn't get the benefit of the defence. The homosexual panic defence was that crappest part of provocation. I was cool with it provided it worked both ways. Heterosexual panic defence is so hard to contrive a test case on though.
What if Sophie's dad had come in the room, found his dead daughter and then killed Weatherston? No more provocation for him! Think about it. I haven't.
@Dubmugga: that's some funny shit but people are going to collapse into an incredulous cluster fuck of disapproval if you keep that up.
-
By 'not getting the benefit of the defence', I would guess you mean his lawyer was unable to run that as a defence stategy at the trial.
Oh, wait....
Post your response…
This topic is closed.