Posts by DPF
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I don't even recall the swear word in An Adagio Christmas, and while there was a subtle sensual overtone to parts of it, there was nothing at all x-rated, r-rated or even pg-rated.
Kids will love the show. It is loads of fun.
-
You overlook the crucial element of dates.
Helen Clark announced she would legislate to overturn the Court of Appeal decision a mere 72 hours after it was made public.
That is the panic I was referring to. They should have just appealed. If Clark had announced an appeal, then all the other frothing would never have occurred, and the Privy Council may well have decided things differently.
-
Emma: No. People are responsible for their own words. I do not see all the comments made. There are simply far too many. If someone complains to me about a comment, I'll look at it and consider demerits, which lead to a suspension. I will sometimes do it proactively also, but again do not see all comments. I normally only check a thread out a couple of times before moving on.
-
Emma. I try to be consistent with the demerits policy. The idea is that it tells people when they step over the line, and an incentive not to keep doing so. Last time I checked I have handed out demerits on several hundred occasions to around 100 different people. Most respond to it - 20 or so have carried on and been suspended.
-
Well yes Eddie I did, when the posts Danyl linked to actually had me defending Clark mainly. I defended her right to speed as it so happens.
And I don't know how I could have gone any softer on Chris Carter. Three times I said I thought his motivations was good. And the HoS Editorial also found his actions unwise.
He did not just go as support person to Winnie. He has been meeting Government officials and issuing press releases. That is not what someone there purely as a support person does.
I ask people to be fair and consider what Clark would have done if a Nat MP had done what Carter did. Remember she tended to label Opposition MPs who were ever critical of the Govt overseas as "treasonous".
-
Interesting they are asking about a transcription service for voicemail. I blogged a couple of months ago that someone should offer such a service. I'd definitely use it, if it was reasonably priced. My concern is they'll charge $5 a message!
-
My take on it is here - http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/08/fields_guilt_and_labours_shame.html
Dr Cullen especially should be feeling very very sorry about the comments he made after the Ingram report came out.
-
The key thing is to change the law and remove provocation as a partial defence, so no other lawyer or defendant can put a victim's family through what the Elliotts have endured.
Any provocation can be a matter for the Judge at sentencing, but should not be a way to escape a murder conviction.
-
Thank God. Beyond reviled. I have never come across a case where the defendant made himself such a hated figure.
-
Keith if you are going to pretend to fisk, you shouldn't make som may silly errors yourself.
First your so called fisking:
1) The $8 billion is a Treasury projection. The same sort of projection that said we were in surplus a year ago. Projections are risky. Anyone who has been in business will understand the difference between guaranteed return and risk. You also overlooked what a credit downgrade will do to the difference between borrowing and saving.
You are guilty of the same thing as Rob - knee jerk conservatism. If there was no Super Fund today, and Bill English proposed borrowing an additional $2 billion a year, while already borrowing $10 billion a year for the operating deficit, I have no doubt you would condemn it.
2) Treasury does not include tax on the NZSF Fund as a net gain for the economy as if the money was not invested in the fund, it would have been invested in other taxable activities. You really think you can just invent tax revenue?
3b) You are comparing the cost of borrowing to the economy as a whole, not the Government which is fundamentally dishonest as in 3a) you only look at government debt. So in your nonsense fisking you compare debt to the Govt's debt only (instead of the much much larger NZ debt) but you compare the deficit to NZ GDP instead of Crown Core Income. The $10,000 deficit on $60,000 income example is very close to the Crown account of a $10B deficit on $60b of income.
3d) Even heard of a threatened credit downgrade?