Posts by Simon Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Why is it okay to talk about Christine Rankin’s private life but not the private lives of Labour political appointees?
Davis is not a political appointee. I do not see how photographic "evidence" of alleged homosexuality has anything to do with politics. (sorry if I have the wrong idea here - not terribly aware of the situation and surrounding events).
But hey, I hug men. I have a partner (who is 31 weeks pregnant, btw. We're not married, so I'm probably going to hell for it). Does that make me gay? Gay-friendly? Maybe I've just some close friends that I don't see often? I sure hug my brother whenever we're in the same city.
I would hope that if my partner ever entered politics that people wouldn't attempt to publish photos of me hugging a friend to discredit her.
And, re: Rankin - I believe a lot of people here have said that Rankins private life has very little to do with her suitability for the job - and were subsequently disgusted at the media coverage. These are people from both sides of the spectrum. The one point of difference, I might add, is that Rankin is a public figure, Davis was not. (Not excusing what was said, but I fail to see how you might be outraged about the Rankin non-story when you personally attempted to stir something similar with Davis).
-
Thank you Jack - I was not attempting to threaten Mr Bird at all, merely trying to point out that assaults can happen, and not leave visible marks.
I do apologise if I came across aggressively. I was trying to point out that if, for example, I were assaulted but did not bruise, I would still hope for a conviction.
A poor choice of words.
-
Chuck: You mainly seem to have an issue with the witnesses. They have sworn, under oath, that they saw Mason strike his son in the face.
We have testimony from a police officer that Mason told her he hit his son in the face.
I'm struggling to find where you see the problem, unless you believe that there is some sort of conspiracy to procure conviction against a 'good' dad, even if it means witnesses lying in court?
p.s: I'm sure there are plenty of people out there that could hit you hard enough in the face to warrant an assault charge without leaving a bruise.
-
Paul, where is your source for the above claim?
Chuck, try reading the links Russell gave in his original post.
OK, I'll make it easy for you - here.
At the bottom. The bit where Jimmy Mason tells the arriving police officer that "I hit the big one in the face and that is what I do and that lady [Belinda Paine] can mind her own business."
Oh, and the two eye-witnesses that say they saw Mason hit his son in the face.
Why are you determined to think that he was convicted for ear-flicking, and completely unable to see that hitting anyone in the face (With or without enough force to bruise, it matters not) is assault?
-
Meh. That's the bit I could have quite happily had reduced. 6 games was fine, 9 is silly.
Especially when we seem to be adding what is currently a fourth Bledisloe match to be held overseas anyway.
Frankly, I think it would be acceptable to play a Bledisloe decider outside of the Tri-Nations (And restrict the Tri-Nations to 6 games). Whether we really want that to be in Tokyo/Hong Kong/Denver instead of Brisbane or Wellington is another matter entirely.
The new season looks ridiculous, and we're still stuck with weakened Northern teams each June while they get to milk the profits from top-quality AB/SA/Australian sides in November.
-
Kyle: That'd be 22 then - you're allowed a bench of 7.
Six is a very small number to protect, I'll admit. But 20+ is far too high. I'm sick of the same-old same-old we see in the S14, and I imagine many fans are too. I want to see Tamati Ellison lining up in the midfield for the Highlanders and Stephen Brett as 1st5/8 for the Blues. Lauaki running around in Red 'n Black (please) and perhaps Kevin Mealamu lining up for the Chiefs.
I believe the current number is 24. This is far too high - drop it to ten, make the draft a big occasion (First pick goes to lowest-ranked team from previous year. Who will the Highlanders pick in the first round of the 100 available players?!) and televise it. Players get a wider range of experience, people still get to see some of their favourites in home colours - if they're good enough - and it keeps things fresh for the viewers.
But that's just me. I'm a Chiefs fan, and I wouldn't cry if half their players were different next year (Even though they're looking like they'll be good again) - I'm sure the Highlanders and Blues fans wouldn't be upset either.
We've got a decent talent pool in NZ. I'f just like to see it spread around a bit.
-
The drafting post on Dropkicks raises some interesting points. What if the NZRU were to heavily reduce the number of players a Super franchise was allowed to "protect" for each season? The players are all centrally contracted anyway, so financially they have nothing to lose.
Say, for example, how would the New Zealand side of the competition look if you could only protect 6 players from your 'home' unions?
The Hurricanes could protect, for example, Tialata, Hore, So'ialo, Weepu, Nonu and Smith. Enough of their core to build a team off, but they'd have to draft well to get anywhere.
The Chiefs could claim Messam, Leonard, Donald, Sivi, Masaga and Mils. Again, 6 good players, but a good set of draft picks would be required to make anything happen.
It would cut down on the dynasty aspect of the New Zealand (OK, lets face it, Crusader) game, and would act as a great equaliser year-to-year. Of course, some teams will be stronger than others year in and year out, but savvy drafting could make quite a lot of difference. It would also avoid the issue we had a few years ago where the Crusaders protected Mehrtens, Carter and Mauger, and the Hurricanes and Chiefs struggled to find an adequate playmaker. It would also allow players the chance to learn under different coaches
The Blues will still have a leaky defence though.
(Oh, and I know the unions are all too retarded to look at this as anything other than a raid on their talent, rather than a gold-plated opportunity to reinforce a teams weakness season-to-season. Plus it'd stop most the rubbish like Chris Jack/Rico Gear trading to Tasman and never playing for them. Too bad it'll never happen.)
-
Emma: You want to support the Chiefs. Not those nancy-boys from Wellington, but men of the land; much like those blokes from Canterbury.
Or something like that.
-
Cheers Craig, that's about what I was after.
douche-nozzle
Gold.
-
Oh, I should probably qualify that by saying that neither my partner or I have any desire to marry or get a CU (At this stage, our minds may change in teh distant future).
p.s: I love you Emma. You are the time-saver in a world full of retards. Can we please have a post on why it's not ok to beat your children next? I gather that punching them in the face is also out of the question.