Posts by Lyndon Hood
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Not that there's anything wrong with being an evangelist.
-
Incidentally, I recall Mr Barnett coming to the Otago Campus to evangelise in ought-one or -two or so. Someone said he'd been at it since leaving TV. Then went on to speculate whether there was cause and effect between the evangelising and TV-leaving and which was which.
-
I made a smock for my female dog and the people got all upset when I wrote a song about it.
-
Greg O'Connor's view would seem to be that adding a subsection incorporating the police discretion will return the discretion that was taken from police in situations involving assaults in the home in the where the assault involves parental correction.
Good lord. I didn't expect a coherent explaination.
Thanks.
-
I recall the so-called self-styled "Bishop"'s story at the time was that he assumed the title at the insistence of his convened pastors.
Uninformative press release: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0502/S00176.htm
-
I have to agree there have been a lot of transparent bollock from the pro-bill can one what would illegal or currently is. I have to add if find it piquant that the Nats are now defending the bill in exactly the same terms.
While it's difficult to have faith in the police's ability to exercise discretion on anything - especially when someone like Greg O'Connor weirdly insists the previous version somehow forbade them from doing so - it is what the do (in I think the exact terms of the new clause) every time they investigate any complaint of anything or see something happen in the street.
What I'm getting at is that, for example, the general assault law relies on police discretion not to prosecute stupid things - things that may be technically criminal but practically unprosecutable and widely regareded as not bad. (I remember hearing of when they would prosecute for touching a cop)
That said, smacking is a bit of a special case in that some want to protect it but it is the deliberate infliction of pain.
Actually, I'd be interested to see the draft prosecution guidelines as they were the day before yesterday and compare them with the final result. I concievable they may have become tighter.
If the clause does nothing but reassure Key and restrain O'Connor (which I think is true) it's fine by me.
This is of course someone who thinks the whole thing is practically equivalent to a repeal, and is happy with that.
-
... and then there are interpretations of some of the tapes of the more unlikely US Air Force friendly fire incidents. Agression, impulsive decision making, paranoia...
Sorry, that's a bit of a downer. Funny post! I chortled.
-
Judging by the General Debate, the Nat line is that it's all down to the heroic diplomacy of Mr Key.
-
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00045.htm
Family First appear to be somewhat mollified, if suspicious. Leading me to doubt their grasp of what the bill said in the first place.
-
I agree (as a BIll supporter) this is good. The amendment does nothing but note police will excercise their discretion exactly the way the do in every other case.
When you start a clause with "to remove doubt" you don't expect it to do much. Of course, I think the whole new section has much the same effect as a repeal.
Of course, Mr Key says it's a version of National's proposals and now talks about the bill exactly the way Clark and Bradford have been.
Interesting that he's grabbing this excuse to possibly look statemanslike and definitely throwing away a stick to beat labour with all the way to the election.