Posts by Che Tibby
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
whoops. TSA not SoTA.
-
You don't want to break that down a bit more?
sure. based on my limited information (from the msm and this blog), the police are saying they had advice that they would have sufficient evidence to prosecute under the SoTA. turns out they didn't, and now "the bad law is to blame."
but there's a chance that they knew that very early on, possibly within the first couple of days, hence the aggressiveness of their search and seizure. and, hence the arse-covering behaviour.
like meurant suggested, there's a chance that the tracks were laid and the train was moving. the police had no choice but to commit themselves to a course of action, and hope that adequate evidence was found in their ever-widening circle of warrants.
-
@kyle.
you might be ignoring the history of this case, and focusing on today's spin.
-
@kyle.
"search and seizure among people who happened to sell something to someone who the police had an interest in."
well ott, in my opinion.
and, since we'll never see the evidence, how will we ever know any of your concerns are justified?
right now we're seeing more arse-covering than a victoria swim meet.
-
there'd have been no drama.
you mean, "other than heavy-handed nationwide search and seizure under spurious pretences"?
-
The Conversation
-
ok, anger abated somewhat.
a question that's been irking me. what language were the transcripts used by the police in?
were they te reo or english?
it raises a couple of issues. first of all, translations are never an entirely accurate picture of a conversation. second of all, these conversations would have occurred in a small town/community where most conversation is kanohi ki te kanohi.
surely the recorded conversations are only parts of a larger conversation? which leaves a lot of scope for bad interpretation.
as much as it annoys me. i'm believing meurant more and more.
-
a female filmmaker was among those arrested (and later released), not to mention a considerable number of females whose rights were pointlessly violated in the co-ordinated publicity stunt of nationwide raids.
it does sound a bit like a poorly conceived stunt, doesn't it?
"testing a law" by locking up 17 people and bandying about labels of <strike>rebellion</strike> <strike>sedition</strike> <strike>fascism</strike> <strike>communism</strike> i mean, "terrorism" is pretty poor showing by our own keystone cops.
proving you have an insufficient law by putting harmless dissenters in remand for a month is hardly justifiable. in fact, it's outright detestable.
those who end up with firearms charges sticking might be another matter altogether, but who actually thinks that all 16 currently in slammer were sufficient threat to the public to be jailed?
JAILED, not just charged or hassled, JAILED. it's not exactly a fucking picnic in there.
-
I don't object in theory to some sort of Tuhoe sovereignty, what I do object to is the notion that it would solve more problems than it caused
they'd loose state funding for starters.
that's a very old tactic for undermining secessionists.
-
It's not the treaty that gives the crown sovereignty over Tuhoe people and their land.
tricky one that, as kyle indicates.
a similar situation applies in australia, where the British occupied the place, then passed laws to 'legalise' their occupation. the basis of this was that aboriginal people didn''t "till the soil', and were therefore incapable of owning the land. this put it up for grabs.
the famous mabo case demonstrated that torres strait islanders did, and it almost undermined the entire legal structure of the australia federal system (i'm abridging somewhat).
the difference in nzl is that the treaty granted sovereignty to the british crown (which was subsequently passed to the parliament). all those that didn't sign are usually considered under its sway subsequent to the pointing of a musket, or due to the "continual operation of nzl government, to which they has assented by not dissenting".
it's a crazy, mixed up bag.