Posts by simon g
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
From the Herald:
Mr Idour's lawyer, Frazer Barton, said his client was at the party at Mr Broad's house but "categorically denied" bringing the bestiality film along.
Mr Idour saw "bits of it" but didn't do anything about it.
"He was appalled by it but didn't act on it, didn't do anything else other than express some views to people."
Unfortunate choice of words ...
-
Broad should appear before the House Committee on un-New Zealand Activities and name names. As long as people have done nothing wrong, or known somebody or been near somebody or heard a rumour about somebody who has done something wrong, then they have nothing to fear.
"Are you now, or have you ever been ...?"
-
I have never lived in Christchurch - never even given the place much thought. It was only ever a transit point for the scenery in that pretty but quaint old South Island.
But reading this thread it is clear that this "Christchurch" is a breeding-ground for degenerate, anti-social behaviour. Nothing good can come out of it.
And it is clear that New Zealand now faces a stark choice.
Epsom Girls' Grammar or Burnside High.
I think it is clear where our duty lies.
Thank you.
-
Having watched the Close-Up clip I'm glad the policewoman made it clear she condemned the racist texts. Less impressed by Henry and the two young men, who seemed to gloss over it.
Of course the two deaths are a vastly bigger story, but to mention the texts and then ignore their meaning is pretty poor.
-
a party for which the fateful text-message invitation signed off "no Asians, no gangsters".
Is this just one person texting or widespread? Was it the hosts' invitation? I couldn't find the reference in the links in Russell's post.
Whoever it was, they're pr**ks.
-
Government policy on supporting nation's art and culture, pre- Helen Clark:
1. Stage photo op with All Blacks.
2. Repeat 1. -
From the Press/Stuff:
Christchurch radio personality and father of four Simon Barnett said the law was now more confusing than ever.
"Police will have to be judge and jury and make a decision on the spot. I feel this is going to make it extremely tough for them."
Barnett said he thought officers would "err on the side of caution" in the event that a case not acted upon turned serious.
1. Barnett is not a lawyer.
2. Barnett is not a police officer.
3. Actually, Barnett isn't anything at all, just on a lot of crap telly. But hey-ho, it's budget rent-a-quote. The real police applaud the amendment, while the self-appointed policeman knows better.More importantly: A revealing phrase ... "in the event that a case not acted upon turned serious." Apparently police erring on the side of caution is WORSE than letting violence go unpunished. Says it all really.
-
Who elected Simon Barnett?
I'm getting fed up with self-appointed spokespeople being given unearned equal status by the media. I suppose they think they can by-pass the people because they're elected by God.
Brian Tamaki got zero-point-zilch per cent of the vote. Larry Baldock had one term thanks to Peter Dunne and the worm, and is now an ex-MP for a good reason.
Being media-smart is not a mandate. If Barnett wants to change laws he can go and scrap for votes like the rest of them. He might find it's much harder work than coming up with studio soundbites.
-
I think the internet polls simply reflect the new state of confusion.
The Parliamentary debate is on now. Judith Collins spoke in favour of the bill. Heather Roy spoke against. And Sue Bradford and Judith Collins will now both be supporting the same law.
When two people who fundamentally disagree end up wanting the same thing, while two people who largely agree are on opposite sides, something is wrong.
This really does seem to be the amendment that says whatever you want it to say.
-
If anybody needed proof that internet polls are a joke, check out the results on the Stuff and Herald websites.
Two differently worded questions, leading to very large majorities, respectively, for and against the amendment.