How did this become about the "rights" of churches to exclude people from their rites? It is really feeling like the thread that cannot be named.
Whereas I thought it was a thread about this country growing up enough to recognise that same sex couples are real and deserving of the respect accorded to all other couples under law. And note that all the polls say that this country really has grown up that much.
Are you suggesting Gandalf is gay?!?! He just likes wearing dresses and pretty fireworks and parties and ...
You know, if I were a politician (snort), I'd be really really pissed off that Banks is allowed in the same room as me.
It must be hard for the genuinely honest and passionate politicians to have their job smeared by the disgustingly dishonest and dishonorable, behaviour of a few (well I hope it's a few).
"We're going to be discussing that in caucus next week, and I'll talk to you afterwards" is a reasonable -- if infuriatingly commonplace -- response
I will respectfully disagree that this is any kind of actual answer to the question "What's your view..."
Pita Sharples was able to say what his view was AND indicate that it might differ from the The Party view. See that wasn't hard was it.
The word must mean something different to a wideboy money trader
It means, if can you get more money and not get caught doing anything they can convict you on, then you are ethical.
Certainly didn't realise there were different time limits for different crimes which kind of makes sense. Bit silly in this case because it would be hard to make a complaint until all the documentation was made public and even then hard to wade through it enough to realise there might be something fishy.
Oh well. Fining Banks would have been nice.
And this wasn’t done, because…?
Given the speed with which bureaucracy moves my guess is all the relevant details wouldn't have been even released for public scrutiny.
So the police would probably have to suspect a crime even before the election in order to be able to beat the time limit.
“knowing the return is false” – the Police are saying they can’t prove he KNEW it to be false
I get that.
But I thought there was something legal about the act of putting your mark on a document. Along the lines of "if you sign it you affirm that the contents are true".
and it makes him look either totally incompetent
It also makes the police look incompetent.
Isn't the point of signing a document that you are taking responsibility for the contents of that document?
I really don't understand this. Even if he didn't realise the contents of the form were incorrect, by signing it surely he is legally responsible for the contents?
Is there a lawyer who can explain this?