Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
On the Arizona shooting, I would say that I hope Palin feels like a right twatcock, but I'm not convinced she's actually got the introspective capability to grasp the significance of her batshittery in relation to this tragedy.
AZ has some of the loosest firearms laws in the whole US (and we all know that that's saying something), so it's not entirely surprising that this happened there, but it is cruelly ironic that it happened six months after a further relaxation of their firearms laws; concealed carry no longer requires a permit, as of the end of last July. -
Hard News: Holiday Open Thread 2:…, in reply to Russell Brown,
They're clearly different: they approach "don't know/vote" in a different way to other local polling companies, and produce different results. Are the two things related?
If it's true that Horizon are the only polling outfit that called the Megatropolis election for Brown correctly, then there's obviously something in their method that's an improvement on what the other buggers do.
I found it nice to read an article that wasn't "Key's going to romp home because National are polling streets ahead of Labour", with justifications for the equivocation. -
Speaker: It's called "planning" for a reason, in reply to FletcherB,
It's not bloody supposed to be a commuter service! They've been perfectly up front that it's for tourists. Considering the amount of work involved $8m is an absolute bargain even if it goes nowhere.
-
Hard News: Behaving badly at the bottom…, in reply to Sacha,
The last thing the establishment wants is a jury trial where ordinary citizens see this nonsense for what it is and laugh it out of court.
That's actually a pretty nasty veiled slur on the judiciary, to be quite frank. Casting aspersions on senior cops and prosecutors is one thing, and probably merited to some degree, but the implication that a judge will come to a conclusion that is supported only by a vast conspiracy of the upper echelons of the establishment is going too far.
-
Speaker: It's called "planning" for a reason, in reply to FletcherB,
Transport blogs have been talking about it for months. It’s an ARC plan, which gives you some indication of how long it’s been in gestation: they stopped doing real work five months ago.
$8m will get you 1.5km of track with overhead wires, plus lease of a couple of trams. That’s not bad going, when you consider how many billions Joyce wants to spend on less than 20 times that distance of road for holiday makers.
Plus, as Ben said, it’s a start. The Te Whero bridge, or whatever they’re calling it, is being built with sufficient pile strength to take a light-rail line across from Viaduct Harbour to the bottom of the CBD. From there it can start going to useful places, like a loop that runs up through College Hill to Ponsonby and then back to K’Rd and down Queen St. Or thereabouts.
For once I don’t really object to the “in time for the RWC” aspect of the plan. If the RWC gets it underway, all well and good. Once people start using it, then we can have a conversation about extending it. Maybe getting rid of some of the all-day parking at Mission Bay and running a tram line out there instead. -
Speaker: It's called "planning" for a reason, in reply to Kumara Republic,
They're very dangerous for motorcyclists (the nickname “cheese cutters” doesn’t come from nowhere), and if installed properly require over a metre on each side to allow for deflection into opposing traffic in the event that a vehicle collides with the barrier. Plus, trucks have been known to go right over the top of wire barriers.
The correct solution is concrete barriers, not a cheap-arse bunch of wires that need effectively a whole traffic lane if they’re being done properly. They’re good for wide grassed medians, such as on the motorway just north of Bombay, but definitely not appropriate for roads that have no space to spare.
-
Hard News: Behaving badly at the bottom…, in reply to Jacqui Dunn,
You only have to do jury duty once every two years. If you keep getting called, respond that you've attended within the last two years and say which court and when.
You are a perfect example of how broken the "random" selection is, though. I know many people who've never been summonsed, whereas others are like you and keep getting called. I've been summonsed three times, though not in the last four years, and it was 25 months between the first and second summons.
-
Hard News: Behaving badly at the bottom…, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
Yes, but if you get rejected repeatedly, do you have to sit around all week or do they send you home?
My experience is that they panel in the morning for trials starting that day. If you get panelled you sit through jury selection and, if not selected, may or may not sit through another panelling (more common at district courts, given trial volumes). Whether you have to report on other days in the week is determined by the registrar. I think for district courts you end up having to report most mornings, but at high courts you're unlikely to have to report more than twice. I've served on juries at both, and been summonsed for a Wednesday at Wellington High Court (of all the tiny-world coincidences, myself and the MD of our 10-person company both got summonsed for the same day) where I didn't get panelled, so I haven't had to sit through a whole week of not getting onto juries and thus don't know for certain what happens. But what I've seen is that you go in the morning, if you don't get put on a jury you're definitely free for the rest of the day and, if it's a high court, possibly free for the remainder of the week.
I suspect if they recompensed for loss of earnings, there would be no problem attracting jurors.
Maybe so, but jury service is part of living in this society. I get immensely snarky with anyone who gripes about doing jury duty. If you don't like it, there are plenty of countries where it's not required, and not just ones where there's no rule of law.
The pay has improved a lot, and I think it's up around the $70/day mark for basic pay (there are a bunch of situations where it goes higher) plus reimbursement of reasonable expenses such as parking, mileage, and childcare. If you can prove real hardship there's provision for higher pay.I like the idea of making it much, much harder to get excused but allowing deferral for up to a year. Excusing people as easily as is currently the case undermines the entire system. Especially if they required employers to make up the difference in wages. I've worked for several places now that will continue to pay employees provided that the employee remits their juror pay, and that's ranging from University of Auckland to aforementioned 10-person company so it's not just large organisations.
-
And to soothe the fevered brows of those accusing the MSM of ignoring the issue, Granny reveals that the suppression of the suppression has been lifted although the reasoning for the judge-alone decision is still suppressed. It lends some credence to the assertion that it was fear of breaching the suppression order, rather than not wanting to raise the issue, that didn't see this publicised earlier.
The article's a bit light, but does an admirable job of "speculating" about reasons why judge-alone trials would be ordered.
-
Hard News: Behaving badly at the bottom…, in reply to FletcherB,
Depends on the trial, and what the defence are after. First jury I was ever on, the foreman was an immaculately-attired gentleman in his 60s. Silk tie, pinstripe suit, the works.