Posts by Russell Brown
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I agree RB, and if my wife makes one more drunken announcement about my tiny penis at the next street BBQ I hope the Police won't be called either if I pop her one on the mouth. I was provoked.
Careful you don't wind up trivialising family violence there ...
Maybe the current TV campaign script should be amended:
Because it's not right. Unless you're on rival teams (sports or politics) in which case a bit of biffo is to be expected. It's the Kiwi Way.Excellent point. Clint Newland's blindside punch on Neemia Tialata in this year's Air NZ Cup earned him a wholly justified 10-week suspension, ending his season. It clearly was not okay. The fact that he wasn't subsequently charged with criminal assault doesn't change that.
Do you really believe that every action that could technically be prosecuted as an assault, irrespective of the circumstances, the relative power or vulnerability of those involved, or the wishes of those involved, should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law 100% of the time?
There is a strong argument for the police to prosecute in domestic violence cases, even against the wishes of the victim, because (almost always) she may feel too vulnerable or intimidated to lay a complaint. I don't think that was the case for Tau Henare.
-
Quote us something then.
I've been getting the same impression as Andrew: the message seems to be how dare you call us terrorists, we can't be.
There is always debate around how the word terrorist is used, because it is a contentious term. Maybe we have some home-grown terrorists, maybe we don't. I don't think we should be throwing the term around lightly.
I'd be interested to know whether the police themselves have called any of those arrested "terrorists". I rather strongly suspect they haven't, but I could be wrong.
-
I understood that much from Graeme's post but the media has been throwing around terms like "terror accused" without clarifying that point.
Absolutely. You can't call someone a "terror accused" unless and until they've actually been accused of terrorism charges. The Herald just did anyway.
-
Like Stephen above I'd love to hear something on how these people get immediate bail but the so-called 'Terror' suspects don't.
Because the judges heard police evidence, still suppressed, that dissuaded them from granting a request for bail. In Jamie Lockett's case, the police presented additional evidence in their appeal against his being granted bail, which presumably convinced the High Court judge.
-
__People had been arrested under the Firearms Act and held in custody while police tried to accumulate evidence to justify charges under the Terrorism Suppression Act, which requires approval from the Attorney General, Jackson said.__
What do people think of that? I think it is quite relevant but I don't have enough legal knowledge to go around shooting my mouth off.
Graeme's first post covers that. If they wanted to have the option of bringing charges under the Terrorism Suppression Act, they had to say on the warrant that they were searching for evidence for charges under that act, as well as the Arms Act. Otherwise they would be seen to be on a fishing expedition.
So I'm not sure what MJ was on about there, but he is a lawyer.
-
The police evidence is now in the hands of the Solicitor General, the country's senior non-political law officer.
The story says its assessment has been delegated to him by the Attorney General, Michael Cullen, but my impression was that's the way the TSA works anyway.
-
Well, of course the media wants open justice - as long as the police don't say anything, the only exciting new developments they'll be able to spin will come from bloggers and bebo.
Marama Mayrick has a forthcoming exhibition at a Hamilton cafe that has a MySpace page.
There's tomorrow's lead!
-
but I didn't come away feeling any the wiser. Then again, I don't think anyone was supposed to.
That's Sunday for you ...
-
The report I saw on TV news said Mallard punched Henare three times and had to be pulled off him when he had Henare on the ground and was choking him. (If memory serves.)
TVNZ said Mallard punched him three times, and TV3 said Henare retaliated by grabbing Mallard by the throat.
But that sounds like a garbled version of the grabbing of the tie.
So, no, I don't think Mallard tried to choke Henare. Fortunately.
-
I wouldn't be quite as soft on Kruger as that. He didn't have to say those things, and I think he was quite enjoying his own rhetoric.
But yes, the interview was inadequate. We were shouting at the TV for Sinclair to ask a question like "What exactly are Tuhoe's demands?" or "How would you see Tuhoe nationalism working in practice?" or "What beliefs and philosophies do you see as being under threat? Who is threatening them? What means short of violence could Tuhoe take to protect its heritage?"
The irony is that Kruger's a joiner: he's on the BOP district health board and has done some great work in education and on reports commissioned by MAF. I really wonder what he was thinking.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 … 2279 Older→ First