Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
The Friday Media Bag gives me an excellent opportunity to re-promote this piece from David Simon I added to monitor.
It is one of the best pieces of journalism I can remember reading, and turns into great polemic on the state of both mainstream and new media.
Giovanni thinks it's good :-)
-
Garrett just stated on the B ,when asked why 3? NZers are a fair lot and everyone deserves a 2nd chance so 3 it is.
Well that's a little illogical. This is actually an argument for a two-strike law (your chance not to commit your second strike after committing your first is the second chance society gives you)
He thinks Judges are not giving out PD when a crime warrants it because they don't want appeals so they only hand out 2/3rd sentences hence very few Preventative Detention when it already exists in law.
Then why go so far as to automatically impose life sentences with minimum non-parole periods on qualifying third strikes? Why not automatically impose preventive detention, while alloing non-parole periods to be set normally?
Also Emery was a first offence and he "most likely wont kill again" and manslaughter was appropriate for him.
And not even serious enough to count as a first strike anyway...
-
This has nothing to do with cricket.
Much like the Munich attack had nothing to do with the Olympics.
I couldn't find video from the time, but this excerpt from a documentary about legendary sportscaster Jim McKay, has some fascinating news coverage from that event:
When I was a kid my father used to say 'Our greatest hopes and our worst fears are seldom realized.'
Our worst fears have been realized tonight. They have now said there were eleven hostages; two were killed in their rooms yesterday morning, nine were killed at the airport tonight.
They're all gone. -
is there any way an NZ court can enforce a name suppression order overseas, especially in the US where they have a more robust approach to free speech (and a laxer approach to justice)?
Not really. No.
They may be able to get anyone in New Zealand who assisted in posting it there, but there is no pretence of extra-territorial jurisdiction.
-
Heres the thing... given the circumstances, what IS disproportionate?
When my son misbehaves in the same way again and again, the punishments get worse... (with advance warning).
You may have got it now - with the link to the report - but to continue the analogy...
First offense - send son to room, not serious enough, not a strike.
Second time 'round - no Xbox for 1 week - serious consequences now - so first strike.
Third offence - grounded for a week - second strike - final warning.
Fourth offence, you now have the option of grounding your son for a weekend (not enough to count as a strike), or grounding him until he is 18. You consider a weekend's grounding would be insufficient punishment, and that the appropriate conseqence would be grounding him for two weeks, so you ground him until he's 18.
True story.
-
David Simon gets a little annoyed with the state of journalism, so tries to do something about it.
Read here. Seriously, do.
-
What exactly does Mr Garrett want to change the BORA to?
I imagine he'd like an amendment to section 9:
9. Right not to be subjected to torture or cruel treatment
Everyone has the right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, degrading, or disproportionately severe treatment or punishment.
Probably to something like this:
9. Right not to be subjected to torture or cruel treatment
Everyone has the right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, or degrading treatment or punishment.
And when a different sections gets in his way some time in the future, well, he'll worry about that then.
-
Russell Brown is joined by senior television journalist Cliff Joiner, who has worked for both TVNZ and TV3 as a reporter: Val Sim of the Law Commission and Warren Young, the author of a paper on the effect of judicial orders on media reporting.
That's an interesting way of describing the panel. Why not ... Val Sim and Warren Young of the Law Commission ?
Is there a reason you need two Law Commissioners on a panel to assess any topic, let alone one related to the work of the Law Commission?
-
Yes, and besides, the odds aren't truly 50:50, nor are they required to be. They're stacked in the house's favor, and that's just the way it is.
I recall a TV show a number of years ago looking at casinos. It looked at the odds of various games, and various machines as well. Apparently there are/were some slot machines with theoretical payouts of over 100%. If you played perfectly (e.g. holding a pair even when you were a single card off a royal flush) you could get a return of 101% or something like that. Not most slots, but certainly some.
-
Excerpted from Jeff Stone's tremendous review
A number of his other reviews are well-written too, but there is the unfortunate tendency for everything good to get 10 stars, and most things not good to get 1 star. It leaves you to wonder if Melody Rules was that bad :-)
Plus, everyone knows the best bond/film was not George Lazenby in On Her Majesty's Secret Service , but Timothy Dalton in The Living Daylights !