Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
It's not necessarily that inconsistent to find gambling distasteful and oppose overly punitive drug legislation.
It's not inconsistent at all.
Plenty of people who support the decriminalisation of marijuana would never touch the stuff.
Plenty of people who opposed a law change to criminalise a light smack, would never smack their kids, and do not think anyone else should smack children either.
Plenty of people who think smoking should be legal will counsel against any tobacco use.
etc. etc.
-
Chris Finlayson has told people that if a code of conduct can't be agreed, he will write a more detailed and prescriptive law himself.
...
but it doesn't really answer your question about the status of the present law.It kinda does.
I'd certainly assume that this means they'd just never implement s 92A, and then in the middle of the year Chris Finlayson would have drafted an amendment and they'd amend the Copyright Act. I doubt they'd repeal it in the interim (given it hadn't come into force, they'd probably consider it a waste of Parliamentary time), and they certainly wouldn't implement it in the interim, so this the only alternative.
-
I suspect it's nothing more than sloppy language from a political n00b to use the word "suspended".
I considered that, but it seemed unlikely. He knows what repeal means, and knows it's the word to use if that's intended. Or amend, or change.
Anyway, delay it for a month and then what? What are the Government's plans if rights holders and Internet companies can't reach an agreement?
Go into urgency and repeal it through 3 readings, or just sit on it, and maybe amend it or repeal it some time in the future, after considering what the best thing to do with copyright law is?
-
Back to the rule :-)
When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed.
vs.
Prominent right-winger says
Just sayin'
-
"Rule".
Just sayin'
-
An interim order for name suppression was continued as the matter was to go before the High Court following an appeal by the defence.
I read this as: the judge refused to continue name suppression, but having been advised an appeal against that refusal would be made, made an interim order so that the appeal wouldn't be fruitless.
I don't feel comfortable with this reasoning
I seem to be making a habit of this: I'm not sure why. You think I've read the report wrong, and this wasn't the reason? Or you accept that this is the reason, but don't like it?
People are entitled to appeal decisions they don't like, surely its reasonable that they get to appeal in a manner that actually makes the right to appeal worthwhile?
You may or may not oppose the death penalty, but surely it is better that appeals against it are heard before the sentence is carried out. Name suppression is far less serious, but the principle is still the same.
-
This has made me much more at peace with the word 'handicapped'. She was naturally so pretty and clever and talented that she's been given an extra load to carry, just to make it fair on everyone else.
I always did think handicap was a more accurate, nicer way of describing disability. It makes things harder, it doesn't stop them altogether (disabled, just seems, and maybe it doesn't technically, like it means not able ).
-
I should add: the time spent subject to conditions will of course be shorter on the second strike. Offenders who are paroled can be subject to conditions for the entire period of their nominal sentence plus six months. Without early release, it will be six months maximum.
-
You know the current state of this law well Graeme.
Does this mean that we're going to be seeing more prisoners released later (either second strike, or murder on first strike) but with no parole at all?
It may surprise you, but no.
1. All released murderers are on parole for the rest of their lives. They get life sentences, and these do actually last for one's whole life (even if the whole time isn't spent in prison).
2. All people released are subject to release conditions under the Parole Act for at least six months. This includes people who are released at the absolute end of their sentence. They cannot be recalled (there's no sentence left to serve), but they face the same criminal consequence for breaching release conditions (i.e. up to 1 year in prison).
-
How, I must ask? By ensuring that the extra parole officers are no longer required by refusing parole? Didn't Mr Garrett himself point out that there would have been less than 100 or so prisoners in jail due to this law, had it already been in place?
In jail for life sentences following third strikes, perhaps.
The law does a couple of other things as well:
* there is no parole on a second strike.
* life sentences without the possibility for parole are mandatory for murder as a second strike, and available for murder as first strike.