Posts by Bart Janssen
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: John Banks: The volunteer did…, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Thanks Graeme.
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.
-
Hard News: John Banks: The volunteer did…, in reply to Lilith __,
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.
-
Hard News: John Banks: The volunteer did…, in reply to Gareth Ward,
“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".
-
Hard News: John Banks: The volunteer did…, in reply to Lilith __,
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?
-
fixing Martin's link
-
Muse: OPEN HOUSE: Margaret Mahy, The…, in reply to Rob Stowell,
My condolences to both you and your beloved Rob.
I am continually astonished at the wide reach of this community.
And I love the way that a group that can spend time arguing vociferously about, well anything, can so quickly become so serious and genuinely caring.
-
Can I just say that this piece by Jolisa is a beautiful piece of writing in it's own right and I am richer for having read it.
-
Muse: OPEN HOUSE: Margaret Mahy, The…, in reply to pcorrect,
You see, she used to have the book turned to the kids so she couldn’t see the pages and yet she still knew all the words!!!
Brilliant.
-
a poster child for the flaws in the progressive-prohibition model of drug enforcement
So given this and given the problems we face with legal drugs, alcohol in particular, the question becomes "What does work?"
People enjoy the effects of drugs. For some (most?) people, drugs used with some knowledge do little harm. But for some, they do a lot of harm. It doesn't seem to me that the legal system has any real mechanism for allowing people to enjoy altering their brain chemistry without doing harm.
So what, if anything, is the right approach to allowing people to have fun without harming themselves or others?