Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
over the way a leaked email has Peters blown up by his own bomb. But, er, shouldn't that be "stolen" email? Just sayin'.
Get a police investigation to conclude theft, and you might have a point here.
National at the time suggested compueter hacking, which the police ruled out, but go and re-read their media release on the investigation. I was going to copy the bits where they mention theft, crimes or stealing, but I'd pretty much have to have copied the whole thing. So just one, an actual quote from the lead cop:
"There are strong indications that the e-mails were in printed form at the time of the theft, but with the thefts perhaps happening at any time over the two- year period it is very likely that they were stolen during several incidents," Detective Inspector Quinn said.
-
may I repeat my plea for fellow Kiwis to call a backside an arse rather than an ass.
It's not like the difference between a blond and a blonde?
-
Would you believe seasons 3 & 4 of The Wire are finally coming to region 4?
Man that took a while!
-
I know pedantry was the focus of another Island Life, but ...
He was also a well respected Mayor of Wellington where he helped drive forward the introduction of a sewage system
... I think you mean sewerage system. Man, when I found out that the difference wasn't just American English vs. British English, you better believe I was surprised.
-
**This video is not available in your country**
I've never seen that on YouTube before..shame
Me neither.
Been around for officially licensed stuff for a while now.
But it being Friday, a couple of rather different videos, most certainly available in New Zealand:
CBS' Last Flight from Da Nang
And Walt Disney's Der Fuehrer's Face
-
Super yacht for me.
-
I presume his crime wasn't eligible for the 'clean slate' legislation.
No - it would have been eligible.
You are entitled to clean slate your convictions 7 years after your last conviction if you have never received a custodial sentence, never had a conviction for a specified (sexual) offence, and never lost your licence indefinitely.
[Now if someone would like to explain to me why rape under the Crimes Act 1961 isn't one of the specifies sexual offences ineligible for clean-slating, I'd be a ver happy man]
-
Before animation, people who would have been animators just drew.
-
[Section] 116 is broadly worded, and even if an assault case could not be made out, if it was confirmed that Veitch assaulted his girlfriend in any way and then paid her not to complain to the police, there is a possible case of obstruction of justice. Graeme would know better than me (you know all the pedantic ins and outs, Edge).
If there was a conspiracy to make a payment designed to ensure that no complaint was laid, or that lies were told to police, then that might be a conspiracy to defeat justice. But note that there would need to be a conspiracy.
What you actually want is, I suspect, section 117(d):
Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who—
...
(d) wilfully attempts in any other way to obstruct, prevent, pervert or defeat the course of justice.[You should ignore the other paragraphs, paragraph (d) effectively stands alone]
Paying someone not to make a complaint, or to withdraw a complaint etc. may constitute obstruction of justice. Paying someone and them not making a complaint because of some different reason may not.
-
__So why is he the one who has to go even if she started it?__
As long as *someone* has to go, minimising harm dictates that you remove the person statistically likely to cause the most damage.
I won't get into the argument over whether it's a good idea, but "minimising harm" does not dictate that you remove the person statistically likely to cause the most damage. I cannot see that in such a situation it would be other than neutral as to whom should be removed.