Posts by Peter Cox
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
never fear!! my D20 and my elven sword of ungodly smiting will vanquish these trolls!
huurah!!!
I have a breastplate +2 vs social humiliation
-
The prime witnesses (ie, the accusers) in the last two trials both ADMITTED they'd lied about key details when cross-examined. What part of that statement don't you understand?
Actually, the woman in the most recent case stated that the police mis-recorded her statement (that she was involved in a relationship with Rickards for 6 months). Frankly, it's quite plausible, as she had been in a relationship with Shipton for that time, and I assume that's where the confusion arose. I'm not saying she's DEFINITELY telling the truth here, but it's rather foolish to outrightly claim she lied as well.
Would you show me where I've said that? I assume you can substantiate that comment.
No, you just put it out there as a nasty little piece of unproven innuendo, that - surprise, surprise -supported your point of view.
I guess because you felt that verifiable facts held an unfair bias against you?
-
no worries ;-)
-
peter Cox wrote:
Maybe someone just doesn't want Clint Rickards to be police commissioner in the future, can't say I'd disagree at this point.that was Reece.
-
And frankly, just because Rickard's brother claims something doesn't mean it's true in any way shape or form, particularly if he has something to gain by having people believe him.
Much of the debate surrounding the case has been around whether the Jury would have made a different decisions had they known about the previous convictions.
So it's not hard to see what advantage the men would gain by claiming the jury actually already knew all the facts of the previous case, and STILL found them not guilty.
Consequently I find the story hard to swallow.
Perhaps in the future I may be proven wrong and the Jury really knew all the facts about the previous convictions, but in the meantime I'm extremely dubious.
-
In all the furore about this case, we all tend to forget that a jury of 12 of our fellow citizens (and it almost certain they unofficially knew of Shipton's and Schollum's prior convictions)
I doubt that.
-
Cool. So I selected my gravitar and feel empowered by a sense of individualism. Do I need to do anything to get it up on the blog or will it just happen in its own sweet time?
-
Dear Lord. What an utterly dishonest and lazy piece of writing.
So the single example he sites against abortion is that is friends are having a baby 'later this year', and it looks like a 'tiny human being floating in the womb, head, trunk and arms and legs and hands and feet perfectly formed and her minuscule heart ticking like a metronome' in the ultrasound. Well fabulous. Is there any information from him about exactly when the baby is going to be born? 2 months? a week? No, no - he just puts 'later this year'. Sly.
At this stage, let's make a couple of things clear about abortion. For someone to have an abortion then one or some of the following legal grounds must be present:
# Serious danger to life
# Serious danger to physical health
# Serious danger to mental health
# Any form of incest or sexual relations with a guardian
# Mental subnormality
# Fetal abnormalityIn addition, other factors which are not grounds in themselves but which may be taken into account are:
* Extremes of age
* Sexual violation (previously rape)In the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, then one can have an abortion at a clinic, after 12 weeks, there must be a medical procedure at a hospital, which, as one might imagine, is not something that the hospital under-takes lightly. So, while a clinic based abortion still requires some strong legal grounds, after 12 weeks, it's a VERY serious business.
At any rate, we're certainly not talking about a case of 'not valuing human life' and creating the mass abortion of unborn children with fingers, feet, heartbeats etc 'to the extent that we can no longer replace ourselves as New Zealanders and have to import foreigners to make up the numbers.'
And dear god, that's without even beginning to analyse the logic behind bringing up the image of 'murdering babies in the womb' and claiming that this is worst form of child abuse in order to justify people being able to discipline their kids by hitting them. So because somehow I don't like the idea of aborting a 'tiny human being floating in the womb, head, trunk and arms and legs and hands and feet perfectly formed and her minuscule heart ticking like a metronome', it must logically follow that I must be in favour of said parents being able to hit their children after they are born? Hmm.
But I guess the idea isn't to actually to inform or enlighten anyone - it's to blurt out an opinion in order to appeal to people's emotions rather than brains. Oddly, this is the kind of thing we usually associate with politicians and we expect newspapers to research and get to the bottom of, in order to force the politicians arguments to be more robust. Surely. SURELY.
So, anyway - my question is: can someone tell me why this is in a newspaper again?
-
Apologies for double posting (and generally being a loud mouth about the whole subject) - but for the wrist lock thing, are we just talking about the aim being restraining a person, or are we talking a endorsed procedure to deliberately inflict pain, specifically as a sort of punishment? Because with smacking, we're certainly talking about the latter.
With the elderly, if they are capable of reason then this is not justifiable.
So how does this same logic not apply to children?
-
Thanks Neil, I stand corrected.
I've read recent articles discussing whether much of the benefits to depressive patients are due to a fear over the ECT rather than the actual benefits of the ECT, so I assumed they must have directly experienced the actual ECT. In retrospect, I must guess that they were referring to some of the after effects rather than the direct experience of the ECT itself.