Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I hope he's calmed down by the time he writes it.
Guess you're not a media lawyer then ...
The more outrageous, the better:-)
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23601329#23601329
It's not exactly Ourtube ... but imagine something like this airing on TVNZ. How about tvnz news at 8? You might get people siging up to be able to watch it :-)
-
I've heard plenty of people point out that this allows tactical voting from Republicans, who have been exhorted by the likes of Bill O'Reilly to vote for Clinton to ensure she wins the nomination (on the basis that many Republicans believe HRC will be easier to beat)
I think that's mostly been happening since the Republican nomination was sown up - i.e. it might have helped Clinton in Texas, but not many other places. Plus, are you sure it was Bill'O? Not Limbaugh? Taking such a partisan position doesn't really seem like Bill'O.
Opposes the death penalty, supports gun control, abortion rights, and gay marriage/civil unions ... I'm pretty sure Bill'O doesn't fit within the usual Republican paradigm.
-
__I think that the interests of the Dems should be determined by the Dems themselves and at present around 50% of them want Hillary.__
And may I point out that more than 50% of those who voted want Barrack? He's leading in the popular vote
I think the point may have been that although Obama is leading in the popular vote, he's not leading among Democrats. He's leading once independents and Republicans who can vote in some contests are taken into account.
If the Dems were determining this, Clinton would likely be winning.
-
the Herald journalists' chapel
With weekly services?
-
The paper has refused to report on the story in its own pages, effectively censoring itself and in turn denying one million plus New Zealanders who have the Herald as their main paper the chance to decide for themselves on the importance or otherwise of this issue.
Tom S - and except for the 8 different times that they mentioned it, you'd be right.
Including this article by Claire Trevett - noted by Audrey Young thusly:
The Herald was actually first to cover the claims about the John Key and lower wages story after Labour had been on the case for a few days, and that was at the suggestion of the Herald editor.
They thought the story so important they had a follow-up a week later - covering a whole swathe of Key contradictions.
-
It's quite easy...
But what about something called the romance collection with Love Actually, Wimbledon, and Bridget Jones's Diary?
R for Romance?
H or G for Hugh Grant (ignoring Wimbledon) -
completely off-topic. But (on my computer at least) the "am"s and "pm"s listed on the front page under posts on the monitor and ourtube forums, are now in Arabic (or Persian) script.
-
So can I, but can see the S-G is eventually going to have get a spine implant and assert that suppression orders exist for damn good reasons and hacks (and the Police officers who love leaking to them) are going to have to do a bit better than squeaking 'public interest'.
Breach of suppression orders does not equal contempt. Suppression orders do exist for a good reason, but the S-G is not responsible for investigating or pursuing breaches of suppression orders. The S-G is responsible for pursuing contempt cases. The police are responsible for pursuing breaches of suppression orders.
You're the lawyer Graeme, and I'm not, but I would have thought that A doesn't necessarily lead to B. Breaching the order is simply that - publishing the material. It could mean that the legal process is harmed, but it might not - it's presumably for the judge to decide.
Wouldn't it be possible to pursue the paper for contempt on the basis that any publication is contempt of the order, and then separately argue, that this particular suppression breach was not sufficient to remove the fair trial?
Contempt? No.
Contempt of court in this sort of case requires an interference with justice - a real risk to a fair trial. If there's no risk, there's no contempt - just a breach of a suppression order (which is substanitally less serious).
-
Single disc crap titles can sell for the same price as 3-movies-on-3-discs-in-same-box.
eg. You can buy Wizard of Oz for $29, or Wizard of Oz (with 2 other kids movies) for $29. (Not to say WoZ is crap, mindyou)
Mostly, though. The three-in-box thing are worse special-features/second disc wise. You can also buy a Three-Disc special edition of The Wizard of Oz for $35.
In short, early buyers (like early adopters) get financially screwed. I was most annoyed when I bought the first release special edition (two discs) of Pearl Harbor when I found out about the three-disc set coming out a few months later (one of the best ever DVD sets, btw, when I finally got around to getting it). I think the best early buyers can hope for is fancy packaging (perhaps a cardboard slip cover). Three movies in a single dvd case just looks wrong.