Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
__The tagger wasn't murdered. he was killed. The word murder should be used to define only an innocent person's death at the hands of someone else. He was certainly not innocent. Tagging should be a criminal offence, period.__
Um... wonder if Legal Beagle would have a few words on the quality (or otherwise) of Mr. Sinclair's jurisprudence?
I don't have too much problem with it :-)
He's not talking jurisprudentially - he's saying what he thinks should be, rather than what currently is. Certainly the law doesn't currently require an innocent victim for there to be a murder, but this case isn't necessarily murder either.
I have no idea what happened - maybe there's a self defence argument - went out to confront taggers and then felt threatened. The defence of provocation is still on the books, which might make it manslaughter not murder. And of course, no-one has been convicted of anything, so we should try to avoid labelling anyone a murderer...
-
I need moveable diagrams on my TV and a cutesy cartoon character to explain it all.
Well, it's not thermodynamics, but I thought this was a pretty good go at nuclear energy (episode 11?), it's split into two for YouTube (you can also download the whole thing as an MPEG from open video)
Part One
Part Two
Truly, the superpower which man has released from within the atom's heart is not one, but many, giants!
-
I think there's an ugly sense of entitlement showing up in the Clinton campaign.
I picked up on that during the misting up. If Obama gets the Democratic nom the country will go backward ... seriously? Won't go forward enough, sure, but electing Obama would actually be a backward step!?
-
Graeme,
Surprised that you didn't mention the Whitlam Govt in Australia
I was trying to focus on situations where I think the intervention of the Governor-General would, almost inarguably, be justified. I could come up with any number of examples where the Governor-General either shouldn't, or perhaps shouldn't, intervene. You might agree with the Whitlam act, but I don't think it's on the level of abolishing Parliament :-)
-
you talk of the Nuremberg Defense but interestingly you don't question the Nuremberg Prosecution and its legitamcy. Which seems to have a well known detractor.
Absolutely, but the rejection of the Nuremberg defence applies in domestic law too, irrespective of whether the trials themselves were legitimate.
We don't just allow military personnel to refuse to follow unlawful orders, we actually require it. I see no reason why this principle can't apply to instructions given by a Prime Minister to a Governor-General to assent to legislation.
-
DPF - yes, in all likelihood the Monarch would never fail to follow the advice of the PM regarding the dismissal of a Governor-General, but if a Governor-General was dismissed, then the role would revert temporarily to the Administrator, whom the PM and the Queen cannot dismiss.
It might only take a few days (or hours), but while the new Governor-General is in the process of being appointed, I'd like to think the Chief Justice would do something if the situation warranted it (perhaps dissolving Parliament and instituting elections, if that's what was needed).
Eddie - yes, the Parliamentary term is entrenched, and that's one of the reasons why I'd have a pretty big problem with a bare majority amending it. The Parliamentary procedure requiring a super-majority could technically be avoided with a bare-majority, and if that did happen, I'd want someone to stand up.
-
When the OIA was passed under Muldoon, it was envisaged that the majority of requests would be made by members of the public, but they're actually usually made in a highly political context
Because members of the opposition didn't need them because they could file written Parliamentary questions.
There's no appeal or review of an answer given to a Parliamentary question, however, and as ministers started ducking giving answers, the opposition have come to use the OIA - where they can actually get responses to their queries because the Ombudsmen are backing them up.
-
And I only mucked up one piece of HTML...
-
it's not surprising you fail to understand the implicit threat in Slater's actions.
Again, it's a disturbing, odd thing to do, going to someone's house to photograph it, but even with the publication on whale, I couldn't find Minto's house to egg, or call it up and leave rude messages.
Thanks to PA, I could do that Mr Slater. Just sayin'.
-
I disagree with a lot of what John Minto says these days, but Mr Oil has, yet again, crossed the creepy line.
I realise a photo is different from an address or phone number (not least because you actually have to visit the place and take a photo), but is the actual publication of it that far removed from your post here?
I thought it a little weird at the time, but was there a reason you chose not to blank over the address and phone number with X's or something?