Posts by Steve Parks
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Book review: 'Wikileaks:…, in reply to B Jones,
No, I meant 'his' as in Assange himself, responding to the specific claims about his actions, such as whether he tried to fuck a sleeping woman.
You mean apart from the bit where his lawyers alleged the complainants were in the pay of the CIA?
Sorry, B, I guess I wasn't clear enough when I said I agreed with:
...what’s really out of order is the bald-faced lies Assange’s lawyers have told about the case,
-
Hard News: Book review: 'Wikileaks:…, in reply to sally jones,
The woman whos ‘approached’ for sex while asleep had made it abundantly clear she didn’t want sex without a (working) condom, fearing AIDS, pregnancy, Assange failed to respect her wishes. As I understand it, that much has already been established …
I’m not sure that it has been established, though. That was my point: Assange has denied wrongdoing, and the details about this denial aren’t clear. In other words, we know the specifics of their claims, but not a lot about the specifics of any response from Assange. Until we hear more about exactly why he says these claims against him are false, we could grant him a little benefit of the doubt, surely?
So to be clear: I think it is wrong to come to firm conclusions about Assange’s guilt or innocence in respect of these allegations at this time. But talking around the issues raised, that’s fine.
-
Hard News: Book review: 'Wikileaks:…, in reply to Russell Brown,
I think everyone could be telling what they regarded as the truth here and it still might not be obvious whether what happened was rape.
Yep, and as I’ve said before, even if Assange is eventually tried in Sweden, and found not guilty, we should not conclude that the women involved are necessarily being untruthful or malicious.
I think what’s really out of order is the bald-faced lies Assange’s lawyers have told about the case, and the implicit encouragement to vilify the women.
Agreed. And this will be true regardless of the result of any trial.
-
Hard News: Book review: 'Wikileaks:…, in reply to BenWilson,
I’m not entirely sure if that couldn’t be taken to mean “violent sex” rather than “sexual violence”. Do you get the distinction?
Yes, but in this case, given the wording "Not only had it been the world’s worst screw, it had also been violent" I take it to refer to something unwelcome by the complainant.
-
Sue Kedgley, on the other hand, is a “mealy-mouthed old hag” (Kerri Woodham) for suggesting that Key’s comments are ‘unbecoming of a PM’. Unbecoming. How dare she. Woodham also says, “If ever there was a time to say nothing, this was it.” WTF?
Okay, firstly, I don’t think Key’s comment about someone being ‘hot’ is, in and of itself, particularly offensive. I have friends who use that phrase about people they find attractive (and not just male friends).
However, I agree it could be seen as “un-prime ministerial”, and that Woodham’s objection to Kedgley was fatuous.
I think Dyan got this exactly right on another thread. In context, Key was in this instance, “pandering to boofheads” as she said.
-
Hard News: Book review: 'Wikileaks:…, in reply to sally jones,
Assange and his defenders
Sally, similar to Paul above, I agree with a lot of what you say, but we should keep in mind Assange himself has denied any wrong doing and the claims made against him remain just that so far – claims. If the claims of the women – especially “Miss W”, are accurate, then I think he is guilty of rape. But we haven’t really heard his version of events yet, other than that he denies rape, and he has not yet had his day in court (on the rape charges per se).
By the way, the reason I say Miss W's claims, if accurate, show rape has occurred is because having sex with a person who is asleep is not a way to negotiate sex – especially if the person in question has made it clear they don’t want unprotected sex.
-
Hard News: Book review: 'Wikileaks:…, in reply to BenWilson,
But I haven’t heard of any intimations of violence or even threats of it.
I hadn’t either until I read this description of the claims:
That evening, Miss A held a party at her flat. One of her friends, “Monica”, later told police that during the party Miss A had told her about the ripped condom and unprotected sex. Another friend told police that during the evening Miss A told her she had had “the worst sex ever” with Assange: “Not only had it been the world’s worst screw, it had also been violent."
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Matthew Poole,
You made me read it, you nasty man.
Mawh hah hah!
Well, I found it so infuriating that I wanted others to share my infuriation.
I mentioned already how he claimed Huang and ... (checking carefully) ..Elliffe were 'emotive', but then writes a lot of stuff that was very emotive, near hysterical even. He also disingenuously suggests they forgot that the debt was mainly private, not government, and plays down the problem of government debt (he calls us outstanding performers in regards controlling this). Then, he proceeds to make a number of calls for debt reduction by cutting government spending - justified by the problem of government debt! -
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Matthew Poole,
And I’ll take a taxation professor over a property lawyer when it comes to discussing matters of taxation, kthxbai.
Well, sure, but it doesn't even come to assessing their respective expertise/qualifications. His argument in itself has obvious inconsistencies that are apparent probably without even needing to read the articles he was responding to.
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to DexterX,
Removing the depreciation from ppty has resulted in rents increasing and CGT will have a similar effect – that is my view – I don’t have to research this the same way I don’t have to research the fact that the sun comes up each morning.
Heh. But you’re on stronger ground inductively with regard to the latter. But I think there’s a consensus here that cgt may well add to the pressure on rents. However, Matthew P gave reasons why this would be mitigated. Even a small rent increase would be a downside of cgt, sure. But all major policy changes have pros and cons. Introducing gst had positive and negative aspects, and if it were to be removed that would also have good and bad sides. With capital gains tax, I find the arguments in favour put forward by the likes of Huang and Effille that a carefully thought out implementation (learning from the experience of other countries with the tax) would be overall beneficial are more convincing than your concerns about rent rises.
Coincidently, I have just read this comment by property lawyer David Whitburn. I also find it an unconvincing rebuttal to Huang and Effille’s articles. I’m not sure where to start pointing out the flaws and inconsistencies in his argument. Hilariously, he calls Huang and Effille “disappointingly emotive” in their articles, but then concludes himself “New Zealand needs a capital gains tax as much as we need the plague to strike us”.