Posts by Dylan Reeve
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
That seems unmanageable - as generally speaking when The Herald publishes something it end up on their website. So is the Paper version of The Herald (or the video version of 3 News) any different, legally from their online version?
And if online news sites can't publish it, what about blogs?
-
Then we agree. Unfortunately it seems to be the case that to get to this authority one has to go through a mile of red tape...
No Grant, I doubt we do. Because if we did you'd agree that the council was overstepping it's bounds attempting to stop Boobs on Bikes.
-
Well word I hear is that the whole thing was fairly public knowledge in some circles anyway.
Yeah, there's a good chance that Dunne-Powell had nothing directly to do with the leak, but from the way it played out and some of the inital hyperbole I think we can safely assume that it originated from someone who knew her side of the story.
I'm going to start taking signatures for a referendum to make it legal to give your woman a few corrective kicks in the back/legs when it's necessary in the course of being a good husband/partner.
-
"How am I supposed to give my wife discipline and guidance if I have to fear the police every time I give her a little corrective smack?"
No fucking way anyone is going to stand up in favour of that, so why the hell does changing 'wife' to 'child' make it alright?
And for everyone who says "but I got smacked and it didn't do me any harm" I say "Bullshit! You're now arguing in favour of the legal right to hit your kids"
-
Dylan. Utterly irrelevant! From all accounts the council currently has NO SAY with regards to who can or cannot march down Queen St. What I suggested first up is that the council should have the ability to say yes or no. What decisions they come up with is another discussion.
They do have the ability to say yes or no. We also have the ability to ignore them and do it anyway. Then they have the ability to take legal action.
Do you agree that someone has to have the authority to decide upon even trivial matters like this? If yes, who and why not the council. If no ... uh .. well. You're on your own :)
I agree that someone can decide who gets a permit. My concern is that the criteria be applied in an even-handed way. So that Boobs on Bikes and Destiny can be considered in the same way. And quite frankly those criteria should have nothing to do with content.
The questions the council should ask are:
- Is it legal?
- Is there a public interest or audience?
- Is there a legitimate political message?
- What level of interruption will result?Perhaps others. But 'do I like the message/content' is not one.
-
I tend to think it's sort of fighting fire with fire for Team Veitch.
Clearly someone on team Dunne-Powell leaked the initial allegations, and all the other information that followed it. Veitch has said (and we all know) there is two sides to every story, and I think until recently we only heard one (and even then we've only heard one really, Veitch hasn't and can't put across his side of what happened).
Personally I think the way this entire thing has played out in the media is pretty terrible. I understand, price of fame and all that, but it's so far and above what might happen for any other person.
I note also the 'kicked down the stairs' angle seems to have died? There's nothing in even the more meaty Star-Times article about that, it says "[...]he kicked her two or three times in her lower back and she collapsed." - And even then it wasn't until two-months later that anyone realised she had a fractured vertebrae.
There is no excuse for violence, but we've been playing a lot of Chinese Whispers so far. If anything the leaked Police summary is the most concrete reports we've seen of anything in the case.
-
Dylan, you seem to love bureaucracy... not to mention Morgan. You also seem to have rejected the idea of proper authority completely. Let me clue you in. What you describe is not authority .. it's the ability people have to express opinion.
Unchecked authority is authoritarianism. That seems to be what you're promoting. That's not what we have, and not what we (for the most part) want.
Sure, it seems okay as long as the authority agrees with you. But what about if they don't?
Let's say you want to have a march down Queen St to promote or celebrate something you a hundred of your mates believe in - but the council (the authority) says no. You're happy that they can arbitrarily dismiss your intention to express your opinion?
Let's go back and look at Destiny - if the council (let's say I was the Mayor) had told Destiny "no, your message is offensive to me. You can't march" - that would have been good, and just?
Or what if the council had been the opposite of themselves, and approved the permit for Booby Bikes, but declined the permit for the hyperbolic porn-hating marchers that applied to have a march preceding the boobs?
Now, shall we all start debating the 'Smacking Referendum'?
-
If you don't quite understand Morgan's problem then read his post where he said authority needs to be constantly reviewed and checked. Now you are claiming that the population is the real authority. My point should be obvious...
I've known Morgan for more than ten years, and I still don't understand his problem.. But I can safely say that is not it.
Authority does need to be questioned and reviewed. That is fundamental in modern democratic societies. Public accountability, checks and balances, all that.
In this case the Council has the power and authority to restrict marches and parades on Queen St through the granting (or not) of permits. However there is also the ability that people can conduct parades without permit - in fact it happens a few times a year at least. In that case the council has the option to pursue legal consequences for those people.
-
Morgan wants...
Morgan doesn't...
Morgan freely...
Morgan thinks...
Morgan thinks...
Morgan thinks...
Morgan thinks...
Morgan thinks...Ooooh oh, do me next!!
-
to do so is to interfere with the right to freedom of movement on "the Queen's Highway".
And that's it isn't it. Any number of people can assemble wherever they way. If the number is small enough then the police might consider telling them to move or face charges of obstructing the road, but when the number gets large enough the police, to their credit, recognise the sense in managing traffic to allow the people to be safe, and the obstruction to clear itself as quickly as possible.
Applying for a permit is really only asking for the council to assist with road closures and traffic management - not permission, because we inherently have that as part of our greater freedom to assemble.
Queen Street is public property, any of us have every right to be there.
What sort of damage did those tracked tanks do to said Queens Highway? I would have thought those things would have a pretty serious maintenance impact...
The tanks are relatively light, and have special road tracks (rubberised). The larger surface area of the tracks probably actually results in less damage than would result from a truck, where the weight is spread across a smaller surface area.