Posts by ScottY
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I heard the Key interview on Checkpoint. This man is frankly an embarrasment as PM. He kept calling referring to "Texas", and it took me a while to realise he was talking abut the "texts".
Please, someone get the man elocution lessons.
As for the substance of what he said, he was all over the place. So much for decisive leadership. Key's going to come out of this looking poorly. So much for Holmes' 10/10.
Oh, but wait. it's all Goff's fault. Silly me.
-
Just thinking, you really shouldn't go there. Worth's not been charged with anything (at least last I heard), and has admitted nothing. Defamation laws exist.
-
The Slater interview was a low point in the history of Close Up.
Not only because of his sordid reputation, but because he had nothing to add to the matter. Couldn't they have interviewed someone with a clue?
Kudos to Goff for refusing to be part of it.
-
Keep at it. Only 87 pages to go.
-
Brickley, I offer this by way of rebuttal.
-
get back to your chat with Brickley, it was interesting.
For you maybe. Not so much for the rest of us, perhaps.
-
"A fatality on the Orient Express that the Police will be looking into but are unable to comment on at this time"?
-
We shall also have to rewrite all of the Classics:
Ghost: Revenge his foul and most unnatural unlawful killing.
Hamlet: Culpable Homicide!
Ghost Unlawful killing most foul, as in the best it is;
But this most foul, strange and unnatural. -
Nicole Brown Simpson's life was ended in an action of wrongful death.
No, she was murdered. Not even OJ's defence suggested otherwise.
Caesar? I can't remember off the top of my head. Was anyone ever tried?
No
JFK? Clay Shaw aka Clay Bertrand, I think, was tried for his murder or maybe a coup d'etat. That's if he is actually dead. You'd have to ask Tommy Lee Jones. He'd know that type of thing.
Sigh...I'm off to bed. I'm sure this fool will still be at it when I return.
-
Terrorism is a word used to describe an act, or a series of acts, whether actual or threatened. It doesn't matter what definition you adopt. There can be no terrorism without an actual or threatened terrorist act. So "terrorist act" is really the same thing as "terrorism" for practical purposes.
Parliament changed the SIS legislation so that there would be one definition relevant to "terrorism" across the board. That makes good legal sense.
And we're perfectly entitled to use the term "murder". If the killing had occured in NZ there might be legal issues with doing so (sub-judice etc), but those issues aren't relevant and "murder" has an everyday meaning too.
To suggest that a murder has not occurred if nobody is convicted is frankly absurd. Was Julius Caesar not murdered then? OJ Simpson's wife? JFK?