Posts by ScottY

Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First

  • Hard News: Stop the Enabling,

    A law such as purposed by Chester Burrows or John Boscawen would stop verdicts by rogue juries.

    Did you have any particular "rogue" jury in mind when you made that comment? Just wondering.

    West • Since Feb 2009 • 794 posts Report

  • Speaker: Grand Theft Auckland,

    Sacha, I'm sure many people in ACT, the Nats and CitRats would love to see these assets carved up and sold.

    And I'd be surprised if ACT didn't want to privatise the water. Hell, they'd sell the air we breathe if they could just work out how.

    But that doesn't mean there's an active plan to flog off all of Auckland's assets. Wanting to do something and having the balls to do it are two different things. Any mayor who advocates asset sales in this environment is a dead man walking.

    I'm quite prepared to join any lynchmob that might be going the moment any such thing is advocated. But it hasn't been, to my knowledge.

    West • Since Feb 2009 • 794 posts Report

  • Speaker: Grand Theft Auckland,

    I'm struggling with some of the speculation being exercised in this thread.

    What evidence do we have that anyone's looking to sell Watercare? Or that Hide's going to gerrymander the system to keep the CitRats in power forever? How would he do this?

    Now don't get me wrong - I'm no fan of either Hide or the CitRats. But please give us more than "because that's just the kind of thing they'd do".

    West • Since Feb 2009 • 794 posts Report

  • Hard News: Stop the Enabling,

    Dave, you said:

    I'm not demeaning what they do

    That was after you said:

    Wouldn't it be nice if they put their energies into addressing child abuse in a way that is going to do something about it thus dealing with an aspect of child welfare, rather than spending enormous amounts of time, money and energy in an attempt to continue to make criminal 'the most low-impact corporal punishment'

    You won't win any arguments by insulting and demeaning the tireless work these underfunded agencies are performing.

    As for the enormous amounts of money being spent on this issue, I'm sure you'll find the majority of it's being spent by groups opposing the current law.

    West • Since Feb 2009 • 794 posts Report

  • Hard News: Stop the Enabling,

    What Paul said

    West • Since Feb 2009 • 794 posts Report

  • Hard News: Stop the Enabling,

    Even if he did use excessive force that does not in my mind make him a bad father. The fact that he MAY have used excessive force does not make him a bad father.

    Christ on a stick! This guy is just totally batshit crazy.

    West • Since Feb 2009 • 794 posts Report

  • Speaker: Grand Theft Auckland,

    In fact he was very specific about the narrow group of interested parties who are set to benefit from the proposed changes.

    These people?

    And those select few who make a whole lot of money from the Growth Machine - the property developers, the motorway builders, the corporate investors

    BTW, what exactly does Russel mean by "corporate investors"? People who invest in corporates? (what if I have 500 shares in Contact Energy? Am I one of "them"?) Or corporations who invest (most corporations invest in something - so basically the entire capitalist system?) That's the point, see - the list isn't specific at all. Could be anyone. That's the problem with identifying a vague and shadowy group of enemies.

    That says it all, really. Auckland is being treated as if it's a business, with the sole shareholder R. Hide, of Epsom. As opposed to a democratic body for the exercise of the people's will.

    Numerous charitable and government organisations have lawyers and accountants on their boards. Wouldn't you want a group of people handling millions of dollars to have among them someone with these professional skills? I'm not advocating that every board member should be a lawyer or accountant.

    West • Since Feb 2009 • 794 posts Report

  • Speaker: Grand Theft Auckland,

    ScottY: Is that to say that only lawyers can understand lawyers? That sounds like a most expensive and inefficient business model.

    No. It's how most large organisations operate. In most large corporates for example, the Head of Legal or Company Secretary (usually a lawyer) has to explain to the board and other senior managers what the lawyers said. If the person who has to disseminate the message throughout the organisation can't understand the message, mistakes get made and people get in trouble.

    Most boards also have at least one accountant. The same reasons apply. It is normal commercial practice.

    West • Since Feb 2009 • 794 posts Report

  • Speaker: Grand Theft Auckland,

    And both the councils and central government have whole legal services departments to do that.

    The transition team will need to instruct its own lawyers. The person in charge of instructing them will need a legal background to understand and implement the advice received. Sorry, but I don't see any vast right-wing conspiracy in that.

    West • Since Feb 2009 • 794 posts Report

  • Speaker: Grand Theft Auckland,

    Bad day with the keyboard (cold office and finger sooo... cold). First word should be "The", not "Then"

    West • Since Feb 2009 • 794 posts Report

Last ←Newer Page 1 49 50 51 52 53 80 Older→ First