Posts by Damian Christie
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hey Garth - nice to see you commenting here - thanks for your work breaking the news last night.
Garth was indeed the Hooch/Turner in this story, and the camera operator I refer to who opened my eyes to the 'later' theory has also pitched in above (hi Phillip). I didn't mention names because it's not my place to do so, so it's good you've both shown your faces.
As far as I'm aware, a re-trial is a fresh start, so police could take any approach they want, but to radically depart from the set of facts at the first trial would open them up for a great deal of criticism. But they might want to find better experts than Drs Miller and Pang.
-
Cracker: Lundy and Me., in reply to Andrew Ferguson,
Ta. A little bedtime reading...
-
Cracker: Lundy and Me., in reply to Andrew Ferguson,
Interesting - I can't find that quote anywhere - what's your source please? :)
-
Cracker: We Haz Talent?, in reply to BlairMacca,
LORDE!!! Now I have got your attention....
Heh - yeah it might read a bit like that. But I just had some thoughts I wanted to put down in writing, which is kinda what a blog's about, no? :)
-
Cracker: We Haz Talent?, in reply to Robyn Gallagher,
This piece would have been a lot stronger if you’d deleted the first six paragraphs. 250 words to say that you don’t care about Lorde? I
I'm not saying I don't care about Lorde. That's not what I'm saying, and I wouldn't want you to think that. I READ all those articles about her, quite willingly because I was interested. I just find it odd that my head is now full of the minutiae of a young woman's back story when I actually know almost NOTHING about what her music is like, and perhaps how people don't need to know all that stuff about someone to enjoy or appreciate their music.
Anyway, it's a blog, I only write a couple a year, so forgive me for trying to write about two things rather than just one.
-
(Also, massive congratulations to Lorde on reaching #1 spot in the Billboard Hot 100, that really is incredible).
-
Cracker: We Haz Talent?, in reply to Geoff Lealand,
You can’t avoid Lorde; this from today’s New York Times:
naaanaanaaacan'thearyounaaaanaaanaaanotlisteningnaaanaaanaa
-
Cracker: We Haz Talent?, in reply to Jarno van der Linden,
I’d love to know the technical details behind John Bu’s video
He used a program called Cinema 4D I believe.
-
Hard News: Moving on, in reply to Keir Leslie,
is not sustainable across governments.
And therein lies the rub. There's little that can be done by one Government that can't be undone by the next. The only hope is to do something that is so instantly popular (interest-free student loans!) with enough voters, or so blindingly obvious (but the Nats even ditched the healthy schools in food stuff, so...) that it doesn't make sense to undo it.
It's argued we should never have scrapped the license fee, as that was seen as being ringfenced for broadcasting, and so couldn't be tampered with arbitrarily. As soon as it comes out of the consolidated fund, it's fair game.
-
Hard News: Moving on, in reply to Rob Stowell,
You’re right. But … it could be. I reckon it should, or the NZOA funding model shut down in favour of a public broadcaster.
I think you're missing my point. The same Government that decides NZOA remit is worth changing should hopefully decide that TVNZ should be more than just a profit making enterprise. Otherwise, let's flick it and start over, sure. But without that change in legislation requiring the TVNZ Board on downwards to only make money and give it back to the Government, there's no reason why TVNZ 7 couldn't have continued, subsidised by the profits from ONE and 2. Likewise, TVNZ U might've continued too if it was seen as a platform for younger talent to develop, and was roughly breaking even/costing little.
I say again, why waste money recreating the infrastructure and expertise that we already have sitting on Hobson St.