Posts by Ben Austin
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
or perhaps "you jus got skooled"
-
i think perhaps it is now appropriate to say
"lol owned"
-
I've been reading a few books on pre Columbian America, the most recent of which went into a bit of detail about this charcoal technique, and some other interesting techniques used by the Mayans.
Generally a pretty depressing read, but then a genocide by disease is never going to be high in lols.
-
Speaking of Palm Oil, a Malaysian company is advertising it on BBC World. Almost spat out my tea when I first saw the ad the other night.
-
Jedi are not valid. They don't tithe, nor have a fancy place of worship.
-
I think part of the attraction of having fanatical followers would be the claiming and recognition of outlandish titles and honours.
I submit Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, dictator and the God of Equatorial Guinea as evidence.
-
Simon Barnett seems to be part of the Christian opposition coalition, based on a casual media survey. He votes United Future, quotes bible passages in interviews etc. However he claims his role as a spokesman is sort of random.
I do agree though, he did come across as the most articulate of the anti amendment crowd on Close Up the other night. If he had a regular haircut and wore more formal clothes he would have done even better I suspect.
-
Dear Damian,
My labrador is afraid of guns, yet I like guns. How should I resolve this situation?
Thanks in advance.
Ben
P.S
She is also soft on terrorism -
Hmm, well for one pig hunting (knives pref.) is a popular sport in NZ Perhaps we could put this blogger in touch with the local association?
-
When you start a clause with "to remove doubt" you don't expect it to do much.
I've seen "to avoid doubt" used in other recent amendments to the Crimes Act. Here is an example:
s307 (4) Threats of harm to people or property
To avoid doubt, the fact that a person engages in any protest, advocacy, or dissent, or engages in any strike, lockout, or other industrial action, is not, by itself, a sufficient basis for inferring that a person has committed an offence against subsection
There are other ways of saying this, and to be honest, i think it must just be a drafting preference exerted by one or more drafters at Parliament. But this is very much a minor example of odd drafting choices. You could spend weeks looking through legislation from the last 10 or so years all the while crying over poorly or at least misleadingly drafted provisions.