Corrigenda (if you still have any chance to revise your submission)
* "is put a deliberately wide" --> "it put …"
* "hosts should not be expected to screen every ... video uploaded": "screen" is ambiguous in this context, "evaluate" is probably intended rather than "display" (later "censor" is used in the same context).
* " It is should abandon its role in favour of the Secretary for Internal Affairs" [sic]: It seems some words have been omitted, leaving this expressing the exact reverse of its intended meaning.
* "it should recommend that a number of amendments": delete "that".
Meanwhile in Japan, Suga is continuing to deny the need for a lockdown as the third wave continues to spike out of control at levels that will overwhelm the healthcare system within a few weeks. Vaccination may start for healthcare workers in February, but at projected rates of rollout, won't reach the full population for another year, while pressure mounts to reopen face-to-face classes with the population sector currently most actively involved in spreading the virus. And true to form, Japan has just closed its borders to nonresident foreigners again to "keep out the new strain", after it's already here and spreading.
What keeps nutcases away from power is, (i) parties having a wide range of different potential coalition partners, and conversely, (ii) governing parties being forced to run policies past the scrutiny of their partners. The threshold is a blight on NZ democracy.
Yes, since the National support bled out about equally towards ACT (of all lunatic lost causes), it indicates lack of confidence in National rather than a swing to support any particular policy of the Left. I will be pleasantly surprised if Labour is anything more than a do-nothing government on anything I care about. And, with no coalition partners to blame for lack of action, it'll be entirely Labour's fault if nothing gets done.
Alimentary, my dear Sacha.
Depends what you mean by "colleagues" I guess.
Reading the article back, WA's comment is not an attack on Dr Craig's reputation: rather, it is a suggestion that the organisation Green Doctors might no longer be operating entirely within regulations without the in-house expertise Dr Craig had provided (unless there are have been other hires that are not yet reflected in their published staff list).
Have to hope they're getting the help they so clearly need.
Separating the substantive point from the invective, to demonstrate that disagreement per se is not a banning offense, and thus to negate WH's assertion:
I think WH was commenting that Hotu is on a register of GPs;
though see also Simon's comment that Hotu does not currently have a practice.
If there is one consistent theme in WH’s collected postings, it is witch-hunting. (Maybe even the basis for their screen name.) Possibly best, then, to dismiss their misdirected sally upthread as just another witch-hunt; note the self-defeating futility of embarking on a pissing contest about credentials from behind a pseudonym; and move on…
I know, right? I reported it as such 2 weeks ago. And again a week ago when it still hadn’t been removed from the multiple threads it inhabits. As I noted, persistent drug ads are an especially bad look for the threads on marijuana decriminalisation.
Hopefully the neglect means that RB now has some paying work coming in again?
Justice, science, and health are all involved; we are now re-evaluating the relative weights given to those approaches, and allowing science, rather than moral panic or political grandstanding, to inform health and justice to a greater extent than has been evident in much of the preceding century. Such a reappraisal is long overdue.
And done right, it should lead to a carefully tested and evolving set of controls around drug use, rather than the single leap to an untested regime that some opponents fear.