My own story:
Waaay back in 1993 when I started planning for the Millennium NYE dance party at the Aotea Centre we met with the Police (across the road) as a courtesy to explain what we were doing. 'We' was myself (the Promoter ie hirer of the venue) and the Food & Beverage Manager of Aotea Centre (they had a 24/7 liquor license - meaning they could sell alcohol at all hours at any time except Xmas & Good Friday).
We were rather gobsmacked when the Inspector said he didn't like the sound of what we were doing, and didn't want us doing it. We politely said (remember, we were only there as a courtesy - or so we thought) that the event was happening and the bars would be open. The Inspector reiterated his concerns and then spoke directly to the F&B manager. He said if the Aotea Centre chose to go ahead with the event he would take a dim view of that choice and it would be something they (the Police) would take a closer look at when it came time for their liquor license to be renewed.
We returned across the road and reported what we perceived as a clear threat to Greg Innes, CEO of Aotea Centre. He wasn't having a bar of it and so he picked up the phone, called their Big Name lawyers, and instructed them to contact the Police in writing immediately and have them confirm in writing by close of business that day (and it was 3pm by now) that the NZ Police did in fact intend to challenge their license when it came up for renewal if they held the NYE event.
The event went ahead without obstruction, and ran for another 7 years.
Rob Warner did a lot of excellent work recently fighting the efforts by the NZ Police to convince Auckland councillors to introduce Sydney-style lock-out laws (sorry ChCh, your bar owners caved before it even got to council IIRC).
I've been out of the biz for a long time but it has been my experience that the Police are the ones trying to shape the laws that govern who can drink what when and where. It should be the law makers (Govt & Councils) who do that, and the Police should stick to enforcing those rules.
I'm aware of two different events (different promoters) that had legally licensed bars arbitrarily shut down by the NZ Police on the grounds that too many people were consuming too much alcohol. Maybe if we weren't penned into tiny bar areas with long queues for service we might not feel the need to buy four drinks for ourself when we finally got to the front of the queue. In NY I could go to an all ages event in a park, walk up to any food stall, buy a beer no questions asked, and... go wherever I wanted! There was no 'pen' no containment whatsoever.
Yeah, I do the same. And I try to use my card as soon as I get home, so they know I'm back in NZ. And therefore that luxury handbag purchase in Hong Kong (not on my itinerary) can't be mine.
Two simple things the government can do to make housing more affordable:
1) Legislate to limit all foreign buyers to only purchasing new builds. That will bolster the market for new houses, which is what everyone agrees is the problem - we're not building them fast enough. If developers know they have a market segment guaranteed to them they will ramp up building projects. At present they have to 'compete' for the property investor dollar with existing stock.
2) Legislate to rezone whole blocks in the CBD fringe as high density residential living, since council don't have the political will to make that hard decision (which is also why the govt won't do it either). You need to rezone whole blocks, not little pockets here and there, in order to (ultimately) get a decent design aesthetic. Pardon my privilege, but I have been to Barcelona and Paris and Brooklyn and seen great examples of high density neighbourhoods with pocket parks and six storey apartment buildings. With proper design controls (oh, there's that thing again: regulation!) we need not fear 'Hong Kong style slum towers' (which is a whole other subject, because HK also have lovely apartment communities)
The SHA comprises two titles in Karaka Street, currently home to a gym, and the King’s Arms Tavern.
It is entirely possible that the Urban Collective could build an apartment block on the site of the gym, and then wait for the residents to make numerous noise complaints about the KA live music. Obviously there would be a counter defence (‘we were here first, you shouldn’t have bought next to a live music venue’) but I suspect it will be a war of attrition and council will eventually make it difficult for KA to be a live loud music venue.
At which point the site goes on the auction block. Maureen may not want to sell but eventually it will be sold. There is no guarantee UC will be the purchaser. I suspect they applied for the whole block just to strengthen their own position.
I think this allegation is the one that will have the most legs if pursued - since the public won't stand for it:
"When she was Minister of Corrections Judith Collins appears to have had a prisoner transferred at Slater’s request, because a friend of Slater’s didn’t want her daughter visiting her imprisoned ex-partner and Slater arranged to have the man transferred to a more remote prison. The prisoner later attempted suicide".
I know politicos will say other stuff is worse but Joe Public doesn't really care. But playing with people's lives is different.
I thought the law was “half your age plus 7”? That’s what my classmates at high school said.
I thought that was the age limit for Cougars ‘prey’?
(It doesn’t apply to men because regardless of her age, you’re still A Dirty Old Man)
Another example of how the liberal media get it wrong (on purpose, no doubt):
This new Bill will drop the age of sexual consent to 12 and permit children to be employed for 14 hour days without a meal break
Nice try Graham, but I think you'll find they've only lowered the age of consent to 14, and they're only expected to work a 12 hour day without a meal break. I think that's somethiing we can all live with if it means the continued prosperity of our great nation.
GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT YOU DUMB@SS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Discovering via the lifting of the order that Garrett has experienced mental illness takes the fun out of the meme a bit.
But seriously, isn't it a common beef from SST that today's offenders all too often get off with the mental illness defense and rail against it? I'm all for giving Garret no quarter on this one.
(And we've only got his word that he never used it)
I'd presume if that was not correct, the (authorities) would have brought this up at the time of the court case
Not necessarily true. He could have used the fake passport for fraululent purposes, and just not got caught. Maybe if his fake name was published any victims would come forward? But then that would cause more trauma for the family involved, who've probably got it tough enough already right now.