Mark Bricknell

Ah, I see. I do recall reading that Red Alert post at the time...

Maybe it's my happy-go-lucky, Gen X/Y upbringing, but I honestly cannot comprehend a mind that can approach a free and fair contest of ideas in a beautifully democratic country with a proud ideal of egalitarianism, where we can have an honest debate in a spirit of good faith over the best way to run the joint venture known as "Aotearoa/New Zealand" and not have to resort to bullets and batons to be heard - I cannot understand someone who would think it acceptable and desirable to silence a dissenting voice. I literally cannot put myself in a hypothetical bully-boy politico's shoes.

Which is why, I think, I find Ms. Bennett so distasteful as a politician, whatever her other qualities. That she can feel safe in releasing confidential client files to the media - and be supported in doing so by the PM - speaks to something being rotten in the state of New Zealand.

To quote a great animated talking horse: No sir. I don't like it.

but with an aggressive attempt to get them enrolled - perhaps starting with a card in the mail "So, your vote wasn't counted because ...."

I agree - but perhaps replacing the word "aggressive" with "enthusiastic," as people tend to respond poorly to aggression - well intentioned or not, as Labour found out with the (characterised by recipients as) "scaremongering" letters re: National's policy on mothers on the DPB.

It's a brilliant idea. Mind if I pinch it for a submission I'm planning on making to the Electoral Select Committee? Full credit of course. email memespreeNZ {at} gmail {dot} com if'n so please you... :)

Honestly, if more judges were willing to write in plain (which doesn't mean simple, necessarily) English, I think the country would be a lot better off. My favourite bit is point [42]:

[42] At approximately 8:15pm on the Wednesday evening a National Party scrutineer, Mr Mark Brickell, requested that I ask police to guard the building. He submitted that, if word leaked out that the vote seemed closer than the official count, there might be an attempt to interfere with the voting forms. I saw no evidence of any such risk; the suggestion had not been made earlier; the police were likely to have more productive tasks on hand; the building seemed secure. I provided a hand-written decision which gave my reasons. I permitted either party to employ security guards to attend outside the building provided they notified me, and I gave them my cellphone number for that purpose. I received no call.

In the morning the ballot papers were still where I had left them.

Also: does anyone else get the impression that the National party scrutineers came in with a bigger axe to grind, or is that just me?