Hard News: Citizens
144 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
Thanks for the link to the 2004 Stats thing - lets see how many people point out it was pre-[insert policy here].. :)
FWIW I am currently working off the 2008 OECD numbers here. If anybody fancied re-working them into that nice tidy format it would be gratefully received!
Of course they're all going to be moot: the impact on a) GDP and b) tax take when you dramatically distort your economic landscape will mean some frightening shifts...
e.g low Govt. Debt to GDP : It's the private sector debt that's in the crap)
High proportion of Corporate Tax: When debt gets written off businesses can deduct it but individuals can't
Hang on for the ride...
-
__Are we all familiar with the number of people currently in prison for murders committed after they served time for an earlier murder?
I believe it's three.__
According to the Herald, murderers imprisoned under the proposed legislation will need a new prison, costing $314 million.
Are the tories expecting a massive rise in the number of second-time-around murderers, or will this prison be a holiday camp for the three prisoners?
The policy does not just apply to murderers, although that is the place where it will have biggest effect. It also does not just take the Californian three strikes law and make it two strikes, which Colin Espiner seems to think. And I understand it's not retrospective in any respect.
From the information currently available, here are some examples of its application:
Criminal A has 20 convictions for aggraveated robbery, and is currently serving an 8 year prison term. A gets out, and murders someone. Upon conviction A will receive a life sentence, but would be eligible for parole. The law is not retrospective - previous sentences don't count.
Person B is convicted for assault with a weapon after the law has come into effect. The maximum penalty is 5 years, but they get three. Upon release, they murder someone. On conviction for murder they will be entitled to parole. Your qualifying offence has to involve a sentence of 5 years, not a possible sentence of 5 years.
Person C is convicted for wounding with intent post-law. Max 14 years, sentenced to 6 years. After release they commit another wounding and get 8 years. They will serve the full 8 years.
Person C's second wounding was only with intent to injure, max 7 years, sentenced to 4. Person C is eligible for parole. The removal of parole only applies for sentences over 5 years, whatever the maximum.
Person D gets a post-law sentence of 8 years for aggravated robbery, upon release they commit a bunch of burglaries, for which they get 6 years. They are eligible for parole, because burglary is not a crime involving violence.
The Californian three-strikes system is much more draconian. First, it included as qualifying offences, convictions the pre-dated the law. Second, it included as qualifying offences any felony, whatever the maximum penalty or the actual penalty. Third, and most importantly, it didn't just revoke parole. It vastly increased the sentence on the third conviction - even if the third conviction carried a maximum of five years, that was increased to life imprisonment.
-
I had read that the shopowner who has been charged... Not sure where the info came from so can't verify. Read it somewhere.
Well if that's the case then charges are warranted.
-
Just listening to news now and golly, when Ron Mark takes his angry pills and starts foaming you don't need your dose of the Daily Show to get parody at its finest.
-
Grant:
In the end, I suspect the Police decided to charge the Otara liquor store owner on the basis of information that isn't (and shouldn't be) in the public domain, but will form the basis of a case that will be fully tested at trial -- where the defendant will receive a vigorous defence, and all the protections of due process. Which, ironically enough, Garth McVicar would he happy to flush even further down the proverbial crapper.
-
Just listening to news now and golly, when Ron Mark takes his angry pills and starts foaming you don't need your dose of the Daily Show to get parody at its finest.
Then again, if I was John Key I'd be very happy hearing a convicted statutory rapist calling me a soft cock. When you've Mark and Williams losing their minds, odds are you're getting something right.
-
And I understand it's not retrospective in any respect.
Surely if that were the case they would have time to generate any extra prisoners by 2011?
-
Finally, TVNZ Archives will often levy what amounts to a copyright license for material in which its copyright is questionable. That's not all bad, in that cost-recovery keeps an archive going, but there's a hell of a lot of stuff kept locked up by dubious assumptions of copyright.
kinda the same but not:
you're at a public even enjoying yourself and TVNZ cover the event and 10 years later you're on a Telecom commercial laughing it up so you ring Telecom who put you on to Saatchi's who tell you they bought the 'stock images' from TVNZ so as far as they're concerned that's the end of the matter and hey it was 10 years ago and you're only seen for like 2 seconds anyway and it was filmed in a public place so .... what's your problem? -
you're at a public even enjoying yourself and TVNZ cover the event and 10 years later you're on a Telecom commercial laughing it up so you ring Telecom who put you on to Saatchi's who tell you they bought the 'stock images' from TVNZ so as far as they're concerned that's the end of the matter and hey it was 10 years ago and you're only seen for like 2 seconds anyway and it was filmed in a public place so .... what's your problem?
Technically, that's misuse of your likeness. If you're identifiable, there should be a signed model release. There's the obvious exception for current events, and if you're in a TV studio audience then you're releasing yourself for the purposes of that show simply by being there. But being filmed walking down the street and then having that footage used isn't within the grounds of legal behaviour.
-
__And I understand it's not retrospective in any respect.__
Surely if that were the case they would have time to generate any extra prisoners by 2011?
An excellent point. I suspect I've been misled on that point. Ignore criminal A in my above examples.
-
Technically, that's misuse of your likeness. If you're identifiable, there should be a signed model release.
I've often heard that said, but what statute is it in? I can't find any mention of photographs taken in a public place in the Copyright or Privacy Acts.
-
And I understand it's not retrospective in any respect.
Surely if that were the case they would have time to generate any extra prisoners by 2011?
Great Lyndon.
It follows then that if a person had to serve even three/five years, National would not have to front up with the action. They are clever to have their cake and........ -
I found this:
http://www.aipa.org.nz/archive/clendonfeeney_copyright.pdfI read that as suggesting that if there was no model release, both sides are on shaky ground, but the balance is probably that the filmed person would't win.
If the TV company signed a model release that stipulated a particular usage, then use outside that *would* be actionable, I think.
-
I've often heard that said, but what statute is it in? I can't find any mention of photographs taken in a public place in the Copyright or Privacy Acts.
That Clendon Feeny document is pretty good. As I said, it's a "technical" breach, meaning that to try and argue it you'd need a good lawyer and a lot of money, and it's really not worth it.
The law has also changed somewhat around how privacy is interpreted by the courts. Hosking was one of those cases that carved out a new niche, and now the justices have to try and work with it and decide what it all means. For most people, it's just too hard and expensive to try and bring these cases.
Also be aware that the tickets for events may have recording clauses. Just checked my tickets for the last two BDOs, and they both say "Ticket holders consent to filming and sound recording as members of the audience." Bingo, contractual term, that footage can be sold and (mis)used as the event promoters see fit. I imagine that most other festivals and similar events have clauses in the same vein.
-
to try and argue it you'd need a good lawyer and a lot of money, and it's really not worth it.
Pretty much summed it up (ie risk of losing vs reward of winning)
Short version: $6 billion deficit next year, no room for further spending, and we're in the red for the better part of a decade. Aren't you glad Dr Cullen saved for this rainy day?
__I don't see any sarcasm tags, so I'll presume you're waving the flag for Cullen...__
That's one way to view/spin it. But some might also view/spin it another way: Don't you wish you'd paid off your mortgage by now?
The Farmers staff were on TV tonight incensed that they've only been offered a 20ยข an hour raise. How is their position any different from ours (the taxpayer). Aren't we both being told "Sure, it was good for a while, but now it's bad, and the money we were stockpiling has gone, so suck it up"? Are you also going to tell the Framers staff they should just be grateful to be employed?
-
Short version: $6 billion deficit next year, no room for further spending, and we're in the red for the better part of a decade. Aren't you glad Dr Cullen saved for this rainy day?
Well, let's see if Labour puts out policy that says "no room for further spending". After all, we're four weeks and change from the general election and I can't find any current policy on Labour's own campaign website.
As I said up thread, both Cullen and English have a lot of explaining to do. And they're running out of time to do it.
-
Bingo! And Prebble is not just wrong, he's raving, drooling out of his tiny mind wrong ...
"New Zealand has [the ] second-lowest government spending in OECD"
Based on figures from 2004? Try 2008 Annex Table 25.
Not only has NZ government spending as a percentage of GDP gone from second lowest to above OECD average, the rate of growth in spending as percent of GDP is the second highest in the OECD, an increase of 3.72% from 2004 to 2009 (projected). So perhaps Prebble was referring to the rate of growth and was misquoted. Either way I think you owe him an apology.
-
I've often heard that said, but what statute is it in? I can't find any mention of photographs taken in a public place in the Copyright or Privacy Acts.
This is from that wonderful other source of law, case law. Anyone (to wit, Mr. Poole and myself - yes and others) can read the statutes and interpret them, although it gets bloody difficult at times given the archaic way they're worded (and, trust me, they're 200% better than they were 20 years ago!). But to really understand copyright law, for example, you've got to have an understanding of where judges have interpreted the statutes in ways that you might not have, where they've been overturned or upheld on appeal and the reasoning for the decision.
Judges decisions can be fascinating in their parsing of the law. The can bring together stands of privacy, copyright, crimes act - all sorts - and weave a brand new decision that may be held as a precedent for future decisions. All of which makes me so pissed off that Justice has been so behindhand about getting a decisions database sorted out. You can still only get Supreme, High and Appeal court decisions from their site and they're really slow. The commercial services have them up (if you can afford the subscription) much sooner than MoJ, and they don't have District ones at all.
-
Either way I think you owe him an apology.
Alright, I'm sure we're all very sorry that Richard Prebble is drooling and has a tiny mind.
We're so fucking sorry.
-
So perhaps Prebble was referring to the rate of growth and was misquoted. Either way I think you owe him an apology.
Eh?
Prebble said "Government expenditure as a percent as GDP is now one of the highest in the OECD."
The table you link to (thanks, by the way) shows that on the 2009 projections, there are 15 of 28 OECD countries above New Zealand on that measure, and a cluster of countries around it.
For 2008, the figure is 42%. In 1999, the last year National set a budget, it was 41%. In the five years that followed, it ran under 40%. If you check Table 33 on the same speadsheet, you'll see government debt was radically reduced in that time. New Zealand now has one of the strongest public balance sheets in the OECD.
You explanation for this is that Prebble was "misquoted".
And I'm supposed to apologise?
-
May I suggest that those most keen to do away with parole be given jobs in our prisons? I'd like to see them front up every day to people who have no hope of getting out early (after several / many years)for "good behaviour".
Granted the numbers are small if this one change was brought in. But the bidding war will be underway........won't it.
-
As I said the rate of growth in this measure is the second highest in the OECD, so it is possible that Prebble was referring to this and was misquoted, or misspoke. Either way it is emphatically not the second lowest in the OECD, and saying he is "raving, drooling out of his tiny mind wrong ..." on that basis strikes me as a little unfair.
-
And what happens if you take the second derivative? Maybe he meant that instead?
-
Either way it is emphatically not the second lowest in the OECD, and saying he is "raving, drooling out of his tiny mind wrong ..." on that basis strikes me as a little unfair.
You've found a sense in which Prebble might conceivably be right, and decided that must be what he said!
He said our government spending was "amongst the highest in the OECD" and yet even in the 09 projections, we're below the median. He was completely wrong.
Even the rate-of-growth measure is blown out by virtue of coming after the very disciplined performance in the first five years of government, when everyone was urging Cullen to open his wallet. As I noted, the difference between 1999 and 2008 is really marginal.
-
Anyway, thanks to Tiki for getting in touch (and sending me a copy of his track!). I have a lot of respect for the way he does things.
That, and his album is freaking lovely.... Was listening to it on the weekend, and it'd make such an excellent live show. Maybe in a large, english speaking european city.....
:)
Post your response…
This topic is closed.