Posts by Lx
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
There would also be inherent problems given the scope of judicial review - it generally only looks at process and legality, and in reviews of prosecutorial discretion you may really just be looking at people who disagree with the decision.
I thought that the scope also extended to the substance of a decision in some instances. Presumably those reviews are initiated by people who disagreed with the decision.
There would also be questions of standing: who could file for review?
How about the people directly affected by the actions of the individual being investigated?
-
Is a decision not to prosecute subject to judicial review? If not, would it be appropriate to make it so? Resurrecting a grand jury for such limited purposes seems like a big move.
Also am I right in thinking that a private prosecution has a lower standard of proof than a criminal one? If so, and without any knowledge of the Keith Abbott story, isn't it an appropriate action to bring a private prosecution where the aggrieved party is reasonably sure of a result?
-
Has Obama thrown the gays under the bus? Only if he doesn't deliver on policy. If he does, then the fat guy who talks with his eyes shut won't matter.
In much the same sense that it never mattered that a virulent bigot like Jerry Falwell had way too much access to too many politicians on both sides of the aisle. Practically, it might not mean a damn thing but symbols do count.
Yep. But it's done now so we'll just have to see how it plays out. Best ever blog post title on the swell of reaction to Warren's selection here.
-
Randomly picking a thread to derail, we have a new Doctor.
Who looks pretty much how I'd imagine David Tennant's scruffy younger brother would.
David Tennant's scruffy and more dangerous-to-know younger brother.
-
Craig - I'm interested to know what you think of the government's early methodology. So far all the comments are expressing disappointment (that's the polite term, isn't it?) and I certainly agree, but I'd like to see your perspective.
-
I've always imagined 'ACT activists' as sort of the geeks who the geeks wont hang out with, they've never figured out how to make a decent living, wealth has passed them by and it's sooo unfair...
Some of them are law students, as a result of which I (bigotedly) imagine the rest of them - the older ones anyway - to be wealthy and selfish.
-
Remember your post of a few weeks ago revealing the homophobic comments from the National candidate in the electorate ...?
I assure you, none of our community here have forgotten being compared to Stephen Franks's dog. Grant's victory is extra sweet in light of that, but for my part I would have voted for (almost) anyone BUT Stephen Franks following that piece of unnecessary nastiness.
-
I've just been listening to Bill English too, and I'm more impressed than I have been in the past. I'd go as far as saying I'm slightly relieved.
I had to switch Roger Douglas off. He's using the same old phrases and I'm afraid it all sounded like weasel words to the point where I wasn't hearing what he was actually saying. That would be an F on communications skills.
I'd rather be trapped in a lift with Jason Gunn
Surely that's a lie :)
-
__Actually, a fuck of a lot taken. Obvs.__
That's your choice. I'm going to leave this topic alone.
Was that a sorry I heard there? Seriously, we're waaaay more sick of saying it than you are of hearing it. But there's a reason we keep having to say it (for the past 40 years!) and there's a wealth of evidence to support our reasons for doing so.
So how about just don't?
-
I trust it involved a sports car, and the warm wind in her hair?
As far as I can tell it involved lots of trips to Agent Provocateur followed by lots of 'modelling the purchases'. Etc.
And all the usual Paris-y things, of course.