Posts by Gareth Ward
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Historically my (highly limiting) rule of thumb for "it should be in the Olympics" has been "getting yourself/an object as far as possible (vertically or horizontally) and/or as quickly as possible". However we would lose both the Daft Punk joustery and beach volleyball so perhaps not...
Re Sky, as mentioned in another PAS thread - three of the Sky Olympic channels are not available to you unless you pony up the infuriating $10 for HD that I abhor about Sky. This also meant I had to put up with the ad-interrupted version of the Opening Ceremony as I wanted to see it in HD so had to view the Prime HD channel. I can't stand that Sky make you pay (even more) extra to receive in HD, and now they've completely blocked channels with it...
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to JoJo,
Three lesbian couples challenged this a few years ago, as the Marriage Act states only that marriage is between "two people". The courts found that this was legally assumed to mean a man and a woman, so their applications for marriage licences were declined.
Thanks JoJo, quite an interesting slant on the whole thing. So basically it's not just "the State" (dum dum duuuummmmmm) deciding who can marry, it's non-elected bureaucratic apparatchiks (dum. dum. DDDUUUMMMMMM) deciding. The freedom-loving, anti-state conservative right must be applauding this removal of bureaucratic interference from our private lives. Oh wait...
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
I must not go trolling the Kiwiboggers, I must not... Oh, screw it I can't be bothered walking down the river to the next troll-free bridge.
I really want to meet these "gay stormtroopers" one of them refers to. They sound like fun...
Key's particular phrasing around "won't affect my marriage" recalls that awful Herald front page ~2003 when some provincial beauty queen was espousing that civil unions shouldn't be allowed because what did it do for her and her potential marriage? Huh? What? -
Field Theory: Olympics-eve, in reply to Richard Irvine,
On the telly thing, I've been using Sky's 'mosaic' (overview of all the different sports channels' to see what's on at any one time - but there's three channels at the bottom labelled 'HD only' I can't see. I have MySky HD, I have sky sports, what else should I need to watch them?
You have to pay them another $10 a month for the priviledge of receiving their channels (not FTA ones) in HD. So if you aren't paying that little tax you only get Sky Sports in standard def and they can't possibly send you the HD only ones because... well...
Yes I'm in the same boat and yes it pisses me off royally.
-
Could somebody please explain to me what mechanism has been used to deny same sex couples a marriage licence - given that the Marriage Act doesn't actually stop that occurring?
Also, Key in full support. Good.
-
From my layman's read, the press release and letter (haven't listened to audio) lay out the factual basis of their investigation. We can infer from that basis that a successful case may have been bought under Section (2) but I think it's a bit much to say the Police are smearing or accusing.
Asking the Police to limit the factual reporting of their investigations (especially in response to the claimaint) in order to stop inferrence of other possible crimes seems a step to far to me...Edit: On the flipside, I often find myself arguing for default name supression until conviction given our media and societies seeming inability to understand presumption of innocence...
-
Hard News: John Banks: The volunteer did…, in reply to Lilith __,
And this wasn't done, because...?
Banks didn't piss Dotcom off until well after that? ;)
-
Hard News: John Banks: The volunteer did…, in reply to Lilith __,
* Also totally not a lawyer :-)
Shhhh, one just arrived in the comments. Don't make any sudden movements or semantically questionable interpretations...
Re your question, I would read the second part of the relevant section here as being about "proper care and attention" (you have committed an offence if it's wrong unless you can prove you took every reasonable step to ensure it was accurate) but charges under that part have to be laid within 6 months. In this case they weren't...
-
• Was the donation of the radio advertising in-kind? Was it therefore from a radio station or radio station owner? If so, I would like to know which radio station was involved.
As per the Police letter it was a donation of radio advertising, and was recorded as an expense as well.
Re "the volunteer did it", this isn't about signing something and therefore being accountable for it's contents. Section 1 of the law involved is around "knowing the return is false" - the Police are saying they can't prove he KNEW it to be false. Section 2 of the law seems to me to be where he would be exposed but the statute of limitations on it ran out well before the complaint...*
*Totally not a lawyer of course, just my reading of the Police response
-
Hard News: The not-so-Evil Empire, in reply to Morgan Nichol,
I just wish I could set the newly released Chrome for iOS as default browser on my iPad.
Apparently there's a jailbreak way to do this...