Posts by Idiot Savant
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Shep: of course, back in the C12th when academic regalia originated, university students were the equivalent of today's "yoof". Terrorising the townsfolk, rioting, visiting brothels and refusing to pay their bills, spreading heresey and pantheism. Hanging's too good for 'em. No, you've got to kill them, then a decade later, dig up the body and burn it, just to show you're tough...
-
Clark had to say something
Indeed she did. And that thing was "in this country we have a seperation of powers and an independent police force. It would thus be improper to comment on a criminal case". Unfortunately, she decided to say something else.
A group of people who conspire to obstruct the police in an investigation is, well, a conspiracy and we have laws that would cover that.
As people have pointed out above, its not obstruction of justice to simply remain silent (or even agree to). No-one in this country has any obligation to speak to the police, except to give them your name if asked.
In the heat of the moment, some people are advocating changing that. I suggest they think again. Yes, removing the right to silence would undoubtedly result in more confessions and convictions. They just won't be from guilty people. But someone will have been "made accountable" (to use the police's revolting phrase), and the police's stats will be up, so I guess everyone will be happy.
-
what the hell does Clark expect them to do? Keep charging members of the family on increasingly flimsy pretexts until something sticks, or their credibility is terminally FUBAR, whatever comes first??
The latter. By moving quickly, they've shot themselves in the foot. Double jeopardy means they can't charge Kahui again, while if they prosecute anyone else, the earlier trial is reasonable doubt on a plate. So, public outrage = no justice. Let this be a lesson to you all.
-
Tax Cuts are pork?
Only if they go to poor people. If they go to the rich, then its sound, sensible, responsible policy, of the sort the Herald thinks should result in everyone getting a gong.
-
"even $70,000 is a modest income these days"
So modest that only 11% of the population earn more, according to the latest data.
-
Britian isn't a democracy?
When the governing party gets 55% of the seats on 35% of the vote, I'd say "no".
Australia is at least a step better in having PV (and is good in having STV for the senate). But it's still not good enough.
-
And to be quite cynical, why should Key set himself up for any more 'baby-fucking rich prick' headlines than he really has to?
Because we live in a democracy, and that implies parties laying out their policy platform so voters can choose between the alternatives (or, in the case of MMP, contribute to the cocktail).
Keeping your policies secret is lying to the voters. When politicians did that in the 90's, we castrated parliament and the executive. If they do it again, then it will make it very clear indeed that we should have instead focused on the individual MPs.
-
Screw the cheese. What about the wine?
In fact, looking at the table, it comes out quite nicely: those earning under $40K get cheese. Those earning between $40K and $70K get wine. And those over $70K get both.
Somebody call a cartoonist.
-
harpies at high school?
The people who dictate status within the clique. Usually by making up the rules as they go along, and sneering at those who fail to jump through the hoops in just the right way.
-
The "rules" of the "game" are as much a construct of the handful of people who cover politics as they are of the politicians themselves.
Of course. Think of Parliament as a teenage clique in high school, with the press gallery as the harpies, and it makes a whole lot more sense.