Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Justice Wilson was indebted to Mr Galbraith by up to $602,000.
Justice Wilson completely denies being indebted to Mr Galbraith. He argues:
* they were joint shareholders in a company.
* neither owed the other anything.
* neither owed the company anything, rather:
* the company owed them both money;
* this were sometimes in differing amounts;
* but this doesn't matter because the company had enough in the current account to repay them both if called upon.I think it's enough to cause a conflict of interest and it's just plain dodgy that he didn't declare it.
He did call up Francis Cooke QC - the then lawyer for Saxmere - and told him about the joint holding. He didn't tell him about an indebtedness because he says there wasn't one. (the Supreme Court held this wasn't enough, but Justice Wilson says they got it factually wrong).
Secondly, even if it's dodgy that it wasn't (properly) declared, that's not really what he's in trouble for. What he appears to be in trouble for is what happened at the Supreme Court.
I have not seen too much about this in the media, possibly due to the confusing nature of the points being argued. Which is understandable.
I thought Audrey Young, skiving off from the press gallery for the hearing, did a pretty good job.
And my apologies for not going into the detail of the rest of the argument: Justice Wilson has also complained about a few other things, including the process the Judicial Conduct Commissioner adopted, which is argued to have lacked natural justice (in respect of one of the complaints, he says it wasn't put to him, and he has an answer to it). I thought the bit about the standard of misbehaviour needed was the more important bit.
-
First thought: Yay ... someone used sewerage correctly!
=)
Second thought: Damn, that someone misused evacuated. Oh well, can't have everything.
[Actually, my first thought was about your first thought about hoping you were the epicentre: that was very kind of you.]
-
I presume Smith also conveniently 'forgot" to tell listeners that Churchill was dumped as PM by the British electorate in the first post WWII election?
Post WWII?
That's a very euro-centric view of the major event of the 20th century =)
-
This is the video that Whaleoil has put up of Anderton.. ... It's not even funny.
Well, I thought the story was funny. And so did Anderton.
In the unlikely event, as they say on the plane, collective responsibility means any other Minister can immediately act.
That's what collective responsibility means? I thought it was all about not ragging on each other.
-
3 News: DNQ
WTF, 3? No coverage until 6pm, except for a brief update at 11-ish (and probably something at 12 too, but I was out then). Weak.
Wasn't the whole of "The Nation" devoted to it? Not that I watched it all, but it recorded and skipping through it it certainly seemed that way.
-
And just how would that be done Graeme? I mean NZ is not exactly flooded with FakeReceipt 1.0 software, is it?
Microsoft Word? Have you seen what counts as a legitimate and proper receipt for many tax purposes (perfectly reasonably, I hasten to add).
-
I insist: if you subtract wage and salary earners - who can't cheat...
And there's your problem. I won't claim an intimate knowledge of the Italian tax code, but most allow for deductions and write-offs and things like that.
In New Zealand, charitable donations are tax deductible. A wage-earner who claims a tax deduction for making a charitable donation which was not actually made is cheating, this is possible even though they only earn a wage.
In a country with a more complex tax code, the possibilities are vastly greater.
-
In Italy commentators say that 42% of the population are tax evaders
So everybody is not either unemployed or a wage and salary earner? Thank you for the vote of confidence there, commentators.
It is possible - I'd go so far as to suggest the norm - for tax evaders to pay tax. They tend to get in trouble with the 'how much?'.
-
I found myself standing at the drinks table beside her. It seemed courteous to introduce myself. "I work with Gavin Ramsay," I said.
Ahh - your first mistake. Having just re-watched Pride and Prejudice I'm led to believe etiquette requires that one should only ever be introduced by someone else =)
-
But nobody (Electoral Commission?) has told me exactly what the new entities are that I'll be voting for, or exactly what their jurisdiction or territory is.
Not the Electoral Commission. Local Government New Zealand has a bit to do with it, and the Ministry of Internal Affairs, I think. And the Ministry of Health for the Health boards, I suppose. And the Electoral Enrolment centre, which is part of NZ Post does the electoral rolls.
But try here: http://www.elections2010.co.nz/
I don't think they quite have all the candidates yet, but they'll tell you what you can vote for at the very least.