Posts by Gareth Ward
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
__Entrepreneurial has a specific meaning which is running a business to make a profit.__
This is where he falls over for me.
Agreed - I specifically researched the subject in postgrad study and while there is not a widely agreed definition, I'm confident the consensus would be that it's not that.
Entrepreneurialism is better defined as a co-ordinator of disparate resources - and that's a brilliant thing to be teaching our kids. Yes there is often an inferred profit intent behind it in the few economic takes on the subject but there's plenty of research into entrepreneurialism in NGO, not for profits, etc...(By the way that dictionary.com definition has at least a couple of flaws in it from an anal academic perspective too)
-
Well, I keep coming back to this question - don't we have perfectly adequate laws regarding destruction and damage to other people's property, cruelty to animals etc. No, I wouldn't be best pleased if some fucktard threw a sparkler through an open window into my house. But not more or less than if the offensive object was a lit cigarette, or a rock.
There are all kinds of precedents about bans/licences/controls on particularly damaging things though. C4 for example (a rather extreme one). But in most of those cases it's because their only cause is destruction/damage (even though C4 wrapped around some green plastic soldiers would be a helluva lot a fun). It certainly seemed last year like the amount of damage and destruction had tipped fireworks into that category but this year hasn't been so bad and has got me back in the "everyone should just be smart about it" camp.
And anyone who screws with my pussy is asking for a world of hurt
=/
-
Oh, and I must say that post-Whatsaname-Frenchies in the Domain last year any personally purchasable fireworks seem rather lame...
-
but I think the issue's safety, and not an important person's right to read the New Statesman in peace ...
HEY-O!
As always, this kind of debate comes down to the drawing of the line between funtimes and the externalities of harm to others. I've always put fireworks on the funtimes side of that line but watching everything that happened last year dragged me over to be hovering gently inside the ban-side...
The fact that damage this year seems relatively contained has me questioning if I was knee-jerking that call though... -
but Gareth, "the police seemed to act rather suddenly" - they're not going to make a public service annoucement 'Please keep clear of the Ureweras as we're going to go in and arrest some people we've been keeping an eye on' are they!
In my wild speculation I am referring more to the comments made by Broad et al in terms of escalated concern etc, rather than the act of the raids themselves.
-
I don't want to encourage the underground trade in bullet-icetrays.
Absolutely, there's enough of a water shortage already...
Being pro-gun, anti-ammunition is a bit like being pro-gun, anti-triggers really.
/end facetiousness (just unfortunate quoting of the poor guy I imagine)I await Friday's "announcements" with baited breath - the level and history of surveillance suggests something of interest, but given the police seemed to act rather suddenly I get the feeling it may have been a rather odd little group that they kept tabs on, that suddenly made a "big call". One that may have passed undetected into the silent history of activist boasting if it wasn't for the surveillance already in place - that the police had to act on out of sheer cautious prudence...
Has made for a fun week of "I rekons" though, like a To Be Continued episode of something... -
According to the DomPost link, Lockett is "anti-ammunition".
That's a very specific stance I haven't come across before! -
raise some possible policy, see how it plays out in the polls, adopt or reject accordingly.
Hmmm, risky strategy - handing out ammunition to your opponents - but you could be right...
-
This whole thing is starting to strike me as a possibly an English f*&% up.
Certainly has covered it well and hasn't backed down from it, but given the can o worms (as mentioned) regarding privitisation you would expect a politician to tiptoe rather gently around it or have a specific goal to communicate.
There needs to be genuine reasons for specific SOEs - improving productivity, providing competition, even "better places to invest the cash" - and given that there can be an argument for this (the farms or the coalmines as a possible example) I fail to see why they didn't come out with a specific spin to deflate the inevitable public outcry.But I haven't seen any mention of this - give me a well argued reason why and I might support it. I'm therefore wondering whether it was either a slip from Mr English (contrary to impression), or just an exposure of the deepseated ideological belief in the party...
-
That said, Alex Swney would be my pick for mayor, all things being equal. But it looks like he can't do any more than make it easier for Banks right now.
He would be mine too and will be on my form. I have considered the whole tactical voting implications but I for one line up almost 100% with his key messages and like to think that if he can get 8-10% (bit of a stretch perhaps) he'll be encouraged to run again - perhaps next time he won't be caught out as the spare sausage at a previous Mayor fight...