Posts by Brodie Davis
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Lowering the Stakes, in reply to Dan Salmon,
The old 6" spike in the centre of the steering wheel system of car safety.
This case is hitting me a bit, as I used to ride down stanley street (on the footpath, I would never in a million years be on the road where that concrete truck is) and have to navigate this intersection to get down to Tamaki drive for fun riding.
And even obeying the lights, riding on the strand is straight up playing russian roulette with trucks. Road design in auckland just tends to be shit. And where are they funneling the riders from the cycleway extension in the gully? onto wakefield street or grafton road? From looking at the plan it pops you out onto beach road, right next to this set of lights.
-
Can I, as a rate payer initiate a vote of no confidence in the five Councillors who are wasting everyones time. Maybe they should go mow some berms for the less advantaged. (I do find it funny that the berms in Grafton are still being mowed though, and they had someone out there doing it on sunday).
-
What I have found. Is no coffee after midday, eat some cottage cheese or something high in protein before bed (to keep the tummy fullish,the slower digesting the better). Exercise, even if its just a 30 minute brisk walk around the block. And don't let yourself sit/lie in bed too long, if your not drifting off, get up and do something to settle your brain.
But having a 3yr old and a 1yr old, means that sleeping time is too precious a resource to waste, so my body won't let me throw it away.
-
Not in the same theme as other videos. But this is a cargo pilot indulging his love for gliders. With a pretty good backing track matched in.
I like to think you can see the joy of flying in it.
-
Hard News: Narcissists and bullies, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
Dear Commissioner Marshall. Shut the fuck up and go away.
I also loved how he was on Campbell live last night and didn't have any answers to any questions they had about this case. Surely if your going on a tv station regarding a specific case you should be fucking briefed on it, otherwise you just come across as a fucking waste of space.
So the options are, he is totally incompetent and didn't think to do any research on the subject of the interview = should be fired, or is hiding deep issues within the police force in regards to this issue = should be fired. I don't get what his end-game was.
Do the police think that they can tell everyone to "move along, nothing to see here" in regards to this?
-
Hard News: Narcissists and bullies, in reply to Russell Brown,
And as I noted on the previous page, the Waitemata superintendent is now saying only that the other three complaints had “not progressed” to a formal stage. I have a feeling we may find out that formal complaints were not exactly encouraged.
This whole formal complaint thing just seems like weasel words to me. I know I have used similar when dealing with internal escalations that I don't really want to deal with (note IT support and dealing with helpdesks not wanting to do their own work, and just wanting to throw it up the pipe).
I would hope that every complaint to the police where someone has been interviewed has a complaint number (and as such is formal). So from this perspective, it sounds more like "we couldn't be bothered with the paperwork, so told them to go away" than anything else.
-
Hard News: Narcissists and bullies, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
Oh, but “the line” has to be everywhere and nowhere at the same time, because The Victim-Blaming Playbook boils down to one very simple principle: **The only way a rapist’s prey ever stops “asking for it” is not to exist at all.*
I agree completely, but there does seem to be a “dress/behavior code” that exists, where idiots feel able to go “its your fault, from what you were wearing you were asking for it”. Now it may be that some of those people think that just by merely existing is enough. But for others there is a line, ie tight white pants, or super short miniskirt etc. But if someone was in trackies then its different in their heads. Like that ALAC advertisement from a few years ago (discussed on this forum, by emma I think).
This is another example that makes me sick.
Trigger warning!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11152672Fagan asked her if it was consensual. “Did you not hear what I just said?” she replied. He replied: “Yes, but you said you fancied him."
(edited to remove excess url codes around herald link)
-
Hard News: Narcissists and bullies, in reply to Dastardly Bounder,
“She also alleged police asked her what she had been wearing and had said she was wearing clothing “that were pretty much asking for it"…
Really? Clods.
Yeah this is horrific. A choice comment from another forum. Trigger warning.
Are there official police guidelines for just how slutty 13 year old girls can dress before they're allowed to be gang raped?
Because it pretty much seems like there is a line in the sand somewhere, but no one is willing to disclose it, because it would make them a terrible person, and once you are articulating it, it is impossible to defend. As you see complaints from Saudi Arabia of woman in full burqa's still being molested on the street. Its not about what they are wearing, its about the men (in the great majority of cases) who are doing the offending.
How do we get the message out that it doesn't matter what someone is wearing, or what they are doing. Rape is not allowed, there is nothing a woman can do to deserve rape. EVER.
-
Hard News: Narcissists and bullies, in reply to Hebe,
Those people are meant to be protecting us and our kids.Fuck.
This is getting beyond words. I don't get it at all. Its seems like the benign neglect that has been passing itself off for governance in this country has changed to not even pretending anymore.
-
Hard News: Narcissists and bullies, in reply to Emma Hart,
It’s not that anyone is trying to be a dick to anyone else, but someone who has been raped is unlikely to have a lot of time for a “let’s come up with really convoluted hypothetical situations that make consent look incredibly complicated”.
But it doesn't need to get that complicated. Letting/helping/encouraging someone to drink too much so you can have sex with them, is just outright rape. as per
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM329057.html
128A Allowing sexual activity does not amount to consent in some circumstances
(4) A person does not consent to sexual activity if the activity occurs while he or she is so affected by alcohol or some other drug that he or she cannot consent or refuse to consent to the activity.
And as per the question earlier, If someone consents before drinking and then drinks too much, according to the law that consent is invalid. And men would not continue anything at all at that point (I was going to say considerate or caring men there, but people with empathy would stop) .
So based on the story in the press so far, this isn't grey area material at all.
And the Police have bent the rules in the past to stop things happening. I understand them wanting to get enough evidence to convict, but surely they could have leaned on the kids hard as well, and stopped further events taking place. I am not sure that letting young girls unwittingly be bait is much better morally or ethically.