Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: Gerry Brownlee is…, in reply to Sacha,
Does knocking on a door, walking through it when opened from the other side, and making a statement of action – not a question – count as that?
There's some chance, yes. And a few other reasons as well. I didn't go into it deeply in my post given that he wasn't actually charged under that section.
-
It seems (let's await the report) Gerry Brownlee didn't (legally) get in trouble for not going through security screening, but for being in a security area without a boarding pass. Which is kind of funny, because it means he would have broken then law even if he had gone through security screening :-)
-
Legal Beagle: Election 2014: The Special…, in reply to Keith Locke,
Keith, following answers are all as the answer would differ from the final result:
Scenario 1: IM would get two seats, National and Greens down one each.
Scenario 2: Maori Party gains one seat. Size of House increases to 122 (additional overhang).
Scenario 3: IM would get two seats, National and Greens down one each. Maori Party gains one seat. Size of House increases to 122 (additional overhang).
Scenario 4: Size of House decreases to 120 (no overhang caused by Dunne)
Scenario 5: IM would get two seats, Maori Party gains one seat, National and Greens down one each. Size of House stays same (121), but cause of overhang changes from Dunne to Maori Party. -
Legal Beagle: Terrorism is already illegal, in reply to Grassed Up,
Let’s then imagine some young New Zealander who goes over to Iraq/Syria, goes through an ISIS training camp, lugs an AK47 around the countryside, guards an ammunition dump, shoots at a bunch of Kurdish forces (not civilians) and then gets sick of it all and heads back to NZ.
Guarding an ammunition dump enhances the ability of ISIS to carry out terrorist acts.
-
Legal Beagle: Terrorism is already illegal, in reply to izogi,
actually did refer to the “some people say the Terrorism Suppression Act is enough” line. He wrote it off as saying “that’s not our reading of it”.
Well, he can't have been talking about me. I never said that the Terrorism Suppression Act was enough. I took issue with his assertion that Australians who fight for ISIS commit a crime against Australian law, but New Zealanders who fight for ISIS do not commit a crime against New Zealand law.
I've no idea what the Prime Minister is proposing. I'll be able to form a view on whether that is necessary once he announces what he plans to do, and his reasons for doing it, however if his reason for doing whatever it is Cabinet decides it wants to do is that New Zealanders who fight for terrorist organisations don't commit crimes, it will be suspect.
-
Legal Beagle: Terrorism is already illegal, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
First day back in the office and National are trying to push through ill-conceived legislation or alterations, under urgency...
First. Bloody. Day!
Actually not. Tomorrow is merely the first cabinet. Which, if/when it agrees with Key, will announce terms of reference to an inquiry into whether urgent legislation is needed. They're not going to pass it on the first day Parliament sits (all they'll do that day is be sworn in and elect a Speaker), and they're not doing that this week.
-
Sorry! Comments now allowed.
-
Legal Beagle: Election 2014: The Special…, in reply to Rob Stowell,
Graeme- legal question: does money paid to internal pollsters have to be declared under the Electoral Finance Act?
No. Declarations of expenditure under the Electoral Act relate to advertising expenditure. If a focus group was involved in making ads, that might count, but general polling? No.
-
OnPoint: Sunlight Resistance, in reply to Keith Ng,
But does that mean that Key should not have to answer any questions about Ede? That Collins should (almost) stay a minister? That Katherine Rich should stay on the HPA?
There hasn't been a question time in a while. Surely it's at least possible that this will come up? :-)
-
OnPoint: Sunlight Resistance, in reply to Russell Brown,
EDIT: And of course, the list of people being slammed and smeared as “hackers” included … Keith Ng.
What are the salient facts that mean that Keith is not a hacker? (especially as might distinguish him from from Cameron Slater and Jason Ede and the Labour Party website?)