Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
New Zealand's reaction to this similar incident seemed to be "get over it", but it was seen in a particularly bad light in Australia.
What makes Abraham's case worse is that he's an NZ citizen. Bad enough to do it to visitors, but doing it to people who have gone to the required lengths to tie themselves to the country is a whole other level of naff.
He also said while we were talking this morning that the Aussie customs officers were very easy to deal with, even polite and friendly. It's not a comparison that sits well, given that Australia isn't considered to be the most ethnically-tolerant of nations. -
I do think that the fostering of a vibrant and thriving nightlife in our only city is every bit as important to our sense of identity and national pride as any sterile art gallery or dreary museum
Absolutely. Our various "mainstream" cultural exports have mostly come out of performances in licensed premises, frequently at hours that, according to the draft policy, shouldn't exist. FotC didn't start off playing to packed houses at "acceptable" hours, they were doing open mic at the Classic and other comedy venues. Our musical exports mostly got started playing in pubs and bars, as is the way in most countries. Kill that, and the opportunities for new talent to thrive and gain exposure diminish greatly.
But, then again, one suspects that Bhatnager's perspective is that anything that doesn't come from a composer who's been dead hundreds of years, or is backed by a major record label, ain't worth hearing.
-
what the hell do you have to do to actually lose your liquor license in this country?
Good question. One that I think you'd need to ask the judiciary, not the cops. Revoking liquor licences goes through the courts - due process and other such commie nonsense - rather than being something that a given police officer can decide looks like a good idea on the night.
As for the cops and DUI, I doubt you'll find much support for him within the police. From the article, in fact: The police said all eight policemen convicted of drink-driving since 2005 had lost their jobs.
That he's applying for discharge without conviction doesn't mean the police institution will support him. And even if he's successful it still doesn't mean he won't lose his job. Unlike the officer down the line who drove to a car crash, there's no humanitarian mitigating circumstance that could be argued here. -
I have never been more grateful to have two passports, and get a 'welcome home' at both ends.
You're lucky. My unfortunate workmate went across to Australia for a week, to celebrate the end of Ramadan, and now he's in the paper after NZ Customs gave him a "welcome home" that I expect to read about from people who've been negotiating the hell that is US ICE. It's pretty fucking disgusting, actually, and more than a little depressing that we've managed to stoop to that level.
-
look at things like at least ameliorating the worst of bad planning by offering to subsidise the retro-fitting of double or triple glazing and air conditioning in inner city apartments
With an irrevocable, non-negotiable clause in the agreement being that there will be no complaints related to ordinary noise related to living in the inner-city (excepting obnoxious neighbours in the same building, obviously) as the quid pro quo for accepting the subsidy. Make it a condition on tenancy agreements, too.
As for the cops, Tom, they'd rather stop all drinking (as opposed to going back to the "swill") because they spend so much time cleaning up the mess. Same with ER doctors. They see the worst outcomes of drinking on a daily basis, so is it any wonder that they're not enthused about ever-longer opening hours and wider availability of alcohol? Your snark about their position, in the middle of a rant about under- and mis-representation of various perspectives on liquor laws, is rather hypocritical.
-
there's a major review of licensing laws in train and one would have thought it would be sensible for councils to hold on until they know what they're working with
In which case, why didn't they bloody wait until it was completed before first starting down the road of poorly-considered licencing policy amendments? Sorry, Craig, but if they really wanted to see what was going to come out of the review they shouldn't have started spending money on drafting and consulting on new policies until after the review was done and dusted.
What really stinks, to me, is that we're 13 months away from the new council and we still have the current bunch fiddling with existing legislation. Legislation that may not even survive the reorganisation - in the case of ACC's liquor proposal, one certainly hopes it wouldn't have survived. The impression is very much of a bunch of political hacks who, fearing for their futures, are determined to try and ensure that their obnoxious utopia is presented as an option for Megatropolis when all the existing legislation from across the region is eventually rationalised.
-
Hang on, I'm confused. They scrapped the whole thing, because of objections to the on-licence parts? I'm smelling something that's almost as bad, but not quite, coming in as a "Look, we listened to your objections, and this isn't as draconian as the old one" policy. Shaping up for a classic case of "overreach with this, then achieve what you actually want with the barely-more-moderate replacement"
-
Have you considered that the crime rate may be in decline because of the higher rate of imprisonment?
In which case, why is the rate of imprisonment meant to continue escalating? If the crime rate is in decline because we're locking more people up, the tipping point must surely have been reached. That we're continuing to lock up increasing numbers of people says that we can't possibly be at the point where the crime rate is decreasing because more people who commit crimes are inside than outside.
-
And a reasonable percentage who enter, as well, I would wager.
Indeed. Which is why I preferred to stay clear of the mental health issues associated with offending. Some people really are unable to stop themselves from doing the things that result in their incarceration, though probably not enough to count for much. Others just need varying levels of treatment while in prison to ensure they don't return.
-
And remember, corporations are legally obliged to behave like sociopaths.
Only because the law doesn't oblige them otherwise. What the law giveth, the law can also taketh-away. In this case, the law could quite easily (of course it won't, but it could) place strict obligations of care on private prison managers. If the fine for prisoners having "accidents" was even higher than the fine for reoffending, and that latter fine was steep, the sociopathic tendencies would have to be held in check for reasons of pure financial benefit.
And, really, it's quite proper that the penalties for failing to take proper care of inmates while they're inside be greater than the penalties for what the inmates do once released. The inmates have very little control over their own safety while in prison, but significant control over their own actions when returned to the community. I'll ignore people with mental problems, because that's a whole different kettle of kaimoana.