Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I think you need to have a bloody good reason to biff bottles at cops - as in, an actual protest about something important, where your actions might help the cause. And then you expect to face the consequences.
Otherwise known as civil disobedience. That is, breaking the law very publicly because you think it's an ass, doing exactly as is asked of you by the police, and then accepting the prescribed penalty as a way of drawing attention to the issue.
As opposed to being uncivilly disobedient because you feel like being a cock.. -
Plus firefighters could turn the hose on and douse a couch or two.
Not all that long ago, in Dunedin, a fire crew had things thrown at them for doing exactly that. Basic NZFS policy is not to retaliate unless there's immediate personal danger that prevents evacuating the scene, because being seen as anything other than neutral non-aggressors is not an image they wanted fostered.
-
taking advantage of the out-of-whack official capacity of the King's Arms
Has anyone considered, you know, complaining to the bodies that actually set the capacity? Like the Council and/or the Fire Service?
What's been described previously sounds like a disaster waiting to happen, which is the whole point of restricting capacity in the first place. If people can barely move, that's a venue that's a panicked shout of "Fire" away from deaths by crushing/asphyxiation. -
Surely if you choose to move in next to a long established live venue it's incumbent upon you or the developer to soundproof the housing, rather than the venue to keep your peace?
Ask Auckland Airport how they feel about people who build/buy under the approach and departure paths and then bleat about the noise. I have as much sympathy (a value that is somewhere between zero and fuck-all of nothing) for them as I do for the people who moved in near Western Springs and then complained about the nose from the speedway.
-
Just whilst we're dissecting Auckland City Council policy, what think you all of the proposed new pokie rules? I had a go at working out the implications but am sure some of you could do a much better job.
Sam, reading over that site I don't see any real issues. There's no scope for an increase in overall numbers of machines run by any operator, which would be the main concern, and there's no provision for new licences (that is, adding new machines to the city's total) to be granted. If the choices facing an operator are to remain in an existing, low-grade venue and keep their licensed pokies operating, or move to a nicer venue but lose all the pokies, which way do you think they'll jump? That, as I read it, is the "perverse outcome" of which the summary speaks. When you cannot leave your current premises without losing the pokies licence, you're going to cling to it tooth-and-nail.
-
I have no idea what you mean by that, Sofie, but I was alluding to an ASBO that forbid the subjects to wear a single golf glove.
-
allow the magistracy to forbid any behaviour they don't like and make it a crime to persist with such activity once warned.
That seems to me to be merely a judicial version of enabling police to order people to desist from a particular activity.
Not quite, Rich. ASBOs can be for anything, even if it's not criminal. There are some quite interesting examples on the Wikipedia page, including being forbidden to make excessive noise during sex, being forbidden to wear particular arrangements of clothing, and being forbidden to play football in the street.
It's a big, big stretch to compare that kind of nearly-unlimited power to define something as anti-social behaviour with the limited definitions of unlawful public behaviour that exist in NZ law. I know it's something dear to your anarchistic heart, but they're not at all the same thing.
-
I remember people saying exactly the same about drink driving. Who do you believe?
Objective evidence over personal anecdote. When it comes to driving while drunk there's no real debate that ability decreases with consumption, and that's based on significant study. Hell, the Herald did a test over the weekend to demonstrate just how ridiculously high our breath alcohol limits are.
Is there any similar body of study on the effects of driving under the influence of narcotics? Obviously Granny's not going to be carrying out a demonstration, but I don't think that people really doubt that smoking pot impairs motor function and cognitive skills. Those are the same things that make driving drunk so dangerous, but alcohol also stimulates confidence and aggression which compounds the problem.
-
The group of yobs down the beach yelled, "Show us your tits!" to which my response was, "Ask nicely!" They were disconcerted.
Sounds like the experience of a mate from high school, who once yelled out that same challenge to a particularly attractive, well-endowed young lady who was standing on the footpath of Victoria St, Hamilton. She obliged. Turned out she was advertising for a strip club.
-
Stuart, yes indeed. Were you present for the unfortunate accident? I know Catherine, and heard about it second-hand. Didn't know it weighed quite that much, though!