Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
First post!
And to be serious, are we surprised at politicians finding ways to spin information in a way that allows them to pretend that an inconvenience, as they and their backers see it, is simply not feasible? I'm sure Labour did the same thing, but this is pretty far out there. Ignoring in-the-text explanations that the report is explicitly not saying what he says it's saying, to the tune of $15b/year, is a spectacular failure of comprehension. Either that or it's some seriously wilful bullshitting.
Whichever it is, I'm not holding my breath on the media calling him on it. -
I found this scary piece in the paper yesterday. The thought of one operator owning a chunk of Marsden Point that's, at present, in the hands of two oil companies, should give serious pause. We're already subject to a distinctly uncompetitive market for petroleum fuels, at least part of which blame is to do with the cosy relationship between the petrol company operators and the refinery.
A foreign operator, making money only from the refinery operations, will doubtless push to increase margin to ensure greatest possible return. That is entirely natural, but that doesn't mean it should be allowed. Of course, with National set to gut controls on foreign investment, we may be left with no choice but to lube up a little more and clutch our collective motoring ankles a little harder.
-
So although I will be glad to see the defense go, I will be extremely disappointed that it will only be because someone finally tried to use it to get away with murdering someone straight.
Would you rather that it stuck around until some other gay person is "manslaughtered"? With such an archaic, offensive statute I'll take the victory of its demise however it happens to arrive.
As it happens I didn't think that the Weatherston trial would be much use for getting provocation revoked, when it first became apparent that it was the angle the defence were using, unless he was successful. It's only his spectacular self-destruction on the way to a murder conviction that's made the case such a potent weapon.
Also, it's not the first use of the defence in a murder that wasn't "gay panic", successful or otherwise. A recent one, and one that I consider to be more morally offensive than either the "gay panic" cases or the Weatherston case, was the woman who killed her neighbour for refusing to babysit. Why is that more offensive? Because the neighbour did absolutely nothing to insert herself into the situation, other than simply being her killer's neighbour, but was still found to have provoked her killer.
-
By making provocation a matter for examination during sentencing, the farce would have been conducted away from the eyes of the media. Sentencing hearings aren't broadcast for all and sundry, and without the "bonus" of playing for the jury Weatherston's behaviour would likely have been much subdued.
Unfortunately, the cameras still like to turn up for sentencing.
Oh, of course. But that's only the end of a process, and the process is largely conducted behind closed doors. The reason that Weatherston's not being sentenced until mid-September is that the judge now has to go through all the victim impact statements, hear arguments by both sides as to what they think the sentence should be, etc. The activity on the 15th will certainly receive quite extensive media coverage, but don't think that they get to see everything that's gone into reaching that point.
-
If I'm not mistaken, Veolia only operate the trains, and aren't in much of a position to under-invest as MAXX/ARTA owns all of the assets and rolling stock? Correct me if I'm wrong.
Your understanding is the same as mine. The contract for operation is precisely that, operation only. Rolling stock, rails and all the other "real" parts of running a train service are publicly-owned. Long may that continue!
-
So Bill, what does your bank account look like? - do share...
Well, according to the Pecuniary Interests Register, he's got interests in a farming company, a farm and a family home in Dipton, and is a member of the Parliamentary Superannuation Scheme. No shadow trusts for holding shares or anything else. In other words, Bill's not got his money where his mouth is. Everyone else should be supporting NZ business, but he's not. Even Key has blind trusts holding shares on his behalf.
Admittedly it's a bit tricky for pollies, especially when they're on the Treasury benches, because of the risk of conflicting interests. Ordinarily that's handled by using blind trusts, as Key has done, but English doesn't have any. Nothing like rank hypocrisy on the part of our elected overlords, hmm.
-
My acid test for investment, domestic or foreign, has to be "Does it benefit New Zealand?"
Domestic investment is, prima facie, beneficial to the country. It's supporting NZ business, it's not increasing our balance of payments problem, and it's not leading a repatriation of profit to an offshore shareholder. Even those lovely Fay, Richwhite and Brierly chaps were of benefit to NZ with their investments, if only because it's better to be fucked by someone you know than someone you don't. Obviously better still not to be fucked at all, but it was going to happen.
Foreign investment, however, is rather trickier. Can we raise the money in NZ? Can we get the expertise in NZ? Can we ensure that this investment won't result in wholesale repatriation of profits, potentially after there's been an increase in monopoly rents by a disinterested foreign shareholder?
Applying these to Auckland Airport and the Canadian pension fund, why do we need to flog off the shares? It's not like AIAL needs the money. It's purchase of existing shares, not a new issue, and the presumption for a new issue should always be toward Kiwi investors first. Will we get screwed with increased monopoly rents? Quite probably. National don't seem keen on opening a new airport in Auckland, and they're definitely not keen on regulating landing fees and other charges that the airport levies, making for a captive audience that's ripe for a cry of "BOHICA!" So what's the benefit? AIAL appears to have a very competent board, and with the profits it's been reporting it can surely afford to attract whichever international talent it might require even without having to indulge foreign investors. The only benefit I can see, and it surely is a short-term one, is brokerage fees. Oh, right, I see now. We get the benefit of income tax and GST on the brokerage fees charged for the handling of the sales. Silly me, here I was looking for a long-term benefit to New Zealand. What was I thinking? I'll go back to my hole now. -
Y'know, I think this provocation defense should stay. After all, getting rid of it isn't going to change what happened in the Weatherston trial.
No, but it will ensure it can never happen again. The judge would've ruled it entirely inadmissible that Sophie was, according to Weatherston, a manipulative slut who made him feel sexually and physically inadequate. In a murder trial where provocation is no defence, the character of the defendant is entirely irrelevant. The defence counsel would never have been permitted to follow through that line of questioning. After all, his claims about Sophie's behaviour were only relevant inasmuch as they were meant to demonstrate that she drove him to do it.
By making provocation a matter for examination during sentencing, the farce would have been conducted away from the eyes of the media. Sentencing hearings aren't broadcast for all and sundry, and without the "bonus" of playing for the jury Weatherston's behaviour would likely have been much subdued. Judges don't take kindly to defendants who suggest that, maybe, y'ronner, I'm much, much smarter than you and you should just worship me as a form of lesser deity. No matter how subtly the defendant may make such suggestions.
There's no good reason for it to remain. Life is no longer mandatory for murder, and no matter what the provocation may have been the defendant did murder the victim based on the definitions of murder in the Crimes Act. Manslaughter implies accident, and there's no way that the Hungarian or Weatherston (pretending for a moment that Weatherston succeeded with his defence) didn't display the textbook lack of care as to whether or not the victim would live or die that is a form of the crime of murder.
-
was chatting to a mate last night about R&D tax relief. He pointed out that the likes of Fonterra would claim the relief based on stuff like researching new logos and packaging. I had to concur.
Maybe so. But if they get higher turnover as a result, who bloody cares?
Plus, avoiding their fringe cases by abolishing the entire thing is really, really, really freaking stupid. Monumentally, unbelievably stupid. I don't care if they claim for research into ways to increase the dairy consumption of one-legged, blind, lesbian Swahilis, so long as they show results. -
Martin, Sofie, please. This will be good for New Zealand, because it will bring in much-needed foreign capital. That's important because there's not enough local capital to go around. These benevolent foreigners, in return for their selfless donation of money to New Zealand, are perfectly entitled to demand higher monopoly rents and to repatriate profits in a, well, profligate fashion. But it's for our own good!