Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Yup, Rodney told Morning Report the local boards "won’t necessarily need to have premises" and could just meet in the library or something.
That says everything about where he views their place in the spectrum. Marginally higher than the rubbish collectors. You only suggest that a local body could reasonably meet in a public space in a public building when you will have them discussing absolutely nothing of any significance or sensitivity.
I'm a big fan of open, transparent governance, but there are some things and some documents that need to be discussed in private. At least we know how Rodders views these new boards. It's a shame we can't do a damned thing about changing it :/
-
But is that applicable if you weren't personally instructed, but just snuck through somebodies back yard?
Also, what is a "lawful instruction"? Do the police have a right to exclude the public from an area?
The closest the police get to "a right to exclude" is s35 of the Policing Act, providing for the temporary closure of roads where
(a) public disorder exists or is imminent at or near that place; or
(b) danger to a member of the public exists or may reasonably be expected at or near that place; orHowever, there's also a statutory duty at s9 of the Act of "maintaining public safety". It's commonly accepted that controlling access to a dangerous area is commensurate with the fulfilment of that duty. I can't see a judge wearing the excuse that "Oh, I ignored the tape because there wasn't a cop there to tell me that I shouldn't cross the line," either, especially when the breach was carried out with the intent of facilitating coverage of a known-dangerous situation.
Plus, it's an offence to be on private property without lawful excuse. Trying to find a technicality that would let you inside the cordon around a siege situation isn't going to meet the bar for "lawful excuse".I rather like the Fire Service's way of dealing with people who won't stay clear of hazardous substances incidents. "If you come any closer, you'll need a very cold shower. No, you can't take your clothes off, they need to be bagged for destruction. Yes, that includes everything in your pockets." It's a very effective threat. Shame the police don't have anything that's similarly vile, because a small fine and a couple of hours in a holding cell just isn't that scary compared to having everything you're wearing and holding taken away for destruction.
-
no action would be taken against John Campbell for breaching a cordon around the scene of the seige in Devonport
Anyone know what offence the cops could have taken action for. I can't find one in the Crimes, Police or Summary Offences Acts?I believe obstruction is the normal charge when one disobeys the lawful instructions of a police officer. There is a defence, from Police v Mackley, where one reasonably and honestly believes that the officer has no standing to give the instruction. Mackley was out filming with St John, with all the necessary paperwork, and was arrested after refusing to stop filming a crash scene. The Police lost, as the judge held that Mackley was entirely reasonable in his belief that the officer had no standing to order an attached photographer to stop taking photographs.
I don't see, however, that the Mackley defence could be utilised by a reporter who breaches a cordon just because it'll get them better footage. They know the cordon's there for a reason, and that they have no potential claim of right to be within. -
David, it was so nearly perfect except for one tiny, fatal flaw. You failed to conflate Worth's fall from grace with a plot by the denizens of the filth of South Auckland, jealous at the success of those from suburbs north of the invisible dividing line.
Other than that, though, 11.5/10. That someone had to ask if this was an extraction of urine is the highest of praise in my books. Bravo :)
-
That's just bloody bizarre. For electorate MPs, obviously they are there because the local punters voted them in, but list MPs are MPs purely by way of a Party construct. If the Party changes the construct, it's completely illogical that the MP can remain.
Oh, wait, we're talking about politics. As you were...
-
I'm getting a little puzzled by Craig's suggestions that it be taken to the SSC and/or Police, TBH. Inasmuch as an MP works for anyone, they work for their party leader. In Worth's case that would be, oh, Key. There is no higher authority, as 3410 pointed out, unless you want to take it to the GG as the person who signed Worth's ministerial warrant.
We're talking about lewd messages, not threatening ones. It's very, very arguable that there's any criminal case to answer, no matter how distasteful the whole situation may be. Sexual harassment isn't ordinarily a criminal matter, only an employment one. Since we're talking about a very murky employment situation, the PM as a) the only person who can fire the Minister and b) the leader of the Party and thus the head of the body that can deliver the only other sanctions, is the only logical choice.
-
Shaz, are you sure? He's list, not electorate, so surely ejection from the Party would remove him from the list and thus from Parliament?
-
Well, the process I actually care about is whether sexual harassment around Parliament actually gets taken seriously when its politically inconvenient to do so
Given how easily Parliamentary staff can be sacked, without recourse, I wouldn't be in the least surprised if sexual harassment by MPs is treated as something of a game that nobody really talks about. SSC campaigns notwithstanding.
Amongst other things, MPs don't actually work directly for anyone. Ministers can have their portfolios taken from them, but the PM can't fire them. They can be ejected from the party, and in Worth's case that would be the end of it, but for electorate MPs they answer only to their electorate. It gets very, very grey. And when you're in that twilight zone, it's surely very easy to convince yourself that the rules don't actually apply to you.
-
It's hard to believe that the media are still letting Key get away with this "Mr Key, what's your position on this?" "What should my position on this be?" nonsense. Helen might, maybe, possibly, have been treated with such fawning adoration in the first few months of Labour's last term, but I just can't imagine it. For one thing the media would've been asking serious questions about what had happened to the very adroit political operator they'd been following for the past however many years.
Which raises the contrast. Helen, for all her faults, didn't shuffle her way through a contentious issue. If her (clearly stated) position was no longer tenable, she stepped boldly to a new one and then resumed the offensive. The new position might have been shaped by public opinion, but you also knew that it was a position she held because she believed it to be the right (for values of right that may or may not include being totally morally defensible) one. Does Key even actually have a position on the issue of what Worth's been up to? It's hard to tell, because the man won't stand still long enough for anybody to pin him down.
-
Mr Worth must be gutted his case has been transferred to Wellington (odd that - usually it remains near the alleged scene or the victim... surprised a few journo's haven't picked up on the implications of that one... )
Since one assumes that the investigation is looking at things through the lens of a possible s103 offence, that makes the ultimate complainant the Crown and thus a transfer to Wellington is entirely ordinary. Field's case was handled in Wellington too, even though it was in Mangere and Samoa that the actual offending took place.
Also, because the communication took place, one assumes, by way of Worth's ministerial phone and email, that makes the location of the offences Wellington, at least titularly.