Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Moving right along?, in reply to Kumara Republic,
More than that, does it constitute blackmail? Graeme could fill us in on that.
I'd need more information, I'm afraid. Blackmail is defined by section 237 of the Crimes Act:
37 Blackmail
(1) Every one commits blackmail who threatens, expressly or by implication, to make any accusation against any person (whether living or dead), to disclose something about any person (whether living or dead), or to cause serious damage to property or endanger the safety of any person with intent—
(a) to cause the person to whom the threat is made to act in accordance with the will of the person making the threat; and
(b) to obtain any benefit or to cause loss to any other person.(2) Every one who acts in the manner described in subsection (1) is guilty of blackmail, even though that person believes that he or she is entitled to the benefit or to cause the loss, unless the making of the threat is, in the circumstances, a reasonable and proper means for effecting his or her purpose.
-
p.s. my best guess at the moment is that officials missed my submission on support for the families of recently-retired dead MPs, because it doesn't rate a mention in their advice, while they seem to take a position on everything else that I said (sometimes agreeing, sometimes not).
-
Hard News: Moving right along?, in reply to Russell Brown,
For the time being, the New Zealand Herald is describing it in that way.
The Doug McKay quote I have from today's Herald is:
"I have received an assurance from both the mayor and his chief of staff that no mayoral office funds were used in relation to the mayor's relationship with Ms Chuang," he said last Thursday.
"However, I have agreed to independently review this to confirm that is the case."
-
We’ll see. An independent inquiry has begun.
First, I don't believe an inquiry has begun. Second, they've been calling it independent, but have we enough information yet to be confident that it is?
Spotted that already. I don't have spellcheck in my CMS edit window
We used to, didn't we?
-
Legal Beagle: Fact check: Q+A on mayoral…, in reply to Tim Michie,
Is this particular to Auckland as it has its own act?
No. The same rules apply for every council. However, if the resignation happens when there are less than 12 months to the next council election, the council does nominate a replacement instead of holding a by-election. If you know of this happening somewhere else, it was presumably in these circumstances.
-
Legal Beagle: Fact check: Q+A on mayoral…, in reply to matt mccarten,
My mistake. I should have asked you in the first place. Ouch!
Matt McCarten
Thanks for the comment, Matt!
-
Legal Beagle: Fact check: Q+A on mayoral…, in reply to Michael Stevens,
Can anyone sack the Mayor?
The minister can direct a new election of the whole council under certain circumstances. Convictions and other such things can force a mayor from office.
-
Legal Beagle: Fact check: Q+A on mayoral…, in reply to izogi,
If it were an STV election, like in Wellington for instance, are there additional reasons why it would be stupid? Perhaps the runner up shouldn’t automatically get it, but in such cases it should be possible to reallocate all the preferences as if the initially elected candidate didn’t exist.
It is possible, but for mayoral elections - I expect for the reason you note about different people running - we don't do it. However, we do do it for lower level positions.
If a candidate dies (or their nomination in cancelled because they weren't qualified etc.) during the voting period then, if it's a mayoral election, we start over under both FPP and STV. If it's a lower level position, eg a councillor, the election continues, and any votes for that person are simply ignored if it's FPP, or transferred if it's STV.
-
Legal Beagle: Fact check: Q+A on mayoral…, in reply to Sacha,
Boag and McCarten are backroom political operators, not journalists.
I did not call them journalists. My mention of "journalist" in the last paragraph is a reference to the journalists who were present on the panel.
-
please don't make me regret leaving comments open :-)