Posts by Kyle Matthews
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Glenn offered me $1m to stand as MP, says Morrison
Does Howard Morrison have some sort of "open mouth before brain" affliction?
And who on earth would want Howard Morrison as their MP? It's like a collection of stupid people all getting front page headlines this week.
-
Personally, I remember being 15 and the laws 'protecting' me from the cute 16 year old girls in my class seemed all fucked up then, and the impression has lasted. I have a son, and I bet when he's 15 he'll feel just the same.
Steven has noted that until recently the law was sexist in that women could do stuff to boys and get away with it more than men could do stuff to girls. Not the case any more.
I believe the situation in reality is that between the ages 12 and 15, if both 'kids' are in a relationship and their ages are relatively close together, the police have a policy of not charging. One of those "let's only prosecute when it makes sense" rules that the police have this annoying habit of applying.
-
On the rugby, if the Super 14 is being played to new special rules (presumably to encourage a Southern Hemisphere style of rugby) what happens when we have to play Northern Hemisphere sides under the traditional rules?
Assuming the change goes through worldwide, the northern hemisphere will cross over at the end of their current season - later this year.
When northern teams come to the south in June, we'll be playing them with old rules. And then tri-nations we go back to new rules. Northern tour at the end of our season - I presume this will be new rules.
Either way - been a fair while since a northern hemisphere team looked like winning in NZ - England, 2003? No need to worry.
-
I'm a migrant to Australia, and though I'll not purport to speak for anyone else, I think its an over simplification to suggest wages alone are what attracts people.
I'll speak for 90% of the couple of dozen that I know that have gone - weather and family.
I don't think I've heard anyone going over there and say "I'll be earning heaps more". Maybe a couple were and didn't mention it, but most people mentioned lifestyle and sun.
-
Kyle, that arrogance of the left never ceases to amaze me.
Well that wasn't the arrogance of the left, that was the arrogance of dictionary.com.
But good luck with whatever else you dribbled out there. I blacked out once you got to the government being paedophile-friendly bit.
-
Talk about Labour cocking up a molehill into a mountain.
Personally I couldn't give a toss if the man gets appointed honourary consul to Monaco. It's a voluntary position of very little importance, and it'll just mean that he's doing some free work for us. As long as he's vaguely competent, go for it.
Impressive how Labour managed to turn a non-story into an actual story which National is now feeding off.
-
A good idea, but you know they'll also come back and tagg the sh1t out of the swing set later don't you?
Well, you'd hope that having to 'face up to their community' would make that less like. Restorative Justice and all that.
But even if not, if you tag a wall, get caught, and then retag, you know who the first person that the police are going to see is. That'd just be plain stupid, and I can't imagine they'll be as nice about it 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc time.
-
Repeal: To revoke or rescind, especially by an official or formal act.
Amend: To alter, modify, rephrase, or add to or subtract from (a motion, bill, constitution, etc.) by formal procedure.
I think what you're calling dishonesty, us lefties might call... correct. Because there's still a Section 59, it's just different.
-
A particularly interesting piece of research would be to see just how many taggers homes are emblazoned with tags?
I can't imagine very many taggers own their own home. And no landlord (particularly if the landlord is Ma or Pa) is going to be impressed if you've spraypainted all over their house.
But I agree with the thrust of it - the kids know what they're doing is illegal but they don't care because there are no consequences.
The big assumption with any punishment model of dealing with crime (see, eg, death penalty), is that it assumes that people think beforehand "Ooh, I might get caught doing this, and then XXXX will happen." People don't commit crimes thinking about what will happen if they're caught, normally people commit crimes thinking about how they're going to get away with it.
As far as I know, the best way to deal with this sort of crime is some sort of rehabilitation/community justice. Make them go around and clean it all up and apologise to everyone in the neighbourhood and have the grannies tell them off, and then fix up the playground and build a new swing set.
So I'm fine with consequences, as long as the consequences make an attempt to make the criminal a better person afterwards. A big fine and a criminal conviction? That's going no where.
-
For confirmation of this view, check out the name of the anti- graffiti initiative: Stop Tagging Our Place. "Our place", understand? Not your place.
While I understand the point the writer is making, and I'm sympathetic to the "you're just getting down on young people for cheap votes" line.
In the line of Te Papa, "our place" could be inclusive just as much as exclusive. Possibly not how it's worked out in terms of the policy.
And even if it is exclusive, that's not always wrong. I own a house, and I'd be pissed if someone tagged my fence. "My place" - damn straight.
I wonder if there's any successful programmes turning the branding that has been mentioned above into more constructive media. Spraying/printing t-shirts and selling them - heaps more people will see your brand if you sell them and they wear them around.