Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: A little known story of…, in reply to Tristan,
Is there any rules on using the descent question or could they have just used the ethnicity question?
For the purposes of the Electoral Act, there's a requirement that the information used is about Māori descent, which means you must have a direct ancestor who is/was (New Zealand) Māori. Statistics NZ defines this as someone who is of the Māori race.
I'm presuming a chief statistician decided to separate out the question in the first place and another one decided that wasn't good enough.
I'm not sure that's the case. The first time this 'mattered' was the boundary calculation after the Māori option in 1994. This was a special Māori Option brought about by the change to MMP. It will likely have been under more time pressure than usual (it didn't immediately follow the census, which was held in 1991), and there simply may not have been time for someone to do things differently.
The decision that was made to do things differently after the next Māori Option was made in advance of the census to which it related. I don't know, but I suspect that it was the same Government Statistician who made both calls.
-
Legal Beagle: A little known story of…, in reply to Tristan,
but when you start going down income, employment status etc then its starts to get interesting form a political point of view. isn’t that racial profiling?
Of course, they did try a bunch of other things to see if they were correlated, including income and Labour force status (they just weren't, or weren't very well).
If you’re interest in the technical detail, the article I cite from the Australian & New Zealand Journal of Statistics (which is also on the Statistics New Zealand website) has it. Page 13 has the information we’re discussing.
-
Legal Beagle: A little known story of…, in reply to Tristan,
so in a nut shell i don’t answer the decent question but answer the following (hypothetical genralising here)
low income
speak Maori
christian
low educationNot quite. They don’t use income, language, religion or education as these are not well enough correlated with Māori descent status.
The four factors they use are (as noted in the footnote – sorry):
1. the Māori descent responses of others in the household (responses which are connected by a dwelling form);
2. the inclusion of a valid iwi in the iwi question;
3. whether the answer to the ethnicity question included Māori as an ethnicity; and
4. age -
Legal Beagle: A little known story of…, in reply to Stephen Day,
Wow. Fascinating!
Thanks! I've been a little worried that this might be a little nerdy, even for Public Address :-)
-
If anyone can tell me how to change this so the footnotes and footnote references link to each other, that would be cool :-)
-
I own Bender's Game on DVD. Is that okay?
-
Legal Beagle: On Burglary, or: Dropping…, in reply to Yamis,
I’ve got another curly one for you Graeme.
About 2 months ago I caught the neighbours kids throwing fruit from a tree on their property at my house and a neighbours house.
Does a thrown object that crosses your property boundary, causing damage, equal a held crowbar that crosses a boundary smashing a window (for example)? In other words were they burgling my house?
Not curly at all. No: that's not an entry. Criminal damage or wilful damage perhaps, but no entry means no burglary.
-
Legal Beagle: On Burglary, or: Dropping…, in reply to Yamis,
But that could now be classed as burglary?
Your front lawn isn't an enclosed yard, so no.
Enclosed yards are usually places like building sites, or semi-industrial places that get locked at the end of the day, if you can just stroll up a driveway, I don't believe it counts.
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to Christopher Dempsey,
Isn’t this exactly what happens in the case of someone speeding?
No. People speed all the time without killing someone. Death is not likely from speeding, nor is it likely from many many dangerous driving actions.
This bit covers occasions where someone is stabbed, but actually (and honestly) the person was only ever intending to do major injury, and was not intending to kill. Intentionally stabbing someone is likely to kill them, so if they die it can still count as murder, even if you weren't trying to kill them.
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to Felix Marwick,
The video below is just a sample of what I’ve experienced over the past 6 months.
Just put it in as a full youtube link. No need for embed code or square brackets or anything like that.