Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: The frustrating politics of…, in reply to Matthew Poole,
We’re not even second in the OECD, as (in no particular order) Chile, Singapore, Israel and Poland are all above us in that table.
And Mexico. And the Czech Republic. And Estonia.
I wanted to yell this out from the audience last night. Depending on your definition, perhaps we're second-highest in the "Western World"?
-
Umm no - is it?
Yes. Section 5 of the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987 says:
5 Prohibition on acquisition of nuclear explosive devices
(1) No person, who is a New Zealand citizen or a person ordinarily resident in New Zealand, shall, within the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone,—
(a) manufacture, acquire, or possess, or have control over, any nuclear explosive device; or
(b) aid, abet, or procure any person to manufacture, acquire, possess, or have control over any nuclear explosive device. -
Hard News: Drunk Town, in reply to Russell Brown,
I was out one time with a group that included one guy who ended up getting himself arrested by being a total dick about pouring out his beer.
Emptying a beer into the street is littering :-)
And pouring a poison into a storm drain, rather than the sewerage system is similarly verboten ...
-
I probably shouldn't, but I do love the stat about how dangerous solar energy is compared to other forms of energy, in terms of deaths caused.
Coal is generally most dangerous, and nuclear least, but solar is up there because of all the deaths of installers falling off roofs.
-
Legal Beagle: Urewerrors, in reply to Just thinking,
Howie had to use it (Terrorism Suppression Act) or lose it.
He didn't use it. There's nothing in it for police to use.
-
Legal Beagle: Urewerrors, in reply to Lucy,
Is it usual for a sentence to be so far from what was recommended and does it matter (on a legal, not ethical, basis)?
Not usual, but not uncommon. And do we really want sentences decided by relatively low-level employees of the Department of Corrections?
Secondly, I second Rich’s question above. Is it illegal to establish a private militia?
Just a militia? I can't think of a law that would prohibit it. A militia with certain intentions or purposes, perhaps.
-
Legal Beagle: Urewerrors, in reply to Stewart,
Any chance that the police will be called to face charges on their own illegal acts? They seem to be above the law...
I should be clear that it isn't suggested that the police behaved criminally in conducting the video surveillance. Rather, they committed the tort of trespass.
There is a report of the Independent Police Conduct Authority I understand to currently be in draft form.
-
Legal Beagle: Urewerrors, in reply to Sacha,
Are there other NZ examples you can describe for us where the jury's verdict and the judge's sentencing were based on totally opposing core conclusions drawn from the same trial evidence and case law?
They're not based on totally opposing core conclusions. It is not completely inconsistent with the non-conclusion on the criminal group charge. That their intention was not found to be to form a group intent on committing serious violent crimes may, but may not, mean they were still intent on forming a private militia.
And the case I immediately think of is the musician smacking case. He was charged with one count of assault alleging two different things: a smack and a punch (or slap to the head or something worse). His conviction (or sentence?) was ultimately overturned because the jury's decision of guilt didn't (and couldn't) tell the judge enough to distinguish between which of the two (or both) happened. And the judge in sentencing decided both did. Which the Supreme Court thought was unfair.
-
And open to comments.
-
Hard News: Press Play > Budget, in reply to Richard Aston,
I notice in the Vote Internal Affairs section of the budget the amounts for Former Governors-General, $435,000 annuities and Former Prime Ministers $430,000 annuities and domestic travel . That’s $860 grand to former leaders, Why? I mean they are not going to be short of money, work offers or speakers fees.
I did warn everyone to submit on the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill, currently at Select Committee. It re-legislates for this to happen.