Posts by FletcherB
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Robyn.... 100 Guineas Cup actually :)
Also, was I the only one completely miffed at One News for repeatedly misnaming one of the Cooper's involved in the fashion story?
Despite showing repeated footage of the (correctly spelled) label (ie. Tamsin Cooper)..... they repeatedly said Tasmin out loud, and captions on screen appeared to be spelled both ways. And they did it again this morning...
How hard is it to look at your own footage and copy the spelling?
Fletch.
-
having not re-watched anything, and just going from memory....
Paris was "one of" but not the first item in both the 5:00 and 5:55pm news trailers, and also one of, but not the first, item that gets read as an upcoming highlight/headline straight after the music at 6:00:00 before they actually "read" the news at 6:01....
Thats close enough to "leading with Paris" for me....
Fletch.
-
"1. Being really good looking and uber-rich increases your chance of getting laid."
I beleive Paris Hilton has been investigating this already.
The results are not in yet.
-
Personally I think it's fairly obvious that there is a disconnection between the stated aims of the bill's advocates and the language of the bill, and you don't need to be a member of "the right" to be concerned about that.
Thankyou thankyou thankyou.
Thats what I've been trying to say, but not nearly so well. -
"Fair enough. But do you trust the "scary loons" to know the meaning of reasonable force?"
Wasnt this the exact reason for the Chester Borrows amendment?
I'm prepared to accept that when this bill passes, or if it passed with the Chester Borrows amendment (now essentially dead), that the actual outcome vis-a-vis policing and prosecutions would be remarkably simmilar, as suggested in earlier posts at public address.
Whet I find really distasteful about this whole episode is the politicians in support of it denying that it is a law designed to outlaw smacking. If it really was designed to only stop abuse (or, make it prosecutable), why the increadibly strong reluctance to define anything as reasonaable or non-criminal?
Many people supporting the bill have come out and said they find NO level of smacking acceptable, and thats a perfectly reasonable viewpoint (even though I disagree). But it seems to me the Labour and Green Politicians supporting this bill actually DO hold that view themselves, but arent prepared to admit it publicly. Otherwise, thee Chester Borrows, or similar, should have been acceptable to satisfy thier stated aims.
That is what I dislike. They wont admit thier own ideology.
I doubt there will be any prosecutions for "light smacking"... but the police have already said they have to investigate any complaints... this does indeed raise issues of teenagers complaining while rebelling against parents, and ex-partners bringing up behaviour they found acceptable at the time, but using it as "ammunition" in custody disputes if the relationship fails...
-
The Zoo has a policy of not employing "high profile" people?
Strange, each time I go there, I see animal keepers I recognise from the "The Zoo" TV program.
Surely, if I recognise them from TV, thats "high profile" ? :)
-
"...jesuitical semantic deconstructions."
Wow... I dont even know what that means, so you're obviously more educated than me... I just call it as I see it.
"I guess in politics if you don't win you don't get any outcomes."Its thinking like that that makes most of us plebs have such a low opinion of politicians.
I note you didnt actually argue the case I made? I've made other comments in this thread, and others have helpfully pointed out flaws in my thinking. I really am open minded, and look forward to genuine debate or even enlightenment? I thought name-calling was for KiwiBlog or other places :)
Yes, these arguments ARE nit-picky... and an anti-thrashing law, in any guise, is a good thing. So, maybe I am just getting caught up in the politics of minor wording?
-
And if you were to trying to pass a speed limit of zero into law...
Is it reasonable to get upset when your oponents call it an anti-travel law, when you only claim to be passing an anti-excessive-speed law?
I agree that the proposed change to S59, with or without Chester Borrow's amendment will in all likely-hood end up being policed in similar manner, and end up with much the same outcomes, both better than the status quo...But its a matter of honesty to admit you want to ban smacking, rather than claiming you dont.... Or, if you really dont, then accepting amendments that will make it so it doesnt, and still acheive your claimed goal.
Or is it all just politics? Is winning more important than the outcome?
-
"yes but both the spirit and the practicality of the bill are actually anti thrashing."
Then, why, are many of the proponents of the bill so vehemently against making it more clearly, and only, anti-thrashing?
Should we set a speed limit of zero, with the intention of it only being enforced when 50 in some situations or 100 in others is exceeded?
-
Did you know, that originally, Lagavulin was started by someone trying to exactly emulate Laphroig?
They did in fact, end up with a better product (in my opinion).
At least, thats what an Islay islander tells me.
Me, I like peat, but to be honest, I havent been exposed to enough different varieties to have formed a decent opinion.
Anyone who wants to provide me with samples is most welcome... :)