Posts by Moz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: Q&A: John Banks' judicial review, in reply to BenWilson,
So by the Bible he owes KDC 72 grand and a goat.
But the offense was also committed against the people of Aotearoa, so he owes us ... one term of being a 120% honest MP. And a goat.
-
Legal Beagle: Q&A: John Banks' judicial review, in reply to BenWilson,
long live Kant?
I was thinking that him being a fundamentalist Christian he'd appreciate a bit of biblical stylin'. But Kant also works for me.
Banks sanctified
If we send him off to the Vatican after he's convicted, can we refuse to let him back in on the grounds of poor character?
-
Legal Beagle: Q&A: John Banks' judicial review, in reply to BenWilson,
people who actually commit this crime tend not to really be seriously hurt by fines, I'd think something a bit more serious
That's my feeling. Especially since a fine doesn't really match the nature of the offense. For normal fraud it's pretty straightforward: someone (tried to) obtain money illegally, so we're going to take money away from them. Here, he was trying to obtain political power. So, reasonably, we should take that away from him. A conviction with no further sentence would do that.
But then there's the lack of contrition, and even refusal to admit guilt, so I think it's time to balance the difficulty of accommodating a former minister of police in jail against the desirability of putting him there. I'm inclined to actual jail, myself, since he's repeatedly said he's very keen to send people there as a way of teaching them a lesson. Or to put it in terms he's familiar with: as you give, so shall you receive.
-
Speaker: Crowding and displacement in Auckland, in reply to Sacha,
need more houses in Auckland, fewer in job-poor provincial towns.
yes, but I thought the official plan was to remove state houses from where they're more valuable in favour of building a few where're they're lower value. Which I assumed meant in the job-poor areas with low land prices (because no-one wants to live there). But if it's other, also accessible, parts of Auckland that is good news.
Brett, adding bedrooms is excellent news.
-
That is a really unfortunate juxtaposition, the two issues look bad when put together. Most blatantly, kicking one woman out of a three bedroom house so that a family of 12 can move into it, instead of the three bedroom house they have now, makes no sense. But that's not immediately obvious.
If the government was proposing to build more appropriate houses instead it would make a certain amount of sense. "move away for a year while we build a 1-bedroom unit here" would be fine. But they're not even doing that, they're just going to keep knocking them down and selling them off so they can build fewer houses somewhere else.
I presume the rules are also structured so that if an unemployed state housing tenant moves from a high-employment region (where the houses are now) to a low-employment region (where the new state houses are) they lose their benefits? That's how they do it in Oz.
-
There's a fork of TrueCrypt for Linux called RealCrypt, but I'm not sure how maintained it is. A co-worker who mostly uses linux is excited to have found it: http://wiki.mandriva.com/en/RealCrypt and some notes/links on installing http://www.robotgoblin.co.uk/blog/2011/12/15/encryption/
-
Up Front: Lighting the Dark, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
Thanks for having my back there
You're welcome, and thanks for clearing that up.
I wouldn't be shy about asking Emma or Russell for a take down.
In my experience Russell is quite selective and often quite slow with his take-downs. Especially with things like this where there's ambiguity, and only one of the readings is offensive (and when his personal take is the non-offensive one).
-
Up Front: Lighting the Dark, in reply to Lilith __,
Moz, you're missing the point. Jackie and Craig are friends, and Jackie was expressing her affection. No sexual assault was intended or should be inferred.
Thanks for instructing me as to how I should feel about that, I'll keep it in mind next time something I read here upsets me.
I think it's useful to keep in mind that this forum is not a private chat area for a group of close friends, it's an open forum. In-jokes that require people to know and keep track of all the relationships between posters in order for them to be funny rather than triggering are, at best, in poor taste.
..... and this is why I generally stay the hell away from these discussions.
-
Hard News: The Digital Natives, in reply to BenWilson,
But the leader of the Internet Party? I'd like it if they could tell me ...
...more about the internet than, say, the leader of ACT can about consumer rights? More than the leader of The Conservative Party can tell us about conservation? Than the leader of National can about anything outside our major cities? Than the Minister for Conservation can about our conservation estate?
Our politicians have pushed that particular bar very low indeed.
I'd be happy with a party leader who can talk about the major policies in the major area of concern for their party. And honestly, I'd be shocked if Lalia Harre couldn't do that. Assuming she can't just because she's ... what? Not yet done so?
-
Up Front: Lighting the Dark, in reply to Jackie Clark,
I'm going to pash you so hard the next time I see you.
I think this deserves a dishonourable mention for missing the point. And should be highlighted.
Because normally it's men getting hassled for saying "men get sexually assaulted too", rather than women threatening to do it.