Posts by Dismal Soyanz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Polity: House-buying patterns in Auckland, in reply to Jim Cathcart,
The relationship between spending and house prices is pretty tenuous. More likely there is a common driver rather than causality between the two.
-
Hard News: Terror panics and the war imperative, in reply to mark taslov,
Ohhhh. Now I see why Dear Judith was so hands on.
-
Hard News: Terror panics and the war imperative, in reply to mark taslov,
And given that this fellow wasn't actually on any Australian watch list, it rather beggars belief that Key can make such outrageous claims.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Joe Wylie,
Anyone who wears the uniforms of our armed forces is well aware of the Anzac legacy. They do not need a deployment to pay tribute. And deployment does not in itself pay tribute to the the Anzacs. Those in uniform must be feeling pissed about this comment but are likely constrained both formally and informally from responding publicly.
-
Hard News: Incomplete, inaccurate and misleading, in reply to matthew,
But if it was web-based email then that would depend on where the server was. I also doubt, given the very large volume of mail that does get deleted, the relevant emails would still be recoverable.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to NSA,
what exactly would “having a look at someone” involve
That's the first thought I had when I read that.
Maybe the office of not-the-PM googled the alleged Rawshark?
-
Hard News: The Hager saga continues, in reply to Sacha,
Yep.
At the core of environmentalism is the belief that the social cost of various activities has not been properly recognised. In order to offset that cost, something has to result in a social benefit. Assessing social costs and benefits requires forming a view of how they should be measured and distributed - which is pretty much another way of describing social justice.
-
According to Stuff, Finlayson says
New SIS and GCSB minister Chris Finlayson said the 13-year-old Terrorism Suppression Act, which makes participating in Isis activity illegal, was inadequate.
"It is difficult to prove someone is a fighter. There are also issues about the collation of evidence and evidence that would be admissible in a court of law according to the standard that we currently have."
So it is sounding more and more like reducing the burden of proof.
And if it's about intention to support terrorism, why the hell is Key using examples of after the fact support?
-
Could it be that Key intends reducing the extent to which the judiciary would require proof of the acts? Doesn't the Crown currently need to prove a terrorist act beyond reasonable doubt? That information may not be easily had or perhaps the only information is circumstantial and/or derived from information obtained by the intelligence agencies. So the new measures could be a back door way of circumventing that.
Just speculating.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to nzlemming,
Like this.
The linkages between Savage and Slater and now Odgers and O'Sullivan, really do make going back to the articles written previously an interesting exercise.