Posts by DexterX
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
A release to coincide with the Oscars - how quaint.
The Hobbit Saga was underpinned by the CTU and Actors Equity, or whatever it was, they were calling themselves over playing a hand they did not have a right to hold as at the time of the blacklisting the actual "union" had not even been registered - truly amazing – the phrase "dip shit and hopeless" comes to mind
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to Lilith __,
Both of these incidents are disturbing - the Taupo assault shook me - I feel for the guy - serious pelvic injuries and a broken collar bone.
The roads are out there to be shared - like so much of everything.
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to Matthew Poole,
an intent to do something so incredibly dangerous that a reasonable person ought to expect harm to result
I can't see that driving recklessly or driving impaired is any different - it is so incredilbly dangerous - the end result for the deceased is the same - regardless of the whether the soft construct of intention is proved to be present or not.
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
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.
The above is realted to this - from Graeme.
-
Intentionally driving recklessly, drunk or impaired is likely to kill someone - the instance of a person driving recklessly, drunk or impaired and killing someone should be “Vehicular Murder” in my view.
I can’t understand how acting in a deliberate manner, say getting drunk, or impaired, and driving a car, or driving recklessly for whatever reason is often treated as manslaughter and not murder.
In parallel - that Phillip Cottrell's killer was charged and convicted with manslaughter and not murder, “ I intentionally punched him (and stomped on him) and didn’t mean to kill him”.
When a person’s action are reckless and kill someone it should be murder – vehicular murder - when driving.
-
Is it cars or man which is man's curse upon himself - I can't tell for sure.
The Monkey light is the answer - last night as I pulled out of the drive - about 9.30 PM a cycle whizzed past - he had front and tail lights, reflectors and a high viz vest on - but still wasn't that visible. It is a matter of size. Dynamo powered lights aren't that great.
On helmets it is madness not to wear them - I was driving the Link bus and parked outside the Grafton halls of residence loading passengers when a cyclist went over the front handle bars, and was pile driven head first into the pavement – the impact was sickening, the helmet cracked like and egg shell, and his body was flung down the road.
Leaving my seat I helped the guy to the grass verge and I was doing this I had passers-by vocally berating me for the accident (as I rendered assistance) – the guy dropped to his knees and threw up and then I lay him on his side – he started to shake and fit a little – and some passers-by came from across the road and stared to abuse me some more – the cyclist told this geezer to “Phuck off, he didn’t do it” and then dry wretched some more – his colour was that ashen grey you see in death situations – I hope things turned out OK for him in the long run – but without a helmet he would have been a lot nearer death than he was then.
Once the guy and his bike where safely on the grass verge, after phoning an ambulance from the driver’s seat, I went back to loading passengers and leaving the cyclist with a nurse who was walking past. I drove off before the ambulance arrived.
What had caused the accident was a car stopping in the middle the road, having driven to fast around the corner and then stopped to avoid hitting the grid locked traffic in front - the cyclist probably travelling somewhere between 20 to 30 kmh had no option but to break suddenly to avoid the car. The car effectivley pulled in fronot of the cyclist abd braked.
What really pissed me off about this was that some of the people on the bus complained their arses off that I had rendered assistance to the cyclist and also the car driver who knew what had happened drove off.
I get on a bike occasionally and have in the past biked to and from work – I would always wear a helmet and in winter a big yellow rain coat – people need to be aware of what is around them and considerate to other road users.
If Sky City wanted better cycle lanes they would get them funded – all they would need to do is “Just Ask John”, as for the rest of us, well, we need to solve the problem ourselves.
The root of the problem is a lack of consideration, people in cars pulling out without looking and the like – it doesn’t matter how visible you are on a bike if some one doesn’t look in your general direction they won’t see you. I feel a large portion of drivers of cars seem to think that they are sitting on the couch in front of a wide screen TV.
The solution is driver training - the behaviour that is needed is drivers of car need to constantly scan 360’ using their mirrors and looking over their shoulders.
Behind the wheel of a car your lack of consideration can kill someone - don't be an incosndierate bastard; trouble yourslef to look out for others.
-
Need to get Govt to attend - the current view of economics and the economy it self is as follows.
Plan A - "make shit up" if that fails then, "Plan B, same as Plan A - "make more shit up" if that fails then, "make even more shit up" - also have treasury make shit up - have every one keep making shit up until shit actually happens.
When made up shit actually happens declare oneselves as economic genius and then continue with Plans A followed by Plan B - justify this by saying you got it right once.
The nature of economic forecasting (also the "KEY" primciple behind financial markets).is get paid for "making shit up" - that is what really matters..
-
Legal Beagle: A four-year parliamentary term?, in reply to Jeremy Andrew,
Richard Prosser
Silly Little Girl
-
Legal Beagle: A four-year parliamentary term?, in reply to Kumara Republic,
“why didn’t Labour fix [insert pet peeve], they had nine years to do it?”
Was [insert pet peeve] actually that broken?
-
Legal Beagle: A four-year parliamentary term?, in reply to James Caygill,
Let's look at what that means in terms of budgets (which is what we're focussed on at the moment):
2000 - Implement election promises
2001 - Governing Budget
2002 - Election Year
2003 - Implement election promises
2004 - Governing Budget
2005 - Election Year
2006 - Implement election promises
2007 - Governing Budget
2008 - Election year and GFC.The above is not a valid excuse for failure or the basis for a shift to a four year term - if that is what you are suggesting?
I acknowledge that as managers of the economy the last Labour government were better.
If you take the current National Govt then seriously do budgets (and associated Treasury forecasts) have any real relevance - the answer to this is No - with this current lot the forecasts and budgets are so out of whack they are beyond reason - perhaps best to include each of those .years from 2008 with - "making shit up".
The role of government is to legislate and manage the economy, how effectively they are likely to or actually do this is the basis upon which a vote should be exercised.. Three years is enough to prove you can do it or if you are opposition present an alternative.