Thus, my words “A basic protest won’t bother them”.
It is not meant to bother those counting but John Key and if enough invalidate their vote it wil embarrass him in Parliament.
Graeme, I have marked KOF as I believe has Winston and a number of RSA members. Annette King said recently on Paul Henry that she was going invalidate her ballot. I would think a number of Labour Party members her heard her would do the same. That adds up to a lot of dicks.
I think you analogy is faulty, only a dick treats restaurant staff poorly. A reasonable complaint is a different matter. I cannot see why those counting the votes could care less if KOF is on the ballot. It does not make their work any harder.
It well send a message. Even though this voting method is different there would not be many accidently informal votes. It it can get up to over 5% it would send a good message to John Key who ignores CIR.
It is a peaceful and legitimate form of protest. Good on Winston for suggesting it.
"But more generally, compensation in these situations should be a legal right, "
I am not saying you are wrong but can you point another country or countries that have such a law.
Simon, you are typical of the left just like Cunliffe - attack the messenger on an unrelated topic.
My point is that too many on the left are out and out hypocrites. When MP on the right act badly they have to resign. Look at the attitude of Labour when it came to defending Dirty Darren Hughes serial sexual predator and let us not forget Benson-Peep..
Danielle, that sounds like you are say because it is dated it is not so bad. Would cow then be acceptable or would that depend on who is saying it and who is on the receiving end.
Hey, Giovanni what do you think of Cunliffe calling Judith Collins a trout?
In that case Deborah what do you think of the latest leader of the Labour Party referring to Judith Collins as a trout. Is that acceptable from someone who aspires to be a Prime Minister?
Excellent article Graeme. I could even be persuaded to go for five years if the change was done democratically and there was proper public consultation, a referendum and some sort of trade off like a binding referendum on conscience issues that were not in the major party's manifesto.
Graeme, it would appear that I agree with most of what you say. I think Section 59 resulted in a few rouge juries – quite possibly both ways, if by chance 2 or 3 fanatical anti-smackers were on a jury they could come up with a guilty verdict where it would have been not guilty if jury had been more balanced.
Section 59 was a sensible piece of legislation. It involved concepts like determining what reasonable force in reasonable circumstances was. If the ordinary members of the public (let us call them peasants) are not capable of determining what is reasonable force or reasonable circumstances how can they determine what is reasonable doubt. If they cannot determine what is reasonable doubt we should get rid of juries forthwith.
Section 59 will never be restored but some reasonable compromise should take its place. I have not spoken to Bob McCroskie recently but am sure he could live with a compromise like most others opposed to legislation that we believe undermines parental rights. I am not nominated to speak for anyone but think many share my view, with the exception of the ideological driven anti-smacking lobby, that a comprise supported by the general public would be a better law. The current law brings the law, the police and Parliament into disrepute
Chester Burrow’s amendment is now obsolete. I feel John Boscawen’s Bill would be a good starting point to go to a Select Committee.
I would value and appreciate your input.
Just for the sake of argument: what do you think of this definition of an allowable 'corrective smack'?
I think it is workable. Do you?