My sentiments precisely. I like to ride partly because I can do it in the clothes I will wear all day, and even, potentially, the clothes I wear in the evening.
What a frustrating story - that poor lady! What a ridiculous situation.
I remember when the helmet law came in. I was at intermediate, I think, and the immediate effect was that I refused to bike to school anymore because I'd look like a dork.* These things matter terribly when you're 11.
*Not helped, I must add, by my mother's purchase of the biggest, ugliest, dorkiest helmet available in Nelson. Even now, when I'm used to seeing helmets, it remains spectacularly ugly. It had these funny segments along its length that reminded me of nothing so much as a grass grub.
Interesting post, Nigel.
I don't know what the evidence is for the helmet hair thing but pretty much every woman I can think of cites it. It can take me half an hour or more to do my hair, depending on what the weather has done/will do to it, and I simply won't waste all that effort by sticking a helmet on & ruining the style.
It's a shame, because I enjoy riding. But not more than I enjoy looking professional in a professional environment.
I refer you to section 6 of the Defence Act 1990:
The point was that either might be surprised to be cited as having undergone a vasectomy.
...our Commander in Chief is shooting blanks
In fact the Queen is our Commander-in-Chief. (Of course, the powers are exercised by the G-G).
Tactically I'm not sure why Tuhoe conflated this simple fair and reasonable idea with their desire for sovereignty. The two goals are separate and I think it is the latter idea that creates more disquiet.
Not saying that Tuhoe did any such thing, but I can quite understand how, having acted in good faith over very long periods and under exceptionally trying circumstances, one might have the eventual response of "Well stuff you then, if you won't play fair we'll do it our own way."
Quite frankly, were I in a similar situation to Tuhoe (and others), my response would be to up palisades at a Warner Bros speed, closely followed by sentry patrols at the borders. The other party clearly can't be trusted to behave themselves.
The fact that this has not yet happened is testament to a level of grace and dignity among Maori leaders that puts my own likely reactions to shame. Other nations have followed similar facts down the path to civil war. We have much to be grateful for in these leaders.
Why ask for ownership to be returned unless they want more power over the management of the area?
The bit I'm missing here is why that would be a problem. What on earth are you so scared of? That Maori willl behave like the Crown has? Well when have they ever done that?!
Maori leaders have consistently demonstrated a generosity of spirit in this regard.*
Just because one has an advantage under the current regime, for example access to conservation land, does not make it right. It merely makes it convenient.
*See, for example, the Orakei Block, enormous chunks of the South Island etc etc ad nauseum.
You rock and we love you.
More specifically, I'm grateful and glad that you are around to be a vocal and articulate role model for me and my family.
I want my family to grow up and live as adults with role models who both speak and listen with respect, who analyse and debate, and who like who they are. You are one of those people.
Stand strong, Emma. There's a few of us standing beside you.
Trying to do everything - republic, Treaty, entrenched BORA - all at once in one package is setting ourselves up to fail.
How, exactly, can the Treaty be separated from the republic question? I would say they are inextricably bound.
...the Green Party doesn't have the resources to pay lawyers to draft bills.
No, but some of them are lawyers. It would have been worth it, surely, to run the Bill by someone 2 or 3 offices down who understands how this stuff works...
Peter I think it's worth distinguishing between incitement and causation. Music/lyrics can incite but they don't cause.
The final decision is the Minister's job, and their decisions are subject to judicial review if they fail to take into account things that they ought. Everyone needs up to date information with which to make decisions. That's why lobbyists are effective (or pernicious, depending on your perspective).
I'm not sure how provision of information is solely a departmental job. Chauvel is doing not only what hundreds of MPs have done before, he is doing what hundreds of ordinary people do every day - writing to the Minister. His voice has more reach than most, I'll grant you.