Posts by Kyle Matthews
-
That post was bought to you by Madeleine Flanagan. Having biffo with Pete Hodgson since 2005. Talking crap since well before that.
-
Thanks Bob. That was completely fucking bizarre.
It makes the mayor from the Simpsons look sensible doesn't it?
If she has a media minder, they need to find another career. Or another politician if she tells them to shut up.
-
All you're doing is reinforcing the point that a shift from monogamous marriage to bigamous/polygamous marriage is an enormous migration in all kinds of societal thought and legal institutions.
Well yes. But I'd be dubious that, even if marriages of more than two people were allowed in NZ law, that the Care of Children Act would be changed. Even if there were three or more people in a marriage, only two people would be the birth parents of the child. The only complication would be if there was more than one possible father, which already occurs in our society, and is already dealt with through law.
The Act does not recognise marriage as the basis for a relationship with children. Parentage (including adoption) are the basis. It wouldn't need to be changed if the nature of marriage changed, because it still takes a man and a woman to create a child (I'm not sure what it says about sperm donors etc, I presume that just means one legal parent). It already has components in it which could incorporate non-birth parents, as other people can have a guardianship relationship with a child as part of a legal order.
-
81/4.
Good to see that our traditional top and middle order collapse isn't out of fashion.
-
Look at Ryder's hungry little eyes, he can't wait to hit the piss in the dressing room at lunch.
It's the toilet door window that should be worried.
-
Yes, I know that. But we're now discussing a hypothetical polygamous marriage where there are three, or potentially more, people who all have claim to having been involved in the child's upbringing.
It wouldn't matter how many people claim to have been involved in the upbringing.
Unrelated people have no rights to access to children. Parents have primary rights. Extended family have minor rights.
-
since the courts are less concerned with the legal niceties of parentage and much more concerned with the actualities of who's been raising the child.
Not under the new Act. It has moved more towards both parents having a role in their child's life, and has put emphasis on the rights of the child to have a relationship with both their parents, rather than the rights of parents to see their children.
Both parents have equal legal rights now, who is doing most of the caregiving doesn't matter.
-
I couldn't think, of the top of my head, why the TV stations wouldn't make them publicly available? Surely the more places their listings appear in good formats, the more people will watch tv?
Or do they make money off selling their listings?
-
We have no tradition of polygamous marriages in this country, or in any of the countries whose courts we use as points of reference, so no legal tradition on which to fall when it comes to trying to decide how relationship property and children are handled in a divorce.
Children aren't dealt with via marriage/divorce, they're dealt with via parentage in NZ. That shouldn't be complicated, unless for some reason there was a refusal/inability to identify one father on the birth certificate.
-
Tax cuts can be a problem if, instead of spending the money, people just save it.
You can avoid this if, instead of giving tax cuts, you throw the money at infrastructure projects etc. You can stimulate a lot of growth, particularly in a low population region by building stuff.
There are other problems with that solution, but I wonder if there's any theories out there about how infrastucture spending should be inverse to the economy - when the economy is weak, you build, when it's strong, you slow down building and save the money for the next bust.