Posts by James Clark
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
The short and curly is: message-wise, we've screwed ourselves inside out.
We?
Is it just me, or have people forgot that we're just extending to children the same rights adults have?
So while we're at it we should allow 2 year olds to drive, go to the pub, have sex, vote, collect unemployment benefit, have full criminal responsibility under the law, etc...
If "infant == adult" and there is no need for a special case for parental control (s59) then why not take away all the other laws which discriminate for or against minors?
Perhaps there was a valid reason why s59 was put there in the first place? Perhaps children are not the same as adults? Maybe parents should not have to think twice whether they are breaking the law when manhandling unruly kids.
As a parent I can not bear to think of hitting a child and I find the reports of what some children suffer to be sickening. I find it disturbing that a learned judge and jury can find obvious abuse to be 'reasonable' - although I suspect those cases are a very small minority.
And there's the problem: if a court can't decide what is reasonable then how can I trust that some ignorant stranger who witnesses me struggling to get a kid into a car seat won't mistake my actions for abuse?
I found it chilling to read of the recent case where the police hunted down a girl's father after someone witnessed him putting his screaming tantrum daughter in the car. Now in that case I applaud the witness for contacting the police - that was the right thing to do. The police apparently acted sensibly as well - once they figured out the man was a parent of the girl. A happy ending.
Now, should Bradford's bill pass then this could have turned very nasty with just some small 'differences of opinion'.
Think of combining a law that should be ignored with a witness holding a grudge.
-
I'd have been quite happy for Key to have said "Well, I was 20 years old, living in the halls of residence, drinking beer and enjoying rugby, so, yes, I was pro-Tour. But history shows I was wrong."
It was the evasiveness that I found odd.
Perhaps it was not evasiveness but rather he did not have an opinion on the matter and stumbled as he realised he could not make one up on the spot.
At least it seems clear he was not given the questions in advance. That's better than answers prepared the night before and confidently delivered 'live'.
Might have to wait and see how he answers when pressed on more current issues. Can't be equivocal on everything...
-
Thanks for sharing the HoS article. It is very satisfying to read an intelligent answer to a misleading opinion-piece - and even more so when the misleading started with a cover story.
It is shameful that North and South and the Herald actually printed the original articles without any fact-checking. Readers who thought they were looking at opinion 'inspired by' facts were actually reading fiction.
Keith's "making shit up" line from last week is right on the money. Pity he couldn't use it.
-
dc_red has a good point - or at least I tend to agree with his summation. Plenty of fodder for consipiracy theorists but nothing new or suprising.
It seems that the smoking gun email might have been collected along with one tabled in Parliament in May (along similar lines):
**TREVOR MALLARD** [...] I have an email from Ron Hickmott, who was writing on behalf of Andrew Simmons, Phil Winn, Matt Goudie, and himself. He states that he represents a group of Christian businessmen concerned with the course and direction of the current Government: “Accordingly we have put together an election programme with a budget of $1.2 million with the goal of ‘getting party votes for National’ ”
So perhaps we get to see what the Govt knew all along.
-
Actually, you came for an entertainment experience. And you're assuming that the only use the stadium will be rugby. There'll be one-day cricket, conferences, cultural events - all the things that already go on in the middle of a suburb at Eden Park...
Of course. I accept that. From the point of view of a regular stadium-goer only; I'd say that the location is fine. I would definitely buy tickets.
I'd also go to North Harbour - or anywhere else in Greater Auckland for that matter.
I was attempting to think of best potential use of the land, and the proportion of people that would be regular stadium attendees - versus say those that might regularly visit the Domain, or Viaduct basin, or Mission Bay, etc.
-
Sigh. That's exactly the sort of comment we keep getting about Wellington waterfront. How dare they propose replacing our beautiful carparks and tin sheds with something people might actually use!
Point taken. Just think a step further: if you are going to develop the place for public use then why why why spoil it by plonking a massive stadium in the middle.
Spend the little money to clear the area and put a green park on it, some open space, shops, restaurants - all low-rise. Make it a place that anyone would be happy to be - anytime.
Take the balance of the $500m (more likely to be $1b) and use it to build the stadium on solid ground elsewhere - or perhaps extend one of the other locations suggested.
-
At first I kind of liked the idea of a big flash stadium on the waterfront - then I thought about it. It does seem rather absurd use of a prime location.
Sure, it is an ugly area now: containers and other countries' scrap cars, but the argument that "a stadium would at least be nicer than that" is not particularly sound.
Think about what you might want from a stadium. You want to get there, watch the game, and get far away as quickly as possible. When you are seated inside, waiting for kickoff, does it really make any difference if you're at North Harbour, or on prime harbourfront real estate with potentially beautiful views outside? Of course not. You came to watch the game.
When the game is over: a quite stroll along the waterfront and perhaps a dining experience with 60,000 other people flooding out of the place looking for somewhere to pee? No thanks.
For all of the Aucklanders and visitors that are not interested in the stadium the area will be a definite no-go - especially if it is utilised as much as it should be to justify the cost.
Using the location for a stadium just seems like a waste in so many ways. Most expensive place to build. Least effective use of the location.
-
The Herald website is dead slow via Xtra - and also via Starhub Singapore.
On a hunch I enabled the Adblock plugin on Firefox and added wildcards for the obvious culprits. The site is now responsive. I have verified that ads are the culprit by enabling/disabling Adblock.While I wouldn't make a habit of cutting off a site's ad revenue (pa.net: your ads are safe) I think than when they make a news site unreadable then they are fair game.
My guess would be that the site hosting the advertisements is not particularly well connected.