Posts by izogi
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
The question I don't know the answer to is who it is that is responsible to bring such a prosecution? Is it NZTA? Or does it go beyond them?
I guess this is a question for someone who actually knows stuff, but in the current absence of that I see that the Land Transport Act (to which the P Endorsement rule traces back) defines "enforcement authority" in section 2. The first agency on the enforcement agency list is NZ Police, for enforcement "in any case".
The NZTA (defined earlier as the "agency") can also be the enforcement agency for an "infringement offence", but from the definition of "infringement offence" (further down) I'm not clear on whether it includes stuff like P endorsements on licences, let alone incitement for other persons to commit offences under the Crimes Act. Note that the NZTA has a published prosecution policy.
My uneducated guess, based on all that, is that the NZ Police are the most responsible for enforcing and prosecuting this type of thing, but I'll yield to anyone who knows better.
-
Speaker: Confessions of an Uber Driver…, in reply to BenWilson,
I'm late into this conversation so sorry in advance if this has already been covered...
and most certainly want to know from NZTA what their options for directly prosecuting Uber are. I want to know if there even ARE any options
Especially after the recent RadioNZ interviews with Richard Menzies, is there some reason why Uber in NZ couldn't be directly liable for prosecution under 66(1)(d) of the Crimes Act?
* P endorsements are required under Land Transport Driver Licensing Rule 26, which is an ordinary rule created under the Land Transport Act.
* Section 40 of the Land Transport Act states that it's an offence to contravene an ordinary rule, so it definitely seems to be an offence... at the very least in the way that speeding is an offence even if Police use discretion between issuing a fine and prosecuting someone in court depending on severity.
* Then, section 66(1)(d) of the Crimes Act makes it an offence to incite, counsel or procure any other person to commit an offence.Isn't this exactly what Richard Menzies and NZ"s Uber presence is doing? What's the benefit in going after squillions of drivers if it's feasible to go after the body that's procuring illegal services and profiting from them?
-
Hi Rob.
Politicians aren’t punished for lying partly because too often the media chooses not to punish them. The media is the closest credible witness to the statements our leaders make.
I don't know if that's entirely fair. To use a tired metaphor, modern media is fighting a war on multiple fronts. It's less powerful than it used to be because the government doesn't need it to communicate its message any more.
Dirty Politics was an excellent example. At least some of the media tried really really hard to hold the government to account. Ministers just stood there, ignored it, and talked past the questions, confident that so many people these days augment their understanding of issues, if not entirely replacing it, with independent media. Blogs, social media, comment threads below media articles, cherry-picked opinions that help people feel good about what they already think instead of obliging them to reconsider. It's never been easier for audiences to choose not to reconsider their view of the world, merely by selecting their sources of information. To a point, we're doing it here right now!
After a couple of weeks of the same old denials, audiences just got bored, started blaming media for boring them, and bleeding away. What's media meant to do in that scenario, when pointing stuff out doesn't work?
-
Speaker: Are we seeing the end of MSM,…, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
I placed a comment at about 8am, ripping this 'rah rah' piece to shreds, by 11am that had not appeared so I placed another comment marvelling at the lack of comments
I've given up on expecting any standards from Stuff in this area. Its comment moderation is completely random, which contributes to it being impossible to have a rational conversation with anyone. At any given time it's impossible to know if they don't have the resources to let comments through, or if there's someone with a particular bias one way or another doing the moderation, or if there's a clear intent to let through comments that make people mad and filter those which might quell the conversation, or if there genuinely *is* a torrent of opinion under today's article which happens to seem the opposite of what showed up a few days earlier.
On the other hand I'd expect more from Radio NZ, but I had an unexpected comment thread experience a few days back when I tried to write a comment on its Facebook page. (You can read the eventual text here, from when it was finally posted.)It was immediately deleted for no obvious reason. I wrote it out again, and it was deleted again. So I sent a message to ask why. Apparently:
"We don't generally allow comments with links - because of our responsibility to be independent."
Huh?
The person on the other end agreed that it seemed overzealous that I wasn't allowed to include references which backed up things I was actually saying, and I was told that if I posted it again, they'd make sure it stayed up. And it was deleted again, apparently. By now I'd saved my own copy of the text, and I posted it again, and it immediately disappeared. By this time, Facebook had decided I was spamming the page, and it was auto-deleting comments as I posted them, so the RNZ person had to post it for me.
So... apparently the policy of Radio NZ is that it's fine to post subjective assertions and nonsense that hasn't been fact checked and with no references (as long as it's not hate speech), but the moment you include a link to another source to back up what you're saying, the comment gets deleted.I can only imagine this is a strange part of a response to that hate speech issue on the Checkpoint page in Feb, where RNZ was criticisised for not moderating its Facebook presence actively enough.
-
Polity: Four cents on Brexit, Fonterra,…, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
...and a damned fine diversion it is too - just perfect for a sick-abed biped... thank you for this.
Neat. If it's of interest, Kathryn Ryan interviewed the author/artist last year.
-
Polity: Four cents on Brexit, Fonterra,…, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
(ref)
Babbage in, Babbage out…
Okay, a diversion. Since you've referenced Babbage, I highly recommend Sydney Padua's The Thrilling Adventures of Lovelace and Babbage... which is derived from the web comic that's nicely consolidated here.
-
So... Stuff's now referenced the "keep Mike" petition. At the time I write this, it's reached 1137 supporters, which seems so so until reading the top .. four .. supporter .. comments.
Ignorance is just so blissful, and I really need a bombastic self-serving National Party propagandist on TVNZ to tell me what to think about things neither of us have any clue about.
-
Speaker: Are we seeing the end of MSM,…, in reply to Tom Johnson,
I feel he has no idea how much his simple dribble is hated
I'm sure he does. It's no secret that many people despise him. But he's also there because quite a lot of people seem to like him. He represents that demographic.
I'm resigned to the fact that we have people like that in our society. He's not going to change. But my main issue is the way in which he's being given so much room to air his opinions, especially when it's in contexts that masquerade as journalism, and which displaces real journalism. He doesn't just say what he thinks, he tells other people what to think in an insulting Jerry Springer-esque conclusive segment every evening.
By comparison a big portion of people dislike John Campbell too, and I'm also not so much a fan of his campaigning style. But the difference, and why I still happily listen to JC on Checkpoint, is that he actually gets out there and talks to people and learns about and reports stuff. His opinions which he expresses are derived from actual exposure to the real world.
Hosking's paid, in all his roles, to continuously blurt out his opinion. There's no evidence that it's based on anything besides disturbing sociopathic tendancies combined with sitting on his arse all day in front of a camera, microphone or keyboard and being required to make stuff up and express it with resolve. Even he agrees that he's not a journalist, when he's backed into a corner, and yet TVNZ chooses to both present him in a role as if he is, and let him displace real journalists. I'm mildly relived when I see that television ratings are dropping generally, if it's a sign that fewer and few people are willing to put up with this crap, but I'm also grieving the apparent displacement and starvation of what used to be there.</AntiHoskingRant>
I don't normally go for signing petitions, especially online petitions. But last night I had a weak moment and signed the anti-Hosking petition. I don't expect it to make any difference. -
To top it off Stuff has, today, reported on the petition and mentioned very briefly that he once worked with Liz Gunn, but said nothing about Liz Gunn's comment.
It's filed under Entertainment.
Happily, at least, there is no comment thread. Hopefully it stays that way.
-
Speaker: Are we seeing the end of MSM,…, in reply to Kumara Republic,
Thanks, but was that reproduction on all10things auto-translated to some other language and then back to English? The grammar is terrible to the extent that some parts seem to make no sense.
