Posts by Kyle Matthews
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I was all with the humour in your post, until about two thirds of the way along, and then you wrote about doing what I, until I was a young teenager, thought was a... hmm. No, I can't do it, not in a blog about babies. Restraint.
You know your baby has really achieved true nappy power when the poo comes out, changes direction mid-flight, and goes back up the rear of the nappy, escapes the tightly constrained nappy, either pinned or artificial, heads up the back of their singlet and t-shirt, and attains hair. Twice. In one day.
-
And what the hell is Ron Mark - chopped liver?
If wishing made it so...
-
"They're fucked" doesn't mean a lot to me at this stage, except that it is very hard to win against a police force that is hell bent on demonising you.
Personally I'm not so much interested in the decision of the court when it does eventually go to trial, but what comes out in the court case in terms of what these people have been doing. I'm perfectly capable of making up my own mind by looking at evidence, and I'll want to know everything in full, not ignore stuff just because it might have been collected illegally or not eligible because it was collected for one crime but not then subsequently charged etc.
That's because, and I'll borrow the All Blacks advert here, "that's my black jersey they're wearing". I've devoted portions of my life to issues of peace, sovereignty, and the environment. If people have abused those issues by taking them to a place that I'm not happy with then I want to be certain about what has happened, and then I guess I'm going to want to think about what work I can do to bring those issues back into the light in the proper way, because they're too important for some idiots to screw up for everyone (assuming that is the case).
-
I'm all for sensible harm reduction measures - making a pokie machine less profitable per square foot than a pool table would seem to be reasonable.
If anyone suggests charging me $20 for a game of pool (which is about what it would take) then I'm organising my own revolution.
-
However, the real solution to all these problems of gambling/substance abuse is not to try and patch over the symptoms, but to build a society where people have a better level of self-respect and personal resilience. Which is a much better idea than taking away everyone's freedoms to protect the vulnerable.
I think there's a line where on one side you say what you've said, and on the other you say "well that's great, but until someone gets to solving that, these things should be regulated/age restricted/banned etc, as a simple harm reduction measure".
I'm at regulated/age restricted with pokies, cigarettes I'm well on the banned side of the line.
-
I thought Rachel Hunter actually came from Glenfield, several suburbs over. Can someone confirm?
She went to school in Glenfield - the intermediate, so I presume she lived there.
C'mon, Browns Bay, famous for sightings of Shortie St Stars in cafes, and they did (still do?) the filming there.
-
Is this true? - so does that mean, hypothetically speaking of course, that if *someone I know* likes to host gatherings and socialise in the backyard around a glowing brazier, that person is actually breaking some by-law? Just curious.
I think lighting fires in public places has been banned in most places for some time. You have to have a permit to light a fire outside of a BBQ or a fireplace etc. I don't think that relates specifically to Guy Fawkes. Down here students get fined $500 for setting their furniture on fire, no matter what the date.
-
Presumably the scientists have considered that issue, though the news story doesn't address it. Good control groups will ensure that it's a problem of causation, though proper random control groups are more difficult to get when you are examining behaviour that has already occurred.
-
That's nice Michael, and I'm sure that most people would be happy to compare Gandhi to Te Whiti.
However your original post (below) linked Ghandi and Iti, who, I think we'll all agree, isn't really Te Whiti at all.
I was wondering where the Churchill quote would go & I think a comparison with Churchill as Clark and Ghandi as Iti could be done as a question of home rule applies to both.
-
Actually I think jurors is the fast part of the process. There's very little contestation in the NZ jury system, so I think jury selection even for large trials only takes an hour or so.
My understanding is that people had been under surveillance for a year or more. How can it take an additional two years for people to stand trial?
Well that's fine for the prosecution, though I'm sure they'll still take a fair while. The defense might want a fair whack at collecting their own evidence though, they only found out about this a couple of weeks ago.
Also, I might be wrong, but the 'two years' is something that people have just been throwing around. I'm not sure if it's come from anyone in the industry. Murder trials typically take a year to get to trial don't they? For them more of the evidence is collected before the arrest, here some of the evidence is probably being collected at the same time as the arrest. I'd guess mid- to late- next year for any trials to occur for these.