Posts by WH
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Murray Deaker was commenting on how he thought the 5-0 defeat of Luna Rossa was much more satisfying than the All Blacks defeating France 42-11: "Rebel Sport is also good at doing really well", he said.
Nice segue Murray, I thought, but if Rebel Sport doesn't have a biomag, how good can it be?
http://www.biomag.co.nz/testimonials/index.cfm
Some pretty impressive sports people have got themselves a Woolrest BioMag underlay, because they’re getting the results. Just to mention a few of these real achievers, triathlete Cameron Brown, Team New Zealand managing director Grant Dalton, Black Fern Anna Richards, All Blacks coach Graham Henry, Black Caps Shane Bond and Daniel Vettori, former All Black heroes Buck Shelford and Inga Tuigamala and former Silver Fern April Ieremia.
Is there any important achievement in this country that can't be linked to this amazing product? I wonder what April Ieremia is doing with her biomag nowadays.
Quite seriously, if anyone wants to buy me a biomag, I promise to tell you whether it works. I am not what effect the scarcely believable powers of magnetism will have on me, but I'm eager to find out more.
P.S: There is a great photo of Murray Deaker here.
-
I recognise that I'm outnumbered here on Public Address, but lets put that into perspective. I/S' Bill of Rights argument has more than just s.4 and s.5 to overcome.
-
I'll refrain from the obvious example of the Nuremburg laws, but one may consider the case of stoning gays to death in Iran because, hey, it's properly enacted legislation in a democracy!
I've always thought exaggeration should be a crime. Rest assured that if I was in charge I would give you an ASBO, rodgerd. Your mother! :) Thats another thing that should be a crime - electronic smileys.
Fair point, Tim.
-
You obviously assume you don't irritate anyone else, much, I assume, as other backers of this creepy, fascistic legislation.
That is not very nice, rodgerd.
If you don't believe that anti-social behaviour is a proper target of regulation, that is your right. If you don't believe that breaching a Court order made pursuant to properly enacted legislation (and generally subject to the criminal standard of proof) warrants the imposition of criminal penalties, so be it. You are also entitled to think that the UK Labour Party is "creepy" and "fascistic", for all that helps to advance your case.
But I'm not convinced that you are right, and I am prepared to reject your apparent assumption that you are on the moral and/or legal high ground.
-
The second part of the test - whether an ASBO is necessary to prevent further harm - is on the civil standard.
This is simply because its not possible to prove what will happen in the future beyond a reasonable doubt. ASBO's arise from a judicial process, not an exercise in clairvoyance.
My sympathies are not with those who make a habit of making life unpleasant for others. There is only so much irritation people can reasonably be asked to bear. With respect, I do not believe it is any more complicated than that.
-
All the justified cases in the world won't convince me
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood that to obtain an ASBO the target must be shown, on the criminal standard, to have engaged in behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. This is despite the fact that ASBO's are civil, not criminal orders. Secondly, any breach of an ASBO (the event that attracts criminal sanctions) must be proved to the criminal standard. I don't see the force in your objection?
-
As ASBO's are made by civil courts, they are made on the civil standard of proof.
http://society.guardian.co.uk/crimeandpunishment/comment/0,,1664715,00.html
In Essex, a 38-year-old woman was banned from abusing the emergency services, after she called 999 38 times in nine months.
The man was also banned from using doorbells or phoning households without permission. He had stolen from 250 elderly people after entering their homes by posing as a milkman, a policeman, or simply by asking for a glass of water.
-
And unlike King, I take the Bill of Rights Act seriously.
I don't believe that our law should deny those affected by persistent anti-social behaviour an effective means of redress. As Tony Blair once said, the rights of law abiding citizens should come first. Our Bill of Rights need not be understood to protect that which we ought to condemn.
Asbos - anti-social behaviour orders - are a cornerstone of Tony Blair's commitment to crack down on the sort of everyday nuisance acts that blight communities but, in the past, police have been largely powerless to act on.
-
The Census figures on religious affiliation , if anyone is interested, are here.
-
Real National Income per capita has declined. by more than 1% with nothing to suggest things will change for the better
http://www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/2004/economic-standard-living/market-income-person.html
While its true that too much of New Zealand's GDP leaves our economy in the form of repatriated profits and interest, Cullen's record in this respect (RGNDI) appears to be an improvement on what happened under National. Perhaps Cullen could have done more to lower our interest and exchange rates and make NZ less vulnerable to the effects of foreign investment. Be that as it may, he has still been better than the alternative.
There is only so much that a government can do to directly control private sector productivity growth. One would have thought that firms facing a booming labour market would look to increase their long run capital productivity - at least before the effect of Reserve Bank policy is taken into account.