Posts by Gareth Ward
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Well Glenn I think it's fair to say you've nailed your colours to the mast!
My reasoning for a lower end estimate is that (as I understand it), NZTA's version was a pretty full-on, over-the-top engineering project option whereas your "lycra-clad" reckoning is based on a much simpler idea. I wouldn't be surprised if their costing is slightly low-balled given they are pro, but if you can do the cheap version at all then it will be closer to the $3m than the $30m.BTW I trust you are equally distrusting of the new Waterview Connection that is magically a few hundred million cheaper than NZTA's original estimates?
-
Smacking someone is applying force to them. In certain circumstances - those formerly laid out in section 59 of the Crimes Act - that force fulfilled the requirements of the defence of "parental discipline", and was thus not illegal, did not amount to an offence, and was not criminal.
Thanks for this, interesting way to walk through it.
One point (that I couldn't see covered but apologies if it was) is the "steer" away from prosecution in the act. Does this count as a "defence"? Or if the action is considered not to fall within the stated defences of s59 BUT is considered inconsequential by Police (or whatever the wording is) have you committed an illegal act and just not been prosecuted for it? -
Is it $30 million or $3 million ? It makes a difference as to whether I'd support it or not.
I believe NZTA said $30m full on, the pro-cycle-friends said $3m for a simple alternative.
Possibly somewhere on the lower-end of inbetween then? -
I've never been a big believer in the "ZOMG Government are releasing other stories to bury their incompetence" stuff (naive? me?) but it has been pretty amusing to see Brash's stolen emails suddenly resurface this week!
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0905/S00182.htm
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/05/not_wrong.htmlIt's almost like they're the only folder in the "In Case of Awkward Press Coverage" filing cabinet...
-
No, because I've long suspected that literacy is going the way of visiting cards and dressing for dinner.
Liz: Jack, why are you wearing a tux?
Jack: It's after 6 o'clock Lemon. What am I, a farmer? -
One could reasonably speculate that the only reason Mr. Mason ended up in court was because the "culture shift" implied in the repeal of Section 59 empowered a bystander to intervene and to call the police, where once they would have said and done nothing.
Tom S in same-comment-as-Paul-Henry shocker! =)
-
No Dave, her line is very much about changing attitudes and making people think and specifically says (a number of times even) that her law can't stop abuse.
-
Sue Bradford was really good with Paul Henry this morning - calm, rational, reasoned. And to her great credit, she didn't rise to Paul's "it would have happened without your law change" bait and simply said "yes, I imagine it would have been assault regardless". A lot of pollies would have looked to take the kudos of "their" legislation I feel.
And she kept running the line that the law change and resulting discussion has made people think twice about assaulting a child (with apparent backing from recent surveys) and that is all you could hope for as no law can ever stop assault occurring by itself.
-
Ahh, just worked out the syntax. As you were.
-
So someone wanted to know the volume of an octagonal prism with stated dimensions. Wolfram Alpha understands "volume of an octagonal prism" and gives you the formula, but DOESN'T understand when you then give it the dimensions, using it's own formulas nomenclature.
I would have kinda thought that was the point? Or am I just using incorrect syntax?