Posts by James Liddell
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
The 'best' way to reduce the driving-related harm is to reduce the amount of driving in a community.
I think your anaolgy is quite facetious and not that analogous.
Look at the road toll. It's nearly halved in the last 50 years. In that time, I think it is fair to assume, the number of cars on the road (and journeys taken) would have increased significantly. The fact is that cars have got safer and seat belts become compulsory. Driving is safer than it was 50 years ago.
But how can you make alcohol safer? It's a chemical intoxicant.
Sure, you can try and change attitudes to alcohol, but this doesn't appear to have had much success. ALAC likes to say that they have c.90% brand recognition of their social marketing campaigns, and that c.20% of people surveyed have thought about their drinking as a result of the advertisements. But this hasn't been transformed into lower rates of consumption, less ED presentation for alcohol related events, fewer addicts, and less alcohol-related crime.
The way to target it is through how and where people get their alcohol, as well as trying to change their attitudes.
-
@ Rich
So you think it's ok, as a knee-jerk political reaction, to take a hard-working family's livelihood away? Because it might (read won't) stop a few people being drunk and obnoxious.
As I pointed out in my original post, the original law specifically precluded dairies from selling alcohol. If you think that you'll get around the law by placing a few bins of over-ripe fruit outside your front door, you've got to expect that there's a chance that loophole could be closed.
The evidence is very clear, that after hikes in alcohol excise (which are politically unpalatable - see Cullen's rejigging of the thresholds and the furore over the reclassification of sherry) the best way to reduce alcohol related harm is to reduce the number of outlets selling alcohol in a community. Do you honestly believe that the Government should not introduce regulations or legislation that will reduce social harm because it is going to affect some people's profits?
Look at it from another example: should tobacco displays in shops be banned (i.e. tobacco products be hidden from view)? There is overwhelming evidence that banning displays will have significant social (and economic) benefits to the country. But this of course will impact on your local dairy owner's profits. Is it fair?
Sometimes there are things more important than a business owner's profits.
-
An extreme Marxist is somebody who reads Gramsci while skydiving, presumably?
Reading Lenin's Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism whilst bungy jumping, surely?
-
Very blunt indeed. 150 sq m is a pretty large floor space for a shop, and would catch all sorts of dairies and independent liquor outlets. Will we now no longer be able to grab a bottle of Riesling at Monty's superette or Wineseeker on our way to a BYO restaurant, but have to tramp off to a supermarket or biq liquor barn instead?
The Bill does not prohibit any shop with a floor space less than 150 sq metres selling alcohol. Rather, it is grocery stores with less than 150 sq m that the legislation targets. Your local bottle store should be unaffected. (see s.17 of the Bill).
The problem this seeks to rectify is the fact that it was never intended under the original legislation (and subsequent amendments) for dairies to be able to sell alcohol. In fact they were specifically prohibited under s.36(3)(b) of the SoLA. But they got around this by arguing that they were actually groceries (s.36(1)(d)(ii)), not dairies.
Semantics? Possibly, but the legal distinction is (supposedly) there in the law.
Now, applying it in real life, is Shalimar's a dairy or a grocery store? I would've assumed that it was a dairy (based on size) but apparently the DLA felt otherwise.
Does this matter? Well a multitude of research evidence shows a very strong causal link between outlet density (i.e. the number of booze shops) and alcohol-related harm in a community. Reducing the number of outlets, therefore, should reduce the harm. That's the basis of the policy.
I personally don't have a problem with dairies such as Shalimar not being able to sell booze. I'd much rather go to my local bottle shop where there is a greater range of beers and wines from which I can choose. And maybe, just maybe, requiring people to make an extra effort and go further than the local dairy to purchase some booze might have some impact on our appalling drinking record.
/end rant.
-
There was a term in the 90s, "punk cabaret". Examples: Green Day, The Presidents of the United States.
I thought "punk cabaret" was this duo.
-
Any other favourite 2008 gigs ?
Phoenix Foundation at Frank Kitts Park in Feb. Fantastic gig.
-
And yes, I know it is written by different people on different days, but it is presented as the voice of the paper and should demonstrate a reason degree of consistency.
And by that rationale the Herald should have run a front page editorial under the byline Democracy Under Attack, and promised to publish monthly the photos of those who voted for the urgency motion.
But credit where it's due, the HoS editorial is well written.
-
Before I start reading can you clarify which National Standard my answer is going to be marked against?
Numeracy, Level 2. The Minister's Office stuffed up and Gazetted the wrong standards.
-
Also, and this is just my impression, there seem to be a lot more people from the secondary and tertiary education sectors in politics, than primary and early childhood.
Jacqui Dean for Minister of Education (and Broadcasting, of course)?
-
And all this is without recourse to any employment tribunal.
Are you sure?Wilkinson's presser and Q&A are unclear:
"The trial period will also be covered by good faith provisions, meaning that employees will need to be fully informed about the trial period before agreeing to a trial period. Mediation will be available in cases of dispute.
Does this mean mediation only where it is disputed a trial period was agreed? And what happens when mediation fails?
You can go through the Employment Court if you believe you were unfairly dismissed on prohibited grounds of discrimination:
Employees will still be able to take a personal grievance under the discrimination provisions of the Employment Relations Act through the Employment Relations Authority or Employment Court.
Methinks the ERA / Court is going to be hearing many more cases of alleged dismissal for discrimination.
But, instead of going on the Minister's presser, it'd be nice to actually see the Bill. Pity the Bill's Office hasn't had time to put it online