ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags New Zealand issues , New Zealand politics

Reply
Old 28th July 2015, 02:05 PM   #401
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,509
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
.... I'm 95% confident that they did,....
That's all I needed to see.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2015, 05:51 PM   #402
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
There is stupid and then there is very stupid and then there is that.
It gets better. Now she's actually defending her initial position with even greater absurdity...

I quote:

Quote:
"It absolutely was a valid comparison. I live about 115 miles from where the incident with Sandra Bland happened. I watched the video and as a woman I watched the video... I watched that and I thought back to this incident in New Zealand and I felt this is so identical," she said. "My thought was I'm going to write this article saying it doesn't just happened in America."
(My bolding.)

(What's so deliciously ironic is that the initial tone of the piece wasn't "this doesn't just happen in America", the original tone was "this doesn't happen in America")

Now, bloggers writing stupid columns I can handle. We've all got a bee in our bonnet before about something and then rattled off comments we later weren't proud of.

It's a special kind of stupid, though, to defend initial stupidity with greater stupidity. Her original piece, okay it was dumb but I get it. She felt victimised, obviously wasn't familiar with procedure here, misinterpreted information about our laws, and had a "America's so much better" vent. Dumb, but who hasn't travelled and done that? But to follow it up by trying to link the experience to a genuine civil rights issue, and to do so for the openly-stated reason of getting more interest in her own story?

That's a level of self-promotion that's not only stupid but distasteful. Then, when called on it, to actually defend it... wow... talk about detachment from reality.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2015, 07:53 PM   #403
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,633
I just heard crazy Colin is sueing everyone including Slater

Ha ha

Sent from my GT-S6802 using Tapatalk 2
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2015, 07:13 PM   #404
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Today the youth who killed shop-keeper Arun Kumar was sentenced to 6 years imprisonment. A brief background reminder - the convicted killer and a friend entered Arun Kumar's shop with the intent of robbing it. The convicted killer was armed with a knife. In the course of the robbery the convicted killer stabbed Arun Kumar in the neck, an injury from which he subsequently died.

The convicted killer was found not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter. His co-accused was acquitted of all charges.

Now, there are comments about the severity or leniency of the sentence, but I want to address what I consider to be a much more troubling issue. It's something that's seldom raised, but an increasingly frequent occurrence. It is the court's role in the interpretation of legislation, the the scope of their authority.

Unlike under some jurisdictions, in the Westminster system a central principal is that of parliamentary supremacy which essentially dictates that the legislature is the supreme authority and that no authority or mechanism may overrule or overturn legislation passed by parliament, save for parliament itself.

In some systems the judiciary have relatively wide scope to interpret legislation, and in cases such as the USA have the power to repeal legislation in certain circumstances. The judiciary in a Westminster system does not have such scope of freedom. Their sole authority is to apply the law as written.

In this case, and in many similar cases, I am disturbed that the courts appear not to have properly applied the law as written. I wondered what everyone else's thoughts are on this? I consider this an extremely serious concern, as parliamentary supremacy is the bedrock of our democracy, and a judiciary that feels it can operate counter to legislation is a judiciary that is directly undermining our democracy. It is a constitutional issue, as much as one of sentencing appropriateness.

In this instance, the relevant sections of the Crimes Act indicate to me that both defendants were guilty of murder. Firstly, Section 66 "Parties to Offences" establishes that where two or more persons conspire to commit an act, all parties are legally culpable for any crime committed by any party. This means that if a group of you agree to rob a business, and in the course of the robbery one of you kills someone, all of you are equally guilty of that killing.

The second section of relevance is Section 168 "Further Definition of Murder". This section establishes that where a person causes fatal grevious bodily harm in the commission of one of several listed offences (including robbery and burglary) that person is guilty of murder. Crucially, it does not matter a) whether the offender intended to cause death or not or b) whether the offender knew that death was likely or not.

Putting these two laws together, the convicted criminal was clearly guilty of murder. Indeed, legally speaking he cannot be found guilty of manslaughter and not murder, as the fact the death occured in the commission of one of the listed crimes means it automatically becomes murder. The co-defendant, under Section 66, should properly be found guilty of any crime the primary offender is found guilty of.

In this regard I feel the judge has failed on one of two key counts:

1) The judge has failed to properly instruct the jury
OR
2) Having properly instructed the jury, the judge has failed to ensure the jury exercises the law properly.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

Last edited by gumboot; 30th July 2015 at 07:15 PM.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2015, 09:39 PM   #405
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,633
There is something that bugged me about this case. The prosecution can't say prior convictions yet the defence can do the whole sob story to get media beat up and sympathy for the accused.

Surely the trial should be straight. Did he do it. Yes/No?

And the extenuating circumstances only come up at sentencing.

There is something pretty sick about the Kumars sitting there having to hear how the "poor" killer was brought up badly
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2015, 09:47 PM   #406
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,509
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
Putting these two laws together, the convicted criminal was clearly guilty of murder.
No question at all, but there's good precedent for it with the enormous number of child deaths that have been classed as manslaughter because murderous intent wasn't present.

Welcome to the NZ Justice system.

The trouble is in S168, which states:

Quote:
if he or she means to cause grievous bodily injury...
Clearly, that's the part the jury didn't accept. Poor little hard done-by chap. He didn't mean to hurt the guy - just slow him down a bit.

The jury system is a joke. I've been saying it for years, but it's not about to change.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2015, 10:04 PM   #407
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,633
At least the judge decided to help the poor killer out and timed his probable release date to exactly the age he would be heading to real prison.

So that's nice
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2015, 12:01 AM   #408
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,509
Yeah, he can have a nice party.

Maybe he can ask Bailey Kurariki to join him?

He's been out for a while now. Also got 8 years for manslaughter in almost identical circumstances to the Kumar killing. Swap knife for gun and pizza delivery guy instead of dairy.

Kurariki's victim was my doctor's younger brother and their father was my Dr before that. I've known the family all my life.

This kind of crap shouldn't be happening.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2015, 01:55 AM   #409
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,633
The problem is I totally understand why they want to keep the kid out of real jail and just become scum.

But this is frankly a slight on the family.

The other issue I have is if this happens and he gets out before adult prison what happens?

He goes back to the same family that didn't do any but treat him like dirt.

Well that worked
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2015, 12:10 PM   #410
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,509
It's not like there's an answer anywhere.

They execute people in USA, China et al and that doesn't stop murders.

They let prisoners live in single-unit accommodation in Norway and that doesn't stop murders.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2015, 08:42 PM   #411
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
No question at all, but there's good precedent for it with the enormous number of child deaths that have been classed as manslaughter because murderous intent wasn't present.
Sure, but as I pointed out, where the killing occurs in the commission of one of the listed crimes, there need not be intent, nor even awareness that the action is likely to cause death.


Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
The trouble is in S168, which states:

Clearly, that's the part the jury didn't accept. Poor little hard done-by chap. He didn't mean to hurt the guy - just slow him down a bit.
Er no... "grevious bodily harm" is a description of outcome, not intent. As already pointed out, there need not be any intent to cause harm to be found guilty of murder under Section 168. And the jury found him guilty of manslaughter, so they clearly accept that he killed the guy, and knew his actions were likely to cause death. As I said, legally speaking in this context you cannot be found guilty of manslaughter and not found guilty of murder.

Not that I blame the jury. The judge is responsible for instructing the jury, and where the jury has incorrectly applied the law, the judge actually has the authority to instruct the jury to find a certain way. The jury ruled as they did because the judge didn't do their job.



Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
The jury system is a joke. I've been saying it for years, but it's not about to change.
The jury system isn't the issue, the judges are. They're the ones who are supposed to ensure their courtrooms follow proper legal procedure. In this case the judge failed on numerous points.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2015, 08:44 PM   #412
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
There is something that bugged me about this case. The prosecution can't say prior convictions yet the defence can do the whole sob story to get media beat up and sympathy for the accused.

Surely the trial should be straight. Did he do it. Yes/No?

And the extenuating circumstances only come up at sentencing.

Yes, that's another example of the judge utterly failing to ensure proper legal procedure was followed. That entire line of defense should have been thrown out as inadmissible. It has no bearing on whether the crime was committed or not, and should only be brought up as a mitigating circumstance in sentencing.

I'd be curious to know whether the prosecution objected to that being entered into evidence, because they should have, and if their objections were overruled there's strong grounds to appeal on the basis of a miscarriage of justice.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2015, 08:55 PM   #413
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,509
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
Er no... "grevious bodily harm" is a description of outcome, not intent.
Nope.

Originally Posted by Crimes Act
...if he or she means to cause grievous bodily injury for the purpose of facilitating the commission of any of the offences mentioned in subsection (2)
That clearly speaks to intent, not outcome.

Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
As already pointed out, there need not be any intent to cause harm to be found guilty of murder under Section 168.
Except that's precisely what it does. Intent to cause grievous bodily harm at the least must exist.

The Act couldn't be any clearer.

Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
The jury system isn't the issue, the judges are. They're the ones who are supposed to ensure their courtrooms follow proper legal procedure. In this case the judge failed on numerous points.
As you can hopefully see now, you're wrong.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2015, 11:00 PM   #414
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,034
Originally Posted by gumboot
the jury found him guilty of manslaughter, so they clearly accept that he killed the guy, and knew his actions were likely to cause death.
So what's the problem?

Oh, right...
Quote:
Putting these two laws together, the convicted criminal was clearly guilty of murder. Indeed, legally speaking he cannot be found guilty of manslaughter and not murder, as the fact the death occured in the commission of one of the listed crimes means it automatically becomes murder. The co-defendant, under Section 66, should properly be found guilty of any crime the primary offender is found guilty of.
So in your 'legal opinion', if anyone dies while a crime is being committed, then - regardless of what the perpetrators expected to happen - they must be guilty of murder? If that is the law then it is an ass.

In NZ, possession of cannabis is a crime. Let's say a motorcyclist pulls out from a Give Way in front of a car, and gets run over. The rider and his passenger die in the crash. While attending to the driver of the other vehicle, police find 30g of cannabis on his person. The driver admits to transporting the cannabis 'for supply', so he is now automatically guilty of double murder, right?

Or, a house burns down and three people die. On investigating the scene, the cause of the fire is determined to be faulty wiring in a light fixture. The police also find the remains of several cannabis plants underneath it. The owner admits to growing the plants under room lighting. This is a crime, so - guilty of murder!

But hey, why even bother with trying to prove that a crime was in progress. If someone is guilty of manslaughter then they have already committed a crime which resulted in the death of the victim. Therefore - every manslaughter is actually murder!
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2015, 05:34 AM   #415
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,633
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
So what's the problem?

Oh, right...
So in your 'legal opinion', if anyone dies while a crime is being committed, then - regardless of what the perpetrators expected to happen - they must be guilty of murder? If that is the law then it is an ass.

In NZ, possession of cannabis is a crime. Let's say a motorcyclist pulls out from a Give Way in front of a car, and gets run over. The rider and his passenger die in the crash. While attending to the driver of the other vehicle, police find 30g of cannabis on his person. The driver admits to transporting the cannabis 'for supply', so he is now automatically guilty of double murder, right?

Or, a house burns down and three people die. On investigating the scene, the cause of the fire is determined to be faulty wiring in a light fixture. The police also find the remains of several cannabis plants underneath it. The owner admits to growing the plants under room lighting. This is a crime, so - guilty of murder!

But hey, why even bother with trying to prove that a crime was in progress. If someone is guilty of manslaughter then they have already committed a crime which resulted in the death of the victim. Therefore - every manslaughter is actually murder!
Kind of a stupid analogy

Sent from my GT-S6802 using Tapatalk 2
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2015, 06:13 AM   #416
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
So what's the problem?

Oh, right...
So in your 'legal opinion', if anyone dies while a crime is being committed, then - regardless of what the perpetrators expected to happen - they must be guilty of murder? If that is the law then it is an ass.

Um... no. Section 168 lists specific crimes where causing death in the commission of the crime would constitute murder. Those crimes are:

Treason
Espionage
Sabotage
Piracy
Piratical Acts
Escape or rescue from prison or lawful custody or detention
Sexual Violation
Murder
Abduction
Kidnapping
Burglary
Robbery
Arson



Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
In NZ, possession of cannabis is a crime. Let's say a motorcyclist pulls out from a Give Way in front of a car, and gets run over. The rider and his passenger die in the crash. While attending to the driver of the other vehicle, police find 30g of cannabis on his person. The driver admits to transporting the cannabis 'for supply', so he is now automatically guilty of double murder, right?
Um... no... to begin with, the accused has to cause the death of the person. In your example the motorcyclist has caused their death and the death of their passenger.

Secondly, the accident did not occur as a result of attempting to commit the crime of possession for supply.

Thirdly, possession of cannabis for supply is not one of the crimes listed in Section 168.

Your example is utterly irrelevant.


Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Or, a house burns down and three people die. On investigating the scene, the cause of the fire is determined to be faulty wiring in a light fixture. The police also find the remains of several cannabis plants underneath it. The owner admits to growing the plants under room lighting. This is a crime, so - guilty of murder!
See above.



Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
But hey, why even bother with trying to prove that a crime was in progress. If someone is guilty of manslaughter then they have already committed a crime which resulted in the death of the victim. Therefore - every manslaughter is actually murder!
See above.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2015, 06:39 AM   #417
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Nope.

That clearly speaks to intent, not outcome.



Except that's precisely what it does. Intent to cause grievous bodily harm at the least must exist.

The Act couldn't be any clearer.

The act of stabbing someone in the neck with a knife shows intent to cause grievous bodily harm. This has been well established in case law. The test is whether a reasonable person would recognise grievous bodily harm as a probable outcome of their actions. They would. Thus intent is established by the mens rea. This is known as basic intent.

It's also worth pointing out that the Law Commission's review of Part 8 noted there's no real meaningful line of distinction between intent to cause grievous bodily harm and intent to injure, and that the severity of injury intended should be a matter only of sentencing rather than an element of the offense. They would see the matter streamlined into "Wounded with intent to injure" and "injure with intent to injure".
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2015, 07:19 PM   #418
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,633
I think which ever way you look at the conviction.

3.4 years so he doesn't have to go prison is a complete kick in the face to the Kumars
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2015, 07:36 PM   #419
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,509
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
The act of stabbing someone in the neck with a knife shows intent to cause grievous bodily harm. This has been well established in case law. The test is whether a reasonable person would recognise grievous bodily harm as a probable outcome of their actions. They would. Thus intent is established by the mens rea. This is known as basic intent.

It's also worth pointing out that the Law Commission's review of Part 8 noted there's no real meaningful line of distinction between intent to cause grievous bodily harm and intent to injure, and that the severity of injury intended should be a matter only of sentencing rather than an element of the offense. They would see the matter streamlined into "Wounded with intent to injure" and "injure with intent to injure".
An awful lot of words to obscure the fact that your reading of S168 was indeed incorrect.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2015, 04:18 AM   #420
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,633
Seems that Labour were wrong about the the evil nats signing the TPPA at any cost
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2015, 11:35 AM   #421
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,509
Do we know if it was NZ who failed to get the agreement off the ground?

As far as I know, the statement is that agreement wasn't reached in a consortium of 12 countries. I haven't seen a report saying NZ is the sole country not agreeing.

Crediting the Nats with anything prior to the final document being presented is a bit premature anyway.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2015, 01:37 PM   #422
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,633
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Do we know if it was NZ who failed to get the agreement off the ground?

As far as I know, the statement is that agreement wasn't reached in a consortium of 12 countries. I haven't seen a report saying NZ is the sole country not agreeing.

Crediting the Nats with anything prior to the final document being presented is a bit premature anyway.
A couple of things are far as I can gather

NZ is being blamed by Canada over not accepting the dairy

Nice twisting by the way

According to you if they sign it and you think it isn't enough the will have failed. If they don't sign it because it isn't enough they will have failed to get the agreement off the ground.

And at the same time Little won't say he would sign it
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2015, 06:42 PM   #423
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,509
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
A couple of things are far as I can gather

NZ is being blamed by Canada over not accepting the dairy
Canada grandstanding because we're at opposite ends of the situation.

Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
According to you if they sign it and you think it isn't enough the will have failed. If they don't sign it because it isn't enough they will have failed to get the agreement off the ground.
No.

All you've done is create a strawman - I haven't taken a position on whether it's a good or bad agreement, because it doesn't exist yet. How can I comment on it until it's done?

What I did was question your idea that National was somehow due praise for not signing a deal when we have no idea whose position is what.

Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
And at the same time Little won't say he would sign it
Sign what?

The man would be a moron if he made a comment about signing something his knowledge of is limited to the small amount reported.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2015, 03:47 PM   #424
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
Seems that Labour were wrong about the the evil nats signing the TPPA at any cost
I haven't seen Labour say that. The Labour position has been pretty clear from the outset. They've publicly announced their bottom line on a number of key issues. Of course, they can do that, because they're not in the negotiations. National can't because they're in the negotiations (Negotiation 101).

What it does signal to National is that if their own bottom line is less than Labour's, and Labour win the next election, the TPPA will never be ratified, and all National's hard work will be for nothing.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2015, 05:48 PM   #425
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,633
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
I haven't seen Labour say that. The Labour position has been pretty clear from the outset. They've publicly announced their bottom line on a number of key issues. Of course, they can do that, because they're not in the negotiations. National can't because they're in the negotiations (Negotiation 101).

What it does signal to National is that if their own bottom line is less than Labour's, and Labour win the next election, the TPPA will never be ratified, and all National's hard work will be for nothing.
National's hard work?

It started under Labour.

Key just hopes for the glory
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2015, 08:24 PM   #426
Damien Evans
Up The Irons
Tagger
 
Damien Evans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 34,458
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Do we know if it was NZ who failed to get the agreement off the ground?

As far as I know, the statement is that agreement wasn't reached in a consortium of 12 countries. I haven't seen a report saying NZ is the sole country not agreeing.

Crediting the Nats with anything prior to the final document being presented is a bit premature anyway.
Last I heard Australia was the one who'd walked away, something to do with sugar exports I think.
__________________
i loves the little birdies they goes tweet tweet tweet hee hee i loves them they sings to each other tweet twet tweet hee hee i loves them they is so cute i love yje little birdies little birdies in the room when birfies sings ther is no gloom i lobes the little birdies they goess tweet tweet tweet hee hee hee i loves them they sings me to sleep sing me to slrrp now little birdies - The wisdom of Shemp.
Damien Evans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2015, 01:00 AM   #427
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,509
Originally Posted by Damien Evans View Post
Last I heard Australia was the one who'd walked away, something to do with sugar exports I think.
It wouldn't surprise me to find all 12 countries claiming to have walked away.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2015, 12:59 PM   #428
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,633
This to be fair ^^
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2015, 12:46 AM   #429
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
It wouldn't surprise me to find all 12 countries claiming to have walked away.
It wouldn't surprise me if all 12 countries did walk away.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2015, 02:01 AM   #430
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,633
Whoever the bright idea was to get the US and Japan involved is an idiot to be fair.

McCully or one of the others?
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2015, 09:05 PM   #431
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,509
Chinese buyers, part II.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=11492974

Typical Key spinning a different story one week to the one he spun last week. When Labour mentioned Chinese buyers, it was bollocks.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2015, 02:14 PM   #432
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,633
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Chinese buyers, part II.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=11492974

Typical Key spinning a different story one week to the one he spun last week. When Labour mentioned Chinese buyers, it was bollocks.
The difference is he is talking about immigrants and regional growth

Little took a spreadsheet and went for the "which of these foreign buyers names sound slightly asian?"

They must be bad
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2015, 03:35 PM   #433
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,509
Doesn't matter what he's talking about - and Regional NZ has given Johnny the finger this morning - he is doing exactly the same thing: racial profiling.

Plenty of rich Poms moving over here, and James Cameron lives just down the road from one of the worst festering holes of faeces in NZ Wairarapa.

But Key goes straight to Chinese.

I did laugh at Johnny following up with "Aucklanders are happy; they're getting wealthier!"

Not in Otara, Manurewa, GI, Mangere, Glenfield, et al, they aren't.

You couldn't accuse him of being out of touch with his voters.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2015, 04:17 PM   #434
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
Little took a spreadsheet and went for the "which of these foreign buyers names sound slightly asian?"
No he didn't.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2015, 04:25 PM   #435
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,633
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
No he didn't.
You can paint analysis all over it, but essentially yes he did
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2015, 04:27 PM   #436
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,633
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Doesn't matter what he's talking about - and Regional NZ has given Johnny the finger this morning - he is doing exactly the same thing: racial profiling.

Plenty of rich Poms moving over here, and James Cameron lives just down the road from one of the worst festering holes of faeces in NZ Wairarapa.

But Key goes straight to Chinese.

I did laugh at Johnny following up with "Aucklanders are happy; they're getting wealthier!"

Not in Otara, Manurewa, GI, Mangere, Glenfield, et al, they aren't.

You couldn't accuse him of being out of touch with his voters.
He is referencing comments from locals

Little was going the xenophobic route

Sent from my GT-S6802 using Tapatalk 2
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2015, 04:46 PM   #437
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
You can paint analysis all over it, but essentially yes he did
No he didn't (he didn't do anything, of course, but that's beside the point). You can continue to assert that he did, but you are wrong, and I'll continue to point that out. That you cannot recognise that you're wrong is indicative of a lack of understanding of demographic analysis.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2015, 05:05 PM   #438
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,633
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
No he didn't (he didn't do anything, of course, but that's beside the point). You can continue to assert that he did, but you are wrong, and I'll continue to point that out. That you cannot recognise that you're wrong is indicative of a lack of understanding of demographic analysis.
I understand demographic analysis fine.

But as Labour haven't focused enough on this 90% of the country think exactly what I said.

And unless you are going to forgive Key for other MPs stupidity then it is down to Little did it
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2015, 05:42 PM   #439
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
I understand demographic analysis fine.

But as Labour haven't focused enough on this 90% of the country think exactly what I said.

And unless you are going to forgive Key for other MPs stupidity then it is down to Little did it
If you can find an example of me criticising Key for something another MP did, you are welcome to point it out and I will correct my error.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2015, 06:00 PM   #440
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,633
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
If you can find an example of me criticising Key for something another MP did, you are welcome to point it out and I will correct my error.
I shall do a search on Collins
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:15 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.