Daily review 23/09/2024

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, September 23rd, 2024 - 26 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

26 comments on “Daily review 23/09/2024 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. joe90 1
    23 September 2024 at 6:14 pm

    pricks

    .

    David Seymour’s anti red-tape ministry got a $30 million boost as ministers wrangled over May’s Budget.

    Documents released by Treasury reveal that in the month before Nicola Willis’ first budget, ministers agreed to increase the Ministry for Regulation’s funding by $7.5m a year from what was already earmarked.

    It came as other agencies were forced to make cuts worth $1.5 billion a year to fund the coalition government’s programme — an exercise the new regulations ministry was exempt from.

    https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/350421998/red-tape-ministry-got-budget-boost-while-other-agencies-made-cuts

  2. Muttonbird 2
    23 September 2024 at 7:45 pm

    The nut jobs have come up with a new strategy to explain Wellington's woes; blame lazy public service workers and their WFH culture.

    Hoskins this morning and Stupidity-Allen this afternoon have clearly been directed by offices in the beehive to divert attention away from blaming government austerity measures toward, you guessed it, workers themselves, to blaming those affected.

    Despite Wellington being the outlier in terms of retail and hospitality decline, the government and its media proxies are trying to convince us its lazy workers and bike lanes apparently specific to Wellington rather than the effect of firing thousands of people which has brought a such a chilling atmosphere to the capital.

    They'll continue this narrative until it's embedded.

    When you create a "hideous atmosphere" amongst those you directly employ, you a giving the nod to everyone living in a hideous atmosphere. This is exactly what we are seeing play out in the mood of the nation.

    https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/350424104/hideous-atmosphere-health-nz-staff-await-redundancy-decisions?cx_testId=3&cx_testVariant=cx_1&cx_artPos=2&utm_source=localised_module#cxrecs_s

    Supposed lefties attacking Labour are letting this government get away with murder.

    • Muttonbird 2.1
      23 September 2024 at 8:03 pm

      Here ya go, the PSA actually outlining this coordinated distraction:

      The government caused Wellington's retail woes and forcing public service workers back to the office is not going to fix them, a union leader says.

      Public Service Association national secretary Duane Leo told Checkpoint Wellington's woes were a direct result of the government's "slash and cut" policies.

      "This is a political reaction, blaming public servants for a problem that this government has created. The issue here is that if this government really cared about the Wellington economy, then it wouldn't have cut thousands of hardworking public servants' jobs. I think we're at 6000 jobs and counting. It's a total distraction."

      https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/528792/government-s-anti-working-from-home-move-a-total-distraction-union

    • tc 2.2
      23 September 2024 at 8:48 pm

      And we're seeing SFA from the opposition about the horror show unfolding in health under Reti and Levy.

      Theyre kicking the crap out of system that responded magnificently to covid, was rebuilding mental health after the shonky 9 year funding shortfall etc.

      Health professionals are in short supply globally so Oz is loving this welcoming our well trained and english savvy workforce.

      Haters and wreckers folks.

  3. Jilly Bee 3
    23 September 2024 at 8:23 pm

    RIP Pauline Hanna – this trial being very publically played out in the media has put this poor woman on trial while her husband has been let off the hook well and truly. Having worked in a legal office in my youthful years, has left an indelible imprint on my psyche and I do take interest in trials which tend to play out in the media. I have also had a turn at Jury Duty in the High Court in Auckland, back in the early 2000s, which was a real eye opener – my fellow 11 jurors who were from a very wide walk of Auckland life all took our role and task very seriously and came to a unanimous verdict on an unpleasant case. Back to the Polkinghorne case, after reading Paula Penfolds interview with Madison Ashton I do wonder, did the Police botch their investigation into this matter. I'm inclined to think so, as I personally thought Pauline was strangled to death, but at the same time thought Philip would get acquitted, as he had a good barrister who did a brilliant job in defending his client. I've had these uneasy feelings about a few high profile murder cases in which the defendant has been acquitted or convicted, but what do I know!! I do know a bloke who is a barrister & solicitor who has presided over a couple of high profile cases and I know who I would want to defend me if I ever got into a spot of bother!

    • Muttonbird 3.1
      23 September 2024 at 9:07 pm

      Weathy white people rarely get convicted in New Zealand, and often get very light sentences. Look at that South African who murdered her three kids in Timaru.

      • Belladonna 3.1.1
        24 September 2024 at 8:44 am

        You seem to be confusing sentencing with conviction.

        If you want to argue that sentencing isn't colour-blind – then you'll need to provide an apples-with-apples example.

        I find Polkinghorne to be a totally despicable human being – but it seems clear that the evidence wasn't clear enough to convict him (in the jury's eyes). Just like it wasn't clear enough to convict Kahui.

    • gsays 3.2
      23 September 2024 at 11:10 pm

      I must say I felt coverage of the trial to be a little over the top.

      We seemed to be privy to a lot of sensationalised info, reported feverishly each day.

      Top that off with two competing podcasts, it was all a bit voyeuristic.

      Condolences to Pauline Hanna's whanau.

    • Anne 3.3
      24 September 2024 at 10:01 am

      The jury in their wisdom concluded it was a suicide. But everyone knows who drove her to do it.

      To my mind he will be suffering a severe form of punishment for the rest of his life. His decadent and debauched life style has been exposed for all to see. He will not be able to go anywhere without being recognised. Friends and associates will avoid him like the plague. In a kind of a way he will be in a prison of his own making.

      • Belladonna 3.3.1
        24 September 2024 at 10:16 am

        They jury didn't conclude that it was suicide at all!

        They simply decided that the Crown hadn't produced sufficient convincing evidence that Polkinghorne murdered her.

        https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/crime/philip-polkinghorne-murder-trial-jury-to-resume-deliberations-today/SEI2TKWMOJA7BK5MNNJZLELIOI/

        I would dearly love to have the option of the Scottish verdict 'Not proven'.

        • Anne 3.3.1.1
          24 September 2024 at 11:35 am

          Yes you are right. They did not come to a definitive conclusion. Have to say I didn't follow the trial too closely.

          I hope the jurors get all the support and counselling they need after such a harrowing and emotional experience.

      • lprent 3.3.2
        24 September 2024 at 2:55 pm

        The jury in their wisdom concluded it was a suicide.

        Unlikely. I’ve only vaguely followed this case.

        What the jury almost certainly concluded was not that it was suicide. Most likely they simply determined that the prosecution had not met its required burden of proof to justify a a murder verdict. The prosecution have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

        In effect the jury concluded that it was possible that the death was from suicide or even some other cause apart from murder and it would be unreasonable to return a guilty verdict on the evidence that the prosecution had presented.

        This isn’t surprising. It reads like the prosecution case was mostly circumstantial and inferred but no direct evidence. It really is a high bar for circumstantial evidence to prove. Especially since it usually depends almost entirely on expert evidence, and on inferred circumstantial evidence.

        I was a jury that came to the same conclusion after 4 weeks of trial of expert evidence. It took about 4 days in the jury room to get to a 10-2 verdict of not guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

        Most of the jurors assumed probable guilt at the start of the trial and probably even through to the end of prosecution case.

        By the end, only two thought guilty for sure. In essence, when pressed, their view was that the police and prosecution wouldn’t have brought the case if they hadn’t thought the accused was guilty. The presumption of guilt syndrome and trust in the authorities.

        Most of the jurors at the end who voted not guilty probably still thought that it was possible the accused was guilty.

        I know that I did. Personally I assumed innocence at the start and listened really closely to the prosecution case to see if it would change my mind. But there wasn’t anything substantive apart from the opportunity and absence of alternative other explanations for the fatality.

        Which meant in essence that jury decision was being made on expert evidence which was a probability game of ‘highly unlikely’ based on very small medical sample sizes. Which meant that anyone who’d done statistics in depth (two of us) just looked at deviations, sampling skews, and limits of confidence wound up lacking confidence in the expert evidence – even before the defence brought on their own expert witnesses.

        I’d take a bet that the same informed the jury in this case.

        • SPC 3.3.2.1
          24 September 2024 at 7:22 pm

          My only juror experience was being rejected by police/prosecution when I would not swear on a bible (seems silly to have to trust in an establishment cult religion authority source to discern the guilt of otherwise of a fellow citizen).

          • lprent 3.3.2.1.1
            26 September 2024 at 7:08 pm

            How long ago was that? Or which country?

            You have been able to just affirm rather than take an oath in NZ as long as I have been interested. Ummm… here

            Swearing-in process

            As a juror, you must promise to do your best to be fair and open-minded. You make this promise by swearing an oath or making an affirmation. Court staff will help you do this.

            and what the difference is here


            All witnesses or participants giving evidence, regardless of where they are appearing from, must swear an oath or make an affirmation that the evidence they are about to give is truthful.

            The registrar or court crier does this in the courtroom or from the court to the remote site using video conferencing. To swear an oath, the person must have the Bible with them. No Bible is needed if the person makes an affirmation.

            • SPC 3.3.2.1.1.1
              26 September 2024 at 9:30 pm

              It was merely the decision to not affirm on the bible and the challenge was then immediate.

              Wellington New Zealand

              Challenge

              If a lawyer calls out the word “challenge” before you sit down in the jury box, it means you won’t be selected to be part of that jury. Court staff will let you know if you need to stay for another pre-trial ballot or if you can leave the court.

              If a lawyer challenges you, don’t take it personally. A challenge is a usual part of the jury process and lawyers don’t have to give a reason for challenging jurors. They can use their challenges to get a cross-section of people on the jury.

              • lprent …
                28 September 2024 at 11:02 am

                That is just a lawyer exercising a challenge.

                There isn't much information given to them apart from name, address, and stated occupation (ie what is in the printed electoral roll) at best. I think that the lawyers in NZ might get that on the day.

                They don't know who will actually be up for selection until you start filing in for a case. So they're just doing a lot of guesswork based on what they can see about age, gender, appearance, attitude, and .

                The challenger simply didn't think that you'd be a good recipient for their particular line of bullshit and they exercised one of their limited challenges. Since both the prosecution and defence have challenges it tends to even out. As an overall view the prosecution generally looks for people who can pay attention during a long and usually boring trial, and the defence usually looks for implicit sympathy votes.

                Ummm… Community Law has a better description than the MoJ

                The names of all the people who have been summoned for jury service on that day are placed in a ballot box. The court registrar then draws names randomly from the box to select the people who will serve on the jury. If your name is called, you go forward to take a seat on the jury.

                Lawyers for the prosecution and for the defence each get the opportunity to “challenge” those selected before they sit down. If you’re challenged, you can’t serve on the jury.

                Each side can challenge up to four possible jurors without having to give a reason. If there are two or more defendants being tried together, the prosecutor gets eight challenges.

                In addition, they can challenge jurors on the basis that they won’t be impartial in the case or that they have some disability that prevents them acting as a juror effectively.

                In NZ, the latter paragraph usually doesn't happen unless there is a really obvious disability, or in smaller community courts where people know each other, or where the defendant or police know the potential juror.

  4. Muttonbird 4
    23 September 2024 at 9:03 pm

    Here's an example of the introduction of disruptor tech reducing rather than increasing people's choice and creating more complications. We've seen Airbnb steal rental accomodation from low income people all over the world, now the use of Chat GPT is forcing schools to move to complicated forms of assessment and probably, eventually exam formats:

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/528800/schools-abandon-take-home-assignments-after-artificial-intelligence-used-to-cheat

    Basically, a magnificent new disruptor has removed the ability for students to research assignments, write reports, and learn under their own steam.

  5. Joe90 5
    23 September 2024 at 10:49 pm

    Luxon has a memory problem.

    @spider_hoof

    Yet again Christopher Luxon is living in the past and trying to force the rest of us back there as well. I am 100% sure @CLRenney could have explained this better….

    https://xcancel.com/spider_hoof/status/1838145589663687081