Daily Review 23/11/2017

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, November 23rd, 2017 - 29 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 …

29 comments on “Daily Review 23/11/2017”

  1. Rosemary McDonald 1

    I found this wonderful obituary for Helen Kelly, appropriate I think to reflect on her work today…https://www.lawsociety.org.nz/news-and-communications/people-in-the-law/obituaries/obituaries-list/helen-kelly,-1964-2016

    “Nigel Hampton QC who was acting for the Miners Union during the Royal Commission on the Pike River Mine explosion met Helen Kelly about five years ago.

    That report into what led to the deaths of 29 miners came out in 2012.

    Helen Kelly was the Council of Trade Unions president and was making submissions on behalf of the unions.

    ….She was not the sort of person who would back down and Mr Hampton says the charges being dropped against the former chief executive of Pike River Mine, Peter Whittall in return for a $3.41 million insurance pay-out to the families of the 29 men killed in the disaster was another example of her unbridled determination.

    She wouldn’t accept what she considered blood money over justice.

    The High Court dismissed an application for judicial review in November 2015 and even though Ms Kelly was slowly succumbing to lung cancer, behind the scenes she continued to support the action taken by Anna Osborne (whose husband Milton Osborne was killed in the explosion) and Sonya Rockhouse (whose son Ben Rockhouse was killed in the explosion).

    The case is now before the Court of Appeal.

    “Helen was very keen to appeal the decision and the CTU backed it. It was argued about two months ago and we are awaiting a decision. I was very hopeful the decision would come out before Helen’s death because it was something that was very dear to her,” Mr Hampton says.” “

  2. Chris 2

    I’m no lawyer, but if the Crown, despite the legal hurdles, think it’s okay to attempt to retry Malcolm Rewa 30 years after the event, why not at least have a go at prosecuting Peter Whittall? The Crown shows itself time and time again as desperately looking for an arse to kick. What’s the difference here?

    https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/anna-elizabeth-osborne-and-sonya-lynne-rockhouse-v-worksafe-new-zealand/@@images/fileDecision?r=42.1944250834

    • patricia bremner 3.1

      So beatie, which other portal can we use?

    • James 3.2

      Perhaps people just arnt googling for that any more. Or the go to the site directly.

    • ianmac 3.3

      There was something on Nine to Noon or somewhere, this week which was a Trump plan to cease the Internet being uncensored and uncontrolled. Instead “unworthy” sites would be blocked or slowed down to dial-up speed unless certain money was paid. Sounded pretty ominous as one man’s freedom is another man’s threat.
      Must be out there somewhere?

      • Sabine 3.3.1

        Net Neutrality, its a big thing and if undone, you and me and anyone else can say good bye to the internet as it is today.

        https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/22/16690870/fcc-repeal-net-neutrality-proposal-released

        Quote:The FCC has released the final draft of its proposal to destroy net neutrality. The order removes nearly every net neutrality rule on the books — internet providers will be free to experiment with fast and slow lanes, prioritize their own traffic, and block apps and services. There’s really only one rule left here: that ISPs have to publicly disclose when they’re doing these things.

        In the proposal, the commission calls its 2015 net neutrality ruling a “misguided and legally flawed approach.” It repeatedly states that the 2015 order “erred,” was “incorrect,” and came to “erroneous conclusions.” Removing these rules, the commission now argues, will “facilitate critical broadband investment and innovation by removing regulatory uncertainty and lowering compliance costs.”:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States

        In the United States, net neutrality has been an issue of contention among network users and access providers since the 1990s.[1][2] In 2015 the FCC classified broadband as a Title II communication service with providers being “common carriers”, not “information providers”.
        Until 2015, there were no clear legal protections requiring net neutrality.[3][4][5][6] Throughout 2005 and 2006, corporations supporting both sides of the issue zealously lobbied Congress.[7] Between 2005 and 2012, five attempts to pass bills in Congress containing net neutrality provisions failed. Each sought to prohibit Internet service providers from using various variable pricing models based upon the user’s Quality of Service level, described as tiered service in the industry and as price discrimination by some economists.[8][9]

        as for other alternatives for Google et all

        duckduck go https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1164666

        https://www.yandex.com/

        • Draco T Bastard 3.3.1.1

          Removing these rules, the commission now argues, will “facilitate critical broadband investment and innovation by removing regulatory uncertainty and lowering compliance costs.”:

          No it won’t. It will do the exact opposite. Having less bandwidth available allows the ISPs to charge more.

          Simple supply and demand.

          This is a huge cash flow for the ISPs which is why they wanted it.

        • Colonial Viper 3.3.1.2

          when it comes down to it lots of politically active people only care about Net Neutrality when it suits them (i.e. when it’s their side being adversely affected).

          For instance, Google/Facebook/Twitter/You Tube/various domain registrars have for months now variously committed to de-ranking, blocking, suspending, making invisible, demonetizing websites like RT, Sputnik, Wikileaks, any channels and accounts which support Trump, alt news sites, non-PC positions and commentators, etc.

          Left wingers, Russia gaters, Clintonistas and anti-Trumpers have never had much problem with the above.

          • Draco T Bastard 3.3.1.2.1

            [citation needed]

            • McFlock 3.3.1.2.1.1

              CV thinks the domain registrars that took stormfront offline were playing dirty pool.

              Apparently, deregistering Nazis and labelling lies as lies is the same as Skytv quietly paying Vodafone to give its streaming better ping times than lightbox or TVNZ. And Amazon to do the same against every local retailer with a web store. And eventticketz is fucked, because ticketzNZ has paid spark to reduce every other ticket agency’s traffic to a crawl.

              But no, let’s spare a thought for the poor bullshitters who posted a bullshitly-photoshopped pic of a croatian ground attack aircraft shooting down an malaysian airliner and claim to be a news service.

  3. patricia bremner 4

    Sense has prevailed. Tony Veitch has withdrawn from the TV sports show, as his twitter post brought a back lash. The station “was reviewing his participation”.

    Wonder which paying supporters withdrew?

  4. Pete 5

    Mike Hosking: Don’t dare turn this into the America’s cock-up: “Yes the government and the council have a stake and yes they are using our money and yes they are accountable.

    But they don’t own this thing, they’re not in charge, they are the facilitators, they are there to assist, not get in the way.”

    This is the guy who hates the council and Government spending money on non-essentials. So he wants some private people to have use of council and government money to keep themselves employed and have some fun. I get all the stuff about the community gaining and the trickle down effect.

    What I don’t get is that one of the big cheer leaders for private enterprise isn’t on a campaign telling the world that if the event is a goer, private enterprise should be paying for it.

    I do get it really though. He will be into the event boots and all, living the high life, in all the socialising and party aspects and using it to prop up his jobs. If the council and government don’t spend money he doesn’t get to do those things.

    He is a hypocritical, self-centred, user arsehole

    • Zorb6 5.1

      Agree with all that.+1000

    • +111

      Look through history and you’ll almost never find the private sector doing anything without massive government subsidies in one form or another.

    • patricia bremner 5.3

      Pete, Hosking looks sillier each year. He wants to stay young and will run around in his designer jeans and spiked hair dos until he is discarded by people who have out grown him.

      Your last sentence is so correct in every way.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Cameras on vessels to ensure sustainable fisheries
    Commercial fishing vessels at greatest risk of encountering the rare Māui dolphin will be required to operate with on-board cameras from 1 November, as the next step to strengthen our fisheries management system. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Fisheries Minister ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Greatest number of new Police in a single year
    A new record for the number of Police officers deployed to the regions in a single year has been created with the graduation today of Recruit Wing 326. Police Minister Stuart Nash says the graduation of 78 new constables means ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Ensuring multinationals pay their fair share of tax
    New Zealand is pushing on with efforts to ensure multinational companies pay their fair share of tax, with the release of proposed options for a digital services tax (DST). In February Cabinet agreed to consult the public on the problem ...
    2 weeks ago