web analytics

Open mike 24/06/2025

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, June 24th, 2025 - 39 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:


Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

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

Step up to the mike …

39 comments on “Open mike 24/06/2025 ”

  1. Todays Posts 1
    24 June 2025 at 6:00 am

    Today's Posts (updated through the day):

    Reply
  2. Ad 2
    24 June 2025 at 8:32 am

    Fairly bracing conversation this morning with a Syrian Arabian at work with family in Dubai.

    Brings the fear home.

    Reply
  3. Dennis Frank 3
    24 June 2025 at 10:13 am

    Looks like putting out the trash has been approved by the top US legal authority:

    The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way on Monday for President Trump's administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own… The administration, in its May 27 emergency filing to the Supreme Court, said that all the South Sudan-destined migrants had committed "heinous crimes" in the United States including murder, arson and armed robbery. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-lifts-limits-deporting-migrants-countries-not-their-own-2025-06-23/

    So it'll be globalised gun nuts versus native gun nuts in South Sudan. I wonder if Hollywood will get over there to organise a reality-tv shoot-out.

    Reply
  4. Patricia Bremner 4
    24 June 2025 at 10:30 am

    Mountain Tui has a great report on the opposition to the R S Bill. See side panel

    131000, second highest ever.

    That explains why Seymour is talking 'derangement syndrome'. If you don't agree with him, you are deranged? devil

    Looks like 90% of submitters are deranged bots!! Pull the other one Seymour.

    Labour say, if passed, they will repeal it in the first 100 days.

    Reply
    • Tiger Mountain 4.1
      24 June 2025 at 10:47 am

      I made a submission and am not a bot! There is info required with a Parliamentary submission that establishes your bona fides.

      Chris Hipkins was very clear on RNZ today that Seymour/Act’s RSB prioritises property owners over non owners which is deeply undemocratic.

      How many more crackpot Bills will the Epsom twerp put up?

      Reply
    • Chris 4.2
      24 June 2025 at 10:53 am

      About time Labour said they'd reverse something this mob's done.

      Reply
  5. Anne 5
    24 June 2025 at 10:30 am

    Trump claims on his 'Truth site' there has been a "complete and total ceasefire" beginning in 6hrs time.

    If it is true he will claim the credit of course, but I'll believe it only when it is backed up by reliable sources.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/world-news/360722787/israel-iran-conflict

    Reply
    • Tiger Mountain 5.1
      24 June 2025 at 10:55 am

      The obvious unpleasant point is that Trump enabled the IDF butchers attack on Iran, then a US one-and so created the need for a ceasefire! The Homer Simpson school of geo politics.

      Reply
      • aj 5.1.1
        24 June 2025 at 11:07 am

        ..and Iran is sensible enough / very weak and had too (select whichever fits your perspective) to inform the USA that they were going to tickle up an asset to square the ledger.

        All performative theatre to massage Trump’s immense ego and Netanyahu's madness.

        Reply
    • Bearded Git 5.2
      24 June 2025 at 11:04 am

      That will free up more IDF resources to slaughter Palestinians in both occupied Gaza and the occupied West Bank.

      Reply
    • lprent 5.3
      24 June 2025 at 11:06 am

      If accurate, I wonder if he will be able to restrain the Israelis.

      Or to get the IDF to stop shooting people trying to get food from the GHF sites.

      Or even actually get enough usable food to the GHF sites. From what I understand they are mostly supplying dry food that requires cooking and water – which is a problem in a kettled killzone with virtually no power, cooking fuel or clean water.

      An 'interesting' approach to starving people by giving them food that is almost impossible to make safe or edible.

      My guess is that Trump will fail all of these tasks. He can’t do them via an obscure social media platform.

      Reply
    • Incognito 6.1
      24 June 2025 at 12:37 pm

      I look forward to your well-constructed arguments instead of rhetorical questions [plural? I can only see one such question in your comment], so that others can put up their counter-arguments, if they wish.

      As it reads, your comment is in invitation to express outrage and condemnation but not to a constructive robust debate of a tricky problem.

      If you happen to be only interested in expressing your outrage and in the outrage of others then I I’d suggest you take it to Social Media.

      Reply
      • Puckish Rogue 6.1.1
        24 June 2025 at 12:48 pm

        I would fully support all crimes of a violent or sexual nature being automatically barred from home d

        If you commit a similar crime to one you've already been convicted of then the penalty for that crime has to be higher

        I would support a review of all judges and their sentences and the sentencing framework they work with

        Reply
        • Incognito 6.1.1.1
          24 June 2025 at 1:00 pm

          Okay, why? You haven’t explained your why and not put forward one single reasoned argument.

          I believe this is default, so what’s your point?

          Why a complete overhaul and whom would you be supporting? What’s behind it? Outrage, I presume.

          Reply
          • Puckish Rogue 6.1.1.1.1
            24 June 2025 at 2:46 pm

            When it comes to violent or sexual crimes, I believe we need to be absolutely clear about where we draw the line. These aren’t just breaches of the law, they’re deeply damaging acts that leave lasting trauma. That’s why I’d fully support automatically barring people convicted of these crimes from being eligible for home detention.

            Home detention is meant for lower-risk cases for people who aren’t considered a serious danger to the community. But if someone has hurt another person violently or committed a sexual offense, I just don’t think it’s fair or safe to let them serve their sentence at home. It sends the wrong message to victims, and to society in general: that these kinds of crimes aren’t taken as seriously as they should be. I’m not saying people can't change but the first priority has to be protecting others from harm. Some crimes are serious enough that leniency simply isn’t appropriate.

            Along similar lines, I believe that if someone commits the same type of crime more than once, the penalty should be tougher the second time. If the first sentence didn’t stop that behavior, then it clearly didn’t work as a deterrent. At that point, the justice system has to step in more firmly not just for punishment, but to prevent further harm. To me, it’s about responsibility. If you’ve already been through the system and you make the same choice again, the consequences should reflect that.

            This isn’t about being harsh for the sake of it, it’s about protecting the community and showing that actions have real consequences. It also respects the people who don’t re-offend. The system should recognize when someone genuinely makes a mistake and learns from it and also when someone chooses not to.

            Finally, I think it’s completely reasonable to support a review of how judges make decisions and the sentencing guidelines they work within. Judges are human. They make judgment calls every day that can change people’s lives. So we need to make sure their decisions are fair, consistent, and reflect the seriousness of the crimes involved. That doesn’t mean interfering in individual cases or trying to politicize the courts. It just means taking a closer look at the system to make sure it’s working the way people expect it to.

            Too often, we hear about sentences that feel out of step with the crime and that erodes public confidence. A proper review would help us see where things are working well, where they’re not, and how to fix any gaps.

            At the end of the day, I just want a justice system that people can trust. One that protects victims, holds offenders properly accountable, and is willing to adapt when it’s falling short. To me, these aren’t extreme views, they’re common sense.

            Reply
            • Incognito 6.1.1.1.1.1
              24 June 2025 at 6:58 pm

              It's all or nothing with you; you packed an awful lot in this one comment.

              … I believe we need to be absolutely clear about where we draw the line.

              What line are you talking about? It sounds to me that with those crimes in your eyes the judges’ discretion & judgment must be ignored & removed. How can ‘we’ be ‘absolutely clear’ about this? Who decides? Parliament, in a unanimous vote, or a majority decision?

              Is imprisonment better than home detention for victims recovering from the trauma?

              Have you considered the impact of imprisonment on the convict’s immediate family compared to home detention?

              Have you considered that home detention might assist with rehabilitation and make this easier than imprisonment?

              You want to remove any room for leniency regardless of victim reports and statements. Not all victims are the same, e.g., some are open to restorative justice while others are not. Your one-size-fits-all ‘line’ doesn’t reflect this reality.

              The justice system has a responsibility to prevent harm and reoffending in the short- and long-term, which puts the emphasis and efforts on the offender.

              The system should recognize when someone genuinely makes a mistake and learns from it and also when someone chooses not to.

              How can one know this in advance? Isn’t this influenced by the treatment of the convict?

              So we need to make sure their decisions are fair, consistent, and reflect the seriousness of the crimes involved. […] It just means taking a closer look at the system to make sure it’s working the way people expect it to. [my italics]

              This reads mostly as a strawman argument. What some expect and what some people want are different things, anyway. People love to play judge after reading a 250-word article in the media and are convinced that they would do a better job than the jury and/or judge; you sound like one of those people.

              At the end of the day, I just want a justice system that people can trust. One that protects victims, holds offenders properly accountable, and is willing to adapt when it’s falling short. To me, these aren’t extreme views, they’re common sense.

              Another string of strawmen. You reduce a whole bunch of complex issues & problems down to the simple heuristic ‘common sense’. This suggests that you’re not thinking rationally but emotively (e.g., outrage) and with considerable bias and prejudice.

              There’s so much more to unpack in your comment but this will do for now, as I don’t want to waste more of my time arguing against stuff that looks more like something that was written by a gen-AI bot trained on material from the Sensible Sentencing Trust.

              Reply
        • Craig H 6.1.1.2
          24 June 2025 at 6:59 pm

          People are allowed to appeal. I personally can't see him getting very far as there seem to be quite a few aggravating factors at work here (Sentencing Act 2002 No 9 (as at 17 June 2025), Public Act 9 Aggravating and mitigating factors – New Zealand Legislation).

          Previous convictions are an aggravating factor for sentencing, albeit context like time between offences matters – a different offence from 30 years ago probably matters less than a similar offence last year and that will be reflected in the sentencing. Offending while on bail or subject to a sentence is also an aggravating factor.

          While I don't agree with 3 strikes, it was recently reinstated and probably does what you want it to without being overly broad.

          Reply
    • weka 6.2
      24 June 2025 at 12:54 pm

      the first one appears to be arguing for a reduced sentence? (just skimmed it)

      the second one, imo he should be named so that women he comes into contact with know, but the home vs prison thing is about preventing him from becoming a rapist long term. Don't think we're in a position to judge that just from reading an article.

      Reply
      • Puckish Rogue 6.2.1
        24 June 2025 at 12:56 pm

        Maybe if he'd been inside he wouldn't have started up a 'relationship' with the 13 year old

        Reply
        • weka 6.2.1.1
          24 June 2025 at 2:06 pm

          ok, but unless you want to keep him locked up for life, how do you prevent prison from making him worse?

          Reply
          • Puckish Rogue 6.2.1.1.1
            24 June 2025 at 2:36 pm

            I'm not adverse to locking people away for life, for certain crimes, nor am I against the death penalty.

            Having said that there are far too many things to do to stop this from happening in the first place (not that you can if we're being honest) but the first thing I'd do is a massive increase in the budget for Corrections, to increase monitoring and rehabilitation efforts.

            It really is a revolving door at the moment and all parties are too blame (mostly National and Labour of course)

            Reply
            • bwaghorn 6.2.1.1.1.1
              24 June 2025 at 2:46 pm

              Life or chemical castration?

              One I'd be cheaper,

              I'm not opposed to the death penalty but only in caught red handed cases like wetherston and the aissie monster

              Reply
              • Puckish Rogue …
                24 June 2025 at 2:53 pm

                Chemical castration doesn't always work (I met someone, in prison, chemically castrated and it didn't stop him raping again)

                I would have the trial as per normal and then have…something… after to determine if it warrants the death penalty.

                The bar for the death penalty would of course have to be of a higher standard and only for certain crimes

                Reply
                • Incognito …
                  24 June 2025 at 4:06 pm

                  Chemical castration doesn’t always work …

                  What’s your point? Only use 100% effective and absolute measures and don’t use anything else that isn’t perfect and 100% guaranteed?

                  I would have the trial as per normal and then have…something… after to determine if it warrants the death penalty.

                  Sentencing comes after the trial. What do you propose to do differently from the current justice process?

                  The bar for the death penalty would of course have to be of a higher standard and only for certain crimes

                  This is vague and ambiguous. What crimes meet your criterion and why, and what is that ‘higher standard’?

                  Reply
              • gsays …
                24 June 2025 at 5:27 pm

                To some of us this is comedy, to others, it's how a school should be run.

                Reply
            • Incognito 6.2.1.1.1.2
              24 June 2025 at 4:58 pm

              On the one hand, you’re not adverse to locking people away for life, for certain crimes, or against the death penalty, and on the other hand, you mention many preventative measures that we could be (but aren’t) doing and monitoring and rehabilitation efforts.

              How do you reconcile these apparent contradictions?

              … (not that you can if we’re being honest) …

              What do you mean by this?

              It sounds to me that you’re making strawman arguments to burn them down and leaving only one possible and realistic option (aka TINA)!? This is not robust debate.

              Reply
              • Puckish Rogue …
                24 June 2025 at 5:01 pm

                You sound like you got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.

                Reply
                • Incognito …
                  24 June 2025 at 5:28 pm

                  You’ve lost credibility when you go on the personal attack and offer no counter-arguments.

                  You comment here proposing locking people (i.e., fellow human beings) away for life or taking their life. Such proposals need very strong arguments, of the highest standard, and robust discussion. Initially, you don’t present any arguments, just reckons. Then, reluctantly, you provide some insight in your thought process, or beliefs rather. I test the strength of your arguments and whether they can withstand even the lowest level of scrutiny and you fail at the first and lowest hurdle of public debate.

                  Reply
                  • Puckish Rogue …
                    24 June 2025 at 5:56 pm

                    I understand your concerns, and I agree that when we talk about serious matters like sentencing or the death penalty, we need strong arguments, not just opinions. But I don’t think it’s fair to say I’ve offered no reasoning or that I’m resorting to personal attacks. These are difficult topics, and I’m approaching them from a place of wanting a justice system that protects people, especially those who are most vulnerable to harm.

                    Let me clarify my position.

                    First, I believe that people convicted of violent or sexual crimes shouldn’t be eligible for home detention. These are some of the most serious offenses a person can commit, and they cause deep, lasting harm. Home detention is meant for lower-risk offenders, not for those who’ve shown they’re capable of inflicting serious violence. This isn’t about being punitive for the sake of it; it’s about making sure the justice system prioritizes safety, sets firm boundaries, and sends a clear message that some behavior is completely beyond what society can accept.

                    On the question of repeat offenders, I think it’s reasonable that if someone commits the same type of serious crime again, the penalty should increase. If a person has already been through the justice system and still chooses to re-offend, it suggests that the original sentence didn’t have the intended effect. That’s not a failure of compassion—it’s a call to re-evaluate what works to prevent further harm.

                    As for the death penalty, I realize it’s one of the most contentious issues in criminal justice, and I don’t raise it lightly. I support it only in extremely rare and tightly defined cases: where the crime is extraordinarily brutal, for example (but not limited to) mass murder, acts of terrorism, or serial child abuse and where there’s overwhelming, unquestionable evidence of guilt. In those few cases, I believe the death penalty can be justified, not as a form of revenge, but as a way to ensure public safety and to deliver a proportionate response to the worst possible crimes.

                    I’m also aware of the many risks and criticisms of capital punishment: wrongful convictions, inconsistent application, and moral concerns. These are real, and that’s why it should only ever be used when there is absolute certainty, when the facts leave no room for doubt. It should never be applied broadly or casually.

                    My broader point is that the justice system has to balance fairness with responsibility. We can believe in rehabilitation and still recognize that some actions deserve stronger consequences. We can want second chances without ignoring the danger that a small number of people pose to others.

                    If you disagree, I welcome the conversation. We may not see eye to eye, but these are the kinds of issues that deserve open, respectful debate.

                    Reply
                    • Incognito …
                      24 June 2025 at 7:45 pm

                      I understand your concerns, and I agree that when we talk about serious matters like sentencing or the death penalty, we need strong arguments, not just opinions.

                      You do? Then lead with your arguments instead of pasting two links, a simplistic rhetorical question, and no further commentary.

                      But I don’t think it’s fair to say I’ve offered no reasoning or that I’m resorting to personal attacks.

                      You may think I was unfair to you but it’s a 100% accurate description of your reply to me @ 5:01 pm.

                      These are difficult topics, and I’m approaching them from a place of wanting a justice system that protects people, especially those who are most vulnerable to harm.

                      Nope, you want a more punitive and stricter system that removes the professional input of experienced judges to ensure harsher penalties, even locking away for life and the death penalty. This has nothing to do with people who are most vulnerable to harm; who are those people anyway? It’s a red herring.

                      Much of your comment is a repeat of your previous talking points and strawmen.

                      You mention “overwhelming, unquestionable evidence of guilt” and “absolute certainty, when the facts leave no room for doubt”. That suggests a higher standard than ‘reasonable doubt’, doesn’t it? But even so, we know from other jurisdictions that despite all practical safeguards miscarriages of justice do occur. A dead person can never be brought back to life.

                      My broader point is that the justice system has to balance fairness with responsibility.

                      Sure. Then define ‘fairness’, ‘responsibility’, and ‘balance’. We have a balance and some, you included, want to tilt it towards responsibility arguing that this is a ‘better’ balance between the two. However, I still haven’t seen a compelling argument in favour of this.

  7. Ad 7
    24 June 2025 at 1:22 pm

    If National had continued the electric car subsidy, we could've been at 10% of the car fleet by now. Instead it's about 5% total.

    We would have been slightly less exposed to 91 heading to $3.50 and beyond.

    Willis has immediately ruled out decreasing petrol tax.

    This is a household nightmare and an inflation spike all by itself.

    Reply
  8. SPC 8
    24 June 2025 at 3:28 pm

    Free Speech and the right of a nation to determine its border policy.

    Screening migrants and foreign corporations, including those of the mining on conservation land kind, the extraction of carbon and nuclear power kind, Monsanto – like we do pests to protect our environment bio-diversity.

    Whether that should include approaches inimical to our democratic values, such as Atlas Network, Ayn Randism, Jordan Pater'ism (devolutionary psychology) or … is a matter of free speech. But we know that social media has its own multiplier effect, thus silo dangers regardless of Algorithms (data processing, Al Gore is a Chad vote counting the beat), if not as unseemly as twerking ones bot about.

    Reply
  9. Puckish Rogue 9
    24 June 2025 at 3:44 pm

    The Abraham accord, cease fire between India and Pakistan and now a cease fire between Iran and Israel.

    Nobel Peace prize for Trump is now a given but he should now be added to Mt Rushmore

    TACO indeed

    Reply

Leave a Comment