Open Mike 30/04/2017

64 comments on “Open Mike 30/04/2017 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. marty mars 1

   30 April 2017 at 8:00 am

   Pretty tough one first up – the more we work through this stuff the better we will all be. Moana Jackson lays it out very well

   … In this particular case, the Crown’s refusal to publicly inquire into the abuse in its own institutions is consistent with a long-held misperception about its power, and the nature and consequences of colonisation within which it was assumed.

   For, while people express shock over the removal of Aboriginal children from their families in Australia, and abhor the residential schools set up to “kill the Indian in order to save the child” in Canada and the United States, there is an almost smug belief that such abuse never happened here.

   Indeed, there’s a presumption that because of the honour of the Crown, colonisation was somehow “better” in this country than anywhere else.

   Yet the belief that there can be honour in the dishonour of colonisation is a contradiction in terms.

   By its very nature, the colonisation of indigenous peoples has always been an abusive process — if only because the imposition of the colonisers’ values and institutions could never be achieved peacefully or with any pretence to good faith. It was always a violent race-based privileging of Pākehā realities, which was only made possible by subordinating those of Māori.

   No matter how it’s achieved — through a legal subterfuge or the brute force of a gun — colonisation is always a dishonourable dispossession. To assume there is some sliding scale of honourable acceptability, or a Hit Parade of comparative benevolence in which New Zealand is Number One, is a misleading lie.

   https://e-tangata.co.nz/news/colonisation-and-the-suffering-of-children

   The point of that quoted bit is to lay that lie down. It is time to move past the fictions we have made up in this country about how great we are – we aren’t particularly great, any more than any other country – we aren’t kinder, cleaner, nicer – we are very similar, we are good, bad and ugly. Front up to that truth and then we can get through the bullshit to a place where changes and improvements can be made and THAT is where we want to be, THAT is the future, THAT is our future.
   • Draco T Bastard 1.1

     30 April 2017 at 11:08 am

     +1

     We need to admit and accept the injustices of the past so that we can make the necessary changes to stop them continuing.
     • JanM 1.1.1

       30 April 2017 at 3:53 pm

       For many people it’s a matter first of knowing something about them. To this day we are still not being taught any real history of New Zealand – the level of ignorance is horrendous!
       The State has a lot to answer for here – I presume the lack of education on this subject starts with policy – even if unexpressed
2. Xanthe 2

   30 April 2017 at 8:27 am

   Moana Jackson is a very smooth purveyor of hate speach. IMHO

   But i do think there should be an inquiry into historic and current institutional abuse
   • marty mars 2.1

     30 April 2017 at 9:46 am

     You sure you meant humble in your opinion?

     Hard to hear what we don’t want to hear.
3. Ad 3

   30 April 2017 at 8:34 am

   If this is the “infrastructure government”, and it’s what they are betting Budget 2017 and the election on, Waterview tunnel just shifted into full electoral spotlight.

   I think they will stall openibg until July, and effectively open their campaign right there at that moment.

   NZTA is rolling its dice for the Nats.
   • mickysavage 3.1

     30 April 2017 at 8:37 am

     Board is controlled by National appointees so it is on the cards.
   • Enough is Enough 3.2

     30 April 2017 at 8:59 am

     Wasn’t the tunnel Clark’s inititative?
     • Ad 3.2.1

       30 April 2017 at 9:15 am

       What matters is NZTA allowing itself to be played.

       NZTA now looks like it has no political experience: if govt changes in Sept after NZTA assisting opposing team during campaign, they expose themselves to v high mistrust from New government and a good media scorching.
       • mickysavage 3.2.1.1

         30 April 2017 at 9:46 am

         The risk for them is the tunnel could be a disaster if the worries about traffic flows eventuate. Could then be politically damaging.
         • greywarshark 3.2.1.1.1

           30 April 2017 at 10:57 am

           I bought a second hand book about the Regulatory Road to Serfdom thinking that it sounded very laissez faire and I’d see what the author had to say -JR Edwards, University Press of America – so I picked RW. But I wanted to learn.
           It seems that the writer does not like regulations at all but I haven’t read it through yet. But there can definitely be a case for keeping regulations to practical levels and just seeking to deter risky or irresponsible behaviour, and I think less punishment and more strict oversight till the fault is amended would end up with net gains.

           He talks about the new ‘undemocratic legislation’ added yearly. ‘In th 1990s new regulations printed in the Federal Register have regularly exceeded 60,000 pages per year.’ He looks at the fact that the regulations depend on statutory law, are overseen by relevant Congressional oversight committees, and the argument is that therefore there is ‘no loss of democratic control’.
           One legal judgment stated ‘The administrative agency may be given the power to “fill in the details,” but the details are of the essence; they give meaning and content to vague contours’.p.28.

           (It is ironic to see in the frontispiece, ‘The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences–Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, …1984.)

           It is interesting to me because it touches on the ability of bodies outside elected officials to pass regulations and run the country to suit their own agenda. They may have little oversight from government and their interaction with ordinary people may be very limited. It’s like fiefdoms separate from a supposedly democratic government.

           The Transport Authority is such, I think, with control over the country with local bodies having much less. Enormous budget and rigid ideas, virtually untouched by human hands concerned with our humanity, just our machines.

           In this time of turbulence and doubt! Sounds like the start of a Sunday sermon; we should be thinking about whether our present style of government delivers the basis for the sort of society that seems good to most of us, or whether it serves a small minority of us and still disadvantages that minority in many ways.

           What about participatory democracy instead of simple representation of the majority?
           https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_democracy

           People in apartments are noticing in a personal way how their body corporates are not serving their needs, but may cause them financial and life management difficulties from their decisions that are binding on the other occupants. It is a good working example of a bad system, that expanded in its reach, is our present government.
   • mauÄ« 3.3

     30 April 2017 at 9:48 am

     Twyford on Waterview: http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11845437

     “I think NZTA don’t know what is going to happen to traffic volumes at peak hours when they open those tunnels. There is a real risk we may see at peak times severe congestion, particularly on the northwestern motorway,” Twyford said.

     He said NZTA and the Government had not learned that if you just build more motorways without a rapid transit system, the motorways fill up with cars and cannot cope with peak-hour demand.

     “That’s why we have had this debate about the unbelievably stupid decision not to build a rapid transit busway on the SH16 when they did the widening,” Twyford said.
     • mickysavage 3.3.1

       30 April 2017 at 9:56 am

       Yep North Western is already severely congested. Funnelling a whole lot of more traffic into it will be a disaster.
   • Muttonbird 3.4

     30 April 2017 at 10:47 am

     I said this four weeks ago and you told me I was wrong and that the delay was a just a sprinkler problem.

     Some people are quite naive…until they’re not.
4. North 4

   30 April 2017 at 8:47 am

   “Hate speech” you say Xanthe. Well unless you’re Sean Spicer to whom indisputable facts and historical record matter not a fig then your ‘humble opinion’ is no more than this – “I hate Jackson’s speech……you know…….just overall.” A different and completely unedifying quantity altogether. Which raises more questions about you than it does about Jackson. Try again Squawker.
   • marty mars 4.1

     30 April 2017 at 9:47 am

     + 1
   • Molly 4.2

     30 April 2017 at 10:11 am

     With you there, North.

     I haven’t heard (or read) anything resembling “hate speech” coming from Moana Jackson.

     What I do recognise is a level of patience and fortitude that must have developed after having to spend a long time explaining history and implications to people who have little knowledge.
     • garibaldi 4.2.1

       30 April 2017 at 11:00 am

       Face it Xanthe, if you can’t accept the damage ‘we British’ have done then you are trying your best to fit into the two latter aspects of “the good, the bad and the ugly”.
     • greywarshark 4.2.2

       30 April 2017 at 11:13 am

       Moana Jackson is continuing with the contest as written about by the late great Dr Ranginui Walker, died 28 February 2016, in his book ‘ Ka Whawhai Tonu Matou’ – Struggle Without End. And he was part Maori/part Lebanese
       https://e-tangata.co.nz/news/ranginui-walker-no-beating-about-the-bush-with-him
       and obituary
       http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/297704/dr-ranginui-walker-dies
     • Karen 4.2.3

       30 April 2017 at 11:37 am

       +1 Molly.

       I can only imagine Xanthe has never actually listened to Moana Jackson. His gentleness and patience is legendary – this in spite of having to explain over and over again the effects of colonisation on Māori.
       • weka 4.2.3.1

         30 April 2017 at 12:10 pm

         + everyone. Jackson also comes across to me as one of the great compassionate thinkers of our time.
       • Wayne 4.2.3.2

         30 April 2017 at 12:23 pm

         Karen,

         His persona might be gentle and patient (which it is) but his message is radical.

         He basically attributes every ill to colonisation, and does not see a single redeeming feature in New Zealand’s history since 1840.

         I have always assumed he would have preferred Aotearoa to have become like Fiji, Samoa or Tonga where the indigenous people have remained in control. But how long would it have taken for a fully functioning democracy to emerge? Samoa at least is now a full democracy, though Tonga has some way to go in this regard.

         As I see it nations that are based on tribal societies struggle to be fully successful. They tend to have too much hereditary leadership and ownership of property. It is hard for the central government to extend full authority across the nation.

         Tribal societies historically are not based on universal principles of equality, where each person can set their own path. Legal equality depends of the uniform rule of law applicable to everyone, and thus the ability of everyone to have the right to own and control property. These two virtues are the basis of capitalism, as indeed Marx acknowledged.

         It took hundreds of years before the UK was able to develop a state based on universal values, rather than powerful dukedoms and fiefdoms with a feudal allocation of rights. Feudalism was only fully extinguished after the civil war of the 1640’s, though the modern nation was emerging during the elizabethan period. Britain’s success as a global nation based on trade primarily occurs after the core elements of the rule of law, and secure property rights were established.

         So unlike Jackson, I think the colonial era did vest New Zealand and all its people, Maori and Pakeha alike, with some fundamental virtues including the rule of law, a democracy that by 1900 had a universal franchise, and broadly speaking a free enterprise economy with secure property rights. The modern treaty settlements are based on these virtues.
         • simbit 4.2.3.2.1

           30 April 2017 at 1:58 pm

           Fiji, Samoa and Tonga have not ‘remained in control’ if by remained you mean uninterrupted Indigenous self-determination (Tonga has gone closest but was a British Protectorate).

           And I think you overstate British universal values though that country certainly was a refuge in bad times.
         • Karen 4.2.3.2.2

           30 April 2017 at 3:34 pm

           Wayne , for a reasonably smart guy you are unbelievably ignorant about colonial history. At least make an effort to look at the history of colonialism in the Pacific before spouting such nonsense. I’d suggest you read Michael Field’s book “Black Saturday” just to start you off.

           Also, you seem to have entirely missed the point of Moana Jackson’s article.He doesn’t “blame colonialism for every ill” but he does point out that the blindness of many to the effects of colonialism on Māori means problems are not adequately addressed. Your comment is a perfect example of this blindness.
         • Draco T Bastard 4.2.3.2.3

           30 April 2017 at 3:52 pm

           Feudalism was only fully extinguished after the civil war of the 1640’s,

           Britain still has it’s aristocracy and capitalism is just another form of it. The commons shifted to the personal ownership of a few who then dictate societies laws.

           Britain’s success as a global nation based on trade primarily occurs after the core elements of the rule of law, and secure property rights were established.

           Britain’s ‘success’ wasn’t based upon trade but upon conquest and invasion.

           The ongoing increase in the rule of law has helped to some degree but property rights are still the foundation of massive inequality, inequity and poverty as they were 500 years ago – as Piketty proved.

           Property rights aren’t a virtue but a vice.
         • Bill 4.2.3.2.4

           30 April 2017 at 5:04 pm

           Well yes Wayne, you’re entitled to your smug superiority precisely because of how colonialism played out. It was just a natural process after all – whereby lesser peoples and ways succumbed or faded before a self-evidently superior white, material, western way that they, as is evinced by their failure to adapt, failed to measure up to.

           Or maybe liberalism’s contemporary primacy is better traced (at least in part) to a belief in some notion of Christian exceptionalism that excused unbridled violence and theft, that allowed for the exercise of inhumanity on a vast scale well beyond the experience of the peoples and traditions that encountered it?

           I look to my own family’s past – the enclosures, and the labour of children and women and men secured by the immediate and very real prospect of starvation and destitution – my descendants, forced under-ground to dig coal; forced to work with the debilitating dyes used on stolen cotton…

           At least one of them took the Queen’s shilling (or was it the penny back then?) so they wouldn’t have to go under the ground any more. And yes, the irony is that he was helping to expand and secure the very thing that oppressed him.

           And some of the next generation scattered across the world on a one way trip to anywhere that promised an escape from the slums and tenements they’d been consigned to.

           It was only the generation after that one who were able (for the most part) to get away from those slums and tenements – when the authorities, in the process of finally knocking them down, scattered the very last remnants of community that had survived the nigh on 200 year frontal assault of liberal capitalism.

           And you have the gall to speak of its apparent ‘virtues’.
           • Draco T Bastard 4.2.3.2.4.1

             30 April 2017 at 5:35 pm

             +111
         • North 4.2.3.2.5

           30 April 2017 at 6:41 pm

           Wayne…….I see your point but as far as our current society is concerned it’s basically a limited one, in the consummation. Tribal societies – “…….not based on universal principles of equality…….they (tribal societies) tend to have too much hereditary leadership and ownership of property.” Where have you been all your life Wayne? What is the New Zealand housing market right now unless it be a dangerous manifestation of excessive hereditary ownership ?
           • Xanthe 4.2.3.2.5.1

             1 May 2017 at 8:00 am

             Yes you have figured it out

             Pre european society, feudalism
             Post colonial society, feudalism
             Difference, some different carrion eaters in control

             Now what does moana jackson bring to this picture?
5. Foreign waka 5

   30 April 2017 at 10:11 am

   Just saw the Mayor of Greytown pleading to give an off shore company based in NY the right to take native trees out of the DOC land on the West coast.
   This man is beyond the realm of reason. He would sacrifice the west-coasts potential for a bonanza in tourism for 100K because it would be quick cash. Certainly not enough to have some economic miracle happen.
   They got compensation for having the forest protected but spend it on spurious things, fanciful for the few. Now that the funds are gone this is all he can come up with.
   My questions are:
   1/who are the people sending this man to the forefront to do the greed battle for them in order to get their hands on native wood in pristine native forest?
   2/Where are the voices of the people of the area and what do Maori have to say?
   3/The area also mines phosphor – a Nauru in slow motion in the making and now the forest is also an interest?

   Has anybody heard of this or has any info?
   • Johan 5.1

     30 April 2017 at 11:10 am

     Just watched Q&A and noticed the feed back by locals. Proposed logging by Mayor Tony Kokshoorn was completely contrary to the views expressed by the locals.
     • greywarshark 5.1.1

       30 April 2017 at 11:20 am

       Mayor Tony Kokshoorn, from past news, appears to be ‘cocksure’ and inclined to jump into his tank and charge off as a man of action, but without reflection. No excuse for that in West Coast, plenty of puddles to see your face in there./sarc

       Here is a book on Trade me about how the Upper Buller was cleared by settlers
       ready for farming, th cover shows a billowing cloud of smoke, which was common in those early years and which helped to kill of the huia by the way. Country areas tend to be slow to change and accept new ideas, so are significant movers and shakers on the southern West Coast very far advanced from those early days in their mindsets?
       http://www.trademe.co.nz/books/rare-collectable/nz-published/history/auction-1312790210.htm
   • wyndham 5.2

     30 April 2017 at 11:47 am

     It is not DOC land but is council owned. Also not Greytown but rather Greymouth !

     I think the mayor is firing a few shots aimed at encouraging central government to purchase the forested land and add it to the DOC estate. Can’t blame him for that in a society where everything is “owned” and has a monetary value that must be utilised and cashed up.

     The views of the forester concerned re ‘sustainable logging’ are interesting. I was under the impression that NZ’s native forests do not respond to the sustainability theory. The Forest Service tried that on the West Coast years ago with no success.
     • Foreign waka 5.2.1

       30 April 2017 at 12:36 pm

       Thank you, I stand corrected.
     • Draco T Bastard 5.2.2

       30 April 2017 at 5:41 pm

       I was under the impression that NZ’s native forests do not respond to the sustainability theory.

       I’m pretty sure that NZs native forests under natural conditions are, as a matter of fact, sustainable.

       So, which particular ‘sustainability theory’ doesn’t work within those natural confines?

       The Forest Service tried that on the West Coast years ago with no success.

       [citation needed]
     • mauī 5.2.3

       30 April 2017 at 10:58 pm

       From the foresters point of view they’re going to be wanting to take out the biggest trees. More bang for their buck that way as they’re doing it by helicopter. They say they will only take out the trees that are on their last legs, but why would they gamble on taking out a large tree that had half rotted out. Doesn’t make economic sense. So lets say they remove all the 400 – 600 year old trees present and leave the next gen which might be a hundred years old. Basically they’ve altered that forest for 500 years.
   • beatie 5.3

     30 April 2017 at 10:13 pm

     http://www.greydc.govt.nz/our-council/consultation/Pages/sustainable-forestry.aspx?reference=GDC-QF-170430-835YD-15ZS

     Well the council have extended the time to send submissions, so please do. I suspect the Mayor of Greymouth is trying to pressure DOC into a land swap. I live here and I can assure you that the areas are indeed pristine and no, not all the locals are in support. Please add your support against this obscene proposal.
6. joe90 6

   30 April 2017 at 10:42 am

   Cassini’s swan song.

   https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2017-126

   https://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/system/resources/detail_files/7565_MAIN_PIA21052.jpg

   https://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/system/resources/detail_files/7545_PIA20502_full.jpg
   • ianmac 6.1

     30 April 2017 at 11:44 am

     Though it is strange that we know more about the planets than we do about our oceans.
     • Incognito 6.1.1

       30 April 2017 at 5:49 pm

       Not quite; we now have photos and some spectral measurements but that’s about it AFAIK. In other words, we think we know more about the planets than we actually do, which can be said just about everything we think we know (about).

       The beauty, literally, of the planets is that they are still (largely) unspoiled by humans. We are already polluting the space surrounding Earth http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11843004

       If I were a technologically-advanced alien race I would serve humankind a trespass notice as soon as we land on Mars.
7. Sanctuary 7

   30 April 2017 at 12:07 pm

   [deleted]

   [feel free to try again, but you need to provide a link to support the quote, I’d suggest dropping the misogyny (read the Policy re exclusive language). I’d also suggest not using expressions of violence towards women who are speaking out about violence against women. All 3 of those things are likely to attract further moderator attention and a ban – weka]
   • Antoine 7.1

     30 April 2017 at 12:14 pm

     DId she say that? Where?

     Is it a follow on from this business – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11289979 ?

     (And do we really need the strangling talk?)

     A.
     • weka 7.1.1

       30 April 2017 at 12:32 pm

       that article is from 2014.
       • Antoine 7.1.1.1

         30 April 2017 at 12:38 pm

         Maybe you would delete my reply to Sanc as well, it seems unneeded now? (Please)
     • Psycho Milt 7.1.2

       30 April 2017 at 12:47 pm

       I don’t believe what Labour is proposing re rape cases is as big a change as its opponents make it out to be. Could any lawyer reading this explain the difference between claiming consent as a defence against a rape charge under Labour’s proposals, and claiming self-defence as a defence against a murder charge under existing law?

       Because they look similar to me. If you’re charged with murder and claim it was self defence, the court expects you/your lawyer to describe how you came to believe you were under threat, what the deceased did to prompt that belief and what actions you took in response. And if your case for self defence lacks credibility, it’s unlikely the jury will find for it. That’s fully compatible with being innocent until proven guilty.

       Likewise, if you claim consent as a defence against a rape charge, it should be up to you to describe the basis for your belief there was consent and why that belief wasn’t shaken by anything the victim did/didn’t do. And it should be up to the jury to decide how credible your account is.

       How are those situations any different?
       • Antoine 7.1.2.1

         30 April 2017 at 12:54 pm

         I’m not sure that they’re proposing anything. My link above dates back to 2014 (as weka points out) and I don’t think describes current Labour policy.

         Anyway, you asked for a lawyer’s view and I’m not a lawyer, but I think the key point is the level of evidential support needed would change markedly. If the jury was in doubt about consent, the finding would become ‘guilty’ rather than ‘not guilty’ as at present. Is the idea.

         A.
         • weka 7.1.2.1.1

           30 April 2017 at 12:58 pm

           It’s current afaik, just not in the skewed way that Sanctuary presented it.
           • Antoine 7.1.2.1.1.1

             30 April 2017 at 1:02 pm

             Ah, I found what Sanc was talking about.

             http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/91913865/Police-are-telling-rape-victims-their-hands-are-tied-if-the-accused-denies-it

             ——

             Labour is promising a radical overhaul of the way the justice system deals with sexual assault and rape cases if it wins the election.

             Associate justice spokesperson for sexual and domestic violence Poto Williams said only 13 per cent of the sexual assault cases reported to police ended in a conviction and something needed to be done to address the “power imbalance”.

             Labour would change the system so that a victim was believed as a starting point, and that an accused would have to prove consent – an idea rejected by National.

             “That might cause some people difficulty but we have to do something about increasing the prosecution rates. There’s no doubt sexual assault is a problem in our country,” Williams said.

             ——

             A.
             • Antoine …

               30 April 2017 at 1:10 pm

               (To be honest I’m not a fan of this proposal myself)
               • Psycho Milt …

                 30 April 2017 at 1:26 pm

                 Shouldn’t the person making a claim have to present some evidential basis for that claim? The person claiming rape does, so why shouldn’t the person claiming consent? If the Police are refusing to prosecute because rapists can claim it was consensual without having to back up that claim, it’s a problem that needs something doing about it.
                 • Antoine …

                   30 April 2017 at 1:54 pm

                   > Shouldn’t the person making a claim have to present some evidential basis for that claim?

                   Indeed, but then what happens if the evidence is inconclusive.

                   A.
                   • weka …

                     30 April 2017 at 1:56 pm

                     That’s what the trial, judge and jury are for.

                     “If the Police are refusing to prosecute because rapists can claim it was consensual without having to back up that claim, it’s a problem that needs something doing about it.”

                     I agree, and I also think that the Police are being negligent under the current law.
                 • RightWingAndProud …

                   30 April 2017 at 2:20 pm

                   The accused in any case can raise a reasonable doubt. The keyword here is reasonable. It isn’t enough to just say “the victim consented.” A jury would take into consideration the credibility of the witnesses. I’d also imagine it’d only be an issue with “date” rapes where the victim knows the accused.

                   Labour’s proposal would have meant that the accused would be required to prove consent to the same standard as in a civil proceeding. It would mean more rapists going to jail but would increase the risk of someone being wrongly convicted.
                   • weka …

                     30 April 2017 at 3:34 pm

                     Assuming that is true, given the huge injustice that currently exists for women, I’m ok with that.
                   • Antoine …

                     30 April 2017 at 11:39 pm

                     > Labour’s proposal would have meant that the accused would be required to prove consent to the same standard as in a civil proceeding.

                     I’m not sure this is correct. Rather, wouldn’t they have to prove consent beyond reasonable doubt?

                     If that’s correct, I think it would be a hard bar to clear in many cases.

                     A.
                   • Psycho Milt …

                     1 May 2017 at 6:46 am

                     Rather, wouldn’t they have to prove consent beyond reasonable doubt?

                     If true, yes that would make it a very silly policy. Haven’t seen any Labour MP suggest it, though.
           • Sanctuary 7.1.2.1.1.2

             30 April 2017 at 1:42 pm

             I can see the mental well that Poto Williams draws from right here.

             [take 2 weeks off, and add self-martyrdom and having a go at a moderator to the bits I mentioned above. Expect any subsequent bans to increase in length – weka]
       • RedLogix 7.1.2.2

         30 April 2017 at 11:54 pm

         Could any lawyer reading this explain the difference between claiming consent as a defence against a rape charge under Labour’s proposals, and claiming self-defence as a defence against a murder charge under existing law?

         They are fundamentally different for a very practical reason. Homicide is a relatively rare act and almost never consented to by the victim. Almost equally rare is killing by reason of self-defense. If you are going to claim consent or self-defense as justification for homicide a Court is going to demand corroborating evidence for such an extraordinary claim.

         By utter contrast sexual relations between adults is exceedingly common and almost always consented to. And where consent is contested it can be subject to complex shades of misunderstanding, manipulation, duress, or abuse by both accused and accuser.

         And juries are perfectly aware of this.
         • Psycho Milt 7.1.2.2.1

           1 May 2017 at 6:44 am

           I’m pretty sure that being falsely accused of rape is also a rare event.
           • Pete George 7.1.2.2.1.1

             1 May 2017 at 7:58 am

             Rare relative to the number of legitimate complaints, but how uncommon? Statistics are difficult to find and are contentious.

             But it happens: Man falsely accused of rape jailed for 10 months
             – http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/91020510/Man-falsely-accused-of-rape-jailed-for-10-months

             Dated but this lists 11 documented false allegations in 2000:
             – https://www.peterellis.org.nz/FalseAllegations/cases.htm

             Also false accusations by the police are a problem:
             David Dougherty, wrongly convicted of rape and abduction, dies after long illness
             – http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/92036244/man-who-was-wrongly-convicted-of-rape-and-abduction-dies-after-long-illness

             Given the high number of reported sexual assaults this suggests false complaints are not rare:

             Between 1997 and 2008, the number of validated sexual attacks was relatively stable, averaging over 2,200 a year. However, it was estimated in the early 2000s that only about 10% of sexual assaults were reported to the police.

             A review of 1,955 sexual violation offences involving adults reported to the police between 1 July 2005 and 31 December 2007 concluded that 31% of all reported complaints led to prosecutions and 42% of these prosecutions resulted in a conviction.

             Thirty-four percent of the 1,955 complaints were classified as ‘no offence’ and of these, almost a quarter were defined as ‘false complaints’.

             http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/violent-crime/page-9

             That suggests over 600 ‘no offence’ complaints and about 150 ‘false complaints’ over two and a half years, more than 50 per year. These are significant numbers.
8. North 8

   30 April 2017 at 1:35 pm

   Trump in his Pennsylvania (reminiscent of another) rally…….live right now…….triumphally claiming that there’s no president for the last 103 years who’s filled a Supreme Court vacancy in 100 days. Well how tremendous !

   Chronology I’ve read (for which despite best efforts can’t find the link, meant to be from ‘Congressional Research Service’)……..identifies a number of more recent instances of ‘nomination-to-confirmation’ in less than 100 days –

   99 days — Clarence Thomas (H.W. Bush), confirmed 52-48, Oct. 15, 1991 (11 public hearings, first was 64 days after nomination)

   89 days — William H. Rehnquist (Reagan), confirmed to be chief justice 65-33, Sept. 17, 1986 (4 public hearings, first was 39 days after nomination)

   87 days — Elena Kagan (Obama), confirmed 63-37, Aug. 5, 2010 (4 public hearings, first was 49 days after nomination)

   85 days — Antonin Scalia (Reagan), confirmed 98-0, Sept. 17, 1986 (2 public hearings, first was 42 days after nomination)

   82 days — Samuel Alito (W. Bush), confirmed 58-42, Jan. 31, 2006 (5 public hearings, first was 60 days after nomination)

   79 days — Melville W. Fuller (Cleveland), confirmed 41-20, July 20, 1888 (no recorded hearings)

   78 days — Thurgood Marshall (Johnson), confirmed 69-11, Aug. 3, 1967 (5 public hearings)

   So where does the insecure braggard’s 103 years crap come from ? Possibly this – 125 days — Louis D. Brandeis (Wilson), confirmed 47-22, June 1, 1916 (19 public hearings, first was 12 days after nomination)

   So…….more patently false superlatives and bullshit, what ?
   • joe90 8.1

     30 April 2017 at 3:41 pm

     100 days in 100 seconds.

     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcebfCNomqo
     • Incognito 8.1.1

       30 April 2017 at 5:51 pm

       I can’t hold my breath for that long 😉
9. amirite 9

   30 April 2017 at 6:31 pm

   Turns out the cops were hiding vital video evidence about the Pike Mine reentry since 2011 and Bill English is still repeating his mantra that the reentry is unsafe.
   They’ve been lying to Pike Mine families and all NZers all these years.

   http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2017/04/video-inside-the-pike-river-mine-what-police-never-showed-the-families.html

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS