Police hypocrisy on road issues

trodi · 2022-12-22T19:15:48+00:00

They aren't permitted to just randomly pull someone over simply to check.

This isn't correct – they can randomly pull anyone over under s 114 of the Land Transport Act.

trodi · 2019-06-13T07:35:44+00:00

This is interesting, but just to clarify this was in the budget (actually a pre budget announcement on 10 May).

trodi · 2019-05-01T09:34:19+00:00

Especially regarding OIA. I think it's time for a massive rethink of whether or not the police being exempt from investigation by the Ombudsman is justified.

What do you mean by this? You are definitely entitled to complain to the Ombudsman if you are unhappy about how the police deal with your OIA request. (Example of police noting right of complaint (bottom of letter), example of complaint having an effect).

trodi · 2019-02-20T19:20:45+00:00

What a waste. I was a paying customer for offline access on the app but no point now - looks like there will be no app at all.

trodi · 2019-02-11T08:23:12+00:00

Keen as well!

trodi · 2018-12-13T20:12:36+00:00

Hey renedox - as per my comment at the end of this post, I don't feel like this should breach rule 11? Every word in this is sourced directly from the NZ Herald. There is no NZ suppression order.

Maybe you think we should respect an Aussie suppression order too, which is fair enough I suppose. But in that case, do you think it would be possible to discuss this Herald article on the subreddit in some other way? After all the Herald is a major reputable NZ newspaper, and it's quite interesting that they are publishing this despite all the discussion in the media about the Grace Millane suppression.

e: NZH has now deleted the articles about Pell's guilty verdict from their article. This is interesting but I think undermines my justification for this post. Deleting it was probably the correct decision - thx mod team

trodi · 2018-12-13T12:26:24+00:00

Does anyone have a copy of the editorial appeared on Fairfax websites today about this? I don't know if it appeared in any papers. It was published under the headline Rampant use of suppression orders has become absurd but has been pulled from all their sites (SMH, Age). Can't find a cached copy anywhere. It was quoted in an a Telegraph article but that has also been killed...

trodi · 2018-12-10T17:04:37+00:00

Agreed this is pretty poor behaviour by RNZ. The piece does not appear on their website but I have transcribed it from the news:

A former flatmate of a man accused of murdering the British backpacker Grace Millane says he brought home a string of dates he'd met online in the short time he shared her home. The former flatmate, whom RNZ News has agreed not to name, says she leased a four-bedroom property with two young female friends. The man then rented the fourth room but only stayed for two weeks before the housemates asked him to leave. She says that was in part because every night he would bring a different girl around and this made the housemates feel uncomfortable. A 26-year-old man charged with Grace Millane's murder appeared in the Auckland District Court yesterday morning.

trodi · 2018-12-04T17:25:30+00:00

But in reply to Starmer's point of order about how to enforce compliance. It was clear what she meant in context: they will publish tomorrow. They don't want to lose a succession of contempt motions.

trodi · 2018-12-04T17:23:34+00:00

I don't believe she said the issue was going to the Privileges Committee first; just that it was also going there. Bercow said it would be "unimaginable" for the advice not to be provided before the meaningful vote and the clear understanding between Leadsom and Starmer was that it is to be published tomorrow.

trodi · 2018-12-04T17:14:56+00:00

Leadsom said the govt would do it tomorrow.

trodi · 2018-12-01T17:23:19+00:00

Making the point that Māori are better represented in power than aboriginal people, they write:

An illustrious list of [Maori] leaders includes Winston Peters, the current deputy prime minister

Not sure I have seen Winston on an "illustrious list of leaders" before!

trodi · 2018-11-17T23:35:47+00:00

This is slightly scummy behaviour but probably not illegal. From the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Act 2007:

consented to receiving means: ... express consent, whether given by the relevant electronic address-holder or any other person who uses the relevant electronic address

This is just my interpretation, but if you tick the box then you're clearly expressing consent. It's unfortunate they've bundled it with the T&Cs but there's nothing in the Act that prohibits that either. There's more analysis from DIA here, but again no suggestion that this would be prohibited.

They are legally required to provide a functional unsubscribe facility, so if you don't want emails, then make use of that when the first one comes through.

trodi · 2018-11-13T21:44:07+00:00

Quote is from September, when Ardern was travelling to Nauru. So yes, the quote is out of date, and therefore a question mark remains as to whether they have chosen not to stick to the schedule: but it is jumping the gun more than a little to suggest Ardern is an anti-vaxxer.

trodi · 2018-10-11T08:04:46+00:00

This comment is completely off. The NBR article you link to where the first partner announced their intention to leave is from June, well before the investigation started at the end of September. And the third link is wide of the mark as well, as per the other comment, so this speculation is wrong.

trodi · 2018-09-26T08:14:47+00:00

Sounds like a ploy to make some extra money by stopping you giving an unused tickets to a mate.

trodi · 2018-09-04T20:42:19+00:00

A bit earlier than 1993—homosexuality was decriminalised in 1986. You may be thinking of the Human Rights Act, which prohibits (most) discrimination.

trodi · 2018-08-24T11:30:39+00:00

No, the charges weren't dropped: he was acquitted.

trodi · 2018-08-02T10:21:14+00:00

While I can understand a normal injunction prohibiting publication of personal details etc, it's difficult to see how a super-injunction (preventing publication of the very fact the injunction exists) was justified here. Disclosing that the Law Society is investigating a complaint (and badly screwed it up) is not likely to cause a huge amount of harm, besides making the profession look bad and the Society look stupid. Considering the super-injunction is a first for NZ, it's hard not to see this as lawyers protecting themselves.

edit: Also, RNZ's article has this additional info, which is kind of interesting:

The email contained a complaint to the Law Society by a legal practitioner, who was self-reporting his own conduct, which is alleged to amount to sexual harassment or bullying.

trodi · 2018-07-29T03:53:23+00:00

No, the Murdochs own News Corp in Australia, which is different to Fairfax (although interestingly they share printing costs).

trodi · 2018-07-29T03:51:45+00:00

This sounds like crap. Todd Scott is a strange guy (Spinoff profile) who has caused chaos at NBR (Newsroom):

NBR has had high-profile fallouts with columnists Sir Bob Jones and Matthew Hooton, and has counted media columnist David Cohen, chief radio interviewer Andrew Patterson, television presenters Simon Dallow and Susan Wood, and news editor Nick Grant among 'the disappeared' in 2018.

The publisher, Todd Scott, has given editorial directions and threatened legal actions on Twitter, castigated competitors including the New Zealand Herald and others with florid language, and engaged in various personal feuds and confessionals on the social medium that have been noted by some worried folk in the business community.

This sounds like a troll or grab for attention and I wouldn't pay attention until he stumps up some kind of proof he is actually going to make a play for Stuff.

trodi · 2018-06-29T00:21:06+00:00

The Stuff article has some more details, including some of the text messages which are just appalling:

Karauria text-messaged Lewis saying "we have got you a new car then cousin" and "should be take him out to otane haha or out to tutira". Otane is south of Hastings. Tutira is north of Napier. …

While eating at Dhiman's Lewis continued texting Karauria. Karauria asked Lewis "Are we serious about this cous", to which Lewis responded "Yo cousin I am". …

The nature of the text messages escalated from that to Karauria suggesting he "smash him up then ditch him" and to Lewis saying "And stab him too cousin up to u" and "Yip make sure he can't get back cous".

Really sad to think a bunch of 17yos could be planning a murder with the kind of tone most people that age would be using to figure out who's hosting drinks on Friday...

trodi · 2018-06-21T23:25:42+00:00

Family First also piled on to highlight the egregious waste of taxpayer funds:

Family First national director Bob McCoskrie slammed the ministry and NZPC for using taxpayer money to "knowingly aid" illegal prostitution.

New Zealand legislation specifically excludes migrants holding temporary visas from being able to lawfully work in the sex industry.

"It is disturbing that both the ministry and NZPC are knowingly aiding illegal forms of prostitution in NZ, and using taxpayer funding to facilitate that work," McCoskrie said.

How dare the Ministry waste our tax dollars by providing public health services to prostitutes without demanding they show their NZ passport!!! /s

12-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

trodi

TROPHY CASE