tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post3386021919838656651..comments2024-03-29T14:26:19.827+13:00Comments on Bowalley Road: Losing Something PreciousChris Trotterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09081613281183460899noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-62624576330073956282009-10-13T13:18:14.477+13:002009-10-13T13:18:14.477+13:00Chris is very eager to speak of the "rights&q...Chris is very eager to speak of the "rights" of the criminals, and the "rights" of the beneficiaries.<br /><br />While speaking of the "responsibilities" of decent, law-abiding, tax-paying Kiwis.<br /><br />It's a song we've heard before, regularly, during those nine long cold years under the Pol Clark regime.<br /><br />Conversely, We never hear about the "rights" of the decent to be safe from crime and to enjoy the fruits of their labours. We never hear about the "responsibilities" of the beneficiaries and the criminals to live productive, law-abiding lives.<br /><br />The fact is, <b>most</b> of New Zealand's ills are entirely attributable to the depradations of the Labour electorate. They're the burden that has dragged the rest of us down to the bottom of the OECD and topped us out in worldwide negative social statistics.<br /><br />And decent Kiwis have had enough. We've had enough of throwing welfare at the indolent and tolerance for crime. We've had enough of crippling taxation to pay for the lifestyle choices of those who commit crime with impunity and those who simply. will. not. work.<br /><br />It's well-past time to get tough. We need policies that diminish the size of the Labour electorate and disabuses them of the notion that they can parasite off the rest of us.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-5247091564278657742009-10-11T22:37:52.130+13:002009-10-11T22:37:52.130+13:00Yes, there's a problem with the way some of my...Yes, there's a problem with the way some of my readers are receiving this blog. <br /><br />Rest assured, the format chosen is actually very easy to read: black font on a pale yellow background. Sadly, that's not the way many of you are receiving it. <br /><br />I'm at a loss to know how to fix it.<br /><br />If you know of any explanation/remedy, Paul, I'd be very glad to hear it.Chris Trotterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09081613281183460899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-62648439719197217992009-10-11T19:03:56.756+13:002009-10-11T19:03:56.756+13:00some of your precious comments are being lost Chri...some of your precious comments are being lost Chris, <br />your web blog site has a ghastly 1971 wallpaper background, and you have to guess the best way to remove it, <br />its like the Q+A TV program with Paul Holmes, the back ground completely domnates attention, leaving his lack of and your brilliance unadmired,<br />peterquixotepaul scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15675247055484136242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-75822228979329038852009-10-11T12:25:53.397+13:002009-10-11T12:25:53.397+13:00The weakening of the right against double jeopardy...The weakening of the right against double jeopardy was/is a concern. And any change to the criminal standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt would be a concern, as would any change to the right to a jury trial but I'm not sure the right to have a conviction rendered by a unanimous body is a right at all, and certainly not an ancient one.<br /><br />Now, I opposed the introduction majority verdicts, but putting them in in the same category as the other rights you list doesn't really accord with history. South Australia has had majority (1 dissenter allowed) verdits since the 1920s; Scotland has always had juries of 15, with 8 needed to convict (if a couple of jurors leave through illness etc., it remains 8 - less than 8 in favour of guilty is an acquittal).<br /><br />Jury trials are supremely important. Unanimous juries are good, but not nearly as important.Graeme Edgelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03928755583921638414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-1582682719757264312009-10-09T20:02:55.059+13:002009-10-09T20:02:55.059+13:00Your article comes at an interesting time, Chris.
...Your article comes at an interesting time, Chris.<br /><br />I saw a clip of our 'Great and glorious' Prime Minister John Key when talking about his crackdown on P dealers. I hope I wasant the only one who thought they were listening to George W Bush circa 2001-02.<br /><br />And these measures (and more), to 'get tough on crime' are looking more and more like the measures that the Bush administration were using to 'fight terrorism' - the systematic curtailment of our civil liberties.<br /><br />Those who trade freedom for security.....<br /><br />MillsyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-17164008393734383882009-10-09T16:20:32.742+13:002009-10-09T16:20:32.742+13:00I have just made another discovery re the darkened...I have just made another discovery re the darkened blog - if you click on the title, the article in question lights up. I am not sure the state really is a leader with regard to the obsession with transforming the way we view crime and punishment, and am inclined to think that well-funded ideologues may be the real force behind it. The idea seems to be that we should come to see everything on earth in terms of a transaction - that what is paid for harming someone reflects their inherent worth (so that if you do not bay for blood you count yourself as worthless), and it was noteworthy that the Sensible Sentencing suggested that a white business man should not be punished for stabbing to death a brown 15-year-old for writing graffiti on his garage. Let's begin with that referendum in which we were asked to say yes or no to a triple conjunction; one of the questions pertained to victims' rights, and this by itself would have gained many of the yes votes. However, I am sure that what most people had in mind when they voted was that due care and support be given to victims, not that victims should be consulted as to sentencing, parole, etc. There is a point of view that in the US private prisons represent an under-the-counter reversion to slavery, and that more concern about crime and higher sentences lead to more ready supplies of slaves. I am not sure why we are following this path here, apart from the possibility that we have come to think it is "the done thing."Olwynnoreply@blogger.com