Written By:
- Date published:
6:00 am, September 3rd, 2025 - 82 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 …
Today's Posts (updated through the day):
Government to avoid proper scrutiny of plans to allow rich foreigners to buy mansions
A quick couple of questions for you:
Personally speaking , don’t need the alerting service at all.
Like. A quick alert at top of OM useful.
Not useful.
I like it and at the top is ticketty boo.
I look in both first and nearly-last thing each day, so don't need it myself. But others posting here obviously do, so that's fine.
The latest Roy Morgan poll makes good reading:
Lab 34.0 Gre 13.5 TPM 2.5=50.0
Nat 29.0 ACT 10.5 NZF 7.0=46.5
Any more polls with the Nats under 30% and Luxon is a gonner.
https://www.roymorgan.com/findings/10014-nz-national-voting-intention-august-2025
A few more polls like that and I'd start feeling happier. But the reality is that we still have this graph. Better, but we need more.
The most interesting thing is going to be if Act or NZF in their common tussle for the wingnut/groundswell votes manages to knock the other under 5% by election day. NZF being the most interesting as they don't hold any electorate seats.
Also how much of an overhang results from TPM retained seats.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_New_Zealand_general_election#Graphical_summary
Do you think that the Tamaki Makaurau by-election will be a signal of whether the TMP almost clean sweep of the Maori electorate seats will continue?
I know that by-elections traditionally punish the government – but that's not a factor here (I don't even know if there are any candidates standing from the parties in the coalition – and even if they were, there is zero chance that any would be elected)
I have no idea with the Tamaki Makaurau by-election.
By-elections are mostly determined by the people who don't vote. In this case it will probably be an even lower turnout in what is probably a low turnout electorate, it was 64.64% in the 2023 election with a 27,885 votes of which only 25,604 were valid electorate votes (party votes were higher).
It won't surprise me if well less than half that vote in a by-election with a pretty quiet media campaign (at least as far as I see).
Given that there were only 42 votes between the NZLP and TPM candidates last time, I think that only thing you could infer from the results is likely to be how well the party organisation can turn out people to vote.
By-elections often give results that don't follow through in general elections. I know that pundits often try to infer national trends from by-elections. But these are people who who are essentially short of work and material in off-election years. They'll say almost anything to get attention.
I tend to ignore by-elections unless there is a razor-thin government/opposition margin in parliament or they are in my or a neighbouring electorate. I’m not on the Maori roll…
There seems to be a lot of discussion regarding 4 year term. In theory, and for the sake of better governance I’m for it, but with a proviso.
There needs to be many more checks and balances in the way legislation is passed.
The problem I see is the fact that we are unicameral. An upper house, with teeth, could be a solution. In most small democracies, if they are bicameral, the upper house cannot override the HoR. Switzerland being the exception.
Could this be made to work here?
I would only vote for 4 year terms if there was "an upper house, with teeth".
Given the current govt's record of anti-democratic processes, there push for a 4 year term just seems to be heading to more unaccountable anti-democratic governance.
+100
I recall reading about a situation that arose in England in Lloyd George's time when the two houses found themselves at odds with one another. The king eventually stepped in and told the Lords to pass the the proposed legislation, which they duly did. Would the GG have the power to do so here if a similar situation arose. Otherwise, how would such a situation be resolved; would the proposed legislation just relapse, in which case it may sometimes be difficult to achieve anything.
Gemini tells me this. In Switzerland.
Here's a breakdown of the process:
A bill passes back and forth between the two chambers for debate and voting until both chambers agree.
If the chambers disagree, the bill is passed back, and committees from each chamber will debate the points of contention and propose new solutions.
If, after three rounds of debate and attempts at resolution, a consensus still can't be reached, a conciliation committee is formed.
If this committee cannot find a solution, the bill is ultimately rejected and does not become law.
It's happened twice in the UK, as a matter of fact. The first occasion was the Reform Bill of 1832, which finally got rid of the "rotten boroughs"and widened the franchise (though not by a tremendous amount – "incrementalism" was a thing even back then). When the Lords kept throwing it out, the king (William IV) agreed to create, if necessary, enough pro-reform peers to ensure its passage. In the event, enough peers withdrew their opposition – under advice from the arch-reactionary Duke of Wellington – to enable the Bill to become law, and the extra peerages weren't needed after all.
However, a precedent had now been set!
The second time was the one mikesh refers to, when a Bill to limit the powers of the Lords was passed by the Commons in 1911 but rejected (natch) by the Lords. The same threat was invoked to swamp the upper house with new pro-Bill creations. And so the Lords finally gave in, and their powers became limited to delay, and that for only a maximum period.
Which is what it should be. They can slow but not stop legislation. In effect they make it possible to cause reflection on the part of both houses but cannot ultimately impeded change, only delay it.
In English and our law, the same applies to the judiciary, enacted legislation, and badly thought through regulation. They can and do implement legislation, while rounding off the lousy ideas, unfairness, and inherent conflicts with commentary in judgements, sentencing and allowing repeated appeals. It happens pretty slowly but it is pretty through. Legislators have to think closely to avoid mistakes getting to judges. Otherwise they will be amending the same legislation repeatably.
Think of what happened to the 3 strikes legislation, and what will probably happen to its resurrection.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentencing_and_Parole_Reform_Act_2010
That was the nett result of stupid legislation. It caused excessive sentencing, was incredibly expensive in the way it warehoused prisoners, unfair in outcomes, caused a boom in prison populations and prison building, had no nett benefit to anyone apart from those who operated prisons, and was a perverse and perverted bit of populist stupidity from Act.
I don't care how many camels there are, the pollies can not be trusted to act in our interests. Torture in state care going on for decades being an obvious example.
Excessive use of urgency, having lobbyists in the highest echelons of power (1) and the 'revoling door' from cabinet to lobbying (Fafoi), private donations to political parties and non state funded elections.
This is not just them, both sides of the house do this although the current mob are particularly egregious.
(1) https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/lobbying/486382/prime-minister-s-chief-of-staff-andrew-kirton-led-lobbying-firm-that-fought-against-reforms-now-binned-by-chris-hipkins
Under team National-led govt we are back to an increase in people living in cars.
Chris Bishop says it's not because of his govt's policy on emergency housing, according to "official advice". Oh yeah? I'd love to see the "advice" he's referring to.
Meanwhile,
OMG the Cook Strait ferries; it's like deja vu all over again.
Govt close to deal with ship builder | Otago Daily Times Online News
Hopefully it labour breaks the champers on the bow and not that old bugger
Will it be signed before or after the 2-year anniversary of Nicky No Boats' brain fart?
The NAct1 CoC is 'government' by the sorted, for the sorted – they do not care.
In my head I hear Peters do exactly the same statements in 2019.
From The Conversation.
Neo-Nazis and racist rallies: why it’s important the Australian media call them for what they are
https://tinyurl.com/2h2ytrky
We have exactly the same issue here. The msm not calling out racism when it it’s obvious. One most recent example being Erica Stanford censoring children’s books.
Only she is not censoring books children’s books. It’s the books used to teach language, in this case the books are being used to teach children the english language
You are getting there, you've got part of the picture.
Stanford is actively seeking to erase Te Reo, under the guise that it's a bit hard for the kiddies.
What rot.
It's way too late for this 1950's dinosaur thinking. Te Reo is part of the local vernacular and used widely and often. Maybe not in Talk Hate circles however.
I’ve got neurodiverse children, one of them had great difficulty from a very early age learning to read (which is a very similar experience to myself).
From my experience, & from what I’ve understood from the specialist teacher. The best practice is to teach one language at a time during any given session. This allows the child to concentrate on learning one set of rules for (in this case) english. Likewise when the child is learning te reo, the books used will all be te reo, and the child will learn to rules for te reo. At a later stage words from multiple languages can be included.
My eldest daughter, was a bit slow learning to read at first, however she very quickly learned the rules, and is now well ahead of her peers.
This change will assist those children who for whatever reason, are slower at learning.
Do we make it easier again by removing words of a French origin? Latin? African?
Of course not.
That is not the intent of Stanford's measure.
If we are to teach 'English' in Aotearoa, Te Reo is part of that.
These books are specifically designed for teaching children to read, the term used these days is “decoding”, they are not reading or story books, they should be in one language only.
Young children, (especially those with autism, ADHD, dyslexia, etc) often find that trying to do too much, too soon, becomes overwhelming and the child stops trying to learn.
This has nothing to do with someone wanting to get rid of Maori language, as much as it helps one particular narrative to do so.
Are you open to the reverse argument. If we want to teach Te Reo in New Zealand, then English is part of that?
Firstly, it's not an argument, it's an observable fact that Te Reo is part of to English in Aotearoa.
I have no problem with the converse position. Te Reo is an alive language so it is inevitable that it will pick up words from other reo.
Early language Te Reo readers do not contain English words.
Why should early language English readers contain Te reo ones?
because we routinely use them when speaking English. Kiaora, whānau, kaupapa, Tāmaki Makarau, tangi…
Are you sure? Manei, turei, wenerei…
These are not English words. They are loan words which have been adopted into Te Reo from English – and altered. None of them are spelled, read or pronounced the same as the English origin (or current equivalent)
I've never seen a Te Reo reader which includes the English words for the days of the week. Nor would I expect to do so.
There is a difference between using spoken language – which is inevitably richer in vocabulary than the subset which is included in early language readers. These phonetic readers are deliberately simplified to remove spelling and pronunciation complexity, in order to give children the first tools to enable them to learn to decode written language.
None of the Te Reo Examples you've given would meet the decodable language test for inclusion in an early decodable readers – so why would they be included? Just as English words such as funeral, extended family, genealogy, and greetings – would also be excluded.
fair enough. I haven’t followed closely enough to have a sense of what should be happening, other than it’s hard to trust a racist government to make good decisions for ethnicity issues.
Belladonna, written Te Reo is much more phonetic than English, and the pronunciation is less confusing or contradictory. This is because English has been a written language for much longer than Te Reo.
Written English pronunciation rules have become much more complex because of the extensive exchanges with other written languages and dialects. The pronunciation of written English words change over time, while the spelling remains much more static.
Seen through a fuller context- Prioritising of English names of Public Services over Te Reo, abolishing of Te Aka Whai Ora, the 'English first' attitude to Aotearoa passports, the almost mon existent use of kia ora by any coalition MP, local government Maori wards referendum etc etc.
It's just another unveiled attack on Maori and Te Reo. Iced with a dumb excuse akin to removing Te Reo from a Matariki invitation to the Australian PM by Goldsmith.
https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/08/06/minister-removed-te-reo-greetings-from-official-matariki-invitation/
These books are doing nothing to alter the structure or grammar of English: it's only adding a few Maori words to the vocabulary. English has already imported words from various other languages, e.g. Latin, Greek, French, et cetera (etc is from Latin).
Perhaps a glossary of Maori words used should be included in the book.
It's not about a glossary or understanding common Te Reo words – it's about decoding. The 'ai' sound in 'kai' is very different to the 'ai' sound in 'rain' or 'gain'.
Decodable readers are very carefully crafted to build consistent reading practice. The authors deliberately don't introduce English variable spellings or pronunciations at this very early stage.
What? Those sounds are identical.
Say ‘rain’ or ‘gain’ without the n.
rai in English is pronounced ray. In te reo, kai rhymes with sky not kay
This anecdotal evidence might be accurate in the specific context of you but it’s a mistake to generalise it. If you do a Google search, you’ll find plenty of hits that suggest that bilingual education doesn’t harm the development of neurodivergent children and can even be beneficial to them.
Yes you are right, learning a second language is beneficial to neurodivergent children, or everyone I guess.
The books in question are specifically designed to teach children how to decode the written word, some children they may only need to use them for a few lessons before they move to books with New Zealand English and Te Reo language.
My 5 year old autistic brain would’ve shut down, if I simultaneously had learn how to decode the written words in more than one language. However if one lesson was in English, the next lesson in Te Reo, my brain would have separate “silos”, one for each language, then from some point, I could then bring both together and switch from one to the other without missing a step.
Sure it’s anecdotal evidence, and I suppose you are neurotypical, so this probably wouldn’t have hindered your initial learning. Those of us who are neurodivergent may have a different experience. My anecdotal experiences suggest that neurodivergent children diagnosed as early as possible, and they have the support and coaching from the earliest years to learn how to read, they should then go on to excel
In Aotearoa, a lot of Māori words are already incorporated into the English language. Haka, kai, a myriad of place names. What she was doing had nothing to do with the teaching of the English language. It had everything to do with repressing one of Aotearoa’s national languages.
Standford isn't as far as we know a neo-Nazi.
There are all sorts of problems with NACTFirst policies. And there is plenty being written about the ways in which those policies are racists. But I'm not sure how it would work. Are you saying that Stuff should call National racists? Because that would break some major societal conventions.
To my mind, MSM should be reporting, and political commenters should be doing the analysis.
I’m not calling Sanford a neo nazi. What I am saying is that her, and her government are racists. And by not being called out by our media, the media are complicit.
But you did use the Australian situation as a comparator without explanation. This is common and waters down the understanding of neo-nazism in the public mind.
If you think the MSM can call National racists, please explain how. As opposed to reporting on their racist policies so the public knows what is going on.
And if the MSM can call National racists, will it be ok to call Labour racist? or the Greens?
Getting a bit semantic here. If you exhibit racist behaviour, by, for example, censoring children’s books, does that make you a racist?
If a NZ citizen/resident tweets something that is illegal to tweet in NZ (eg they breach a name suppression order), but they are in Australia when they tweet, can they be prosecuted when they return to NZ?
I googled your post and AI says this
then goes onto the details of it.
cheers!
Yes. They can actions and bench warrants made against them in their absence. Probably sentenced to imprisonment for contempt of court. A name suppression order is a court order. Disobeying it is a contempt of court. It doesn’t require a trial if it is breached. Just a judge or judges to make a ruling and issue a warrant. There are constraints, but they are largely at the courts discretion. I also suspect that a bench warrant could be easily applied in Australia.
See Contempt of Court Act 2019, in particular S19(1)
16(4) is:-
what if it was a different kind of offence, but the situation was still someone in Australia breaking NZ law from there? trying to think of examples. Defamation. Or online harassment (I'm not clear on what the NZ law is on that).
Someone from the UK was arrested over some tweets when returning to the UK, and there's the idea that because he was in the US when he made the tweets, he can't be charged.
A UK citizen in breach of their law, on an international (viewable in the UK) social media.
Doesn't have to be a UK citizen. You can charge a citizen of another country and issue arrest warrants when the accusation of of causing victims in the UK.
Think DotCom, a citizen of New Zealand accused of crimes to US companies.
I think the point was that twitter is owned in the US, and the tweeter was in the US at the time. But as Lynn points out, the issue is about where the victim is.
Defamation is a civil matter. You can start a case in either NZ or Aussie and try to get a subpoena.
Online harassment can be a criminal matter if it is something covered by the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015. Or under other crimes acts if it is considered to be a threat. There are similar provisions in Australian Federal law (eg Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995), and state and territorial laws.
Potentially any of these could result in a warrant being requested by the police here or by the bench in the case of the HDCA. That could be used to request an extradition if it matches a law in Australia.
That is bullshit. Police or courts can charge anyone with a crime anywhere if the victim(s) are in their jurisdiction. Extradition would be the issue, and that largely depends on extradition treaties between nations and the match between laws in the respective states. Most states have some kind of laws about online offenses these days, so there is likely to be a a legal match.
Classic example in NZ of a criminal extradition is Kim DotCom extradition. Some offences that the US charged him with were not a extradition match most were. racketeering, conspiring to commit copyright infringement, and conspiring to commit money laundering. For instance the appeals on criminal copyright infringement were heavily argued.
that makes sense, that the primary issue is about where the victim is.
In this case extradition isn't needed because he returned to the UK (which most likely would have been known ahead of time, the police met him at the airport)
I don't know the case. I'm just going off general principles.
In matters of hate speech and free speech the UK and US law would be different.
Every nation has different laws about a lot of things.
US/UK do, but less than you'd think.
US is different because of the protected 'speech' of the first amendment. But remember that in itself derived from English common law freedoms of expression – the same as we did. Neither (nor our) legal system allows unfettered freedom of expression.
Both have legislation and legal decisions that limit freedoms of expression.
In the US that would be legislation like the Hate Crimes Prevention Act that definitely limit the constitutional 1st amendment rights. That built off previous state and some federal legislation, but also from supreme court decisions. There is a distinct legal bar at protected speech not including 'hate speech' that incites or is likely to incite lawless actions, like lynching or harm to another person, or incitement to suicide. The latter shows up strongly in state legislation along with other hate speech legislation.
In the UK, common law is constrained by legislation like the Public Order Act 1986, Crime and Disorder Act 1998, Malicious Communications Act 1998, Communications Act 2003, and Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Plus all of the crimes act incitement to self-harm provisions.
In practice, the legal effect is similar. Inciting people to do harm or unlawful actions or to cause others to self-harm is treated as being unlawful. While generally the right to express opinions outside of that is generally tolerated legally. They just use different legal courses to get to a similar position.
There are distinct differences between the two legal polities within the extradition treaty. But they tend to focus on legal outcomes like sentences of death or the penitentiary systems or what each side considers to be cruel and unusual punishments like the delays in the various justice systems.
Personally with the latter, I think that NZ should consider the piss-poor food of the US and UK prison diets when considering extraditions.
He encouraged violence towards others while in the USA, & it seems that is illegal in the UK. What a shame. I think the police were actually worried a bunch of women were going to get their crotches kicked because of his very stupid tweet.
Sorry can't copy + paste but Graham Linehan got arrested on suspicion of inciting violence. His tweet encouraged women to kick other women in the crotch in toilets if they suspected they were trans.
sigh. I was interested in the legal side of the arrest, but since you brought up the tweets, let's just go for some accuracy.
Glinner was encouraging women to kick trans-identified males in the crotch where they breach UK equality/human rights law. Explanation below, but this matters because the only reason for his tweet is the presence of males in female only spaces. Not other women.
Here are copies of the tweets in question (apparently) and description of what happened by the man arrested,
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/i-just-got-arrested-again
The main tweet,
https://x.com/Glinner/status/1913850667229184008
In the UK, female only spaces are for biological women. If you include biological males (whatever their gender identity), you can't call it a female-only space. Some places are required to provide single sex spaces eg work places.
This was clarified by the UK Supreme Court earlier in the year.
If you are male (of any gender identity) and you enter a female only space, you are breaching the UK legislation. On the other hand, if you are a woman and you assault a man in a female only space, you can expect to be prosecuted unless it is self defence or defence of another.
Glinner is a dick, and the tweet is inflammatory, dangerous, and stupid.
However it's hard to read the tweets and think that the police are concerned about women. As a reminder, this is what women were routinely subjected to for many years on twitter until UK feminist MPs pulled twitter into parliament to account for their policies,
https://terfisaslur.com/
Glinner claims his tweet was a joke, it probably was, but that's not the point.
The tweet probably does warrant a visit from police because of Glinner's number of followers, his high profile, and the volatile political climate in the UK atm (including the arrest and imprisonment of a woman for inciting violence against immigrants in a tweet), and not least because twitter has abandoned responsibility for reigning in the excesses of inflammatory posting on its platform.
But being arrested by five police officers at the airport is stupid af and disproportionate to the alleged offence.
My own take: we don't actually know what the story is. Every time one of these arrests happens, we get an incomplete story.
The UK is in a crisis over rising fascism via right wing populism, and the police just poured petrol on the fire. This from left wing gender critical feminist and anti-fascist Jane Clare Jones,
https://x.com/janeclarejones/status/1962924499168317787
It's also about state overreach, and it's hard to avoid the impression that the police are being granted powers to do this because the state is becoming more authoritarian. Lots of comments on twitter about the UK being a police state, which is overblown, but it's the direction of travel that should be worrying people.
for context, Lucy Connolly was imprisoned for tweeting during an anti-immgrant riot to set fire to hotels with asylum seekers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_Kingdom_riots#Lucy_Connolly
That is exactly the same underlying legal offence. Incitement to cause unlawful harm.
Weird case then.
If, it is illegal for the UK male born to be in such a place, it won't be defined as a hate speech offence.
It would be categorised as encouraging people to take the law into their own hands, so as to remove the person from where they should not be.
Maybe he should encourage women to put up posters in certain public places stating the law that now applies in the UK.
It is weird, and in a growing line of similar cases, but this one is more directly about something criminal I think.
I'm unclear on the charges – incitement to violence rather than hate speech? But maybe both.
Lucy Connolly was charged "with publishing material intending to stir up racial hatred, contrary to Section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986"
https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/woman-charged-publishing-material-intending-stir-racial-hatred
Afaik, the only way a woman can legitimately assault a man in that situation is for self defence. If it was a public toilet owned by a council for instance, the council have the right to remove a man, women don't (afaik). It would be different if the man was committing a more serious offence.
But Glinner is saying that any TW in a female-only space is a violent abuser and it's reasonable for women to attack him. Not only is he inciting violence against TW, he's putting women at risk of arrest.
Helen Lewis, who has written for years about the gender/sex issues, had this to say on twitter,
https://x.com/helenlewis/status/1963146814422683974
Glinner is stepping over a line. Lewis in her piece on his arrest talks about the complexity of the broader issues in the UK and Europe. It's a mess. The impression I'm left with is that society no longer knows how to manage freedom of expression alongside protecting society from the excesses of aggression and harrassment particularly where those are coalescing in movements as in the UK.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/09/graham-linehan-arrest-europe-free-speech/684081/?gift=SKtFP-7gCBnFn1bNJdqPMkBOp86MNNN_JHSBO6tI7Aw&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
I can see parallels with Linehan's comment, the motivation for it, the crowd he is up against and the capture of the authorities with Mike Joy's recent comment about CEOs.
Both clearly aren't to be taken literally, both have elicited pearl clutching, and both have exasperation as part of their motivation.
Thank goodness we don't have 'non crime hate incidents' as a weapon for authorities.
No it isn't. It was a warrant effectively for incitement to an unlawful act. Laws tend to be pretty simple about incitements to violence – it is unlawful regardless of how justified someone thinks it is. Neither individuals nor lynch mobs are judge, jury and executioners.
The charge is a slam dunk for a prosecution and conviction because effectively he made it to a large crowd. That has been the case all the way from common law to the present day.
While he could argue (and it sounds like that will be the arsehole's defence) it was a joke. That will only only matter for sentencing, not for conviction.
The logic of the common law (from which this basic principle about incitement arose.) is that there are always fools who will make such 'jokes' about normalising violence. They need to encouraged severely from doing so. There will always be them or others who think that it legitimises breaking laws for 'higher reasons' and usurping the rule of law.
That in itself will causes a escalation as the potential and actual victims, their families, and wider community groups to retaliate. They will rightly consider that the law, by not taking a hard stance, is condoning the behaviour. They will take defensive measures (like crotch kicking first) or arming themselves defensively or simply doing preemptive action (like arsoning toilets that they are excluded from). The police and courts enforce laws, they don’t need some obvious moron inciting people to do it badly.
Ultimately with an unchecked escalation you'd wind up with having civil unrest and the armed forces getting involved. And I'm not kidding about that either – civil wars are invariably started by the rule of law getting one-sided. Ask anyone who understands police, military, and judicial nightmares or has been involved in those for any length of time.
Same reason why there were "5 police" to pick up a stupid loud-mouthed fuckwit who is so clearly too ignorant to understand how the rule of law works.
People like that with the degree of self-entitlement and stupidity are classics for trying to avoid an arrest or any self-discipline. They will try to divide and rule arresting officers, try to wrangle up a sympathetic crowd, escape to find a lawyer of a hidey hole, and sometimes create a mob. The latter two are especially dangerous in crowded spaces where people are irritated and bored waiting for something.
Police should and usually will mob loudmouths in crowded spaces when they execute a warrant. It is the safest way for all concerned. It means that there a police to handle well-meaning fools who have no idea what is going on from trying to intervene.
Not to mention the '5 police' bullshit. About half of those police would have been airport police guiding the officers executing the warrant and making sure that there wasn't a problem in their area.
There is no law against that. There are a number about threatening or performing violence against others. Doesn't matter if you do it in another country by remote means, in a toilet, or even in a pub.
Also I suspect you'd find that others would just tear them down or make a nuisance of themselves declaiming the genitalia obsessed fuckwits who were inciting stupidity. There is a reason why areas like toilets are usually very limited on signage outside of basic utilitarian functionality. Who wants to read gormless propaganda while they are having a dump.
Not sure why you didn't lead with this? It's obvious you were talking about the Linehan arrest from the start but for some reason were reluctant to say so.
because I wanted informed opinions about how nation states deal with citizens breaking the law of their own country when overseas and the principles involved in that. Which is pretty much what I got by asking as a generalisation rather than focussing on Glinner. Focussing on Glinner would have been a distraction.
Depends on the specific legislation, but usually NZ legislation provides for offences with a description etc. of what constitutes the offence, and then application of the law which is commonly to acts (or omitted i.e. inaction can be a crime) in NZ. For acts outside NZ, the Crimes Act applies to acts/omissions outside NZ, committed (or omitted) by NZ citizens, or people ordinarily resident in NZ. The general application etc. in the Crimes Act is covered by sections 4-7:
It is rare for legislation to provide for criminal offences for actions taken outside NZ by people who aren't citizens and don't reside here except for crimes under international law e.g. war crimes.
I sat down for lunch and watched a little cycling, the La Vuelta taking place in Italy, France, Andorra and Spain.
A village they went through had flags and posters supporting Palestinians. Never seen any level of politics cutting through in broadcasts of this sport before.
'Stop Genocide' and 'Boycott Israel' written large across the road between villages as well.
An AI powered orgy of ethnic cleansing at $5,000 a head dressed up as a peace plan complete with bit-coin and a 38-page prospectus.
Uncle Joe would approve.
//
A postwar plan for Gaza circulating within the Trump administration, modeled on President Donald Trump’s vow to “take over” the enclave, would turn it into a trusteeship administered by the United States for at least 10 years while it is transformed into a gleaming tourism resort and high-tech manufacturing and technology hub.
The 38-page prospectus seen by The Washington Post envisions at least a temporary relocation of all of Gaza’s more than 2 million population, either through what it calls “voluntary” departures to another country or into restricted, secured zones inside the enclave during reconstruction.
Those who own land would be offered a digital token by the trust in exchange for rights to redevelop their property, to be used to finance a new life elsewhere or eventually redeemed for an apartment in one of six to eight new “AI-powered, smart cities” to be built in Gaza. Each Palestinian who chooses to leave would be given a $5,000 cash payment and subsidies to cover four years of rent elsewhere, as well as a year of food.
The plan estimates that every individual departure from Gaza would save the trust $23,000, compared with the cost of temporary housing and what it calls “life support” services in the secure zones for those who stay.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/08/31/trump-gaza-plan-riviera-relocation/
archivedotli
Obscene, or any similar word with stronger meaning.
Kay, hope todays disability decision is good. I am waiting for the assessments!!
Freedom with little money is still penury.
Shutting down power and changing UPS.
Up for 33 days. Must have been when I changed kernels.
Back up again. Has a fan being noisy on startup. I'll dig out a replacement for the next reboot. Or it could just be a drifting cable.