|
Are you a This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| homeowner |
|
39 | 22.41% |
| renter |
|
69 | 39.66% |
| stupid peace of poo poo |
|
66 | 37.93% |
| Total: | 174 votes | ||
|
Should pharmacists be free to refuse to supply the morning-after pill to women based on their personal assessment of the morality of it? 
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:10 |
|
|
No. emot-closedcan.gif
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
hey guyz what if there was this mine crat that was going to kill 3 people but you could stop it by pushing one person in fron tof it wud u do it???
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
fong posted:hey guyz what if there was this mine crat that was going to kill 3 people but you could stop it by pushing one person in fron tof it wud u do it??? Stop playing Minecraft. Next caller please.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
Has anybody else noticed that every time John Key does something dodgy, he immediately does something very public and silly and the media charge all over it. "Knew that one of his ministers was beating his wife, said nothing. Is taking us to war in Iraq" seem like a bigger issues than "made a cock joke" but you just know which one is getting more airtime.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
SurreptitiousMuffin posted:Has anybody else noticed that every time John Key does something dodgy, he immediately does something very public and silly and the media charge all over it. it's almost as if they know he can easily make a phonecall if anyone shittalks him and look at all their phonecalls and texts and records "accidentally" release them via his attack dog!
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
I'm not even going to give them that much credit. Critical analysis of politics doesn't sell. It's the market, stupid.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:Should pharmacists be free to refuse to supply the morning-after pill to women based on their personal assessment of the morality of it? No, but they can act as judgemental as gently caress while supplying it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
Binkenstein posted:No, but they can act as judgemental as gently caress while supplying it. So the army guys off killing Arabs need to say "I'm not racist but ... " While doing it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 03:06
|
|
|
I'M HERE AGAINST MY MORAL WISHES *rips off a stream of .50 cal*
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:I'M HERE AGAINST MY MORAL WISHES *rips off a stream of .50 cal* Keep going I'm almost there
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
SurreptitiousMuffin posted:
If you're gunna throw allusions around at least try not to muddy the waters by spouting patent untruths - to wit, head of committee, not a minister; and the charges seem to be a hell of a lot more serious than assaulting a spouse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 04:41
|
|
|
It wasn't his wife, I read somewhere that he'd tried to downplay what happened to her
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 05:04
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:Should pharmacists be free to refuse to supply the morning-after pill to women based on their personal assessment of the morality of it? They can refuse if they feel they should, and they will have to possibly face consequences - perhaps they will loose a licence or perhaps they could face fines. I certainly think that refusing medication that a human has a right to is wrong, and I don't think they have - or should have - legal right to deny anyone any medication they want (unless they need but don't have a prescription). But soldiers do have an obligation (morally, if not legally) to refuse immoral orders, and we hold them to that, and I happen to think the order to board a plane bound for Iraq in the current climate to be immoral, and I'd like to encourage soldiers to see it my way if they don't already and strike I guess....
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 07:02
|
|
|
Reminder that "I was just following orders" is kind of a thing you don't get to say as a soldier anymore!
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 07:39
|
|
|
Being a bit of a fluffy lefty here, but if a soldier has the moral fortitude to say "this war is immoral and I want no part of it" we definitely want them over there to keep the psychos in line. If the only people left serving in the army are the crazy "burn the towelheads" assholes then it's going to get even nastier, even faster. Imagine internet echo chambers if everybody had an assault rifle and even more pent-up sexual frustration. I don't think those guys make up a majority of our armed forces, but I've personally met enough of them to know they exist. To be fair, one of them dropped out of RNZAF Basic training when he discovered he wasn't going to be allowed to drop firebombs and another got discharged for BEING TOO REAL (his words) so I think our armed forces are decent at spotting these guys and chucking them out on their asses. They're not exactly hard to miss. sidenote: can you tell my hometown has an airforce base and a P problem? SurreptitiousMuffin fucked around with this message at 07:58 on Feb 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 07:55
|
|
|
SurreptitiousMuffin posted:Being a bit of a fluffy lefty here, but if a soldier has the moral fortitude to say "this war is immoral and I want no part of it" we definitely want them over there to keep the psychos in line. If the only people left serving in the army are the crazy "burn the towelheads" assholes then it's going to get even nastier, even faster. Imagine internet echo chambers if everybody had an assault rifle and even more pent-up sexual frustration. I don't think those guys make up a majority of our armed forces, but I've personally met enough of them to know they exist. Something that also works in our favour is that our recruitment ads for our armed forces tend to be puzzles about radio towers and protecting our coastlines from illegal fishing instead of defending a mythical Uncle Sam from towelheads and 'ARE FREEDOM' so it probably results in less shitheads in the first place. The other is that those types of people are usually blowhards and hang out with Kyle Chapman, actually going through training and testing isn't something they would do when you can sit at home and bitch about "chinks buying our land" from the comfort of a sofa in someone's garage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 08:14
|
|
|
ughhh this irradiation story on campbell live
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 07:03
|
|
|
John Key hung out with a pretty rad guy today: https://twitter.com/johnkeypm/status/568152729714954240 No, hold on - the opposite. John Key hung out with a man who enjoys torture: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=7402099
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
There was a big announcement this afternoon on compensation for David Bain... And they have decided to commission another report on the matter. It is almost as if they are trying as hard as possible to avoid making the call and hoping to put it off until there is a change of government.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
Judith Collins was as incompetent as she was vicious huh
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
Name suppression for the "Prominent New Zealander" was lifted, but he gets a month to appear. Meanwhile, we get to find out the charges. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11404727 quote:He is facing 12 charges of indecent assault against two people including two representative charges. We all know who he is though, right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
Varkk posted:There was a big announcement this afternoon on compensation for David Bain... Apparently he has to 'prove his innocence'. There is something incredibly worrying about that sentence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
well, he wasn't proven guilty, so he was let off doesn't mean he was proven innocent....
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
He never needed to prove his innocence, they needed to prove his guilt and couldn't do so. They got an innocent man into jail because someone needed to take the fall for a high-profile case. And the public believed it, because he has a mental illness. Makes you wish you could butcher the panel and string their leathery carcasses outside the high court building.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 05:45
|
|
|
The issue is that whether or not he actually did the thing as opposed to failed to be proved he did the thing is completely irrelevant. He was legally exonerated and therefore was jailed wrongfully. All of the necessary facts on his side are already in the government's own records.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 05:53
|
|
|
The non-guilty verdict is what freed him, he needs to prove innocence in order to get the compensation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
Exclamation Marx posted:The non-guilty verdict is what freed him, he needs to prove innocence in order to get the compensation. That's retarded.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 05:56
|
|
|
in a way, he has to prove that he was wrongfully imprisoned, which you could take to mean that he must prove he didn't do it
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
bobbilljim posted:in a way, he has to prove that he was wrongfully imprisoned, which you could take to mean that he must prove he didn't do it Seems like it's this more than anything else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
That's exactly what it is. When you're charged, the prosecution needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt you did it. To get a retrial, you need new evidence that significantly changes the situation, or demonstrate some impropriety in the process. In order to be acquitted, you need to prove (at the retrial) that there was reasonable doubt to prevent reconviction- not prove that you are innocent. It doesn't mean you didn't do it; just that they lack sufficient evidence to convict you. To get compo, you basically need to show that you're innocent beyond reasonable doubt, which is a whole different animal from the default position of assumed innocence. Yeah it's kinda lovely, but it's one of those things that would cause a lot of problems if a mere 'not guilty' was sufficient. e: also, broad strokes, IANAL but I work with the shits etc Big Bad Beetleborg fucked around with this message at 07:31 on Feb 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 07:25
|
|
|
By the same token I don't think that system was ever designed to deal with the possibility that cases might be raked over for ten to fifteen years and be so hotly disputed, or for someone to spend that entire time in prison while it was fought out. E: Oh ffs, Ngati Whatua have an ad in the Eastern Bays Courier saying that Okahu Bay is going to be closed this Saturday for a 'Private Family Event'. This going to turn into a racist shitstorm isn't it. (there's no question mark there because we all know what the answer is) Butt Wizard fucked around with this message at 10:43 on Feb 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 07:40
|
|
|
mirthdefect posted:That's exactly what it is. Almost. For compensation, Bain needs to prove his innocence on the balance of probabilities - meaning he has to prove it was more likely than not that he is innocent. This is harder than showing there is reasonable doubt he is guilty (as he did during the retrial), but he doesn't have to prove beyond reasonable doubt he is innocent - just that it is more likely that he didn't do it. However he also needs to convince Cabinet that there are extraordinary circumstances justifying the payout. (I am a lawyer, but no involvement with this case)
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
Ahh right, I was unaware of the distinction between those concepts. I mostly interact with civil litigation, so some of the finer points of criminal stuff aren't as clear.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
mirthdefect posted:Ahh right, I was unaware of the distinction between those concepts. I mostly interact with civil litigation, so some of the finer points of criminal stuff aren't as clear. Yeah, it gets confusing. I think he'd probably be aiming to prove his innocence beyond reasonable doubt though, since that will make his case stronger. From what I've read on the facts of the murders though, that may be an impossible task, there's evidence pointing both ways. I think Cabinet should just make a decision - no report is ever going to come to an unarguable position.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
Meander posted:
They want to put it off until they can make someone else eat that particular poo poo sandwich.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Eminem v National put off for months
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
Meander posted:Yeah, it gets confusing. I think he'd probably be aiming to prove his innocence beyond reasonable doubt though, since that will make his case stronger. From what I've read on the facts of the murders though, that may be an impossible task, there's evidence pointing both ways. And speaking of "evidence both ways," I've wondered if people in the legal profession feel that his retrial a few years ago where he was found "not guilty" was, in fact, a fair trial? I remember feeling sceptical of the possibility at the time due to the amount of literature relating to the Bain case that had been published and the frequent coverage that it got from time to time, not to mention that pretty much everyone had a firm belief in his guilt or innocence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
Vagabundo posted:And speaking of "evidence both ways," I've wondered if people in the legal profession feel that his retrial a few years ago where he was found "not guilty" was, in fact, a fair trial? I remember feeling sceptical of the possibility at the time due to the amount of literature relating to the Bain case that had been published and the frequent coverage that it got from time to time, not to mention that pretty much everyone had a firm belief in his guilt or innocence. Yeah I think a lot of the profession felt the same as you. Of course, most of us also have a view on whether he did it or not too. I guess there was no alternative short of not having a retrial but it was not ideal. I think the second verdict was right in that there was reasonable doubt that Bain was guilty. I also think if Robin Bain was somehow on trial, there would be reasonable doubt he was guilty, even though one of the two did it. As to compensation though, different kettle of fish altogether.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:10 |
|
|
Meander posted:Yeah I think a lot of the profession felt the same as you. Of course, most of us also have a view on whether he did it or not too. I guess there was no alternative short of not having a retrial but it was not ideal. Someone told me that both trials gave the right verdict based on the evidence presented at them. The second trial the crown was not able to present all of the evidence they had due to issues of failing memories, some witnesses passed away and some supporting documentation and artifacts being lost.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 08:36
|
|