The Prime Minister and the waitress

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › The Prime Minister and the waitress

1 | ... | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | ... | 25

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15468

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1290254 23-Apr-2015 15:59

nakedmolerat:
corksta: So the waitress calls out the NZ Herald for using dodgy tactics to get her story, the NZ Herald responds by saying it didn't happen that way. Who knows where the truth lies on that side issue, therefore how much credence can we place on the original story?

John Key didn't denied anything during his interview.

At this stage has to assume it's all true?

Umm I don't think that is a fair assessment of the facts. He may choose not to deny things he disagrees with because they aren't particularly prudent, or because he doesn't want to fan the flames.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1290277 23-Apr-2015 16:24

KiwiNZ:
Geektastic:
meesham:
Geektastic:
I'd best not tell you the story of the temp's bra that was removed and run up an office flag pole - it may cause a coronary amongst the weak constitution of today's youngsters.

It would be interesting to know if the temp looks back at that so fondly as you do, I'm glad that most people would now find it unacceptable at work.

We bet her ten quid she could not take off her bra in the middle of the office. She took the bet and when she proudly flourished the said article from the armhole of her shirt, one of us tossed it out of the window (4th floor) to a colleague down in the car park, who promptly ran it up the flagpole (government office).

Believe me, work was a whole lot more fun back then.

I worked behind the Beehive for a very long time, that would have been inappropriate the entire time I was there and would have resulted in disciplinary action. There are many ways to
make the work place fun, that is not one of them.

Yes I worked in Bowen House for a while. It was deathly dull with even wine at Xmas parties being frowned on.

This was back in the good old days in the early 90's and was a UK government department.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1290278 23-Apr-2015 16:27

Geektastic:
Yes I worked in Bowen House for a while. It was deathly dull with even wine at Xmas parties being frowned on.

This was back in the good old days in the early 90's and was a UK government department.

I worked in Bowen State, Charles Fergusson and Charles Fergusson Annex. Bowen State was great for water bombing Skate boarders.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1290279 23-Apr-2015 16:31

andrew027: Sexual harrassment?

From the Human Rights Act 1993:
62 Sexual harrassment
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person (in the course of that person's involvement in any of the areas to which this subsection is applied by subsection (3)) to make a request of any other person for sexual intercourse, sexual contact, or other form of sexual activity which contains an implied or overt promise of preferential treatment or an implied or overt threat of detrimental treatment.
(2) It shall be unlawful for any person (in the course of that person's involvement in any of the areas to which this subsection is applied by subsection (3)) by the use of language (whether written or spoken) of a sexual nature, or of visual material of a sexual nature, or by physical behaviour of a sexual nature, to subject any other person to behaviour that—
(a) is unwelcome or offensive to that person (whether or not that is conveyed to the first-mentioned person); and
(b) is either repeated, or of such a significant nature, that it has a detrimental effect on that person in respect of any of the areas to which this subsection is applied by subsection (3).

So Key's behaviour could contavene 62(2)(a) and (b) if McReady can prove Key has some kind of kinky ponytail fetish (which he may well have, given that I've seen video of at least two other incidents since yesterday) but I would think it would be difficult to prove it's "of a sexual nature".

A remarkable piece of drafting that suggests a person must be a mind reader as there is no requirement to actually tell them an act is offensive or unwelcome...!

It's hard to figure what 'detrimental effect' something like that could have in the middle of a crowded cafe - it's no worse than Italian waiters pinching girl's bottoms and that certainly happens.

Dratsab

3964 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1728

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1290280 23-Apr-2015 16:31

sidefx:
Dratsab: I read that and laughed.

Why?

For starters hostility requires intent. You can't be accidentally hostile. Where is the hostile intent in his actions? He did it in front of his wife a few times and jokingly tried to make out it was her. These aren't hostile actions, they're what he (very mistakenly) thought were playful.

I'd also be very interested to know what the justice sector precedent code for 'hostile touching' is. Maybe it's something that exists under tort - I've certainly never seen it, or even heard of it, under criminal law.

Disclaimer: I'm in no way trying to defend him or his actions, just pointing out the absurdities in some of the commentary around this bs juggernaut.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1290287 23-Apr-2015 16:44

Dratsab:
sidefx:
Dratsab: I read that and laughed.

Why?

For starters hostility requires intent. You can't be accidentally hostile. Where is the hostile intent in his actions? He did it in front of his wife a few times and jokingly tried to make out it was her. These aren't hostile actions, they're what he (very mistakenly) thought were playful.

I'd also be very interested to know what the justice sector precedent code for 'hostile touching' is. Maybe it's something that exists under tort - I've certainly never seen it, or even heard of it, under criminal law.

Disclaimer: I'm in no way trying to defend him or his actions, just pointing out the absurdities in some of the commentary around this bs juggernaut.

"assault means the act of intentionally applying or attempting to apply force to the person of another, directly or indirectly, or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another, if the person making the threat has, or causes the other to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she has, present ability to effect his or her purpose; and to assault has a corresponding meaning"

'Hostile' is not mentioned

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Dratsab

3964 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1728

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1290314 23-Apr-2015 17:50

KiwiNZ:

"assault means the act of intentionally applying or attempting to apply force to the person of another, directly or indirectly, or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another, if the person making the threat has, or causes the other to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she has, present ability to effect his or her purpose; and to assault has a corresponding meaning"

'Hostile' is not mentioned

I'm well aware of the definition of assault, it having formed a reasonable chunk of the bread and butter of my work over the last 15 years. This is why I posted the definition earlier in response to the Wikipedia definition, which has no bearing here, that you'd previously posted.

Your response now seems to be missing the point of some of what's been posted over the last few pages. Have you been reading the thread and following the links? Or are you just jumping in on the end and trolling for a bite?

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1290367 23-Apr-2015 19:26

Dratsab:
KiwiNZ:

"assault means the act of intentionally applying or attempting to apply force to the person of another, directly or indirectly, or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another, if the person making the threat has, or causes the other to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she has, present ability to effect his or her purpose; and to assault has a corresponding meaning"

'Hostile' is not mentioned

I'm well aware of the definition of assault, it having formed a reasonable chunk of the bread and butter of my work over the last 15 years. This is why I posted the definition earlier in response to the Wikipedia definition, which has no bearing here, that you'd previously posted.

Your response now seems to be missing the point of some of what's been posted over the last few pages. Have you been reading the thread and following the links? Or are you just jumping in on the end and trolling for a bite?

I you had been reading them thread you would see that I have been posting throughout from page one so can it with the name calling.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Dratsab

3964 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1728

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1290377 23-Apr-2015 19:57

I've read it in its entirety which is how I DO know what you've been posting and was able to subsequently refer back. It's called keeping up. If you're not able to do this, as your last few posts suggest, perhaps simply refrain from posting at all as all your doing is creating an off topic distraction instead of debating the actual subject at hand.

At the end of the day, if I hear quacking I'm gonna point out there's a duck in the room...

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15468

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1290378 23-Apr-2015 19:58

KiwiNZ:
Dratsab:
KiwiNZ:

"assault means the act of intentionally applying or attempting to apply force to the person of another, directly or indirectly, or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another, if the person making the threat has, or causes the other to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she has, present ability to effect his or her purpose; and to assault has a corresponding meaning"

'Hostile' is not mentioned

I'm well aware of the definition of assault, it having formed a reasonable chunk of the bread and butter of my work over the last 15 years. This is why I posted the definition earlier in response to the Wikipedia definition, which has no bearing here, that you'd previously posted.

Your response now seems to be missing the point of some of what's been posted over the last few pages. Have you been reading the thread and following the links? Or are you just jumping in on the end and trolling for a bite?

I you had been reading them thread you would see that I have been posting throughout from page one so can it with the name calling.

Posting in a thread doesn't automatically mean you have been reading or following the thread. I am not suggesting you haven't been, just that one doesn't necessarily infer the other occurred.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1290380 23-Apr-2015 20:02

Dratsab: I've read it in its entirety which is how I DO know what you've been posting and was able to subsequently refer back. It's called keeping up. If you're not able to do this, as your last few posts suggest, perhaps simply refrain from posting at all as all your doing is creating an off topic distraction instead of debating the actual subject at hand.

At the end of the day, if I hear quacking I'm gonna point out there's a duck in the room...

So because I happen to disagree with your opinion with regards to assault and stated that with out insulting inferences you chose to respond twice with insulting inferences, you may wish to read again the FUG

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15468

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1290385 23-Apr-2015 20:10

KiwiNZ:
Dratsab: I've read it in its entirety which is how I DO know what you've been posting and was able to subsequently refer back. It's called keeping up. If you're not able to do this, as your last few posts suggest, perhaps simply refrain from posting at all as all your doing is creating an off topic distraction instead of debating the actual subject at hand.

At the end of the day, if I hear quacking I'm gonna point out there's a duck in the room...

So because I happen to disagree with your opinion with regards to assault and stated that with out insulting inferences you chose to respond twice with insulting inferences, you may wish to read again the FUG

Unless I am mistaken you have used a Wikipedia definition and Dratsab is quoting from the NZ Law which relates to it, so it's not so much opinion as you disagree with the NZ law?

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1290386 23-Apr-2015 20:13

networkn:
KiwiNZ:
Dratsab: I've read it in its entirety which is how I DO know what you've been posting and was able to subsequently refer back. It's called keeping up. If you're not able to do this, as your last few posts suggest, perhaps simply refrain from posting at all as all your doing is creating an off topic distraction instead of debating the actual subject at hand.

At the end of the day, if I hear quacking I'm gonna point out there's a duck in the room...

So because I happen to disagree with your opinion with regards to assault and stated that with out insulting inferences you chose to respond twice with insulting inferences, you may wish to read again the FUG

Unless I am mistaken you have used a Wikipedia definition and Dratsab is quoting from the NZ Law which relates to it, so it's not so much opinion as you disagree with the NZ law?

No, mine is a quote from the definitions detailed in Section 2 of the Crimes act 1961

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

sidefx

3775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1295

Trusted

#1290389 23-Apr-2015 20:18

Since we're arguing semantics (not sure why, but oh well) can someone tell me how pulling hair doesn't constitute "intentionally applying [...]force to the person of another"

Genuinely interested, especially since we seem to have so many knowledgeable people in the area of law in the thread.

"I was born not knowing and have had only a little time to change that here and there." | Octopus Energy | Sharesies
- Richard Feynman

DaveB

1139 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 456
Inactive user

#1290390 23-Apr-2015 20:25

Quote of the day - which I am sure was about an interview this morning with Marilyn Waring re "Ponygate". Not sure who made the quote, but boy, I can just close my eyes and visualize this one:-

"Was driving to work listening to Waring on the car radio and could SEE the virtriol just OOZING out of the car speakers". Perhaps she was Amanda's scriptwriter?

1 | ... | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | ... | 25