| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bruce Simpson
Site Admin
Joined: 02 Jan 2005
Posts: 6060
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:19 am Post subject: What a brilliant idea, oh - hang on, it's mine! |
 |
|
The bloody ACC -- they steal my idea and still won't treat my missus like a real human being!
What about this name-suppression situation?
Should someone's "prominence" be a factor in determining their eligability for suppression?
Surely, if someone of prominence chooses to break the law then they do so in the full knowledge and awareness of the effect of being prosecuted will have on their reputations.
If the courts have given this guy name suppression to protect his family, should they also extend the same protection to the family of the Maori labourer kiddy-porn collector's family?
What do you reckon would *really* happen in such a case? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Malcolm
Joined: 16 Mar 2009
Posts: 71
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The labourer wouldn't get name suppression because he wouldn't be able to afford the same lawyer as a 'prominent businessman' I feel that at the end of the day it comes down to how good a lawyer you can afford. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keewee01
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 123
Location: Ashburton, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Malcolm wrote: | | The labourer wouldn't get name suppression because he wouldn't be able to afford the same lawyer as a 'prominent businessman' I feel that at the end of the day it comes down to how good a lawyer you can afford. |
Which is a shame as that is not how the courts are meant to work... He can probably also afford a good accountant so that he only has to pay the minimum tax... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
digidog
Joined: 09 Sep 2005
Posts: 189
Location: Queenstown
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 10:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
The old boy network is alive and well in NZ.
Justice? It's who you know that counts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
k1500
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 947
Location: Wellington
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Heh - When I heard about it on the radio this morning my first thought was, "Didn't Bruce suggest that age's ago?".
Actually Bruce how long ago was it that you suggested that?
I know all about the ACC issues - my took a bad fall (which has f***** her back) and she didn't get anything, not a cent, out of ACC for it. Bunch of wan*ers if you ask me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bruce Simpson
Site Admin
Joined: 02 Jan 2005
Posts: 6060
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 10:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| k1500 wrote: | Heh - When I heard about it on the radio this morning my first thought was, "Didn't Bruce suggest that age's ago?".
Actually Bruce how long ago was it that you suggested that? |
March 2008 -- nearly two years ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chinga
Joined: 06 Feb 2008
Posts: 29
Location: Outside NZ
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Do they have transmit licences for operating those radar?
And they stick them up near schools, so kids waiting for the bus are showering with 10GHz signals all the time they're waiting? May as well just stick 'em in a microwave and be done with it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bruce Simpson
Site Admin
Joined: 02 Jan 2005
Posts: 6060
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 10:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yeah, it's kinda funny really -- you hear of schools bitching and moaning about cellphone towers next to their playgrounds, while ACC gets praised for sticking radar transmitters right there at the gate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Who?
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
Posts: 103
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 11:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Malcolm wrote: | | The labourer wouldn't get name suppression because he wouldn't be able to afford the same lawyer as a 'prominent businessman' I feel that at the end of the day it comes down to how good a lawyer you can afford. |
The labourer would probably get legal aid and name suppression while the white collar worker would have to pay his own way. I reckon there's a 3 tier system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Who?
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
Posts: 103
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 11:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dummy radars have been around for more than 20 years so it's not your idea Bruce.
One measure that works is for the pollies to grow some balls and just outlaw radar detectors. This is only one use for them, and that's to avoid the revenue collection called speeding. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
paulw
Joined: 05 Jan 2005
Posts: 1136
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Who? wrote: | Dummy radars have been around for more than 20 years so it's not your idea Bruce.
One measure that works is for the pollies to grow some balls and just outlaw radar detectors. This is only one use for them, and that's to avoid the revenue collection called speeding. |
Good for them then. If you can beat paying the tax collector.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chinga
Joined: 06 Feb 2008
Posts: 29
Location: Outside NZ
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Who? wrote: | Dummy radars have been around for more than 20 years so it's not your idea Bruce.
One measure that works is for the pollies to grow some balls and just outlaw radar detectors. This is only one use for them, and that's to avoid the revenue collection called speeding. |
Thanks for admitting it's all about revenue collection rather than road safety! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
barryl
Joined: 21 Nov 2009
Posts: 254
Location: Canterbury
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chinga wrote: | Do they have transmit licences for operating those radar?
And they stick them up near schools, so kids waiting for the bus are showering with 10GHz signals all the time they're waiting? May as well just stick 'em in a microwave and be done with it. |
No licence required, Read the GURL at the RSM website.
Dopey comment about the "kiddies". The power output is low, much lower than their muppet mummy rabbiting on her cellphone. Oh, and better not live anywhere near an airport or a harbour, maritime and aeronautical radars are MUCH more powerful. And keep emergency, courier and taxi vehicles well away, and make sure your neighborhood has no hams in it. And I'd stay out of the sun as well.
The ACC plan for dummy speed radars is a reasonable one, but hardly new! I was living in the USA in 1991, and Virginia had them in use, while Maryland was debating their introduction. And a few other States had deployed them several years before that.
But anyway, back to name suppression. I see no reason why any name suppression should be granted, if it reveals the victims in some cases that's tough luck, the price we pay for justice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chinga
Joined: 06 Feb 2008
Posts: 29
Location: Outside NZ
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| barryl wrote: |
Dopey comment about the "kiddies". The power output is low, much lower than their muppet mummy rabbiting on her cellphone. Oh, and better not live anywhere near an airport or a harbour, maritime and aeronautical radars are MUCH more powerful. And keep emergency, courier and taxi vehicles well away, and make sure your neighborhood has no hams in it. And I'd stay out of the sun as well.
|
Not as dopey as thinking that non-ionising radiation at 800MHz has the same as non-ionising radiation at 10Ghz comparing by power levels.
And we're talking about close-quarters here, not living 1km away from airport radar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
barryl
Joined: 21 Nov 2009
Posts: 254
Location: Canterbury
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chinga wrote: | | barryl wrote: |
Dopey comment about the "kiddies". The power output is low, much lower than their muppet mummy rabbiting on her cellphone. Oh, and better not live anywhere near an airport or a harbour, maritime and aeronautical radars are MUCH more powerful. And keep emergency, courier and taxi vehicles well away, and make sure your neighborhood has no hams in it. And I'd stay out of the sun as well.
|
Not as dopey as thinking that non-ionising radiation at 800MHz has the same as non-ionising radiation at 10Ghz comparing by power levels.
And we're talking about close-quarters here, not living 1km away from airport radar. |
Really???? I have in front of me copies of the time-exposure dosage charts from the 1992 ANSI standard, the ICNIRP guidelines and MIL-STD-461/2/4 What is your concern about my comparison between 800 and 10,000 MHz, after allowing for the slightly differing e-fields permitted by these standards?
And why the superfluous mention of "non-ionising" ?? Is that a buzz-word you heard around the water cooler or do you have a real understanding of what it is? But anyway, why is it there?
And what is this vague hand-waving of " talking about close-quarters" ? To be a little more precise, what is the field strength of:
a. A 10 mW radar spoofer at 10 metres
b. A cell-phone at 2 metres (mummy babbling away)
c. An airfield radar, say with 33dbW and 27dBi gain at 1 km
And, perhaps more importantly, what is the margin of safety in each case per 1992 ANSI. (assuming an uncontrolled environment)
I have just done the sums, but I'd like to see your figures, then I'll know if you have any clue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
