Announce protest actions, general chit chat or give your opinion on issues we haven’t covered for the day.
Moderation rules are more lenient for this section, but try and play nicely.
EDITORS NOTE: – By the way, here’s a list of shit that will get your comment dumped. Sexist language, homophobic language, racist language, anti-muslim hate, transphobic language, Chemtrails, 9/11 truthers, Qanon lunacy, climate deniers, anti-fluoride fanatics, anti-vaxxer lunatics, 5G conspiracy theories, the virus is a bioweapon, some weird bullshit about the UN taking over the world and ANYONE that links to fucking infowar.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/470876/shaken-man-turns-up-on-local-s-doorstep-after-car-swept-into-floodwaters
A North Taieri resident who helped a man after an attempt to cross a swollen ford turned fatal says changes need to be made to avoid another unnecessary death.
Will no-one rid us of this unsatisfactory term which is incorrect and bad grammar?
The words above ‘unnecessary death’ should read ‘totally avoidable death’, or similar. That meaning is that a death could have been avoided; the reference to ‘unnecessary death’ seems to indicate that on another occasion the death could have been necessary. The opposite of unnecessary is necessary. This is a bad piece of English phrasing? People screw themselves in knots over lesser language malfunctions.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/470853/elderly-woman-found-dead-in-car-had-lost-legal-battle-over-mother-s-estate
The dispute was over their mother’s will. She was also called Helena Wakefield and died in May 2019.
Both mother and daughter had been living together at a house on Dempsey Street in Remuera since December 2011. After the mother’s death the daughter continued to live there alone.
Her brother Dr Wakefield, a retired geologist, was living in Victoria, Australia.
The documents show Mrs Wakefield wrote a will in 2008, leaving her property to both children and appointing them co-executors.
This should not have happened. It should not be allowed to occur under law that takes into account the needs of both parties. Why should one trustee be able to simply erase another trustee’s rights of control, who will be severely disadvantaged by that action. It should be impossible even if the active trustee can prove his own more severe disadvantage, and then there should be mediation not cold judicial decision.
It is a disgrace there is no provision in our law for such a case and I call on some human lawyer to make change as soon as possible with this as a precedent.