Xcf456

I dunno, depends what 'repeating' it means. It sounds like just reporting on it might be a defense, but I could see a big loophole if you couldn't be touched for effectively picking up and amplifying the original claim with some qualifying words around it.

But I think you're right that they won't want to find out in court in any case.

Yes. The law applies what is known as the ‘repetition rule’ (or ‘republication rule’). Under this rule, the liability of a person who repeats a rumour or allegation is no different to the person who first made the statement. This includes rumours or allegations that come from reputable sources like the Police or news sites. This aspect of the law has some wriggle room when it comes to establishing defences. But for at least the element of publication, anyone who repeats a defamatory statement is liable.

You can be found liable for defamation just by repeating what was said, so yeah RNZ removed the references and none of the other stories about it have published what he said https://defamationupdate.co.nz/legal-guide-publication/

Off topic but what youtube version are you using atm to patch to revanced? Mine broke a while ago, haven't been able to get it going again

Same, but also exactly the kind of thing I expected it to be

100% my first thought too. Cultivate the vibes of enormous public sector waste that doesn't stand up to basic scrutiny, in terms of substance or scale.

Then people get shocked Pikachu face when the so called waste getting cut is actually school lunches, hospitals, customs officers and so on because this stuff is miniscule compared to the targets the govt has set, and the amount they want to give away in tax cuts.

Labour and National wouldn't be paying to run them constantly if they were useless. They're not crystal balling the next election but they have value as a snapshot of public sentiment

Agree. Also in my experience with some of the right leaning olds I know, the smoking reversals in particular have come as a real shock. I think this is due to the fact that so many older people have had their parents and other family die from smoking related causes.

What, you've done nothing but deny it

Thank you. Doesn't even have to be the majority, there's studies out there that suggest moving as little as 10-15% of trips out of cars can take traffic from jammed up to free flowing. Although the more the better, motorways are expensive as hell and car dependency creates all sorts of wider problems.

So then don't, I didn't say it must replace every single trip for it to have value

And what I said was not everyone needs to use it to benefit from it because unlike just blowing billions on more roads, it reduces congestion overall instead of adding to it.

Anyway on the tunnel, fantasy at best, Tory grift at worst, probably both

Sorry, not sure how investing in more PT options would require you to take a kayak on the bus.