Abandoned his 7-year old son at a park to teach him a lesson
Later went back to the park and found a man holding his son’s hand. Rather than thank him for comforting his abandoned son or asking what was happening, he abused and shoved the man
He took his son to his ex-partner’s house, and despite her pleases, decided to track down the man, having concluded he was abducting his son. He did not call the Police, as most would do if genuinely concerned
He found the man and punched him in the jaw, causing him to fall onto the payment, hitting his head with force
Rather than help the man, or call for an ambulance, he left.
The man died
The original trial judge sentenced him to two year’s imprisonment. Now you and I might think that was a bit lenient for an unprovoked attack, not in the heat of the moment, on an innocent man whose only crime was to try and look after the 7-year old Kahi had abandoned.
Nicola Willis has appointed nine people to the Social Investment Board that will advise on the Social Investment approach and the work of the Social Investment Agency. Social investment has the potential to make a huge difference to vulnerable families by identifying the factors that put them at most risk of “failure” and funding programmes based on actual outcomes in improving things.
The nine appointed have a great range of backgrounds in economics and social services. They also include two former Maori Party persons and a former Labour Party President.
The appointees are:
Dr Graham Scott. Former Chair of the Central Regional Health Authority, the national Health Funding Authority and a former Secretary to the Treasury
Laura Black. CEO of Methodist Mission Southern
Hon Te Ururoa Flavell former Minister for Māori Development, Minister for Whānau Ora. Chair of Te Arawa Whānau Ora. Former Chief Executive of Te Wānanga o Aotearoa.
Helen Leahy previously led the Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency for the South Island. Chief Executive of Ngā Waihua o Paerangi (Ngāti Rangi)
Katie Murray. Chief Executive of, the Waitomo Papakainga Development Incorporated society, a social service agency in Kaitāia
Julie Nelson. Joint Chief Executive of the Wise Group for over 30 years, made up of entities that provide varied services and resources across Aotearoa including mental health and addiction services
Debbie Sorensen. Chief Executive of the Pasifika Medical Association Group since 2008.
Mike Williams was CEO of the New Zealand Howard League from 2010 to 2022
David Woods is deputy chairman of New Zealand Green Investment Finance.
Everyone, regardless of politics, should hope they do a good job.
Basically it allows an employer and employee to negotiate without prejudice a settlement to terminate employment. The current law is an ass, because it it actually prevents employers from saying “Look it isn’t working, is there a way we can resolve things”. So what happens is the employer has to spend three to six months working through a process that inevitably then leads to lawyers getting involved, and the lawyers then negotiating the exact same settlement as could have been done months earlier without the legal fees. I’ve been through this as an employer (not Curia). Both employer and employee end up worse off, as so much money goes on legal fees. Many employees would welcome an employer being able to say “Look I don’t think things are working out. Would you be open to resigning in return for six months salary”.
The other is from the Greens and is the Copyright (Parody and Satire) Amendment Bill. Gareth Hughes initially submitted a bill like this in 2011. It surprises many that our law doesn’t explicitly allow parody or satire to be a permitted “fair use” like in the US. I used to be involved very much with copyright law due to its intersection with the Internet, and am a big supporter of this law change.
The bill says:
The purpose of this Bill is to introduce into New Zealand copyright law the authority to use a copyright work for the purpose of parody or satire, which brings New Zealand’s law in line with the laws of other developed countries, including Australia, the United States, Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Spain, and Germany. The amendment will also bring New Zealand into the 21st century with its attitude towards copyright and freedom of speech. It introduces an amendment to the Copyright Act 1994, to clearly permit the use of copyright work for parody or satire. The amendment follows the Australian Copyright Act 1968, section 41A.
This amendment allows for a much wider interpretation of current copyright law in favour of the public wishing to use copyright works through parody or satire to promote an issue freely under our understanding of freedom of speech.
The current law has been used to try and stop parodies by claiming they breach copyright. I hope Parliament votes 122-0 for the bill at first reading.
I blogged a few days ago about The Pākehā Project, which charges $15,000 to teach people about the harm that has been caused by whiteness in the world.”
I wondered how many government agencies are clients.
Well the Taxpayers’ Union had already found out. The Post reported:
Almost $300,000 has been spent by ministries on workshops “questioning the algorithms of whiteness” – including one course that had two participants and cost $21,700. …
Statistics NZ spent the most – $166,715 (including GST) over three years for 217 staff to attend and travel to workshops and training run by The Pākehā Project. A Tangata Tiriti Workshop was held this year for 60 staff.
Taxpayer funded brainwashing.
The Ministry of Justice contracted two courses over the 2023/2024 financial year – Tiriti Workshops and Coaching and Leadership Coaching tools – at a combined cost of $102,493 for a total of 48 staff.
And MBIE spent $21,700 on one Pākehā Project course for two staff members and paid $3811 to Unity House for leadership training. The course has not been offered since 2022.
And Labour tell us that you can’t trim public spending without impacting public services. Ha.
Figures obtained by RNZ under the Official Information Act showed Tātaki spent a total of $737,208.58 to address what it said was a decline in perceptions of Auckland among locals and the rest of the country.
Would abolishing Tataki improve perceptions?
The agency said the campaign was designed to turn sentiment towards Auckland around.
“Globally, city brand experts point to negative-trending sentiment leading to people spending less time and money in a place, thereby unfavourably impacting economic outcomes.
Hmmm so city brand experts have said that they think spending more money on city brand experts is good for regional economies. How surprising.
Post-campaign research by the Research Agency showed the campaign lifted sentiment towards the city, it said, and 60% “took action such as considering spending money to enjoy Auckland and/or considering a trip to Auckland”.
That is not an action. ticking a box on a survey saying you are considering something is not an action. Did they ask about actual actions such as actual travel, or just thoughts?
“Campaign likeability and uniqueness both outperformed a benchmark group of 146 ads from established brands.”
Translation: these ads did better than our other ads. Wow wee.
ACT New Zealand has seen significant growth over the past four years and is now punching above its weight as part of the coalition government. ACT is delivering real change by cutting back on wasteful spending, delivering public services more efficiently, and championing equal rights for all New Zealanders with our Treaty Principles Bill.
We are already achieving a lot in government, but if we elect even more ACT MPs at the next election, we could do even more.
ACT has some exciting opportunities for people to join our Head Office Team and help spread the word to even more New Zealanders.
We are looking for three Field Officers with a can-do attitude and knack for problem solving to build and grow teams of volunteers and help deliver our campaigns on the ground. One post is based in Auckland, another in the Central & Lower North Island, and one in the South Island.
We are also seeking an enthusiastic Engagement Officer to lead projects to keep our Members, donors, supporters and candidates engaged with our work, and run conferences and other events.
And finally, we are on the hunt for a Communications Officer with political nous and creative flair to supercharge our email communications, lead advertising campaigns, and produce social media and printed content.
If one of these roles sounds up your street, we’d love to hear from you. Please apply using the links above.
Or if you know someone who would be the perfect fit for one of these roles, please share the adverts with them.
This is an exciting time for ACT New Zealand – and you could play a vital role in delivering real change for New Zealand!
This morning in Wellington, Police withdrew charges against Paul Burns, a man charged under Section 3 of the Summary Offenses Act for public disorder after engaging in public debate. This is a necessary victory for free speech after an outrageous arrest and charge. We have been proud to manage this case, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.
“In March earlier this year, Burns spent his Sunday how he regularly did, encouraging public debate on his anti-abortion stance.
“Burns stood on Lampton Quay holding a sign that said, ‘$100 to the 1st person who proves that slavery is more evil than abortion’ with $100 worth of notes taped to the sign.
“When approached by a group of young people willing to engage in the debate, one of them said abortion was justified due to overpopulation.
“Using a typical debating tactic, Burns turned the young person’s logic around and said, “if you think that the world is overpopulated, then why don’t you kill yourself?”. Burns was arrested, taken to Police cells, and charged under section 1(4)(b) of the Summary Offences Act for ‘offensive language’.
“Ahead of his trial, Police outrageously upgraded his charges to disorderly behaviour likely to cause other people to behave violently. This is a disgraceful response to someone engaging in debate.
The original arrest was bad enough. But for the Police to then increase the charge to one with a potential jail sentence is worse. You suspect they did it to encourage a plea deal, but because Burns had the FSU behind him he refused.
The FSU has also convinced the Police to stop focusing on hate speech which is not a criminal offence, and instead to focus on actual criminal offending. The Police have now said:
“The Police Executive has agreed Police’s definition of a non-criminal hate incident should shift from a perception-based standardto one requiring reasonable grounds to believe an event involves or implies a significant risk of physical harm…”
It never should have been a perception-based standard, but it was. thanks to the FSU, sanity has won.
I find it distressing that so many on the left see the FSU as an enemy. It is in fact the most effective civil rights organisation in New Zealand, something the left used to be passionate about.
We now have 2024 grants, and the big winner is of course anything to do with Maori.
2008
2017
2023
2024
Science
88%
80%
72%
73%
Humanities
8%
11%
13%
7%
Maori
3%
5%
8%
17%
Identity
1%
2%
5%
3%
Political
0%
3%
2%
1%
Some examples include:
We all aspire for a future that is fair, just and sustainable. And in Aotearoa, this future should be based on the foundational document, Te Tiriti o Waitangi. But how do we transition to a decolonised nation that respects and upholds collective Indigenous rights?
This study will be the first to systematically study how mōteatea (traditional chants or laments) can be used as either alternative modes of therapy, or to compliment existing clinical approaches. This is a move toward centring the promotion of wellbeing as opposed to the treatment of illness.
This study will use wānanga, workshops, and interviews to reveal the importance traditional clothing making has in transmitting knowledge, preserving traditions, and fostering connection.
This research will develop a new model of Aotearoa New Zealand’s economy, challenging assumptions around safe depletion. It will do this by combining concepts from Te Ao Māori and contemporary economic methods.
This research project will investigate current and historical relationships between Māori people and government tax, with the aim of proposing new, Te Tiriti-affirming tax systems.
I can only imagine what a Te Tiriti-affirming tax system looks like! And thanks to taxpayers we will find out.
Prominent leftwing commentator Matt Yglesias posted a nine point vision for how the Democrats can return to “common sense”. They resonate with many and are below.
Today, @mattyglesias outlined his 9-point vision for what he calls "Common Sense Democrats," which looks an awful lot like a return to reasonable liberalism and sanity. pic.twitter.com/KBF2DxOwMQ
I’ve actually quite liked most of Trump’s picks so far. They have included:
Chief of Staff: Susie Willis – very capable, and incidentally the first ever woman
Secretary of State: Marco Rubio. Would have been a good President. Very solid.
Secretary of Defence: Pete Hegseth. Had not heard of him but has Princeton and Harvard degrees and served in Iraq and Afghanistan. His stated job is to dewoke the Pentagon
Secretary of Homeland Security: Kirsti Noem. Dogs beware!
National Security Advisor: Michael Waltz. Served as a Green Beret in Afghanistan
EPA: Lee Zeldin
UN Ambassador: Elise Stefanik. Vocal against anti-semitism
These are all fairly respectable picks. Sure those on the left won’t like them, but they will be able to pursue the agenda Trump was elected on.
However his latest nomination of Matt Gaetz to be Attorney-General is very different. To say Gaetz is unsuitable is to put it mildly. He was investigated for sex trafficking and sex with minors. He is also under investigation by the House Ethics Committee for sexual misconduct.
I’d say there is a close to zero chance Gaetz could be confirmed by the Senate. Trump probably knows this also. So this leads to two scenarios.
Trump withdraws the nomination (or it gets voted down) and everyone is so relieved that Trump’s second choice flies through (ie Trump is playing chess)
Trump is determined to scorch the DOJ and he appoints Gaetz as a recess appointment, through to the end of 2026.
It is very clear that many media organisations do not support the Government’s proposed link tax to fund legacy media platforms. The legacy media of course want it – especially NZME and Stuff.
Smaller new media outlets like Chris Lynch and The Platform have been vocally against the bill. Lynch has warned it will harm him. Now some may dismiss them as they are seen as politically to the right (ie not left). But look at who else is against it.
The wrong headed and frankly selfish approach of NZME and STUFF on the issue of the "Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill" [see: https://t.co/uyhJ0YVYQy] is deeply problematic for independent and digital native publishing companies such as @Scoop.
And Richard Harman from Politik is also against it. I’ve known Richard for over 30 years and have no idea what his personal politics are!
So this is not a left vs right thing. This is a new media vs legacy media thing. What is good for NZME and Stuff is not the same as being good for all media. In fact it could be very damaging for media diversity.
The ruling German coalition has collapsed: Chancellor Olaf Scholz, of the Social Democrats (SPD) has sacked Finance Minister Christian Lindner of the Liberals (FDP).
The leaders of what is known in Germany as the “traffic light coalition” – SPD, FDP and the Greens – had gathered at the chancellery in Berlin in the evening.
About an hour after the news was broken by several media outlets, Chancellor Scholz faced the press and criticised his finance minister in no uncertain terms:
Lindner “has broken my trust too many times”, Scholz said, adding that there is “no more basis of trust for further cooperation”. The FDP leader is “more concerned with his own clientele and the survival of his own party”, Scholz remarked.
The Finance Minister was simply insisting that the Government stick to its agreed spending and tax rules, but the two left wing parties wanted to try spending their way out of trouble.
The Chancellor has an approval rating of just 18%. Compare that to Angela Merkel who had a median rating of 76% during her 16 years in office. Government approval is 14% vs 85% disapproval.
The current polling has the parties as:
SPD (centre left) 16% (-10% from election)
CDU (centre right) 33% (+14%)
AFD (far right) 18% (+8%)
Greens (centre left) 11% (-4%)
FDP (centre right) 4% (-7%)
Linke (left) 3% (-2%)
So when they have elections next year, a CDU/CSU led Government is very likely. However they will not want to go into coalition with the AFD, so will either need to do a grand coalition of possibly even a government with the Greens.
I am a huge advocate for the Charter School policy and appreciate the intent of Associate Minister Seymour to bring it back. My new Charitable Company has four applications in so I understand the risk of criticising what is happening. I have to though as the process so far has been incredibly poor and for this good policy idea to work things must change immediately.
The Charter Schools application process has been BIZARRE to say the least. E.g. my organisation has 4 applications in, within budget, with remarkable people, very high quality support and significant demand from families. We have not been asked a single question by the Charter School Agency or the Authorisation Board. The CSA funded application assistant – a very well known educator – consiered out applications to be of a very high standard. I can only assume we will be awarded four contracts but have laid a formal complaint with the Associate Minister about the process (see below).
ACT are, in theory, about saving taxpayer money. I was therefore simply astounded to see this on SEEK:
“The Head of Performance and Monitoring is an Executive Leadership role within the Charter School Agency.
Each year I do a data process for the 460 high schools in NZ on a full range of their data. It is a big and complex job and I set four weeks aside to do it.
I have read the job description for above and I am absolutely certain it would be two weeks work … for $263K. It is close to half of what the Secretary for Education earns.
Unfortunately it is in keeping with the efficiency of the Charter School Agency at present that is not yet notifying schools that are to start in Term 1 2025 … and it is mid-November. Plus the secrecy involved has been off the planet.
2. I sent the following Offical Complaint in on Monday. I have heard nothing back from his office or the CSA.
Dear Mr Seymour – as Associate Minister of Education
Myself and the Board of Directors of Education 710+ have very significant concerns about the Charter School application process – including the behaviour of some of the officials involved.
We currently have four applications that we are told are “live”. Two are in central Auckland (a Year 0 – 8, and a Year 11 – 13 UE focussed and ideal for bringing Maori and Pasifika students in). One is in Epsom (a Year 7 – 10 primarily designed for neuro-diverse learners). One in Warkworth (Year 7 – 10 that already has 100 families waiting).
We have an outstanding Board of 9 highly capable people. We have support from educators like John Hattie, Dame Wendy Pye and others. We have inspirational people like Hamish Kerr putting his name in to be involved. We have inner city support from Simon Bridges and Viv Beck.
We also have 100s of families and many teachers who have been in wait mode for a very long time.
Add to that we have 3 wealthy individuals and one organisation who have offered us the use of their remarkable buildings – investing millions because, up until now, they have believed in the model. They have been waiting months for indications/approvals.
We also have major suppliers – e.g. for IT – who have also been in wait mode.
We are well and truly ready to go and can have all four schools flying by February of next year.
We are not just expressing concerns from us but have heard from many of the other applicants who are bemused – at best.
We have concerns about some of the behaviours of Jane Lee. We have stuck to protocols – however Jane directly rang me after the first online applicant briefing to ask me how I thought things had gone.
She then arranged for me to speak, online, with a number of their people about the assessment strategies I would recommend.
All applicants met the stage 1 deadline – but the CSA decided that they would extend their own time frames by a week. We have been frequently told that the CSA’s role was merely to decide if we were fit and proper people and capable of delivering.
We then received a bizarre letter from Jane Lee telling us that one of our applications had made stage 2 – but we (Education 710+) had to choose which one. In that letter Jane clearly indicated that she wanted three of our applications removed because of the “high number of applicants”. It is, therefore clear, that they were not looking for the 15 best applications (i.e. not looking for the 15 best schools to serve the NZ education system/families/taxpayer) they merely wanted to spread them around the applicants. Is that what you, as Minister, stipulated?
What then followed was an online meeting with Jane Lee and Chris Richards. Jane refused to record the meeting when I requested it. I recorded it anyway as is my habit after years of experience with Ministry officials. The meeting was not pleasant for either party. Eventually they acknowledged that they were wrong and that – if we were fit for purpose and capable for one – then all four were required to go through to stage 2 as applicants had been told repeatedly.
It is important to note that we have not had a conversation with a genuine educator during this process and the application documents were certainly not written by one. We have been asked very little about curriculum and very little about genuine assessment plans. The application documents were repetitive and some questions simply did not make sense. The key people are procurement people – Chris Richards who is an expert in waste management, Helen Saville whose qualification is in fashion and a young stats graduate.
It was also clear that Chris Richards, etc, had not read any of the previous Charter School evaluations and knew very little about the policy in general.
The next online meeting was inexplicably cameras off and applicants were fully muted. It cannot have been to keep secret who were in stage 2 as all of the applicants names were up when they logged in. Why be secretive anyway? Why not actually take questions in a public/private partnership application process?
There was significant insistence from the CSA/Jane that they would be providing advice/rankings to the Authorisation Board (touted as an “Independant Body”.)
Applicants were then told that those who were likely to be approved would see draft contracts in the week of October 21 – 24. This didn’t happen.
The next notification (below) informed that the Authorisation Board had “finished their review” of applicants and that no one would then know about approval until November 15. Applicants were also told that the AB would contact applicants by email if they needed clarifications. No interviews were mentioned.
During the last week, as the applicants are very open with each other, applicants became aware that some applicants had been interviewed by the AB and others had not. Even those interviewed found that process confusing and were not sure of the point.
As I said – we will be ready to go by February – if approved – others, including some interviewed are much less certain.
These aspects raise major questions.
– By October 28 had the AB decided that some of the applicants would not be approved?
If that is so and the applicants have not been informed that is appalling. It also has huge financial, and potentially legal, ramifications. Like in our case – we have 4 property owners who have put their incomes on hold and not sought other tenants. One has had to delay a major property purchase a number of times as he took the CSA’s time-line to be accurate. Likewise applicants have put many aspects of their lives on hold – as well as having waiting stakeholders – including MANY families who are frequently contacting applicants as they are looking for the best for their children and actually have to make choices.
In our situation – if not approved as Charter Schools for all four schools we would have been sending in Designated Character School applications (our model is approved with a designated Character as it is largely the one I wrote for South Auckland Middle School and Middle School West Auckland). I will send all four applications directly to you later today for approval as Designated Character Schools. As you are well aware it is a waste of time sending these to the Ministry. When I applied, three times under Hipkins, all were turned down. Jo Martin and others met with you – and you advised them to “play the long game” until you had decision-making power. Now is the time.
Also – for at least two of the sites we would be also stongly consider a private school application.
– If decisions were not made by October 28 – why have some applicants been interviewed (with attempts to swear them to secrecy) and others not?
All of our applications clearly meet the criteria. Our Board is outstanding. The staff in waiting are of the highest quality and there is ample demand. I am also well aware of many of the other applicants and what they may bring.
I can only assume that we will be approved (unless people have another agenda) and that the AB simply has no questions for us.
That does not lessen the frustration of huge concern about the nature of the process and the way the applicants (and all of their stakeholders) have been treated. Including the bizarre elimination of Crimson – who could genuinely change the education environment in NZ. I was speaking to a group of 35 State School Principals in Hamilton yesterday. There was a Correspondence School leader there who informed the meeting that they now have over 30,000 enrolments – and we know the outcomes they are getting.
David – we are aware of how important this policy is and we have/had significant belief in it. So far this process has been significantly worse than 2013 – 2017. In fact the transition process under Labour to State schools was far better and is likely a key reason why the former Charter Schools have not returned (nor are many State or State Integrated Schools looking to transition).
We look forward to a timely reply and actions for us and all applicants. There is significant media interest and, if asked, I will be sharing this letter.
Yours
NB: CSA email below, Jane Lee email below (with my emphasis added).
The Authorisation Board have conducted their review of all stage two applications and are now seeking clarifications before they make their final decisions. If your application requires clarification, we will be in touch with you by email.
Once the Board has all the information that they require to make their decisions, they will communicate these which will allow approved sponsors to be passed back to the Charter School Agency to commence contract negotiations.
We expect that we will be in a position to communicate all of the Board’s decisions by 15 November 2024. Please note that this date is an estimate which may change.
All decisions will be conveyed to you formally with a letter by email.
Thank you for your response to our feedback so far, which was intended to assist you at this stage of the application process.
You have indicated that you wish to proceed further with all four of your applications as we proceed into the next stage of the process so far. As I have said, that is your choice and all the applications that you want to proceed with will be fully supported in the process (as needed) in the same way as all the applications going through this next stage. Your applications will be presented to the Authorisation Board when it meets to consider the many applications received.
In terms of the remit of the Charter School Agency, our role is to make recommendations to the Board to assist it in its role, and we are clear that the Board is the decision-maker.
The Teaching Council is the body in New Zealand that registers teachers. They published last year their guidance for teachers when it comes to political involvement. They noted:
Teachers have the same rights to freedom of speech and political activity in your private lives as any New Zealander. Chatting about politics or policy in private conversation with colleagues in the staffroom or campaigning for a party in the weekend is all good (in general).
However, when acting as an employee, best practice is to be politically neutral (the Public Service Act has been amended, and teachers are now clearly part of the public service).
So this is pretty clear. Teachers can do politics as citizens, but not when acting in their professional capacity. They explicitly say teachers should not:
using my authority as a teacher to undermine the personal beliefs of my learners or inappropriately influence them to take a course of action
Now look at what Naenae School has done.
This is appalling. If teachers want to take leave and attend a protest march that is fine, but here the principal is announcing the school is taking an institutional stance on the Treaty of Principles Bill and they are taking the whole school to join in a protest march against the Government’s bill.
Apart from the ethical stance of using 5 – 10 year olds as pawns in a protest, the teachers doing this are clearly breaching the Teaching Council guidelines.
It is not clear who made the decision, but the principal is the leader of the school so is responsible. His name is Murray Bootten.
I would encourage people to file formal complaints that this action is a breach of the Teaching Council guidelines. Send them to the board chair and the Teaching Council. The board chair is Tina Renata. They don’t list an e-mail for her but use the office e-mail address. And you can fill in the Teaching Council form here.
I want to be very clear this is not to do with what their views are as an individual. If they want to attend a protest march as individuals, fine. But to bus in school children to a protest march is a breach of their professional standards, and their role as state employees funded by taxpayers.
And here you have a principal saying that their taxpayer funded school supports the protest march, and they will mark any student missing school to attend as having a justified absence. This is both breaching the law, and the Teaching Council neutrality standards.
The SWIS board chair is Mel Millington. You need to complaint to her first in order for the Teaching Council to then consider your complaint. But as the note says the board supports the decision, don’t expect a positive response. So also complain to with the Teaching Council form here.
Again this is not about their personal views. This is against what is a form of abuse – pushing their partisan political views on children.
Two new tunnels are planned for Wellington as Transport Minister Simeon Brown confirms the preferred options for how residents get around.
Brown announced on Tuesday afternoon the board of NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi had decided what it wanted for the city: A 0.7km Mount Victoria Tunnel parallel to the existing tunnel, a 0.5km Terrace Tunnel parallel to the existing tunnel, extending the Arras tunnel under the Pukeahu National War memorial, and changes for traffic around the Basin Reserve.
This sounds good – the two extra tunnels will allow the long awaited four lanes from the airport to Otaki/Levin.
The board of the agency had decided against pursuing a previously discussed long tunnel under the city, which Brown had said could save up to 15 minutes for people travelling to the airport and be built with much less disruption to the city centre.
I liked that option, but I suspect the price was horrendously high.=
When Houston Porter, a 28-year-old law student at Pace University, first walked into the college auditorium last month, he was surprised to see a packed house for the “Saving Women’s Sports” panel he was co-moderating.
“Our events normally don’t get that kind of turnout,” says Porter, a member of The Federalist Society, a conservative group that sponsored the panel at Pace’s law school in White Plains, New York. “So it was exciting.”
But not long after, Porter’s world started “crumbling down”—with at least one professor shouting at panelists and another allegedly rushing the stage, followed by a Title IX investigation that accuses him of having “aggressively pointed” at a transgender student and misgendering her. Now Porter faces the possibility of suspension, expulsion, and even being barred from practicing law.
So the professors try to shout down the speakers and rush the stage, and nothing happens to them. But a student faces suspension for aggressive pointing!
