See also The DIM Hypothesis.
[Hat tip: Whale Oil]
104. The Bain submission is that what appear to be a series of inexplicable killings are explained by the fact – unknown at the time to David – of a sexual relationship between his father and his younger sister Laniet. After working for a time as a prostitute, Laniet had decided to go home on the weekend of June 18-19 to disclose to the family her prostitution and the incest. Her intention was to make a clean break with the past and start afresh. This evidence of incest (strongly disputed by the prosecution) forms the essential background to the murders, the Bain Submission says, and provides “the trigger” referred to by the prosecutor in his closing jury address in 2009. Robin, it is clear, was more experienced in the use of firearms than David Bain.
105. David Bain says he knew nothing at the time of incest or Laniet’s plan. He has a clear recollection of the week-end, he says, up until the moment he discovered his dead mother on Monday morning. Thereafter his memory was largely obliterated by shock, then recovered partially under therapy while in prison, but is still patchy.
106. David Bain’s recollection is that he got up at his usual time of 5.30 am, put on his Laser running shoes, shorts, and a red sweatshirt, grabbed his yellow Otago Daily Times bag and set off on his newspaper round with his dog Casey at about 5.45 am. He ran much of the route, as was his custom (his sporting activities included distance running). He checked his watch at the foot of Every Street towards the end of his run. It showed 6.40 am (although the Police never checked his watch’s accuracy.) He then walked up the hill to his home, which he estimated to the Police would have taken two to three minutes but which he now says would have taken longer.
107. David Bain told the Police at the initial interview after the murders that when he got home Robin had already collected the newspaper. This meant Robin was already inside the house.
108. On entering the house he noticed that his mother’s light was on but turned left into his own room, which was dark and cold on a typical Dunedin winter morning. He did not switch on the light in his own room even though sunrise would not occur for a least another hour. The door to the lounge (where Robin’s body was later found) was closed.
109. David Bain says he put his newspaper bag in its place and, without noticing anything amiss in the dark, took off his shoes and Walkman and descended the stairs to the lower level to the washing machine area. In this part of the lower level the lighting is very poor (at a later point a Police officer entering the laundry area looked about to turn on the light only to find it was already on.) There David scrubbed his hands to clean off the ink stains from the newsprint.
110. One of David’s regular chores was to deal with the family laundry. Accordingly, after scrubbing his hands41 he proceeded, as was his usual morning routine, to organise the wash by sorting out the coloured clothes and jerseys (including his red sweatshirt just worn on the paper route) from the light coloured clothing, he put a load into the machine, that included the “green” rough knit jersey, a black skivvy… a couple of pairs of socks…”. He couldn’t remember whose socks they were but it seems to me they could have included the socks that made the than bloodied footprints. He then started the machine on a “full cycle”. He did not notice any blood stains on the clothing he put into the wash.
111. David Bain then returned upstairs to his room, put on the light for the first time and saw cartridges and the trigger lock on the floor. He went immediately to his mother’s room, and found her dead. He went into the adjoining bedroom where Stephen slept, touched him to determine if he was dead, crossed the hall into the room Laniet was sleeping in, and found her dead as well. He went downstairs and checked Arawa’s bedroom for signs of life. There were none. He went back upstairs and entered the lounge where he found his father’s body lying lifeless on the floor. Although when first talking to the Police, he had been at a loss to recall this entire sequence of events (he recalled seeing only the bodies of his mother and father), his memory later recovered in part while undergoing therapy to deal with what was diagnosed as post-traumatic stress disorder. It was after therapy that he recalled touching Stephen’s lifeless body. In Laniet’s room he heard her body make a gurgling noise. He does not recall how long this search around the house continued. He recalls only the sequence. Reduced to a state of shock and acute distress by the destruction of his entire family he called the emergency services.
95. The initial Police “reconstruction” of events was that David Bain had murdered his family in a trance-like killing spree between his return home from delivering newspapers around 6.43 am and calling the 111 operator at about 7.10 am. Subsequently the Police concluded that the logistics of the “frenzied 25 minutes theory” were not compatible with the evidence at the crime scene. The Police came to believe that only Robin had been killed after the paper route. The others had been murdered beforehand (the “four before one after” theory).
96. The revised theory was that at about 5.00 am or earlier on the morning of Monday, 20 June 1994, David Bain got up and dressed in a T-shirt and black shorts, over which he wore track pants and the green loose weave V-necked sweater and possibly a black skivvy. He took from the wardrobe in his room his .22 calibre Winchester self-loading rifle and released the trigger lock with the spare key. He took a supply of ammunition from the same wardrobe. Only David Bain knew where these things were kept.
97. David Bain is near sighted. His regular glasses were broken and had been left in a shop for repair a few days earlier. On the morning of June 20, he wore an old pair of his mother’s glasses, which gave him 90% of normal vision (as compared with 75% normal vision without glasses.) In the struggle with Stephen, the frames were knocked off his head and the lenses were dislodged. The left lens was later found by Det. Sgt Weir in Stephen’s bedroom. The Police found the broken frames and the right lens in David Bain’s bedroom.
98. According to the prosecution, Robin slept through the murders out of earshot in the caravan elsewhere on the property.
99. In the course of the initial batch of four killings, the Police say David Bain’s person and clothing became heavily stained with blood. Prior to leaving the house to do his paper route, he washed his hands – possibly showered – changed his outer clothes, leaving unintended blood stains in the bathroom/laundry room. He put his blood-soiled clothing in the washing machine with other family laundry, and started it on a full cycle.
100. David Bain then took steps to contrive an alibi to exculpate himself and shift the blame to his father. At about 5.45 am he left the house and completed his paper route more quickly than usual, making sure that he was seen by various people so that they would later be available to corroborate his physical absence from the house in the early hours of Monday morning. His departure left the bloody crime scene open for an hour or so. He told the Police his father generally surfaced “between twenty to and ten past seven. He thus risked (on the Crown’s theory) the chance that Robin would come into the house a bit early by the downstairs door, discover the bodies and raise an emergency alarm with the Police prior to David’s return. In fact, the Crown Law Office accepts that Robin had collected the newspaper from the letterbox and brought it “inside the house” (para 208), indicating Robin had entered the house before David got home, but not raised any alarm.
101. According to the prosecution, as David entered the house, he made a right turn into the lounge on the main floor and switched on the family computer at about 6.44 am. Either then or at some later time he typed in the self-serving “suicide” message “SORRY, YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO DESERVED TO STAY”. Its purpose was to give the false appearance of a murder/suicide. The Police considered use of the past tense (“deserved”) rather than the present tense (“deserves”) shows it is unlikely the message was typed by Robin.
102. David Bain then took advantage of his father’s morning “ritual” which was to leave the caravan around 7.00 am to come into the lounge to pray. David, it was alleged, waited with his .22 rifle in the computer alcove adjacent the lounge and, as his father was on his knees deep in prayer, shot him in the head at close range. He then rearranged the scene to make it look like a suicide, and after an unexplained interval, eventually rang the emergency services at about 7.10 am to report the killings, pretending to be in a state of great distress.
103. Initially he was treated as a victim of the family murder/suicide. Only later, after further Police investigation, did the Police conclude that he should be charged as the killer.
89. The killer–whether it was David or Robin–arose early in the morning of Monday, 20 June 1994. He put on a green loose weave V-necked sweater. He took from the wardrobe in David’s room a .22 calibre Winchester semi-automatic rifle fitted with a silencer. He released the trigger lock with a spare key that was usually kept in a jar on the desk. He took a supply of ammunition from the same wardrobe.
90. It is common ground that David Bain, who was the sole survivor, did his regular paper route for the Otago Daily Times in the early morning of June 20. He left the house at about 5.45 am and returned about an hour later within a few minutes (before or after is very much in issue) of the computer being turned on.
91. For reasons unknown, but which in the view of the prosecution were in any event irrelevant, the killer fatally shot in an unknown order, Margaret, the two daughters and Stephen. There was a violent struggle with Stephen, who was in part strangled with a T-shirt. Stephen died from three bullets to his head fired at close quarters.
92. The killer’s person and clothing (particularly the green V-necked sweater) became heavily stained with blood. Whoever he was, the killer washed up to some extent, leaving marks in the bathroom (which included the washing machine). Blood stained clothing together with other family laundry was put in a laundry hamper, was emptied into the washing machine, and started on a wash cycle. The load included the green V-neck sweater, trousers and some socks. Sometime between roughly 6.40 and 6.46 am (the timing is controversial), the killer went to the lounge on the main floor and switched on the family computer located in an alcove partially concealed by a curtain. Either then or at some later time he typed in the message ‘SORRY, YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO DESERVED TO STAY’.
93. Sometime after the initial murders of four family members, Robin was killed in the lounge by a shot to the head with the murder weapon in contact or near contact with his left temple.
94. At about 7.10 am, David called the emergency services to report that his family was dead. When the Police and ambulance personnel arrived shortly after 7.20 am, Robin’s body was still warm to the touch. The other bodies were also somewhat warm, but less warm than Robin’s.
“The marks in question are not cuts, are not abrasions, are not burns, are not damage. And that is not a matter of opinion.” – Joe Karam
Dear MP,
Please vote AGAINST the Psychoactive Substances Bill.
Animals must not experience suffering for economic or entertainment reasons.
It is morally abhorrent to me, as it is to John Banks and all right-thinking people, “that animals will be in pain and will die all in the name of people wanting to take drugs on the weekend.”
Not in my name.
Yours sincerely,
Richard Goode
Christian libertarian (who wants to take drugs on the weekend)
“Stoner Dog” is just an Internet meme. Let’s keep him that way!
Please email your MPs today with your message, here is a list of names and email addresses.
ACT PARTY MPs:
John Banks <john.banks@parliament.govt.nz>
(OK, so John Banks doesn’t need any convincing, but you could try to convince him it would be a good idea to legalise cannabis. He’s been known to change his mind on human rights issues before.)
GREEN PARTY MPs:
Russel Norman <russel.norman@parliament.govt.nz>
Metiria Turei <metiria.turei@parliament.govt.nz>
Steffan Browning <steffan.browning@parliament.govt.nz>
David Clendon <david.clendon@parliament.govt.nz>
Catherine Delahunty <catherine.delahunty@parliament.govt.nz>
Julie Genter <julie.genter@parliament.govt.nz>
Kennedy Graham <kennedy.graham@parliament.govt.nz>
Kevin Hague <kevin.hague@parliament.govt.nz>
Gareth Hughes <gareth.hughes@parliament.govt.nz>
Jan Logie <jan.logie@parliament.govt.nz>
Mojo Mathers <mojo.mathers@parliament.govt.nz>
Denise Roche <denise.roche@parliament.govt.nz>
Eugenie Sage <eugenie.sage@parliament.govt.nz>
Holly Walker <holly.walker@parliament.govt.nz>INDEPENDENT MPs:
Peter Dunne <p.dunne@ministers.govt.nz>
Brendan Horan <brendan.horan@parliament.govt.nz>LABOUR PARTY MPs:
Jacinda Ardern <jacinda.ardern@parliament.govt.nz>
Carol Beaumont <carol.beaumont@parliament.govt.nz>
David Clark <david.clark@parliament.govt.nz>
Clayton Cosgrove <clayton.cosgrove@parliament.govt.nz>
David Cunliffe <david.cunliffe@parliament.govt.nz>
Clare Curran <clare.curran@parliament.govt.nz>
Lianne Dalziel <lianne.dalziel@parliament.govt.nz>
Ruth Dyson <ruth.dyson@parliament.govt.nz>
Kris Faafoi <kris.faafoi@parliament.govt.nz>
Darien Fenton <darien.fenton@parliament.govt.nz>
Phil Goff <phil.goff@parliament.govt.nz>
Chris Hipkins <chris.hipkins@parliament.govt.nz>
Raymond Huo <raymond.huo@parliament.govt.nz>
Shane Jones <shane.jones@parliament.govt.nz>
Annette King <annette.king@parliament.govt.nz>
Iain Lees-Galloway <iain.lees-galloway@parliament.govt.nz>
Andrew Little <andrew.little@parliament.govt.nz>
Moana Mackey <moana.mackey@parliament.govt.nz>
Nanaia Mahuta <nanaia.mahuta@parliament.govt.nz>
Trevor Mallard <trevor.mallard@parliament.govt.nz>
Sue Moroney <sue.moroney@parliament.govt.nz>
Damien Oconnor <damien.oconnor@parliament.govt.nz>
David Parker <david.parker@parliament.govt.nz>
Rajen Prasad <rajen.prasad@parliament.govt.nz>
Grant Robertson <grant.robertson@parliament.govt.nz>
Ross Robertson <ross.robertson@parliament.govt.nz>
David Shearer <david.shearer@parliament.govt.nz>
Su’a William Sio <sua.william.sio@parliament.govt.nz>
Maryan Street <maryan.street@parliament.govt.nz>
Rino Tirikatene <rino.tirikatene@parliament.govt.nz>
Phil Twyford <phil.twyford@parliament.govt.nz>
Louisa Wall <louisa.wall@parliament.govt.nz>
Meka Whaitiri <meka.whaitiri@parliament.govt.nz>
Megan Woods <megan.woods@parliament.govt.nz>MANA PARTY MP:
Hone Harawira <hone.harawira@parliament.govt.nz>
MAORI PARTY MPs:
Pita Sharples <pita.sharples@parliament.govt.nz>
Tariana Turia <tariana.turia@parliament.govt.nz>
Te Ururoa Flavell <teururoa.flavell@parliament.govt.nz>NATIONAL PARTY MPs:
Amy Adams <amy.adams@parliament.govt.nz>
Shane Ardern <shane.ardern@parliament.govt.nz>
Chris Auchinvole <chris.auchinvole@parliament.govt.nz>
Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi <bakshi.mp@parliament.govt.nz>
Maggie Barry <maggie.barry@parliament.govt.nz>
David Bennett <david.bennett@parliament.govt.nz>
Paula Bennett <paula.bennettmp@parliament.govt.nz>
Chester Borrows <chester.borrows@parliament.govt.nz>
Simon Bridges <simon.bridges@parliament.govt.nz>
Gerry Brownlee <gerry.brownlee@parliament.govt.nz>
Cam Calder <cam.calder@parliament.govt.nz>
David Carter <david.carter@parliament.govt.nz>
Jonathan Coleman <jonathan.coleman@parliament.govt.nz>
Judith Collins <office@judithcollins.co.nz>
Jacqui Dean <jacqui.dean@parliament.govt.nz>
Bill English <bill.english@parliament.govt.nz>
Chris Finlayson <c.finlayson@parliament.govt.nz>
Craig Foss <craigfoss@backingthebay.co.nz>
Paul Foster-Bell <paul.foster-bell@parliament.govt.nz>
Paul Goldsmith <paul.goldsmith@parliament.govt.nz>
Jo Goodhew <jo.goodhew@parliament.govt.nz>
Tim Groser <tim.groser@parliament.govt.nz>
Nathan Guy <nathan.guy@parliament.govt.nz>
Claudette Hauiti <claudette.hauiti@parliament.govt.nz>
John Hayes <john.hayes@parliament.govt.nz>
Phil Heatley <phil.heatley@parliament.govt.nz>
Tau Henare <tau.henare@parliament.govt.nz>
Paul Hutchison <paul.hutchison@parliament.govt.nz>
Steven Joyce <steven.joyce@parliament.govt.nz>
Nikki Kaye <nikki.kaye@parliament.govt.nz>
John Key <john.key@parliament.govt.nz>
Colin King <colin.kingmp@parliament.govt.nz>
Melissa Lee <melissa.lee@parliament.govt.nz>
Sam Lotu-Iiga <peseta.sam.lotu-iiga@parliament.govt.nz>
Tim Macindoe <tim.macindoemp@parliament.govt.nz>
Todd McClay <todd.mcclay@parliament.govt.nz>
Murray McCully <murray.mccully@parliament.govt.nz>
Ian McKelvie <ian.mckelvie@parliament.govt.nz>
Mark Mitchell <mark.mitchell@parliament.govt.nz>
Alfred Ngaro <alfred.ngaro@parliament.govt.nz>
Simon Oconnor <simon.oconnor@parliament.govt.nz>
Hekia Parata <hekia.parata@parliament.govt.nz>
Jami-Lee Ross <Jami-Lee.ross@parliament.govt.nz>
Eric Roy <eric.roy@parliament.govt.nz>
Tony Ryall <tony.ryall@parliament.govt.nz>
Mike Sabin <mike.sabin@parliament.govt.nz>
Katrina Shanks <katrina.shanks@parliament.govt.nz>
Scott Simpson <scott.simpson@parliament.govt.nz>
Nick Smith <nick.smith@parliament.govt.nz>
Lindsay Tisch <lindsay.tisch@parliament.govt.nz>
Anne Tolley <anne.tolley@parliament.govt.nz>
Chris Tremain <chris.tremain@parliament.govt.nz>
Louise Upston <louise.upston@parliament.govt.nz>
Nicky Wagner <nicky.wagner@parliament.govt.nz>
Kate Wilkinson <kate.wilkinson@parliament.govt.nz>
Maurice Williamson <maurice.williamson@parliament.govt.nz>
Michael Woodhouse <michael.woodhouse@parliament.govt.nz>
Jian Yang <jian.yang@parliament.govt.nz>
Jonathan Young <jonathan.young@parliament.govt.nz>NEW ZEALAND FIRST MPs:
Asenati Lole-Taylor <asenati.lole-taylor@parliament.govt.nz>
Tracey Martin <tracey.martin@parliament.govt.nz>
Denis O’Rourke <denis.orourke@parliament.govt.nz>
Winston Peters <winston.peters@parliament.govt.nz>
Richard Prosser <richard.prosser@parliament.govt.nz>
Barbara Stewart <barbara.stewart@parliament.govt.nz>
Andrew Williams <andrew.williams@parliament.govt.nz>
Credit where credit’s due. Credit is due to the Greens—in particular, to Green MPs Kevin Hague, Mojo Mathers and Metiria Turei—for their input into the Psychoactive Substances Bill, which has its third and final reading on Thursday.
I endorse the Green Party minority view on animal testing. Here it is.
Animal testing
The introduction of a requirement that psychoactive substances are proven to be relatively safe before being sold in New Zealand inevitably creates the requirement for a whole new area of product safety testing. It is unsurprising that this has given rise to very significant concern from New Zealanders who oppose the cruel treatment of animals and who believe that testing of these products on animals in order to establish safety is unnecessary and, indeed, inferior to alternative methods. This view has widespread public support, as public opinion polls on the subject have demonstrated, and many individuals and organisations received encouragement from the Minister and others to express their concerns in submissions to the select committee.
However, on 8 May 2013 the Health Committee Chair ruled that all submissions received on the subject of animal testing were outside the scope of the bill, and these submissions were returned to those who made them without being considered. By a majority the committee decided to reject a Green Party motion to hear evidence from these submitters even if their submissions were out of scope. It is the Green Party’s very strong view that both of these decisions were wrong.
The Clerk of the House had provided advice that amendments to the bill that sought to outlaw product testing on animals were out of scope. However, nearly all of the submissions that were rejected raised issues that could have been addressed by an amendment to the bill to prohibit the use of information derived from animal testing in an application for a licence. The Clerk has advised that such an amendment would clearly be in scope, and the Green Party believes that it was therefore manifestly wrong to refuse to hear public submissions on the matter.
Belatedly the committee did receive advice from the chair of the Interim Psychoactive Substances Expert Advisory Committee, which had been asked by the Minister to comment on the animal testing issues, but which also did not have access to the submissions that had been rejected by the Health Committee chair. That advice was that the interim committee does not believe substances can be established to be low risk without animal testing. This effectively introduces a requirement that there be animal testing data for licence applications, and this new requirement has been introduced entirely without any views from the general public, animal welfare organisations or experts (except those who happen to be on the interim committee).
The Green Party believes this to be profoundly unsatisfactory. In our view, with the initial decision to reject these submissions having been shown to be in error, the correct course of action would have been to reopen submissions on this specific matter.
In the absence of a select committee hearing these submissions, the Green Party invited those individuals and organisations who wished to have their voice heard to do so in a separate hearing. We found as follows:
Non-animal tests are available and more accurate
Evidence was heard that many countries do not use animal testing for pre-clinical trials for safety because the results from non-animal testing are more reliable. The New Zealand Anti-Vivisection Society (NZAVS) said that in 2008 the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institute of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration started a process to replace all toxicology testing on animals with non-animal techniques to produce results that are more relevant to humans.
Submitters talked about other countries that use these non-animal testing programmes as a preference to animal testing. Evidence was presented that the data from animal testing was actually less reliable in safety testing than non-animal testing. It was argued that if the bill allows for the lower quality data from animal testing to be acceptable evidence of safety then human health would be put at risk.
NZAVS gave evidence about the Ministry of Health’s proposed testing regime and outlined in detail the non-animal testing options that are available to provide an adequate, if not superior, guarantee of safety.
A safety testing regime would include four stages:
•manufacturing and controls information
•preclinical toxicology studies
•human clinical studies
•post registration surveillance
It is this pre-clinical testing where animal testing would be used.
The initially proposed pre-clinical testing involves four proposed parts, each of which has well regarded non-animal testing options.
Type of testing Non-animal option Acute toxicity
•Ames Test
•Neutral Red Uptake Assay
•In vitro micronucleus assay as required by Health Canada
•3D models with cultured human cells
•Computer models
Repeat dose toxicity
•Various in vitro human cell line studies e.g. liver, lungs, bone marrow (tests for effects on the immune system)
•Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship (QSAR) computer modelling
Toxicokinetic investigations
•Cell line tests
•In vitro absorption tests e.g. Caco-2 cells
•Computer modelling
•In vitro assays on hepatocytes (liver cells)
•Physiologically Based Toxicokinetic (PBTK) modelling
Genotoxicity
•Ames test
•In vitro cell gene mutation test
•In vitro chromosomal aberration test
•In vitro cell micronucleus test
New Zealand’s international reputation is at risk
It was argued by submitters that New Zealand is known as an innovative country with a reputation for good animal welfare. Submitters said that developing legislation which allows for unnecessary animal testing will damage this reputation, especially given that there is an international trend towards avoiding animal testing wherever possible. SAFE submitted that this is an opportunity to avoid risking our reputation and to enhance our reputation as an innovative and ethical country.
Submitters also gave evidence that other countries are looking to New Zealand’s development of regulation of psychoactive substances as a potential model for their own regulation. Some of these countries also do not allow animal testing of recreational drugs. If they choose to follow the model developed in this bill as it stands they will adapt it to fit their bans on animal testing of recreational drugs.
NZAVS gave evidence gained from an Official Information Act request of correspondence between the chair of the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee and her equivalent in the United Kingdom that showed the UK ban on animal testing would also apply to psychoactive substances.
Animal testing is ethically and morally questionable
One submission from an animal rescue organisation, Helping You Help Animals (HUHA), talked about the pain and discomfort that these sorts of tests inflict on animals. Their organisation was involved with rescuing dogs from an animal testing facility and they witnessed serious damage and harm to those animals.
They spoke about their experiences of working with some people who carry out animal testing who had been overexposed to animal suffering and had lost their empathy when it came to the animals under their care.
Submitters told the hearings that unless it was ruled out in the bill, then animal testing would most likely be carried out in other countries, some of which have no animal welfare regulations and so the conditions can be assumed to be worse.
A number of countries already ban non-medical animal testing from an ethical standpoint. Toxicity testing is particularly painful experimentation. Submitters argued that the consideration of this bill is the chance for New Zealand to draw an ethical line on this issue.
Cost implications of non-animal testing
The cost of alternatives to animal testing is significantly higher. Because the cost of safety testing for a product will be carried by the manufacturers, not the Government, submitters argued that this higher cost of non-animal testing creates an incentive for animal testing to be used.
In fact, the point was made that if the bill does not rule out the use of data from animal testing then the cost difference will ensure that manufacturers use the cheapest method to provide evidence, and that will be animal testing regardless of the quality of that evidence.
Submitters spoke about the dominance of animal testing in the industry in New Zealand—it is the norm, rather than a last resort. Evidence was received to show that this is also the case in some countries such as China where a large amount of contract animal testing is undertaken.
There was evidence presented by submitters that, if data from animal testing is ruled out, businesses will adapt their practices and the cost of non-animal testing will drop as demand for these tests increases and capacity to undertake these tests develops.
Recommendation
The Green Party recommends that an amendment should be made to the Psychoactive Substances Bill to exclude the use of new information gained through animal testing as evidence in determining the safety of an application.
(Disclaimer. I’m not a big fan of the Greens as a general rule. Their economic and environmental polices are whack. A Green government would be ruinous for New Zealand. But, at times like this, I’m very glad that the Greens have a Parliamentary presence.)
One argument against broadcasting trials live
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRCQWA4dnEw
Syd Barrett
Pink Floyd facebook… Today, in 2006, Roger Keith “Syd” Barrett sadly passed away. What Barrett song(s) are you playing today to remember him?
IMHO … Pink Floyd could well be the greatest band of all time and Syd Barrett was central to their formation… and yet… Though this may be a tad fickle… what I liked best about Sid Barrett is that he went mad.
Why I say this is because Pink Floyd got much better when he left and the loss they felt inspired some of their best work…. Shine on you Crazy Diamonds!It doesn’t feel right sayin this.
Of course musical taste is to a large extent subjective…. culturally relative.. and the value of an Individual’s ‘contribution’ …the weight of their Soul…their humanity, character, and ‘light’ is generally speaking (but not always) best appreciated by those who knew them.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLKiMbC6s2k
Restore Christchurch Cathedral
Christchurch is not my city, and (although nominally an Anglican) Christchurch Cathedral is not my church. Also, I have little money to contribute to any restoration project that goes ahead. Ultimately, it’s not my decision to make. But I think we should restore Christchurch Cathedral.
Late yesterday afternoon my son took me to see the centre of Christchurch. We parked on Manchester Street. I didn’t even recognise it. Christchurch is a city of rubble and parking lots. The devastation is immense. Nearly two and a half years after the February 2011 earthquake that killed 185 people, restoration of the CBD has hardly even started. I was moved to tears. It’s heartbreaking, and I’m a Wellingtonian.
The Cathedral is the heart of Christchurch. I think it would be good for the people of Christchurch to see the Cathedral restored. If it’s what the Anglican Diocese of Christchurch wants, I hope they restore the Cathedral to its former glory sooner rather than later.
Also in The Weekend Press, Mayor Parker quits.