Wayne Burrows

Proud male, pale, and stale.
Activist, egalitarian, pro-women, pro-men, pro-equality, anti-feminism.
Bridge player, juggler, unicyclist, mathematician.

[Wayne Burrows @WayneJBurrows]

@ltg1810 @richard53450679 @v_j_freeman Yes you did. Calling me names is abusive.

Whether or not I was in the courtroom is irrelevant to my legitimate question asking what evidence proved no consent?

It is precisely because I was not there that I ask that question. Had I been there I would have heard the evidence.

[Wayne Burrows @WayneJBurrows]

@ltg1810 @richard53450679 @v_j_freeman Still doesn't answer my question.

You still don't address your abusive comments.

[Wayne Burrows @WayneJBurrows]

@ltg1810 @richard53450679 @v_j_freeman I haven't expressed am opinion. I have asked what evidence proved consent.

That resulted in you becoming nasty

[Wayne Burrows @WayneJBurrows]

@MathMath901 A.

A²=10+17+2✓170>27+26=53=B².

[Wayne Burrows @WayneJBurrows]

@ltg1810 @richard53450679 @v_j_freeman The judicial system does not know. They make a judgement on incomplete information.

That process will never be certain.

[Wayne Burrows @WayneJBurrows]

@ltg1810 @richard53450679 @v_j_freeman Why do you feel the need to be abusive. Don't respond to me if you just want to call people names.

Your argument becomes abusive when you claim something as true that I never said.

[Wayne Burrows @WayneJBurrows]

@ltg1810 @richard53450679 @v_j_freeman Try giving an answer to my question.

[Wayne Burrows @WayneJBurrows]

@MathMath901 @Dissenting2020 You can't assume not a=b=c.

[Wayne Burrows @WayneJBurrows]

@MathMath901 @IMJackRudd No one is incorrect because there is a case a=b=c that is undefined.

Best answer is undefined for a=b=c otherwise 1.

[Wayne Burrows @WayneJBurrows]

@ltg1810 @richard53450679 @v_j_freeman I don't condone the foul language and would rather it did not occur after my comment directed at others.

Your comment is incredibly flawed. It is fallacious. You make an inaccurate premise. I never claimed the evidence "proved no consent".

Arguing like that causes frustration.

[Wayne Burrows @WayneJBurrows]

@ltg1810 @richard53450679 @v_j_freeman Your logic is failing you. I never said what you are claiming.

The prosecution need to prove there was no consent.

[Wayne Burrows @WayneJBurrows]

@ltg1810 @richard53450679 @v_j_freeman How does any of the evidence prove there was no consent?

[Wayne Burrows @WayneJBurrows]

@v_j_freeman Corroboration of what?

[Wayne Burrows @WayneJBurrows]

@clairemcilvenna Obviously not.

The legal system doesn't require corroborating evidence. As such the process is flawed and almost everyone doesn't know the truth.

[Wayne Burrows @WayneJBurrows]

@JuniDebonaire @PronouncedHare The so-called "Principles of the Treaty" are not written in the Treaty. It benefits us all if we know what those Principles are.

[Wayne Burrows @WayneJBurrows]

@JuniDebonaire @PronouncedHare Te Tiriti guarantees the same rights. It makes sense to make it clear what that means.

As I said quibble with the wording if you want. However, it is impractical to have "Principles of the Treaty" written into law without those same Principles being defined.

[Wayne Burrows @WayneJBurrows]

@JuniDebonaire @PronouncedHare "Nothing in this Act amends the text of the Treaty of Waitangi/te Tiriti o Waitangi."

Did you read the Bill?

The Bill explicitly confirmed Te Tiriti.

"The Crown recognises, and will respect and protect, the rights that hapū and iwi Māori had under the Treaty of Waitangi..."

[Wayne Burrows @WayneJBurrows]

@JuniDebonaire @PronouncedHare Definitely terms is a good thing. Quibble about the definitions of you want but the principle was not only good it was essential.