D'oh!

In a previous post about the 3-Strikes Bill I made two mistakes.

I thought it important to acknowledge these.

First oops

I said:

Even if lawmakers could accept the principle that after three serious offences you're a goner, getting them to agree on what those offences should be would be next to impossible. If you scan through the offences listed at section 86A you'll see that most of them are serious violent or sexual offences. But then you see listed the offence of compelling an indecent act with an animal.

Now I'm an animal lover (no, not that kind!), but, really, does someone who's been amorous with a sheep on a lonely rural night really deserve to have a strike offence against their name?

Well, actually, the offence of compelling an indecent act with an animal isn't so innocuous. It involves person A compelling by force person B to do certain things. I'll let you work the rest out.

Second oops

I also said:

This Bill is a dead duck. If it survives to become law it will be so watered down as to be utterly ineffective, even if we accept it could ever have had any positive effect to begin with.

Ah, wrong again. The Bill contains other sentencing provisions that the Nats are quite keen on. What I should have said was that the Bill in its current form is a dead duck.

I could have just modified my original posts, but its always better to be open and honest about one's screw-ups. For those I set wrong I unreservedly apologise.

But I did so want a picture in that post, so the sheep stay.