Talk:Thomas Thorp

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

New Zealand: Politics / Law Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the New Zealand politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the New Zealand law task force.

Untitled

I understand s23g evidence act is widely criticised because it has no logical probative value i.e. it allows expert winesses to state that ANY (or all) behaviours are consistent with sexual abuse, not "it allowed an expert to say that there was no behaviour inconsistent with sexual abuse." Why use the double negative? Richard 04:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, I think you're correct but I was quoting Thorp, who I understand used the double negative. 02:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC) User:NZ Researcher

OK, I've since noticed that Bernard Robertson used same double negative in his criticism of 23g as well. Perhaps it's an innate characteristic of legal people to create complexity out of simplicity. [deity of your choice] help us all. Richard 10:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]