Covid-19 Yarn

Judge for yourself rather than looking at @Thomass aka @bono selected screenshots.  

Because it is incumbent on NZTR to fund that and they don't.

I've used your favourite AI tool "AI Overview Whether there is any "excuse" for human physical violence is a complex question that depends on whether one is looking for a legal, ethical, or moral justification. While advocates and experts agree that there is never an excuse for domestic abuse, intimate partner violence, or acts of power and control, certain, narrow, and specific circumstances are generally recognized where the use of physical force may be legally and ethically justified.  Widely Recognized Justifications Self-Defense: The most universally accepted justification for physical violence is to protect oneself from an immediate, imminent threat of serious physical harm. Defense of Others: Similar to self-defense, using reasonable force to protect another person from an active, violent attack is often considered justifiable. Preventing Imminent Harm (Defense of Property/Others): In some jurisdictions, reasonable force may be used to prevent a crime from being committed, such as stopping a burglary or preventing a child from running into danger. Law Enforcement: The use of force is legally sanctioned for police officers in specific, regulated situations to maintain public safety or apprehend suspects.  Key Conditions for Justification For violence to be considered legally or ethically justified, it generally must meet strict criteria:  Proportionality: The force used must match the level of the threat (i.e., you cannot use deadly force against a non-deadly threat). Imminence: The threat must be happening now, not a past or future threat. Reasonableness: The action must be what a "reasonable person" would do in that situation.  Contextual Distinctions No Excuse for Abuse: Violence used to control, intimidate, or harm a partner or family member is never justified, regardless of provocation, stress, or the influence of alcohol/drugs. Retaliation vs. Defense: Hitting someone back after they have stopped attacking is considered retaliation or revenge, not self-defense, and is not legally excused. Philosophical Views: While some, such as pacifists, argue that violence is never moral, others argue that violence can be a justifiable "last resort" to uphold justice, protect the vulnerable, or defend a community.  In summary, while "excuses" are often offered to rationalize violent outbursts (such as "I was drunk" or "I was provoked"), these are not accepted as valid justifications for abuse. The only generally accepted, narrow exceptions are restricted to immediate, proportional defense of life and safety."   So, NO is the answer...obviously You can make up all the excuses in the 'violence' World...wasting, heat of the moment (after the race is NOT hotm) wife didn't cook her partners eggs properly, et el It's NEVER justified and if you still think it is then i suggest you hand in your counselling badge         

No that Freehold land was one of the factors not the complete picture nor did I rank the relative importance.  That said CJC seem to have a more secure location than the likes of New Plymouth.   As for you second question you miss the point.  It is incumbent on each and ever club to maintain their own infrastructure.  Not many are doing it.