I only read this because I was amused that Copeland and Dunne are both trying to grab the headlines over the latest dog attack. Methinks Copeland might be trying a tad too hard though with his latest suggestion;
“However any ban needs to go beyond just eliminating these dogs from our society in the future and, although I know it is a tough call, I think we need to look at the destruction of these breeds in their entirety starting from now. Our children must come first."
Say what?? How will that work? Put out a call to all dangerous dog owners (I know that's ambiguous but some owners are more dangerous than their dogs) to bring them into the pound to be destroyed? Rounding up every family pet Staffie? Gordon Bennett, Gordon. Get a grip.
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
How times change
Today Nanny vilifies and persecutes smokers, fat people, child-smackers, christians, and dog-owners but never a word is said about evil expectorators who seem to be everywhere.
"Food that travels well"
The following Lincoln University research is being quoted in the New York Times. Interesting.
* Most notably, they found that lamb raised on New Zealand's clover-choked pastures and shipped 11,000 miles by boat to Britain produced 1,520 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per ton while British lamb produced 6,280 pounds of carbon dioxide per ton, in part because poorer British pastures force farmers to use feed.
* In other words, it is four times more energy-efficient for Londoners to buy lamb imported from the other side of the world than to buy it from a producer in their backyard. Similar figures were found for dairy products and fruit.
The only thing is English lamb is nicer than NZ lamb. I buy for flavour and tenderness.
* Most notably, they found that lamb raised on New Zealand's clover-choked pastures and shipped 11,000 miles by boat to Britain produced 1,520 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per ton while British lamb produced 6,280 pounds of carbon dioxide per ton, in part because poorer British pastures force farmers to use feed.
* In other words, it is four times more energy-efficient for Londoners to buy lamb imported from the other side of the world than to buy it from a producer in their backyard. Similar figures were found for dairy products and fruit.
The only thing is English lamb is nicer than NZ lamb. I buy for flavour and tenderness.
Under-reporting, over-reporting
Figures released by CYF to the Herald on Sunday last week show in the year to June 30, a total of 4672 cases of child abuse - 46 per cent of the overall total - came from Maori households, compared with 27.8 per cent (2828 cases) from Pakeha families. That number for Maori is up from 45.1 per cent the previous year. The figure for Pakeha is down from 30.7 per cent. Only 2.8 per cent of abused children are Asian and 16.4 per cent are Pacific Island.
These figures struck me as too low. The reason why is CYF have left out the 'neglect' category - usually included under the general heading of 'abuse' - which adds about fifty percent more. (Unless of course the reporter left them out.)
So we have people like the Children's Commissioner over-stating the problem (because she is pushing her grand plan to monitor all children and the bigger the problem the more public buy-in she can get.) Barnardos overstating the problem (because they want more public and government funding). And you get other organisations (government) understating it probably for performance - both organisational and political - reasons.
What is noticeable however is the similarity between the year to December 2006 and the year to June 2007. 10,873 to 10,156. The number says more to me about CYF capacity than anything else. This is the number they can deal with so cases are prioritised accordingly.
These figures struck me as too low. The reason why is CYF have left out the 'neglect' category - usually included under the general heading of 'abuse' - which adds about fifty percent more. (Unless of course the reporter left them out.)
So we have people like the Children's Commissioner over-stating the problem (because she is pushing her grand plan to monitor all children and the bigger the problem the more public buy-in she can get.) Barnardos overstating the problem (because they want more public and government funding). And you get other organisations (government) understating it probably for performance - both organisational and political - reasons.
What is noticeable however is the similarity between the year to December 2006 and the year to June 2007. 10,873 to 10,156. The number says more to me about CYF capacity than anything else. This is the number they can deal with so cases are prioritised accordingly.
Monday, August 06, 2007
Blocking information
A discussion between Judith Collin's researcher and myself precipitated this release questioning the rise in the number of 16 and 17 year-olds on an invalid's benefit. What concerns me deeply is her office's inability to get questions answered by the Ministry equals my own. There isn't much point in having MPs if their access to information is blocked. Like me they are left trying to put together pieces of a puzzle and making stabs in the dark as to the true situation. It's not good enough and it's not what Labour promised. Perhaps the clamp down was a directive from David Benson-Pope. To his credit under Maharey the Ministry was more forthcoming. That may have been merely coincidental.
I made a second complaint to the Office of the Ombudsmen in February and still have not received a response. It is ironic that under the Official Information Act ministries have 20 working days to respond. Yet the office that oversees the proper implementation of the Act has no such obligation. Who scrutinises the scrutinisers?
Update; After phoning the Ombudsman's Office to chase up my complaint I was initially told the letter couldn't be located. The following day I was rung and informed it had been found but has not even been looked at yet. Great.
I made a second complaint to the Office of the Ombudsmen in February and still have not received a response. It is ironic that under the Official Information Act ministries have 20 working days to respond. Yet the office that oversees the proper implementation of the Act has no such obligation. Who scrutinises the scrutinisers?
Update; After phoning the Ombudsman's Office to chase up my complaint I was initially told the letter couldn't be located. The following day I was rung and informed it had been found but has not even been looked at yet. Great.
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Some 'noise'
Deborah Coddington's Herald on Sunday column today is also about the child abuse problem. Her angle is, politically nothing is going to change.
Act, the only party ever to have a half-decent welfare policy, has confused libertarian with libertine and reinvented itself as the "fun party", fiddling while Rome burns.
I understand that Rodney is the target of Deborah's anti-ACT barbs. But "fiddling while Rome burns" is rather unfair to Heather (who has never had a bad word for Deborah). This is Heather's area. Not Rodney's. Last week she had this and this to say. She is working as hard as any other social services spokesperson to present ACT's ideas about what would make a difference. And the quality of that presentation is better than most.
Act, the only party ever to have a half-decent welfare policy, has confused libertarian with libertine and reinvented itself as the "fun party", fiddling while Rome burns.
I understand that Rodney is the target of Deborah's anti-ACT barbs. But "fiddling while Rome burns" is rather unfair to Heather (who has never had a bad word for Deborah). This is Heather's area. Not Rodney's. Last week she had this and this to say. She is working as hard as any other social services spokesperson to present ACT's ideas about what would make a difference. And the quality of that presentation is better than most.
Cindy Kiro's claims
From the Sunday Star Times Cindy Kiro claims, in an interview with Steve Braunias;
"(But) of the 88 children killed between 2002 and 2006, 48 were Pakeha. Maori were 28. The remainder were Pacific Island and a few Asian."
In the context of the interview which was, as you would expect, about child abuse, thus deaths from maltreatment, you would expect her to quote relevant figures.
In the five years to 2003 38 children died as a result of maltreatment. From 93-98 fifty. Here are the facts;
Children killed per 100,000 aged 0-14
1991-2000
Non-Maori - 0.67
Maori - 2.40
Total - 1.07
2001-2005
Non-Maori - 0.60
Maori - 1.34
Total - 0.79
Source: Mike Doolan, Canterbury University.
The rates are falling. The 0-14 population has been steady since around 1994. Unless 2006 was an aberration her figures cannot be right. Now why would she produce such inflated figures?
"(But) of the 88 children killed between 2002 and 2006, 48 were Pakeha. Maori were 28. The remainder were Pacific Island and a few Asian."
In the context of the interview which was, as you would expect, about child abuse, thus deaths from maltreatment, you would expect her to quote relevant figures.
In the five years to 2003 38 children died as a result of maltreatment. From 93-98 fifty. Here are the facts;
Children killed per 100,000 aged 0-14
1991-2000
Non-Maori - 0.67
Maori - 2.40
Total - 1.07
2001-2005
Non-Maori - 0.60
Maori - 1.34
Total - 0.79
Source: Mike Doolan, Canterbury University.
The rates are falling. The 0-14 population has been steady since around 1994. Unless 2006 was an aberration her figures cannot be right. Now why would she produce such inflated figures?
Saturday, August 04, 2007
"How to rip off WINZ"
Should I be angry or pleased about an article in Salient, "How to rip-off WINZ"?
The more exposure this crooked, corrupt system gets the better I suppose. But encouraging people towards the lowest common denominator behaviour is not going to make things better. Its the old, if you can't beat 'em you may as well join 'em trick.
The article, published this week , detailed ways for people to get the most out of the Work and Income system – including cell phones, clothes, abortions, vasectomies, dental care and furniture.
Salient editor Steve Nicoll said the article was factually correct and not misleading anybody.
"We are providing a service, telling people about what Work and Income offer. We don't advise anyone to do anything that is against the law," he said.
It may be legal but it isn't ethical. I know it's supposed to be funny but it's not funny when this is what we are telling our supposed 'best and brightest'.
The more exposure this crooked, corrupt system gets the better I suppose. But encouraging people towards the lowest common denominator behaviour is not going to make things better. Its the old, if you can't beat 'em you may as well join 'em trick.
The article, published this week , detailed ways for people to get the most out of the Work and Income system – including cell phones, clothes, abortions, vasectomies, dental care and furniture.
Salient editor Steve Nicoll said the article was factually correct and not misleading anybody.
"We are providing a service, telling people about what Work and Income offer. We don't advise anyone to do anything that is against the law," he said.
It may be legal but it isn't ethical. I know it's supposed to be funny but it's not funny when this is what we are telling our supposed 'best and brightest'.
Friday, August 03, 2007
A job for you
Jim Hopkins at his brilliant best. A must read.
In fact cut and paste the url and send it to Hodgson and Maharey just to ensure they get the message. I'm going to.
In fact cut and paste the url and send it to Hodgson and Maharey just to ensure they get the message. I'm going to.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Pissed off (but not pissed) worker
This just arrived in my in-box;
I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to earn that pay cheque, as I work in heavy industry , I am required to pass a random urine test, with which I have no problem (in passing) .
What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare cheque because I have to pass one to earn it for them??
Please understand – I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet.
I do on the other hand have a problem with helping someone sit on their arse drinking piss & smoking dope all day .
Could you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a DPB cheque?????
Please pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don't.
Hope you all will pass it along though, because something has to change in this country, and soon!
I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to earn that pay cheque, as I work in heavy industry , I am required to pass a random urine test, with which I have no problem (in passing) .
What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare cheque because I have to pass one to earn it for them??
Please understand – I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet.
I do on the other hand have a problem with helping someone sit on their arse drinking piss & smoking dope all day .
Could you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a DPB cheque?????
Please pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don't.
Hope you all will pass it along though, because something has to change in this country, and soon!
It's like blackmail
What took Sue so long? I've been expecting this for days;
"When the overarching goal of the benefit system is that people on the DPB, invalids and sickness benefits should aim to get into the paid workforce as soon as possible - and case managers at Work and Income actively pursue this strategy - mothers will sometimes feel impelled to go out to work, and may end up at times leaving their children with people who may not provide the best possible care for the child."
Now it's our fault the mother left her child with a bunch of untrustworthy people. Negation of responsibility never ends in Sue Bradford's world. It's societies fault that people do not take advantage of the education they are offered. It societies fault they then can't get jobs. It's societies fault they have kids they can't afford to feed. So society better cough up and pay these people for the ills it has visited on them. And it better keep paying them because otherwise children will be maimed.
"When the overarching goal of the benefit system is that people on the DPB, invalids and sickness benefits should aim to get into the paid workforce as soon as possible - and case managers at Work and Income actively pursue this strategy - mothers will sometimes feel impelled to go out to work, and may end up at times leaving their children with people who may not provide the best possible care for the child."
Now it's our fault the mother left her child with a bunch of untrustworthy people. Negation of responsibility never ends in Sue Bradford's world. It's societies fault that people do not take advantage of the education they are offered. It societies fault they then can't get jobs. It's societies fault they have kids they can't afford to feed. So society better cough up and pay these people for the ills it has visited on them. And it better keep paying them because otherwise children will be maimed.
Breast feeding bunkum
This business of enshrining in law the right of mothers to breast feed in public is just foot stamping to the nth degree. It's an issue driven by obsolete feminists who haven't got anything substantial left to bitch about.
Steve Chadwick is just the most infuriating woman. With her droll tones she tells Kaye Gregory that human rights trump property rights. Yes. It's all about a babies right to nutrition. Bunkum. It's about militant women's rights. The right of a business owner to treat his premises as private is non-existent.
A babies right to nutrition, my arse Steve.
Steve Chadwick is just the most infuriating woman. With her droll tones she tells Kaye Gregory that human rights trump property rights. Yes. It's all about a babies right to nutrition. Bunkum. It's about militant women's rights. The right of a business owner to treat his premises as private is non-existent.
A babies right to nutrition, my arse Steve.
Messy
The major coverage of what John Key did and didn't say about the trans-Tasman therapeutic deal is in the Herald.
The DomPost has it on A8 with the role of the Australian Commissioner as a focus. But the PM has also waded in contradicting Key's claim that National were not consulted. She personally talked to Murray McCully to make an "eleventh hour plea for compromise.". Here's what Helen Clark says about Key;
"I think this guy [Mr Key] has got a problem with the truth: BP [David Benson-Pope] swung for less."
Very messy. And uh-oh. More bad timing. On the eve of National's conference the DomPost has John Key now saying (confirming?) no personal tax-cuts till 2010.
The DomPost has it on A8 with the role of the Australian Commissioner as a focus. But the PM has also waded in contradicting Key's claim that National were not consulted. She personally talked to Murray McCully to make an "eleventh hour plea for compromise.". Here's what Helen Clark says about Key;
"I think this guy [Mr Key] has got a problem with the truth: BP [David Benson-Pope] swung for less."
Very messy. And uh-oh. More bad timing. On the eve of National's conference the DomPost has John Key now saying (confirming?) no personal tax-cuts till 2010.
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Domestic violence is two way
The focus on men as the only or major perpetrators of domestic violence is wrong.
There are many, many studies that disprove this.
Here are the results of just one New Zealand survey.
Has any partner EVER actually used force or violence on you, such as deliberately hit, kicked, pushed, grabbed or shoved you, or deliberately hit you with something, in a way that could have hurt you?
Sample of 2526 ever partnered women 21.2 percent
Sample of 1721 ever partnered men 14.4 percent
This initiative to screen all women entering hospital is unjustified.
And here's a thought. As with my other speculation about unthinkable unintended consequences (below) there are some men who are sadistically and pathologically jealous and violently controlling. If such a man knows his partner will be questioned in hospital won't he act to prevent her ever getting there?
There are many, many studies that disprove this.
Here are the results of just one New Zealand survey.
Has any partner EVER actually used force or violence on you, such as deliberately hit, kicked, pushed, grabbed or shoved you, or deliberately hit you with something, in a way that could have hurt you?
Sample of 2526 ever partnered women 21.2 percent
Sample of 1721 ever partnered men 14.4 percent
This initiative to screen all women entering hospital is unjustified.
And here's a thought. As with my other speculation about unthinkable unintended consequences (below) there are some men who are sadistically and pathologically jealous and violently controlling. If such a man knows his partner will be questioned in hospital won't he act to prevent her ever getting there?
What if?
I had a dreadful thought. I was mentally replaying a conversation I'd had with a woman yesterday. We were talking about the Rotorua incident. She was very scathing of Bradford's bill asking, as others are, why didn't that stop them? These groups aren't connected to society, I responded. They aren't interested in the law. They aren't interested in gaining society's approval. In fact, the very opposite applies. They enjoy society's disapproval. They provoke it.
Then I stopped in my tracks. What if this horrible business is the very result of not smacking the child. Imagine for a moment a bunch of stoned or drunk people gleefully thumbing their noses at the anti-smacking bill. They didn't say we couldn't hang her on a clothesline eh? They didn't say we couldn't put her in a tumble-dryer eh? They didn't say we couldn't put her outside in the freezing cold or on the roof eh?
Some hold that these types are so disconnected they wouldn't have known about the bill. I very much doubt that because the TV rarely goes off. When they've run out of money for DVDs and X-box games they have to watch something. If I was anywhere near the truth there would at least be some reason behind such senseless acts.
Then I stopped in my tracks. What if this horrible business is the very result of not smacking the child. Imagine for a moment a bunch of stoned or drunk people gleefully thumbing their noses at the anti-smacking bill. They didn't say we couldn't hang her on a clothesline eh? They didn't say we couldn't put her in a tumble-dryer eh? They didn't say we couldn't put her outside in the freezing cold or on the roof eh?
Some hold that these types are so disconnected they wouldn't have known about the bill. I very much doubt that because the TV rarely goes off. When they've run out of money for DVDs and X-box games they have to watch something. If I was anywhere near the truth there would at least be some reason behind such senseless acts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
