Unhappy Families – at least you can pick your friends – part the third.

I make no apology for the airing of dirty laundry and tawdry family behaviour in what follows. I'm as amazed and amused as you might be;

The cast, a family of 8;  5 boys, 3 girls :

#1 Son - Australia / #2 Son - England /  #3 Son (#6 child)  - New Zealand #4 Son (#7 child) England #5 Son (#8 child) - unknown
#1 Sister - England (#3 child) / #2 Sister (#4 child) - Norfolk / #3 Sister (#5 child) - Derby

The prequel....

• My mother died suddenly and unexpectedly, and without a will.


• There are 8 children, and we all live in dispersed places through the world, I'm in New Zealand, I have a brother in Australia. The rest of the family are salted throughout England.


• Only one child, #1 sister lived in proximity to where the mother was living, in a sheltered accommodation (granny ghetto), and spent a fair amount of time with her.


• That we were from a poor background led us to assume that the 'estate', such as it was, consisted only of a small amount of money in a Post Office account.


• It was suggested, by #2 Son, and it was a good suggestion, that should the mother die then that fund should cover the cost of the funeral and anything left to go to the #1 sister.

And it turns out that on her death we know that there was at least a HSBC banking account with some money in it.

Part the Second - the waiting bit  - And this is where it went a bit wrong.......

We have a brother who for whatever reason has decided to go awol. He's been unheard of for a few years. His choice. #1 Sister decided to tell the HSBC that there were only 7 children, which raised a few eyebrows, and caused some discussion between us, we all by consensus acknowledge his fair entitlement to inclusion in the family (As if that's not the law anyway).  #4 son was volunteered to take things in hand and to take legal steps to become the administrator of the estate, since settling with the HSBC would have been impossible with only 7 of 8 signatures required.

A year or so (quickly) went past and I, in a fit of pique, decided to contact the family (Actually rather un-tactfully I put a post on FB) about how I was getting a bit miffed about not knowing what was happening. I got a fair old mouthful of feedback from the brothers (and wives of brothers) about how I needed to take a chill pill.

#4 son then starts to pursue vigorously the steps to become an administrator, which means swearing something or other in front of a judge or some such. Very important, and clearly it comes with a bunch of requirements and obligations, such as accounting for all the estate money, and assigning it to the right places.

#1 sister is asked, politely, to provide a statement or receipts of the money spent from the post office account (As mentioned above), as part of that. Also a general enquiry was made to the banking system to discover any other banking accounts that may have been active.

#1 sister sends a letter and at the end turns on the family

"May I remind all my family that on mum’s birthday it was agreed that as I had looked after mum for many years that when she died I would get everything when she passed. The agreement made still stands.
I do not want anything to do with anyone in my family. So you can take all the bank a/c money & stick it where the sun does not shine. Please do not bother me again."

The list of expenses was a mish-mash of things, but included some items of dubious veracity, and an admission that about 50% of the money that was left had been taken by her for personal expenses and "by this agreement".

Part the third - the bit where you go mmmm...

That's ok. That  there are some dubious expenses listed Is fine, it's nit-picking to go over it with a fine tooth comb and be picky to the Nth degree, but does raise the hackles of the family who want at this point to have a completely fair an open understanding of what is what.

And all this is ok except for a couple of things,

1. Not all the family made this agreement (not that it's not a sensible and fair sounding thing).


2. Turns out from the general enquiry to the banking system that there was another building society account ! Who knew?!

Indeed who knew? #1 sister knew and had produced a statutory declaration signed by her which stated she was legally entitled to the money, and had been paid out in full. #4 son has requested a copy of the declaration as part of his administrator status.

Follows though is a bit of  response from me and fury from #1 Son, #2 Son, and #4 Son. Along the lines that "Any agreement that was made only covered the post office account" and that a building society account was in place was unknown at the time (but not by everyone it seems). The #2 and #3 sisters have been silent on this issue so far between the whole family, they may have or may offer something to #4 son in due course.

What is clear that #1 Sister may have made a bit of a mistake. She's clearly done something that has upset the family and gone against any spirit of agreement or understanding. It might not even be strictly legal.

From the ensuing emails the ongoing consensus seems to be at this point that

• It's not about the money (as if it ever was - the amounts are in reality small).


• It's about fair, and everyone being given the chance to say what happened to the money, and not have some arbitrary "you said in passing I could have it all".


• Those that have an opinion don't think that the money is recoverable from #1 sister.


• Those that have an opinion seem to agree that a legal recourse might be required to make a point.

I'm glad we live so far disbursed from each other, reasoned and judged emails, I think, are the way we're going to resolve this, and resolve it we will. Can you imagine this as an afternoon meeting that you wouldn't want to be at. I have to point out too that MrsPdubyah is convinced that there are more skeletons to uncover, such as the insurance policies that are yet to come to light.

Some Questions for the Whangarei daycare

I have two views on these stories : Daycare 'bullies' for kicking out HIV boy - National - NZ Herald News.  and  HIV boy childcare ban a human rights issue

My first one is strictly a business related question, and it pretty much applies to any private business. Surly a business owner has a right to chose with whom it does business with. If, in this instance, the daycare, chooses not to have as a customer a particular child then that surely must be their right as a business. If they choose only to deal with some customers and they have viable business model than I have no issue with that.

My other view, and this this is very specific to this issue is this:

• Is this a decision based on Fear?


• Is this a decision based on Panic?


• Is this a decision based on Ignorance?


• Does the day care allow un-vaccinated children to attend?


• Does is preclude disabled children from attending?


• Does is preclude special needs children from attending?


• What about a child that has, say for example, leukemia?


• Does if actively ban or supervise, check or make sure that children with Measles are excluded from daycare when they have that particular virus?


• Does if actively ban or supervise, check or make sure that children with Mumps are excluded from daycare when they have that particular virus?


• Does if actively ban or supervise, check or make sure that children with Chicken Pox are excluded from daycare when they have that particular virus?


• Does if actively ban or supervise, check or make sure that children with Nits are excluded from daycare when they have that particular infection?


• Does it allow children with peanut allergy to attend?


• Does it allow children with flu or cold symptoms to attend?


• Does each child require a health compliance certificate to ensure they are not in some way genetically impaired?

As reported this is pretty disgusting. If this is a decision of the owners and is based on a threat of children being pulled out of the ECE center then let them go, apparently ECE centers would have us belive that there an over supply of children and under available of places. No one is under any health threat that is not understood, or known about.

Ir this was about a religious preference, or stigmatism based on religiousness then I'd be horrified. This isn't something to be horrified about this is something that makes you pity the ignorance of some people and makes you wonder if we're still living in the 1800's.

Related articles

• Daycare Dangers Preview (fox2now.com)

The one with and anger monkeys #1

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="240" caption="New Zealand 2007 (Photo credit: Szymon Stoma)"][/caption]

There are a couple of "things" that seems to be lighting up my twitter timeline, newspaper opinion pages, and left and right-wing bloggers.

Mostly its anti-government sentiment, anything that the current National government do seems to be not well received. Mostly by people who voted Labour in the election and had their politicians fail to gain enough votes to make it into government, such is life. So their angst is one of a poor loser, calling foul and crying wolf over pretty much everything, sometimes with justification, mostly it's just whingeing about how their lot would do it better or not at all.

But there are a couple of things that are very raw and sore points, this is one;

#1 Crafar Farms. Shock Horror and Xenophobia we've sold some farms to some Chinese corporation.

It's not a problem to sell farms to James Cameron on the proviso he comes here for 10 days every other year, of to allow Shanaia Twain to buy a chunk of land. Or various other sales to countries of other nationalities

But a few clicks on the interwebtubes brings forth this;

Currently, it is our forest plantations where much of the foreign ownership is found.However, the only comprehensive statistics I have found are from the FAO document database and relate to 1999. At that stage about 72% of our pine forests were foreign owned, with United States companies owning about 35% and Asian companies about 12%. More recent data is incomplete but foreign ownership appears to have further increased.

Our wine industry is also predominantly foreign owned. Montana is owned by French giant Pernod Ricard. Nobilo, Selaks, Kim Crawford and Monkey Bay are owned by American company Constellation. Well known brands such as Cloudy Bay, Matua and Wither Hills are all foreign owned. Although many other wine companies are still Kiwi, they tend to be the small companies, and on a volume basis about 70% is foreign owned. The foreign owned companies have their own estates and then purchase additional grapes from Kiwi contract farmers

Or this

In 2005, the OIC approved the sale of 149,473 hectares of rural land to foreigners, of which about 100,000 hectares was from one foreign investor to another. Foreign owned land covers more than one million hectares or about 7% of our commercially productive land area

However, this current outrage and angst comes down to  two reasons and It's because

They're Chinese,

and

The National party have indicated that they are going to partially sell some of the few remaining assets we have - such as power generation.

The furore in this is the almost laughable outrage that this has generated as if it's a first time thing, and that no one has every done this ever. Fact is that NZ has sold off almost everything it has to private ownership and frankly there are only a few things left worth anything to anyone. Fait play to the 'opposition' on this who've stirred up wild fears and  a catch-cry of "tenants in our own land" hysteria.

Also laughably Sir Michael Fay has come out swinging about how poor this is, which to most people is the pot calling the kettle black, Fay-Ritchwhite having done nicely out of New Zealand in the past. It's obvious that the aim of Sir Fay is to force the public sentiment into a position where he can take advantage of a purchase of some assets, and then chop and shop them around making a tidy profit on the way through. Anyone who thinks he's being altruistic is being naïve in the extreme. Ok so past history does not predict future behavior and I could be wrong. I won't be.

There is such polarization over this issue that's it's difficult to get to a sensible conclusion. All the arguments have inherent truth, however it's a special point-in-time truth that ignores the past, and comes for an instant position taking that only the outraged have. It's not a yes/no question.

And from those that seem to think they're being disadvantaged I wonder where they were when the rest of the silverware was being spirited away by the bad guys?

Related articles

• Who's money is it? (homepaddock.wordpress.com)


• Fran O'Sullivan: Crafar ruling robust first step (nzherald.co.nz)


• Crafar chasers to challenge decision (nzherald.co.nz)


• Chinese have same rights as other buyers - Key (radionz.co.nz)


• Papers show Crafar pressure (nzherald.co.nz)


• Crafar: NZ 'open' for foreign buyers (nzherald.co.nz)


• Relationship with China taken into account on Crafar deal (radionz.co.nz)


• Facts missing from figures (homepaddock.wordpress.com)

Mojo Mathers - Moments of Madness

All this despite the Green party having fore-knowledge and already having access to a taxpayer-funded budget of $5,600,000 over the term of parliament to provide MP Support.. read on..

There was a furious display of Faux Outrage yesterday over a news item that appeared, purporting to indicate that the Speaker of the House of Parliment in New Zealand had told a new MP, who happens to have a disability of profound deafness, that Parliamentary Services would not fund a "note taker" to the sum of $20-30,000, and that she had "to fund it herself"

MPs gets funding to cover 80 hours of staff time a week, or two full-time equivalent workers, for assistants inside and outside Parliament.

Mathers estimates she needs 1000 hours a year for staff to send an instant transcript of proceedings in the debating chamber to a laptop on her desk.

However that's not quite true, The Original News Article is here "The Green Party reacted with outrage today after Ms Mathers was told she would have to fund her note-taker from her MP support budget, or that the party would have to fund it."

I might be wrong but a "note taker" is a physical person who in real-time transcribes what is happening in the debating chamber so that the MP can participate in the debate. And it was pointed out by someone on Twitter "Can I just point out. NZ govt sits for approx 352 hours/yr = 30k/352hrs/3 = $416/hr/govt term. THATS EXPENSIVE!"

The Speaker of the house, Dr Smith, said "while Parliamentary Service paid for the technological support, the actual note-taker was a staffing cost, and he did not have the authority to approve such funding.

"Staff time like that, or support like that, is not something I can just ask the Parliamentary Service to provide,'' he said.

"Support for Members of Parliament is something that's spelt out in the Speaker's directions, its separately appropriated by Parliament. I can't, under the law, simply say 'oh, forget about that, we'll put a bit of money in from here or there', it's something I have to consult on.''

The NZ HErald are  having a poll on the issue today:



And WhaleOil on his blog today posted this  Questions for the Greens.

Why are the Greens not telling anyone that she worked for 5 years as a senior policy advisor for The Greens?

She was also a parliamentary advisor at one point.

That means she was well aware of the Parliamentary environment.

I wonder whether she or the Greens have previously paid for her to have an electronic note taker in that environment before?

Clearly the Greens are using disability as a means to grandstand

It's also been pointed out variously that this requirement hasn't come as a surprise, it's been known about for months, at least since the election in 2011.

Personally I don't think this is an issue of making the proceedings of the chamber of the house of parliament accessible to 700,000 hearing impaired individuals in NZ, but the introduction of close captioned coverage, I think this the Green party (it could have been any party) pushing the envelope and making an issue to be able to maximize their already generous $5.6million budget, it's not an attack on the disabled, or one person with a disability, it's not about the rights of the individual. It's about troughing.

Nobody that I know of is denying that Mojo Mathers should be able to participate fully in a role as MP, which means that she has a special and specific need, not currently funded or provided for by Parlimentary Services. To me its not a big deal. There is taxpayer funding provided to all parties for MP support, taxpayer funding that they, the MP's have variously voted for and increased over the years.

Nobody should compare deafness to mobility disability, wheelchair access is provisioned for and is included in the legal requirements for buildings. Deafness and Wheelchair not the same. Not close.

Twitter and various blogs got into a major tizzie over this, and it's doubtful, today, if any of them have had second thoughts, pause to reconsider or indeed feel sheepish enough to actually agree that what happened wasn't what they thought, which included the end of the world, end end of democracy, vicious and deliberate disability bashing, wilful and negligent callousness etc etc.

I doubt it.

Related articles

• Smith's 'Mojo Moment' (kutarere.wordpress.com)


• Deaf MP pushing for tech upgrade (nzherald.co.nz)


• Entitlement and the Green Experience  (Sage of the South)

Megaupload - Faux Outrage

I might be seeing this wrong.

If it was Bernard Madoff, Sir Allan Stanford, Nick Leeson, Ken Lay, Bernie Ebbers, Dennis Kozlowski & it was a $500 million alleged financial fraud, & they were arrested in NZ you'd probably be thinking "good job" and be in general support.

I think the thing is there are two issues:

1. The fact that Kim Dotcom has been arrested or held at the behest of the FBI in New Zealand. This seems to be counter to most people's expectations of a fair and free existence, and seem to trample on our sovereignty and right to police our own country. A sort of  "How dare they!"

The NZ ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has this handy document on Extradition. "The Act does not require a foreign country to have a treaty to request extradition from New Zealand"

or

1. That most of the tech-savvy may have at one time or another used the services facilitated by Megaupload, or one of the many other similar services, such as PirateBay, LimeWire, Rapidshare, and that we don't collectively see this as a 'theft" or "fraud" issue.

Megauplaod upload exists to facilitate the movement of large files in a direct download model between users, on an often anonymous basis. Someone uploads a file and then others can pick and choose to download that file - in total- as they choose, or not.

To drag someone back to the USA to face a media storm and circus seems a little odd. But then financial fraud and crime needs to be dealt with in a far more seveer manner than most other crimes.

Bit of a pigs ear then, the "authorities" could have closed down the business, and frozen assets under various RICO and money laundering / income from crime statutes I imagine without the drama of extradition and display, which in the end would result in one man in jail for a few years for being a visionary, albeit a bit of a dodgy one.

Related articles

• Feds Shut Down File-Sharing Website Megaupload.com, Seven People Charged (circleid.com)


• Pop Artists Support Megaupload; Universal Censors (entertainment.slashdot.org)

In the court of public opinion - #1

In the case of a 16yo in Turangi A particularly tasteless sex crime against a girl 5.

Thankfully public opinion and sentiment isn't the deciding factor in what if any punishments are due. There isn't much doubt about guilt, the teen, by all accounts, turned himself in, and is in custody, bail declined, for the duration.  The story will be one of why, and how. And we will all have an opinion on that.

But is you've been unfortunate enough to read some blogs then you'll find things like this, all anonymous all ignorant and all rabid;

• "Hopefully this scumbag will be jailed. He will last about 5 seconds in prison."


• "He should be fucking shot"


• "he big pity is ... the cunt is only 16 and  will create a feeding frenzy for lawyers, psychiatrist and the like all at our expence, besides that in jail nowadays most of the crims are in for similar shit, they will just fuck him."


• "16. Disgusting. And of course will likely not be convicted due to his age. Appalling."


• "I REALLY hope that the judge refuses name suppression in this case."


• "It's well past time minors got automatic name suppression. Hang em high"


• ime for a little social justice me thinks....Should get a lynch mob together outside Taupo youth court for a public castration and flogging. What a piece of trash cant wait till his lawyer (probably tax payer provided) blames his tragic upbringing."

And that's just from just one blog!

Twitter had is share of agony aunts and uncles, with one long and ill-informed back and forth about nature over nurture that I was (As was the whole of connected twitter) watching (or participating in).

Bottom line is not a one of us knows, and not a one of us will get to decide on this. The worst thing about this whole episode, in my opinion, is the level of faux outrage that  people have. The crime was sick and distasteful, all crimes against children are, but with a little nudge from the media and we have a circus born. And to the circus come the freaks, freaks with opinions, bloated, self-important or ill-informed, all there at one outlet or another.

This is the price we pay for democracy on the internet of course, we're all allowed our say and we're all at liberty to share it with who ever we like, where we like, and how we like.

Casting aside even our own sense of moral right and climbing on the high horse of public outrage doesn't end well. We're increasingly like a school of  sharks who encircle the next victim with a savage onslaught, only to move away quietly to the next victim, out faux outrage dissipated.

We've had this Faux Outrage at events such as, Pike river, Michael Laws, Garth George, The Tea Cup fiasco,  the Rena accident, and just about any time there is a child abuse case spread across the media.

It's ok to be disgusted, and to be confused by events that you don't have any control over, really it is, however it's not ok to assume that you are the arbiter of outcomes. It just doesn't work that way.

just saying.

The Public Purse - Having your snout in it, or how Parliamentary Staff Cuts are the fault of John Key.

Someone is making a story up. The PSA are a very noisy union all about feathering the nest of those that have been employed at the cost to the public purse, they are troughers.

I do have to say that  that really is what a union is, the what's in it for the worker, regardless of the cost to the work (employers) mentality. IT's not about "fair" or "equitable" it's about "protectionism".

So then via Parliamentary Staff Cut - politics - national | Stuff.co.nz.

"The festive season is somewhat subdued at Parliament this year after advisers, managers, press secretaries, librarians and executive assistants lost their jobs.

Most of the staff employed within the parliamentary precinct are employed by the Parliamentary Service, which this year was reorganised in a bid to cut costs.

As with elsewhere in the public sector, back office functions are being amalgamated."

All of which seems very logical and normal part of cutting your cloth to suit your needs - we're not flush with cash as a country and there is over-population in some sectors of public service. Right then carry on :

"General manager Geoff Thorn said this had resulted in the senior management team being reduced from six to four."
and
"Much of the reduction had been achieved through natural attrition but two librarians were made redundant, he said"
and
"Executive assistants to MPs are employed on fixed-term "events-based" contracts around each election. That means their contracts terminate when the MPs they work for are no longer members"

Well excuse me if Labour had better policy and leadership they'd have more MP's, And that's about the long and short of it. How does Brenda Pilott -  http://www.psa.org.nz - get to her statement that this is only bad for opposition MP's. And that this was picked up and re-tweeted by Trevor Mallard - who knows who pulls the strings.



When you realise that the PSA values are the core of the Labour party then it all becomes a bit clearer. The 'facts' are that rather than have a realistic outlook on what we can afford, or should have, we 'need' to have over staff, multiple layers of overlapping and duplicating services. The unions will fight tooth and nail to ensure that they draw every dollar out of their employer, in this case it's about how many tax dollars can they get their hands on rather then it being available to essential services and the really needy.

The PSA then appear to want to be all about troughing at the public purse, with no accountability or any requirement to have efficiencies or productivity of any kind. Which is really scary. That the EA's that are on contract and being let got get redundancy and doubtless some will be re-employed at a better or same rate seem appalling.



It's just greed. Out and out self centered greed, and blindness to the obvious. And it makes me angry that someone would assert that something that happens every election, with regard to the EA's, can only be a bad thing for the opposition even though the article says "The Greens and NZ First are currently interviewing EAs." and that this clearly is the faulty of the new government and unacceptable to the union.

A Commercial venture and the public purse. #4 Bridge sentries cost $80,000

Sentries guarding the Auckland Harbour Bridge on match days of the Rugby World Cup have cost taxpayers more than $80,000.

On watch on the bridge. Photo / Jason Dorday

They are there to foil any attempts at pranks, protests or even terrorism.

Transport Authority spokesman Tommy Parker described the bridge as an iconic structure and said the security was a precautionary measure to ensure no one tried to gain access.

Six security guards have complemented the closed-circuit television on the motorway network and have cost $81,000 for more than 300 hours on duty.

So that's $45 per hour per person for 300 hours to sit and do nothing "just in case". and it's cost the taxpayer $81,000 for the privilege.

This is just a vile use of mitigate and safety planning in a grand  cover-your-arse gesture for some jobsworth in an office. We didn't have this when we had the America's cup in town for instance, and that really was a global event.

And it's already illegal to climb the bridge without authorisation, no corporate in their right mind is going to buy into a guerilla marketing act unless they really do want two reactions (1) legal and (2) loss of market - who's going to think that Corporate X changing the flag for theirs is nothing but a cheap publicity stunt, and the fallout would be horrible for them, and expensive.

The farce that is our bending over and taking one for the #IRB and the #RWC will unfold over the next months, when some of the out-of-pocket expenses that we the country have had to find, without recompense and without any fear of breaking even become apparent. We all know we're in the hole for millions, but it's a lot more millions than they said it would be - wasn't it something like $32millions, give or take.

There is no way that there have been millions of tourista dollars into the economy, most of the attendance is local people using local money that they now won't spend on local things for local people, we've given it all the to the IRB in our wisdom.

At least we're left with not the white elephant Eden Park stadium that will be partially dismantled and under used for the next couple of decades.

via Bridge sentries cost $80,000 - National - NZ Herald News.

A Commercial venture and the public purse. #2

Here's a thing.  We're all familiar with a user pays model. You want something, a goods or service, then you should be expected to pay.

Seems the Police are considering charging the organisers of future big commercial
events, such as the Rugby World Cup, large concerts and the Wellington sevens, for policing.

These Events soak up significant police resources, which leave other areas short-staffed.

And it's free!!. So you can organise the biggest commercial money spinner, and the police will show up, en masse, gratis. Courtesy the tax payer.

That's not at all right by any definition of right.

Crying ensues The cost of recovery would therefore be included in the cost of the ticket. Which will add-on a dollar or two to the ticket price, depending of course on the number of people and the amount of police you had turning up.

Of course being how we're all super scared and all about mitigating problems the real issue is the over-enforcement and the over-policing of events where heavy-handed appears to be the approach, why not use a sledge-hammer to crack a nut.

Build it and they will come.

Or Not.

I'm talking about "Party Central" on the wharves in  Auckland.  A structure designed to hold 12,000 people with an invited audience of the whole city. And what happens when you get it right, a confluence of good weather, fireworks, media hysteria, and the opening of a global tournament? Well you get chaos.

And when the opening hype is passed and the finger-pointing is dying down what happens next, Well in my opinion untill the closing games, the Semi-finals and finals it's going to remain pretty much under used, under visited and an embarrassment.

It so is.

Daily programme for Party Central

Sat 10 Sept -FAMILY WEEKEND – Carnival
Queens Wharf will come alive   for the first family-friendly weekend with a  programme of Carnival fun throughout the day. Expect colourful characters, great  live music and dance performances to entertain the entire family. (emphasis added)
LATE NIGHT AT THE CLOUD – P Money

Sun 11 Sept - FAMILY WEEKEND – Carnival
Mon 12 Sept - THE CLOUD & SHED 10 – Going Global Music Summit

Gosh, must leave work early for some of that.

The posturing of the Minister for RWC, the Auckland Mayor and the transport company are all for nix. They've overextended themselves but won't have to pay with anything other than a public dressing down. The transport system will still be borked, they've even said "don't take trains take buses" which is how confident they are after years of planning. seriously years.

So whilst we have a micro-focus on health and safety that prevents any more than 12,000 people in party central, we have no overall concept of what's going on outside the gates, and it's not like Auckland doesn't have large gatherings, yearly, such as Concert in the park, and the Santa Parade.

I'm ashamed that they'll put Auckland's name against the debacle, when it comes down to a handful of inept bungling self-serving form a circle and give ourselves a pat on the back cronies who will end up with civic awards and accolades because we're too stupid and lazy to bring up the unsightly mess again.

Funding and Self-Sustaining organizations - the 2011 Edition

I've already written on this:

http://pdubyah.wordpress.com/2009/09/21/funding-and-self-sustaining-organizations/

 

From the NZ Herald today : Fashion Week's opening night was swimming along in champagne until managing director Pieter Stewart burst the bubble with a stark warning that the event could not continue without more support.

Minutes after Auckland Mayor Len Brown and Rugby World Cup Minister Murray McCully lauded its contribution to branding Auckland and New Zealand as a creative country, Stewart stepped up to the podium to say that a 12th year showcasing the industry could not be guaranteed.

Sponsorship had been tough this year, she said.

"Rugby World Cup has taken a huge amount out of the economy."

More sponsors were needed and local and central government also needed to look at backing the event.

ITs a commercial event, you are charging a door price to enter. So I say again, as I have about Early Child Education centers, Sports events, Music Concerts, Plays, Opera, Ballet it's a user pays thing. If you have something worth seeing then the people will come. The Rugby Sevens, The Big Day Out, U2, none of them made a loss.

If you have a business idea that is sound then it should also be profitable or break-even if you're feeling altruistic.

Are we to pour a bottomless cup of money into "nice to have" events to assuage the ego of some minor person in a minor industry to make them feel good. New Zealand Fashion Week - what for? who for? why? You're not even going to begin to tell me that it's important because world buyers are totally won over and will hand over cash at such events. If the fashion industry felt it was that important, or they were that good, they would fund it themselves.

Murder Most Foul #1 in a series

There are many murders that get your attention and pique your interest. Fortunately there aren't that many that go unsolved. And even the solved ones can twist like a snake when you take what is mostly a superficial look at them. But we have to have an opinion and we have to have questions, it's the human condition, and you can believe one way or the other that justice was served, or that by your own view it hasn't.  I can think immediately of two that I have a view on.

Away: Peter Falconio.  (20 September 1972 – c. 14 July 2001)  disappeared in the Australian outback in July 2001, while travelling with girlfriend Joanne Lees and is now presumed dead. It's rather contentious and tonight (1st August) it was again alleged on TV that Peter Falconio did a runner and is still alive, and has been seen by 4 people no less, since he was allegedly killed. There was a bit of twitterage about this and seems that there is more than a little doubt that he was killed and that he chose to be disappeared. The whole story seems a little improbable, and they did convict someone of a murder.

It's not possible to put your own reasonings on this, you probably wouldn't stage your own murder/disappearance. Can you imagine living 'on the lam' as it were for what is now a decade? I'm not an expert on this, but how would you survive with a foreign accent in a foreign country, It is possible, people have done it, and will do it again, but I don't recall any background that would indicate Peter F had a bag of cash and the means to get away with it. Improbable but not impossible.

Home: David Bain. Convicted in May 1995 of the murders of his parents and siblings in Dunedin on 20 June 1994. He was acquitted when retried on the same charges 14 years later.

Never has an event really split people so widely. It is my opinion only that the truth hasn't been told in this. The police really stuffed it up from the get go. But after a re-trial where the only possible witness, David Bain, didn't testify what can you conclude?

My two favorite things that are wrong so wrong are; Problems with "index time" that is a central time piece against which everything is timed. What should happen is the lead detective declares the time, and everything you do should be based on the time of that watch/clock/device despite what your watch says. Your watch, my watch, the computer time, the oven, the microwave, the dvd player they all have different times on them, you therefore need a central time clock where you reference too. The police didn't. Big mistake.

And some really weird way in which you can tell when a computer was turned on. Even if you could, and I still don't know how you can, particularly if you turn the computer off and then back on again, what use is forensically diagnosing the time, if the time you arbitrarily decide does not match any reference time, it's just the time you decide on your watch, and not the reference watch. So the forensic test of time will return a time, which is completely arbitrary since there is no way of knowing what time that really is, it could be 10 minutes fast or slow, who knows? Big mistake.

 

Faux outrage, Faux compassion and chipping in!

or slamming and damning, counselling and group grieving and how I learned to react in a group.

Led mostly by media snippets and reporting (often poorly repeated, and incomplete, inaccurate and angled for spin) the collective 'we' is often to quick to anger. Twitter is the new benchmark, Facebook pages would be next. You never hear of a TXT based outrage campaign though.

The hive mind is quick to pounce on indiscretion and verbalise their thoughts. Woe to anyone who swims against the tide. Someone often leads the charge and will whip a horse to death, but then we all have a 'thing' that does that to us (that's a whole new subject).

We're morally indignant about infidelity, as if we're all whiter than white, we're dumbfounded by misogyny, as if men have never leered at a woman of used a stick mag, and we can't belive that a school would add a computing device to the compulsory list for stationery.

We definitely cannot belive  that the Israeli's in Christchurch are tourists, although this seems to be a media hobby-horse and not a hive mind collective.

Anything the Government of the day announces can be negative, mostly negative. The twitterverse will be abuzz with the newly disenfranchised in minutes, spreading like a wildfire, it is to behold!

Similarly with a death. the hive mind seems to get it into its head to want to grieve. Mostly for people they never met, didn't know and didn't much care for before their death. particularly but not limited to children, young pretty females and young males. This is more a Facebook thing. But we're all hectored and badgered into having to be part of a group that mourns, without really understanding why. Hey it's a young person they died in some way or other and we should all feel some collective guilt.

Sure death is tragic, children dying is tragic, young people getting into situations where they kill themselves and others is tragic. It happens daily, worldwide, a lot. Old people die too, but then they had a life already get over it. I don't need to join a Facebook group or have some faux emotion based on an out of context picture in the press or on Facebook. Ge over yourselves.

As for counselling. What an industry that is, we have to take into personal consideration the thoughts and actions of everyone. This will and does and can lead to sheeplike behaviours and group feelings. Individually no, group yes. Naturally I'm not a psychiatrist or behaviours expert but I'm happy to bet cash on this being true.

So Faux Outrage and Grief, the latest big thing, or just the big thing.

Makes it sound like I'm not on any bandwagon, trust me I get on them, and then I get off most of the, some I just sit on for the ride.

ECE a user pays choice, not altruism

Education funding cuts take toll on families

Strikes me than that this is a bit of a cry wolf story. Sure it's a 'cost' but it is subsidised by tax dollars, and effectively a further tax break for families with young children in the system.

The ECE centers  near where I live (and I can think of 4) are newly built, purpose-built buildings. This would indicate that there is a business model that supports such a venture, and that you should be able to support your business on the basis of audience and revenues.

As a user pays business you, as the customer, either enrol or don't, pay or find a cheaper option. If you want to avail yourself of the services you do. The fees that you pay should reflect that this is a private enterprise that exists to make money, it's not altruism.

The faux outrage is over a change of policy to reducing funding to ECE centers in 2010.

Prior to the change, all-day, teacher-led centres with fully qualified teachers received $12.94 per hour for each child under 2 and $7.79 for every child over 2.

In the 80-99% qualified staffing bracket the rates were $12.16 and $6.91 respectively. The funding changes have removed the funding from centres with 81-100% qualified staff altogether.

Centres employing 80% qualified staff now get $11.80 per hour for under 2s and $6.53 for over 2s.

The change somehow has created significant funding shortfalls for those services employing more than 80% fully qualified teachers. (Early education services include; Kindergartens, Education and Care, Homebased, Te Kohanga Reo, and Playcentres). I'm picking these same centers charge a premium price for a better service.

A quick Google shows that for a job in Pre-school  the median salary is $52k, the salary range is 30k - $67k, or something like $15.50 to $35 per hour

A further google found me a FEE SCHEDULE all ages- based on 52 weeks, Fees are due and payable for all holidays, sickness, absences, and Statutory holidays
2 days $140, 3 days $200, 4 days $245, 5 days$280

FEE over 3 yr olds (with 20 hours subsidised)
2 days $ 90 , 3 days $120 , 4 days $150,  5 days $180

It's not cheap, it is a business, and it is your choice to stay at home and raise your children or pursue a job and juggle your commitments. I'm not sure I'm comfortable to pay more to private enterprises to support a lifestyle choice for some. Working for a wage should increment the family income. Otherwise what's the point? To claim that the fees are bigger than your income then means you haven't done the maths properly or are in a job that should pay more, it's not the fault of the government of the day.

Oh yes and we did have 2 children in day care, from a few weeks old, both of us worked and the only subsidy was a $300 tax break. It can be done. It's just not easy. Pointless claiming that it was cheaper then, or it's more expensive now, it is what it is.

I just found this too, but I take it under advice that there is a legal requirement, staff to children of 1:5, but can be 1:4 . So you can extrapolate out say 20 children would be 5 teachers. Fees (income) =$291,200, wages (at median pay) $260,000, that's a 31,200 potential operating profit, plus a subsidy payment of 20 children, 37.5 hours, 52 weeks @$6.53 = 215,000 give or take. Now that's handy!

Tollerance and the patience to have it

It's a pity that there is manifest a certain amount of intolerance in the media, within your peers and round and about you.

We have intolerance of the muslim custom of clothing choice, where it frightens some people. We have the intolerance of race equality when it comes to Maori. We have the intolerance of many things. Today I'm down to two;

Maori. What can you put this intolerance down to, well I'd say that the settlement of grievances is to blame. blame in the sense that they are advertised and that the settlement usually comes with cash and goods as reparation. This is seen by some as pandering to a minority, when they may or may not be disenfranchised themselves in some way, either by wealth or position, race or privilege. For example "why should I work so hard so the Maori can get it for nothing" That's making your world view focus on a result not a reason.

I'm amazed at some of the "claims" that we're told about, by Maori, and these are always highlighted and imply that they are a grab for something, there are very few that result in everyone nodding in sage agreement that a settlement would be just and correct.

What is it you want? Maori equality means they are starting from a lap down. What do you exepct when suddenly bright educated people identifying themselves as Maori understand some of the ways to get them on a level footing. It's isn't about getting ahead of the whitey, it's about being the same, and accepted as being the same as.

Muslims. The burqa, the face mask or niqab. Where to go with this. The full body covering that muslim women choose to wear or the face veil. My ignorance and fear should not be a want to ban them from wearing it. I don't support it, I don't understand it, I'm appalled if it's a forced choice. What I'm not is intolerant of their choice based on their beliefs to choose to do what they do.

I can choose to believe they are ignorant, and don't want to be part of my society, they aren't being ignorant or insular. They are sharing a country with me, we're not in an arm wrestle for control that I know of, we want to get on with our lives.

Sure there are radicals in every religion, there will be white  religious supremacists that want to blow something up, there will be muslim radicals that want to do the same. There are probably angry Buddhists somewhere. Can you imagine them wanting everyone to wear orange as their cause, we're not offended by them singing and dancing in the streets.

So my muslim full veil fear? I'm going with my own thoughts that we are hunter gatherers. We don't like not seeing a face, or facial expressions or body language, it scares us. It scares us because of the rarity of the full veil muslim in our presence, I bet if you were in a city where it was prevalent that you wouldn't worry so much. It scares you as it's not your normal. Your fear is no reason to make them change. It just isn't.

Outrage as a defence

A feminist friend of mine constantly bangs on about how outraged she is about almost everything.

You can't pick anything she says as repeat it back to her since this then is just an attack.

Yet she is by her own admission insecure and unsure about many things.

Everything "sexualises" or "denigrates" women.

I'd stop caring but as a friend she's ok, I just wouldn't go to her for advice

Outrage as a defence

A feminist friend of mine constantly bangs on about how outraged she is about almost everything.

You can't pick anything she says as repeat it back to her since this then is just an attack.

Yet she is by her own admission insecure and unsure about many things.

Everything "sexualises" or "denigrates" women.

I'd stop caring but as a friend she's ok, I just wouldn't go to her for advice