Whilst we are plotting the demise of ACT, I am currently having an interesting conversation with the editor of our local community newspaper, the Hamilton Press. Every week this features an half-page "Advertisement" by the local, loathsome ACT rat Garry Mallett--where rants on about his obsessions. This week it is on "the Maori seats are racist and anyone who supports them is racist etc etc".
I guess the sense that the editor is very uncomfortable with this situation but it brings in (dubious) dollars for the paper. I was wondering whether I could make a formal complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority or the Press Council, as Mallett's columns claim to be an 'advertisement'. It could come under considerations of inflammatory language, unsubstantiated claims, mislerading statements?
I would welcome any advice from legal beagles (Steven Price, where are you?)
Yes, Jackson's judgement on the NZFC will not be without problems. He is not a New Zealand film-maker per se; he is a New Zealander who makes films in New Zealand for a global market. The Commission fills the gap for the things he doesn't do.
I just hope it won't be business/business/business and that 'culture' will get a look in somewhere. But given that he will be assessing things in a partnership with an Aussie from the business side of film, I wonder if it will.
Let's get real, they're very expensive non-binding opinion polls.
I am really with Craig on this. Non-binding CIRs are really faux democracy, tantamount to writing a Letter to the Editor on a very large scale.
For example, I would be interested in gathering signatures for a CIR that says "The ACT Party should be excluded from all forms of government", and I may well get sufficient monikers.
crossing out "good parental" on the ballot paper and then voting yes
That is a very useful suggestion, as both a response to and commentary on the question.
Spam like 'ghost ships'. Brilliant!
You have successfully taken me away from my own petty worries this day. Thank you.
I do have an uneasy feeling that there are heaps of people out there who don't see the inconsistency and contradictions in the referendum question that us educated folk can plainly see. How come Baldick constructed the question this way, without seeing any problems with it? Is it less of a question and more of a confirmation of a mind-set?
So, we do really need to decide on the best strategy for dealing with it. Do we just vote "Yes' and suppress all our misgivings about doing so. Or do we make a point and spoil the ballot? I know how I would like to spoil mine (it involves bodily fluids)!
I think I will vote 'Yes' and write a comment on the paper (space permitting) about the validity of the exercise. Of course, only the person counting up votes will likely see this but I will be feel better for it (after all, I often write comments on student exam papers, knowing they are unlikely ever to see them!). But would such an action constitute a 'spoiling'?
Of course, that should be "sleep furiously'--which I should go and do a bit of!
F@ck. I really wanted to spoil that ballot.
Couldn't we do both ie vote "Yes" and add a note along the lines. "This the only possible answer to an insanely stupid and devious question".
If any of my students proposed a question like this one in their research assignments, they would get a D + an instruction to go away and think about it
re the 'furious sleep' reference. I am trying to track down a documentary of this name, about a mid-Wales farming community. It has been much praised in Sight&Sound.
He is seldom my favourite journalist but Sean Plonker redeemed himself on Morning Report this morning by giving Larry Baldick a right bollocking.
(Note: deliberate mis-spelling this time)
Yes, I heard that too. Good stuff! I had pretty much given up on NatRadio in the pm but I was home, working my way through a pile of essay marking.
My beef with The Panel is not so much with the right wing bozos they invite in, but because they favour 'personalities' who already have ample opportunities to spout off in the media.