I am biased on this issue after a stint as the comms manager for the global FMCG bit of Fonterra a few years ago. I don't want to go into detail ... but to me it's obvious the co-op's owners aren't going to invest in R&D to the level other global companies can. If NZ's biggest company is in this position, why should we expect our smaller organisations to have the resources to consistently out-manoeuver the R&D budgets of giants such as Unilever? Foolishness (and you'd have to be a fool of a Took to cancel the initiative). The $700m is well overdue.
Expect disagreement from those in the pockets of foreign multinationals.
The best bit is he has no problem with cycling on the inside lane of the motorway at 40km/ph. He's not the only one either, I've seen at least three different people on similar machines on the motorway. Given the state of the cycle lane around the harbour quite fair enough too. A taste of things to come?
It may be a superficial feature, but having a shower at work is a major fringe benefit as far as I'm concerned.
I agree. Another option is joining a gym, but given the smell and awful music, an unpleasant compromise.
If you work for a govt dept it's worth getting in touch with whoever is responsible for the dept's implementation of the Govt3 programme. A few independent comments in one dept I worked for was enough to get them to increase the number of available cycle parks vs car parks in the building's basement. It probably helped that we timed the request just ahead of implementation of a management restructuring. Bye bye one SUV & room for a bike rack.
Auckland might be a bit harder, but if those who cycle make it clear the demand is there & give the property manager enough advance notice, it's cost neutral for the org & makes it a better place to work for some people.
The rain-fall in Auckland is admittedly about six times that of CHCH, but for some years breathable rainwear has eliminated almost all the problems associated with cycling in the rain
As a kid I used to cycle to school in Auckland. Given the showery nature of the rain and the warmer climate I could get drenched part way through the ride and be dry when I got to school!
From Kilbirnie in Wellington I sometimes walk to work (40mins), sometimes cycle (15m) & sometimes bus (20-40min plus waiting time). The wet weather isn't a problem because I'm moving (therefore warm) and take a shower at work anyway (may require lobbying your employer). Over time I have decided the Mt Vic hill makes the ride/walk interesting rather than painful (although I expect if I was coming from Karori it would be hellish with the cars). I agree it's the unpredictability of the public transport system that makes cycling or walking a much better proposition.
Fewer cars is good in any city. Particularly for the drivers.
Just had a thought - that last comment could be taken the wrong way. I don't mean photos of anyone here! Just that photos and KAOS go together like swandris and guns.
While in my first year at Canterbury Uni I too considered joining the club, but due to a not-quite-yet thrown off religious background, had a vague nervousness that KAOS members might genuinely be the devil's playthings. I also played cards in the LCR (probably on my way to see a lunchtime JPS session in the UCR).
I recall a Canta "expose" on KAOS by AC that included a number of photos involving toe sucking. There were virgins, mock virgin sacrifices and about seven people who'd had sex. There were tangled relationships, drugs, mock drugs and conspiracies within conspiracies. Foucault's Pendulum came out around the time. I lost count of the number of KAOS members individually conspiring to gather photographic evidence to someday (20, 30, 40 years) embarrass others, whenever their victims obtained a respectable public profile. There was just enough of a chance some genuinely interesting photos were being held as cards to be played at the right time.
I don't think I lost consciousness while in the company of KAOS members so I think I'm safe.
Are you talking about the six degrees of separation thing, Jason?
Yeah, but amused, not concerned. I don't think many photos were taken.
Ah, yes doomed. And of course you had no control over which Great Old One answered that prayer.
I wanted to join KAOS, but being an avid follower of jesus at the time, I made the mistake of praying about it first.
How do you know that was a mistake?
PS: I am getting concerned about degrees of separation and convergence in this community.
My only experience of a scouting-like group was during my brief membership of sea scouts when I was 8 or 9. The appeal was that I'd get to go sailing, fishing or swimming. I started attending the group's weekly meetings and we did stuff such as lighting fires, camping and first aid. All good, but not sea-related. After six weeks we still hadn't left shore.
One afternoon before the session began I decided to swim out to the platform anchored out in the bay. Older kids were already there. It was a lovely summer's day and as I came back to shore I felt very pleased with myself. I thought the scout leaders would be impressed, but apparently I had broken a rule. So I was kicked out of sea scouts for swimming. (And soon made friends with a kid outside sea scouts who had his own boat).
OK, so the PM got to put up some unchallenged spin of her own.
Have been away on work for a while but as this is a subject that matters to me I'll add something more at this late stage.
Craig, I don't think your example is appropriate. While "spin" is in the title of this discussion I think you're introducing a new subject. Yes, spin is carried out by Labour as well as National. But everyone spins their (or a parroted) version of a story. The issue is whether the reader is given enough information to understand the potential bias of the story. We assume readers are smart enough to draw their own conclusions if given the sources.
If the PM is quoted saying something, I assume she could be representing the Labour party. If on the other hand if I read an article prompted by a news release and there is no attribution of the argument/data provided by the news release to the people/organisation who wrote it, I might assume the journalist came up with the story (and accompanying angle) from their own investigations. This in turn might lend more credibility to the story than it might deserve.
I have no problem with news being provided to journalists by professional media relations people (up until several years ago I had jobs that included media relations responsibility, and I think I wrote well sometimes). The issue is whether journalists writing stories prompted by such material acknowledge (and maybe quote) their source. If they pretend the story is their own they are doing their readers a disservice.
It used to be that if you regularly ripped off stories from other media organisations or parroted news releases as your own without adding any breadth or depth or new angle, you would lose credibility among your peers and with your boss. Now it seems the (big) boss wants content and volume over quality. I don't like to hear people calling journalists lazy. Journalists work bloody hard in a dire situation where every day they have to provide a lot of copy with minimal resources and backup. It is one of the hardest jobs out there if you want to do it right. And there are many sacrifices made along the way.
But imagine if media organisations were compelled to disclose if articles in their publications were mostly written or initiated by other parties. It would show how few resources were put into news and might give good journalists a break!