Its investors and management are in New Zealand.
It sounds good, I joined up after your post last night and I was interested in:
We’re always excited about meeting new people and growing the team, so feel free to get in touch if you are:
but I was a little bamboozled by:
Ask questions, talk about something exciting, tell us about your projects. We’d love to hear about it.
Avenida da Boavista n.º 1788
So thanks for clarifying that:
Baboom’s Head of Content and Platform Mikee Tucker works out of the two-person office shared with his Loop Recordings label upstairs at Real Groovy Records in Auckland. Ninety per cent of Baboom shares are currently held by Mega investor Michael Sorenson, after an unsuccessful share offering on the Australian exchange last year. Baboom’s CEO is Grant Edmundson and its CFO is music industry veteran Tony Smith.
A number of excellent points there Sofie especially:
I really don’t think it’s as easy as we think.
And I honestly do respect your restraint in terms of not throwing stones at the opposition, given they’re all we’ve got. However I’m not convinced that working so diligently within the parameters (the box) provided – as Labour have been doing – is reaping much of a harvest. There are avenues and then there are avenues. There are ways and means of getting one’s story on the tele beyond simply playing the game on National’s terms. Winston Peters knows how to make front page headlines and how to garner support from within the media in a manner that makes people sit up and take notice. He and his party have shown they’re prepared to bite the short term bullet in order to make the news at 6, in order to advance longer term discussion. Right or wrong he succeeds in getting his view point into the public sphere time and time again because he knows how to frame a narrative and how to get it the requisite attention. If there’s anyone in that room with the experience and dare I say impudence to get the desired result here it is Winston Peters, and it’s time that the opposition, all of the opposition, deferred to his leadership on this issue in order to collaborate in the most cohesive and effective manner possible. Difficult Times Call For Innovative Measures.
While I don’t dispute the precariousness of the position our democracy has found itself in Sofie, I do expect the opposition to do better, that is their job. Effectively participating in a debate, as our MPs do every time house is sitting doesn’t simply require turning up. It doesn’t simply require sitting down for an hour to scrawl a couple of year 13 level questions in between international sporting fixtures and beer festivals, it requires full and undivided focus, it requires a thorough understanding of the obstacles and it requires a concise, coherent, unified plan of attack.
If David Lange had turned up for his Oxford debate with the amount of preparation new Labour has put in to this effort we’d be swimming in uranium, but of course he didn’t. He found the most effective way to frame the issue so that there was no recourse for doubt or dispute.
Recently Russell expressed his dismay at the “gotcha” politics, and I share that, but that’s ‘the game’, and I don’t use that word lightly, I’ve no doubt that’s the way many in the Government see it, and that’s the way it needs to be approached in order to succeed. It is a game, and Labour are losing, and blaming their opponents gets us nowhere. I’ve met community constables more adept at extracting the truth than recent Labour. They’ve had months, literally months to plan a course of action on this, and in the meantime they’ve spent a good portion of this time sowing the seeds of racial discontent, flip-flopping on zero hours contracts, getting in behind bar licensing amendments, and a lot more of asking the wrong questions and getting the answers we we all expect.
Language and the framing of it is everything in that game, (see Kirk Serpes) and the beauty of it is that a speaker need not necessarily be the writer. Any aficionado of courtroom dramas is familiar with the trope whereby one or other barrister walks a witness into divulging that which they’d otherwise prefer not to, yes it’s fiction but we’re not talking about impossibilities here, these are opportunities that have presented themselves and it’s largely a case of anticipating those jumps in order to get those chinese checkers home via the most direct route.
When I listen to question time, for the most part I grimace, so often the answer the opposition wants is in their question, the responses are so obvious I can often anticipate the answer before any response has been given, and I just change the channel and wonder what they expected. We know the predator is a slimy eel, yet each opposition member seems to be working alone and for the immediate gratification of hearing a member of the Government lie, rather than forcing them to reveal.
So much of this comes down to language use, think of any leader and their name is invariably associated with a string of quotes, whether or not they wrote them is by the by, all history remembers is that those words came out of their mouths or pens and that oftentimes those words and their sequencing were so profoundly resonant as to be the glue cementing those leaders’ places in history, if not the adhesive that defines history as our species understands it.
There are sympathetic reporters, there’s Andrea Vance, there’s Toby Manhire, I’m sure there are others outside the paywall with an open enough mind, but until Labour or the Greens or even NZF stake claim to the language on this issue and show real linguistic leadership, these, journalists, these masters of language, are left to freely fill in the gaps. On that note, put on a hat of objectivity and try jumping into Toby Manhire’s piece from a point of ignorance. To the uninitiated it’s referential hogwash. While the converted lap it up; a concerted attempt to persuade anyone outside that bubble of anything it is not. He is a writer of prodigious talent just spinning a yarn, because he can, because he can’t be expected to do the opposition’s job for them, because he’s not the opposition.
Certainly there are incredible obstacles barring Labour’s progress, but the underlying sentiment I got from Hooton’s (who you know I’ve never shown much sympathy for in the past) piece is that if Labour can’t muster the wherewithal to take a set here then they won’t and clearly don’t deserve or have the capacity to win the match and lead the country.
But we’ve seen time and again how that plays out "At the end of the day…". I think Matthew Hooton was spot on last week in his analysis of exactly who holds the cards and needs to step up and play them effectively (and the likely repercussions of not doing so):
"An opposition leader will never be given a set of facts as favourable to the opposition as this set of facts. And if the opposition can not make use of this to force Murray McCully’s resignation, that says something very worrying about our democracy, because our democracy is essentially a offensive realist system where the Government and the opposition are meant to be afraid of one another and this Government is really not afraid of this opposition because it doesn’t take it seriously.
And you know there’s also some National Party cheerleaders such as say Mike Hosking – who without bothering to read the documents will say “there’s nothing to see here” – and I put John Roughan in that same category, he can’t possibly have read the documents before he wrote that column but the basic facts demand McCully’s sacking by the Prime Minister.
What you have is what was a bribe – a so-called facilitation payment to a billionaire businessman from a repressive regime in an attempt to get him to stop raising this issue of live sheep exports and allow a free trade agreement to go ahead. To make this possible a story was invented about a 30 million dollar legal risk, that the cabinet was told existed when it did not. There is evidence in these papers that something very close to fraud occurred when the Beehive told the Saudi businessman what to write in the invoices, so the invoices were fake, and they were written in a way on the advice of the Beehive that they would get past the people who had to pay them within the bureaucracy so they were talked about as the purchase of intellectual property. This is completely untrue, this is not what it was at all and of course we know that because the whole agri-hub thing was a complete farce as well and there has been no purchase of intellectual property.
So when you’ve got a clear bribe to a billionaire businessman from a repressive regime over a free trade deal where you’ve got fake invoices being prepared on the instruction of the Beehive – and that should attract the attention – I’d have thought – of the Serious Fraud Office – you’ve got the treasury saying they’re against it, you’ve got the auditor general being compromised; if Andrew Little cannot force the resignation of McCully under these circumstances, cannot get the media, and I exclude Radio New Zealand and the National Business Review and some in the media, other, including the Herald, to take this issue seriously – then John Key can cruise to a forth term”
Yeah, Stanley’s comment itself on the radionz site is not much to go on. Hopefully anyone who attended the weekend’s protests might have observations to share.
To be fair, when you've got more people turning up to march against the TPPA than the 'Leader of the Hoposition' has twitter followers it makes total sense that he'd just knuckle down and watch the sports.
I found this comment below the story dispiriting:
stanley 12 Aug
RNZ – if taking more photos could you try to include the multitude of nondescript men taking photographs of all the protesters? This is with digital SLRs as well as Go-Pros. They’re not part of the protest and are there because somebody (who?) wants a record of the identity of every protester there. Why is this, and who wants to know? This behaviour should be arousing suspicion from the rest of NZ why people at a peaceful protest are being monitored in this way.
“I’m unable to comment on operational matters”
7 simple words that could make a difference in terms of curtailing the terror felt by ordinary New Zealanders. 7 words that could undermine attempts to terrorise the population. 7 words that seem to be missing from Rebecca Kitteridge’s vocabulary. I have no doubt that Rebecca Kitteridge is intelligent enough to successfully assess the affect the words she chooses instead, as a public servant I’m certain she would have dotted all her Is and crossed all her Ts to get to the prominent position she is now in. The nature of the organisation’s work does not require a spokesman to provide regular updates, the real proof of that a security agency is achieving its mandate – succeeding in undermining terror – should be its invisibility. Yet they’ve now pushed themselves to the forefront of the national consciousness.
I’ll admit to be somewhat paranoid, I’m not alone, many in our community are, many in our community suffer from the types of mental dispositions and illnesses that magnify anxiety levels, that magnify terror felt – the Government even spends money in attempts to alleviate these types of personal circumstances. So why is that of all the people employed by this country’s Government, the single individual I feel most terrorised by is the head of the Security Intelligence Service. I can not for the life of me fathom her attempts to raise her own profile to a pseudo celebrity status, I can not understand why she alone has assisted with the issuance of more PR pieces and conducted more media interviews than every other head of our security agencies combined, if you’re doing that job correctly we never have to here from you at all.
Though she actively engages in promoting ISIS’s terror campaign via repeated admissions about the nature of her organisation’s work, I don’t believe she would see herself as a terrorist and yet after every interview she gives, and after every statement she makes, I feel more afraid, more anxious and more terrorised than before:
Kitteridge said the rise of IS, along with other geopolitical tensions in Russia and the South China sea, had created a sense of instability that seemed unprecedented.
“There are people who are drawn to that because it is brutal and sickening…there are people watching it, getting excited saying what they would do.
“There are people who would be looking at this saying ’this is great, and let’s see what we could do that would be similar’…”
“it’s absolutely true that there are people who discuss this”.
Either Rebecca Kitteridge is desensitised to the extent that she doesn’t realise she is actively acting as an unwitting conduit for the terror that ISIS wish to spread, or she knows exactly the effect it would have on more vulnerable members of society.
she talks about “crowd-sourced terrorism”, a new term to describe lone-wolf acts of terrorism conducted by people who show no intent, after exhortation by Isis on the internet.
"That is the explicit message and it is to attack the West."
If an attack is carried out on New Zealand soil the first question I will have is whether it could have been prevented and whether the head of SIS’s time wasted playing celebrity book club and national scaremongerer - and all the preparation that goes with it - for the good folks at home could have been the crucial difference.
“Sean Connery, classic, he’s the one and only Bond for me.”
She likes John le Carre and the novels of Stella Rimmington, the former head of Britain’s MI5."
I suggest that she is so institutionalised that she has lost touch with who she is issuing these statements to and for that matter who she represents
there will always be 40% of the population who believe what he says, no matter how odious or obvious the lies.
I’m not so convinced that 40% are that gullible or even care that much, the choice they’re presented with at this stage is someone who sounds effortlessly natural:
Key said bars could apply for permission within the existing law, but it was expensive and bureaucratic.
When told by reporters that the Green Party would block the Bill, Key said “I thought they probably would”.
“It’s just par for the course, isn’t it.”
The Greens were “always opposed to anything that’s sort of vaguely good fun”.
Or someone who sounds unconvincingly try hard and possibly a liability to himself and others:
Andrew Little said he personally supported it.
“There’s hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who enjoy a tipple, usually when watching sporting games and they do so responsibly,” Little said.
“This is a tournament that happens once every four years and it’s totally in keeping with social intercourse that they have a drink.”
Little said if he was in a pub at 5am and the All Blacks were winning he wouldn’t say no to a drink.
“If we’re losing I’d probably have two beers at 5am."
When the average punter is probably somewhere here (comments):
scarymonsters 22 hours ago
"To all the people trying to make the link between watching the RWC in a pub and getting smashed, it’s about just being able to watch the game in a social atmosphere. I have Sky, but for the big sport events I like to go out with my mates at watch it with other people. I’ve had plenty of breakfasts at The Fox watching the Champion’s League final. I wasn’t drinking at 8am, just enjoying the atmosphere amongst friends."