He’s not making it up, though I don’t have a supporting link.
I'm not familiar with this but here's a press release from the Aussie Fair Trade and Investment Network (whatever that is) which more or less repeats what you've just said, after a speedy search:
"The Philip Morris tobacco company is currently suing the Australian government over its tobacco plain packaging legislation, using an obscure 1993 Hong Kong- Australia investment treaty. Philip Morris is actually a US-based company, but could not sue under the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement, because public opposition kept this clause out of the agreement. Philip Morris rearranged its assets to become a Hong Kong investor in order to use an obscure treaty. This shows how giant global companies can abuse such clauses in trade agreements," said Dr Ranald.
"But they’ll never ratify it!” isn’t all that reassuring …
Fortunately New Zealand’s parliament is very compact, efficient and effective at getting legislation passed when compared with some of these other ones, so we can be sure to uphold our side of the bargain no matter what problems the US and other governments might have in pushing their own sides through.
Australia though is the US’s closest ally.
I’m not finding this totally surprising. There are obvious similarities with NZ, but it always felt like a much more Americanised culture than NZ during the few years I was living there. Maybe something about all the levels of government, the tax return process (heaps of people pay someone else to do it for them), aspects of the health system and the insurance industry, the list goes on. My experience probably varies from others.
Let’s be clear about something: signing the TPP in its current form is letting a foreign country (the US) and the foreign companies that lobby it write the law in this country.
In my head I now keep wanting to compare this with the SkyCity arrangement, except for the difference between corporation and foreign government (acting as an agent for its corporations). Is it a fair comparison? In that sense signing the TPP in its current form would not necessarily seem to be without precedent for the current government, but agree that it would be a more demonstrable sell-out if the leak of our current position is anything to go by.
Pissed off people call them all the time, and they just get cut off. Then they give much much longer air time to angry conservative dad who agrees with them.
I agree. Willie and JT were given an elevated level of speech by a radio station owned by a company that controls a large proportion of New Zealand’s radio spectrum with a specific design of selling audiences to advertisers.
Giving these guys such prominence had nothing to do with free speech or nobly representing views, even if they might coincidentally represent some people. They’re given it specifically because it’s known to generate a destructive and antagonistic form of controversy, and keep it rolling, to generate an audience that’s primed for sale to advertisers who often buy purely on numbers. People could call in saying anything they like, and whatever’s said will still be framed by the host(s) to generate more controversy, because that’s what they’ve been hired to do.
I appreciate what Graeme is saying and I agree there’s a wider risk with a boycott for some of the reasons he’s mentioned. But when that’s the game that MediaWorks and RadioLive are playing, I have trouble being offended by a boycott. I know it’s petty reasoning, but enough damage was already done when they started it.
What would be the advantage of using G3 instead of FM?
I guess in an age where there are probably reasons to have internet in cars anyway for any number of other reasons (both useful and ominous), it (a) means it's unnecessary to install a separate reception device-instead you could have a radio station or other audio running off your phone or other portable device and plug it straight into the vehicle when you show up.. or just have it embedded in the vehicle, and (b) makes it possible for people to receive radio stations from pretty much anywhere in the world if they don't like the local broadcast options, at least as long as they have internet. You can already find radio streams from all over the world pretty easily through services like this one. Smart people probably know better places to look than I do.
I'm not yet sold on the ~90 second delay when I stream Radio NZ, but it's getting there.
In fact the media value from the reporting of their withdrawal was probably more significant than the air-time they cancelled
That's true. I doubt we'll see advertisers actively and pre-emptively withholding their ads from his pending return... to MediaWorks, unless there's guaranteed good publicity for doing so. To be fair, we'd probably not hear of some businesses' decisions to do so if that were the case.
Anyway, it’s a silly idea whose time has passed
I, for one, happen to be ultimately proud of my 69th-ranked blog. Take that, Rodney's Aviation Ramblings! Nobody cares about your numerous photos of various aeroplane models landing and taking off from Wellington Airport! :-P
It seems really common in this day and age for journalists to go direct to people’s Facebook profiles and other similar stuff (instagram, twitter, etc) for info and photos on their and other’s profiles, and then report it to everyone. In this particular case, it’s not just possible to trawl through the lives of those accused, because with some digging it’s also really easy to find info and pictures and videos of at least some of the alleged victims, whether they put it there themselves or it was put there by other people.
For facebook specifically I know people complain about privacy (and then continue to use it), but do many people actively try to have their facebook pages locked down? I always assume that it’s public but I still checked mine out just now, which I thought was reasonably locked down based on stuff I'd set not that long ago, and found that about a random third of my various posts were flagged as public. Apparently for me, once something’s set to Public when I post it, or once an app (like a photo uploader) decides to push something on as Public, everything that gets posted afterwards gets automatically preset that way.
Or are those people in media offices simply very generous in making and accepting Facebook friendships for the specific purpose of being able to spider through profiles when they want to?
I read the statement which on my reading includes the words
Oops. Thanks, Graeme, for correcting my mis-quoting of the press release. My bad.
I genuinely don’t understand why no charges can be laid unless a victim makes a complaint. Is this specific to rape?
According to the just-released statement from Police, the Facebook site "did not provide evidence that could be put before a court".
Presumably it's evidence of that nature which would be relied on if the victims aren't willing to make statements and if the men themselves won't make official statements. (Screw calling them 'boys', as far as I'm concerned, if they're 17+.)
Any ideas of why Facebook bragging would be inadmissable or unsuitable?