...and a damned fine diversion it is too - just perfect for a sick-abed biped... thank you for this.
Neat. If it's of interest, Kathryn Ryan interviewed the author/artist last year.
Ignorance is just so blissful, and I really need a bombastic self-serving National Party propagandist on TVNZ to tell me what to think about things neither of us have any clue about.
I feel he has no idea how much his simple dribble is hated
I'm sure he does. It's no secret that many people despise him. But he's also there because quite a lot of people seem to like him. He represents that demographic.
I'm resigned to the fact that we have people like that in our society. He's not going to change. But my main issue is the way in which he's being given so much room to air his opinions, especially when it's in contexts that masquerade as journalism, and which displaces real journalism. He doesn't just say what he thinks, he tells other people what to think in an insulting Jerry Springer-esque conclusive segment every evening.
By comparison a big portion of people dislike John Campbell too, and I'm also not so much a fan of his campaigning style. But the difference, and why I still happily listen to JC on Checkpoint, is that he actually gets out there and talks to people and learns about and reports stuff. His opinions which he expresses are derived from actual exposure to the real world.
Hosking's paid, in all his roles, to continuously blurt out his opinion. There's no evidence that it's based on anything besides disturbing sociopathic tendancies combined with sitting on his arse all day in front of a camera, microphone or keyboard and being required to make stuff up and express it with resolve. Even he agrees that he's not a journalist, when he's backed into a corner, and yet TVNZ chooses to both present him in a role as if he is, and let him displace real journalists. I'm mildly relived when I see that television ratings are dropping generally, if it's a sign that fewer and few people are willing to put up with this crap, but I'm also grieving the apparent displacement and starvation of what used to be there.</AntiHoskingRant>
I don't normally go for signing petitions, especially online petitions. But last night I had a weak moment and signed the anti-Hosking petition. I don't expect it to make any difference.
To top it off Stuff has, today, reported on the petition and mentioned very briefly that he once worked with Liz Gunn, but said nothing about Liz Gunn's comment.
It's filed under Entertainment.
Happily, at least, there is no comment thread. Hopefully it stays that way.
Thanks, but was that reproduction on all10things auto-translated to some other language and then back to English? The grammar is terrible to the extent that some parts seem to make no sense.
I wasn't paying attention at the time but it looks as if it wasn't plain sailing when she was there. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=383926
Thanks for the link.
Stuff published this story today, according to my RSS feed, but they had deleted it by the time I clicked through!
I hope so. Even if Labour can get a positive Party Vote Labour message out this election, which its candidates comprehensively and altruistically get behind ahead of their own local ambitions, it'll be an improvement.
I still can't shake that dreadful 2008 re-election campaign from my head, which was largely built around trying to tell people they shouldn't trust John Key... ergo "we're your only option even if you hate us". Honestly it shouldn't be any wonder, in hindsight, that voters ditched Labour for an opposition so full of confidence. Then I read posts like Rob's, above, nearly 8 years later, which is entirely about how useless and muddled and untrustworthy National's Ministers are (nothing new), and still with no convincing explanations of how and why Labour Ministers will supposedly be better.
If people are voting on competence and personal impressions, and keeping in mind that most people's exposure to parliamentary debate, if any, is via sound-bites which are filtered through popular media, then where are, for example, the convincing messages explaining how Grant Robertson and Andrew Little are running rings around Bill English and John Key? Where's the promotion of how Annette King and Chris Hipkins make much more competent Ministers of Health and Education than Jonathan Coleman and Hekia Parata? How about making a big deal of David Shearer's extensive Foreign Affairs qualifications compared with Murray McCully's repeated muddling around?
Sorry, Rob. I appreciate that it's not so simple. I just don't see this stuff. All I see is regular (albeit justified) finger-pointing about current government incompetence, which unfortunately is all too common to the point that it runs off people's skin, and a week later it's old news... because what are people going to do about it? From what I can tell other people are also not seeing messages about why Labour's supposedly so great. I think Labour needs to focus lots on explaining why it's going to be fundamentally better at running things day-to-day, instead of just pointing out why the government's hopeless at it.
I'm not sure of the detail of employers being required to have a rational reason, but the law seems to do a concise job of ensuring that employers don't have any obligation to provide that reason to the employee, nor be concerned about the employee taking action against them because of it.
The explanation on MBIE's employment website says nothing about requiring a reason (or not), but does say that the employee would not be able to take a personal grievance.
Looking more directly at the law, which I guess is 67, 67A and 67B of the Employment Relations Act...
* 67A(2) says that the employer can dismiss the employee, and the employee cannot bring a personal grievance or other legal proceedings regarding the dismissal.
* 67B(2) seems to say the same thing a second time.
* 67B(3) states that the employee can bring personal grievances for any of the other standard reasons (sexual/racial harassment, discrimination, and a bunch of others) which I guess are for things which might occur during the time of employment before dismissal, but explicitly not for unjustified dismissal.
* 67B(5)(a) absolves the employer of the obligation to let the employee access information about a potential decision to end their employment, and absolves the employer of their usual obligation to allow the employee to comment on any such information or potential decision.
* 67B(5)(b) states that the employer is not required to provide a reason to the employee.
So, I take it Labour's proposal is to require that the employee be told why they're being dismissed, yet still prevent them from doing anything about it no matter how unfair or unjustified it is? What other avenues would there be? Could an employee then supposedly complain to a government authority that would be capable of investigating and prosecuting?