Speaker: Key: Concession Not Recession
91 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
Lilith __, in reply to
I had credited PA readers with more humour/sense/wit etc.
Graham, dude, high horse? If you want a more civilised tone, don't sink down to that level. While riding your high horse in the water under the bridge. You're better than that.
You wrote a delightful piece that delighted a lot of people. Did we not say so?
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Hard News suffered a credibility blow from which it has never recovered – it is now largely a sporadic blog about media matters, generation x music nostalgia and advertorials for the Media 3 TV show. Russell Brown himself has said he wants and likes it that way now.
Why yes Tom, you're so wise: that's exactly how it happened. With my credibility in tatters I was forced to retire and never do or say anything serious again. There's no way I did anything crazy like talk to people on all sides of this dispute on camera, on stage and in private.
/irony
But it is true that I'm less interested in political blogging (as opposed to writing about issues like national standards) at the moment. Mostly because that means I don't need to waste my time with people like you.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Graham, dude, high horse?
Have to agree, Graham. I could do without Tom telling me and everyone else – for the umpteenth time – what pathetic fools we are. But I also don’t need you to issue general baggings to the PAS community.
-
Yamis, in reply to
don't want you issue general baggings to the PAS community.
Bilbo baggings?
Writing ANYTHING of a decent length, and posting it on the internet leaves you wide open to be spending hours of effort (and sometimes stress) defending it, correcting it, apologising for bits of it, that in the end you wonder wtf-ing point of it was.
I'm sure most of us have been on both sides of the fence.
But if athletes (many of whom are simple minded :) ) can bash the shit out of each other for what ever length of time and stop literally at the final whistle, shake hands and go have a beer, before going at it again a few months later then why can't others.
sniff sniff :)
-
I actually don't know what I meant by that post. I'll work it out later.
-
Meanwhile, in related news, the newly-merged Music Artists and Film Industry Association of America has welcomed the news that former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak is recovering from his coma, and will be appointed as its inaugural Director of Internet Affairs.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
I actually don’t know what I meant by that post. I’ll work it out later.
Do be sure to let us know when you do :-)
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
I’m still waiting for Paul Holmes to apologise to Helen Kelly.
I'm still waiting for Helen Kelly to apologise to Richard Taylor for characterizing him as the leader of a lynch mob. Guess we're both going to be holding our breath for a looong time...
But I'm going to leave this be, because (like Russell I suspect) I'm so fucking over being pissed on as some union-hating class-traitor corporate-tool for daring to suggest that nobody's wearing the white hat here.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Link to Helen Kelly’s long response. The upshot is the government and Warners knew the dispute was settled and ‘boycott’ lifted prior to the Warner execs meeting in NZ.
Alec: If you’re going to keep revisiting this, could you please stop using sneer quotes around “boycott”. If you still don’t grasp what the SAG statement declaring The Hobbit a “non-union” production actually meant, Kelly should.
-
Graham Dunster, in reply to
Preloading, whether alcohol or placards, often ends in tears.
-
DexterX, in reply to
Hard News suffered a credibility blow from which it has never recovered - it is now largely a sporadic blog about media matters, generation x music nostalgia and advertorials for the Media 3 TV show. Russell Brown himself has said he wants and likes it that way now.
Of course, water under the bridge is water under the bridge. As far as I am concerned being wrong isn't a crime, but not learning from it is. I wonder how many people who regularly post here have learnt anything from being wrong over the Hobbit?
I find you point of view expressed above pretty conceited and insulting.
-
Half time ;)
-
Thanks Sophie. I think the Hobbit thing is a bit like the Springbok tour, and it is going to be raw for a little while yet.
-
Yamis, in reply to
Do be sure to let us know when you do :-)
After a few bourban and cokes I think I'm getting there.
If people want to shit all over other peoples internet 'articles' then they should post up all their own thought out, or not really thought out arguments on their own website, on a range of topics and let everybody else have a go at them.
Won't take long to work out that it's easier to post shit about the weekends sport results or what music you like cos people are real tough when they're committing domestic violence on their keyboard.
I think that sort of gets at summing up my thoughts on a complicated topic.
No doubt somebody will come and try to smash me with their letter combinations.
-
DexterX, in reply to
A family member of mine has worked on the periphery of the film industry while a student in between breaks, and has been hit with a huge (for him) ACC bill as an independent contractor when he was clearly an employee. Thanks to ShonKey’s “Hobbit Enabling Act” and Cur Richard Taylor and Lord Jackson.
There is a limit at which ACC don't collect a levy if you are working self employed on a part time basis - The family member scenario you realte doesn't stack up.
With ACC there is an exemption so that if you don't earn much you don't pay much - So taking an example of s trudent who worked self employed, on a one off basis, in film production part time in their breaks from uni - and say they earned $8000.00 they would pay a levy of around $21.00, if they earned say $14,000.00 they would pay around $37.00. - these figures are using claulators on ACC Website.
Should family member have say worked in retail they would have paid ACC on every dollar they earnt and would not have (likely) earnt a lot less and would not have the advantage of being able to claim their work related expenses against their gross earnings.
Family member appears to me to be being disingenuous.
-
DexterX, in reply to
people who cannot spell
I look at spelling as an attempt to create my very own unique language.
About the time the thread went a tad “mardy”, I was going to respond along the lines of Key, horse and arse.
I do feel Key should have taken Banks to Hollywood, pretty sure they would have scored, in addition to the production, the starring roles for a remake of “Dumb & Dumber”.
-
RE: "I also don’t need you to issue general baggings to the PAS community" . . .
You are absolutely right and I am wrong. I withdraw and unreservedly apologise. Seriously. -
Russell Brown, in reply to
Thanks, Graham. I possibly should have expected that the discussion might be rugged, but I think it took everyone by surprise.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
A family member of mine has worked on the periphery of the film industry while a student in between breaks, and has been hit with a huge (for him) ACC bill as an independent contractor when he was clearly an employee. Thanks to ShonKey’s “Hobbit Enabling Act” and Cur Richard Taylor and Lord Jackson.
The manner of the making of that law was odious, but I genuinely don't think it changed the employment status of many, if any, people. It's a project-based industry and contracting has been the rule for a long time.
What the law did was reverse the part of the Employment Relations Act 2000 that says that the "real nature" of the employment relationship is ultimately to be determined by the court, rather than by the statements of the parties to the original contract or the text of the contract itself. So Bryson was able to argue that his position was not that of an independent contractor.
After the law change, if your contract says you're an independent contractor, that's what you are.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
What the law did was reverse the part of the Employment Relations Act 2000 that says that the “real nature” of the employment relationship is ultimately to be determined by the court, rather than by the statements of the parties to the original contract or the text of the contract itself.
I don't think you have to be anti-union or a corporate tool to note who, generally speaking, has the advantage when it comes to years of "kill 'em all, and let the courts sort it out" litigation. Hint: Not the employee.
-
andin, in reply to
Suggesting that Tom has lost the plot does a disservice.
To the plot.I apologise unreservedly to the plot. Which ever one it is, where ever it is.
-
Richard Aston, in reply to
You are absolutely right and I am wrong. I withdraw and unreservedly apologise. Seriously.
Good on ya Graham that shows character , seriously
-
Richard Aston, in reply to
I apologise unreservedly to the plot. Which ever one it is, where ever it is
Great laugh to start the day Andin , thanks.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
And it did bloody go on. Bryson won in the Employment Court, lost in the Court of Appeal and was finally vindicated in the Supreme Court. Very few people are going to want to embark on that.
It does also seem clear that Weta/Three Foot Six operated a lazy, sloppy HR policy that was an accident waiting to happen.
-
Alec Morgan, in reply to
ACC has been asked to reassess the bill in line with what Dexter says upthread, not disingenuousness just an early twenties person walking into one of the many traps for younger players. No written contract provided either Russell.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.