What can scrutineers do?
They have to wear those little rosettes so you know they’re scrutineers. They’re largely there to watch the staff, not the voters.
This is good to know. I live in Hamilton East and when voting in 2011 we had to file past 3-4 big guys in National t-shirts and rosettes that were lined up at the door. It was very strange and more than a little intimidating; I didn't know how to react and didn't say anything. Voting in 2014 was better, I saw a mixture of scrutineers and they were watching the staff. So I figured it was a one off.
A reduction of a few hundred in a population that size is likely to mean that the difference is not statistically significant. As you stated above that there are many other factors that could also account for the difference.
You could share the data with a statistician and get them to run a few tests to see how different they really are. But they might just end up telling you what you've already surmised.
We’re now at the level where alternative explanations become more likely.
Sometime the fear of a place can be collective. There was an old folks home, and a few other oldies living on our street, so there were a few people that'd say 'Hi' and have a chat. I was a polite kid and obliged them. Until one old man tried to grab me.
I got away. But was terrified of having to go past his house each day. I'd bike as fast as I could so I'd hardly see it. Afterwards we found out that it was well known around town that he was a danger to kids.
The house sat vacant for years after he died and was eventually demolished around 1999-2000. It's still a vacant lot now. But no-one will buy it, like the ghost of the old place lingers.
One day, out of the blue, Nana asked me what it was like to smoke pot. It was the mid nineties and I was in my early twenties, and it was the weirdest conversation.
I mean, we used to call her Mrs Bucket, and here she was asking about it in a very matter of fact way. She was in a lot of pain at the time and close friends of hers were using cannabis as pain relief so she'd worked her way past the social stigma of it all.
My Grandfather on the other hand, was not ready for this discussion and I could feel waves of disapproval from behind the racing section of the paper.
This whole business reeks of slippery John.
Does this mean our PM is The Stainless Steel Prat?
It seems that the PM and his mates are very good and providing solid sounding, fluffy, rehearsed answers to patsy questions. but when they are caught on the hop it's another story.
Even if he is playing mind games, why am I, as a feminist, supposed to ignore deliberate provocation
The leader chap, he may be attention seeking. It’s his followers who are the disturbing ones. They BELIEVE.
Exactly. As John and Danielle both say Roosh’s message is dangerous, regardless of his original intent. There are people out there that hold to the same beliefs and they’ll listen to him. If his statements go unchallenged they’ll hear the silence and interpret it as agreement.
I remember a post of Emma’s mentioning sexist jokes and how the person making the joke may not see themselves as being sexist. but any sexist dudes that hear it will go “See, he’s on my side”, and be encouraged.
That’s why I think that having an anti-misogyny protest and inclusiveness party is awesome. It shows that there are a lot of people that don’t accept this kind of crap, and reduces the silence for others to project their bullshit onto.
I keep wondering how many other scions of the upper classes have also been through the same kind of initiation rites; then I remember this clip from The Young Ones:
I'm also wondering how much of this will blow up in Lord Ashcroft's face, as it sounds like he was involved in many dodgy practises himself and is writing out of sheer pique. He's like a man that handcuffs himself to his enemy and then pulls the pin on a hand grenade.
Scout.co.nz has lashed out at the nation’s young guardians of natural resources, the same day ScoutsNZ announced they are seeking legal advice on whether the website has misappropriated its name.
From the Stuff article it looks like Rachel Glucina is not above using her platform to attack people who don’t like her. No surprises there.
For a PR professional these are very dumb moves. I don’t know if she’s working on the “no such thing as bad publicity” angle or actually thinks her attack will cause the Scouts NZ to back off. Mediaworks should be wondering if this particular cog might break and cause problems in the machine.
It's funny that Scout already features in a Stuff Trivia Quiz and they got the website wrong; stating it is scope.co.nz not scout.co.nz.
I don't know if that's a dig at Scout or just bad proofing. probably the latter as Stuff has been horrendous lately.
Bottom line is that I don't like the way that people with a proselytizing agenda worm their way into schools either
I agree, we know where the pamphlets came from. I think the next question to ask is "How much did the school pay for the pamphlets?' I think it's likely that the organisation donated them, but it's worth checking out, and to find out how much of this kind of thing gets donated to schools in general.
I would be upset if the school bought the materials as that would be supporting the religious organisation that made them.