Posts by Lucy Telfar Barnard
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I sent off for a brochure for those focus fires, Bart. The cost of them was eye-watering.
Chris, I agree entirely, though the issue for NZ MfE is mostly about keeping the air clean, with efficiency a by-product of that.
Still, NS3058/3059 measures aerosol mass using a dilution tunnel. Our New Zealand Standard 7403:1992 (AS4013) uses a similar method, but as recent local Consumer testing has shown, type of wood and testing regime makes a big difference to outputs.
To add insult to the whole thing, Consumer's test also found that outputs for actual use vary significantly from test outputs - and the manufacturers' need to tweak their models to best meet testing standards, may reduce air quality performance in real conditions. These differences make our refusal to accept other testing systems even more ridiculous.
-
Hard News: Going solar?, in reply to Hebe,
Grumble grumble bloody Ecan
Not just Ecan, it’s the whole MfE list system I have issues with. The best that any woodburner on their list can claim is that it’s not quite as ugly as most of the others. Being a pyromaniac, I want a small woodburner for my city life, for aesthetic purposes rather than heating necessity. Because I want it for aesthetic purposes, I want it to be pretty, or cute. To be precise, I want it to be this: http://www.stovesessex.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/DovreVintage30Enam.png. According to Norwegian testing standards, it meets our requirements for efficiency and emissions. But New Zealand doesn’t accept foreign testing standards, because… our wood might be different. Or foreign stoves might be dangerous in wood-framed houses. Or some other excuse for protectionism. Getting it tested to NZ standards would be over $10K, which is well outside the budget. So all I can do is sulk, and rage to anyone who will listen (or read. Thank you for reading.)
-
Speaker: Not even a statistic, in reply to Rosemary McDonald,
then where would YOU put the LINE?
That is difficult, but I look to the approaches which position the line based on the age of the participants. If someone under 16 is with someone roughly the same age, given or take – one year? two years? a percentage of the age so that the age difference allowed increases as you age? – then there’s a whole lot less likelihood there’s any manipulation or exploitation going on.
And Sofie, bang on. The piece quotes him as saying ""It has taken away all my livelihood ... Even with name suppression I got fired from a job because a guy had heard it was me," ...He believed he was unfairly targeted because he was a household name."
This is so particularly frustrating because it's so obvious that the minimal consequences he suffered for his actions weren't enough to make him realise the magnitude of what he's done. He's complaining because he was fired because of what he'd done, and thinks he's been targeted because he's a household name rather than, I don't know... because he assaulted someone? Creep.
-
Hard News: A wretched editorial, in reply to David MacGregor,
I’m perfectly happy to hear from the subject of the story herself. It offers another perspective.
It doesn't offer "another perspective". It offers the only perspective (other than that of the accused, and he's not talking) that is of any weight at all.
-
Thank you Katrina, I found your testimony very valuable.
One of the things that I have long resented is the fact that when the paedophile on our commune was discovered, the adults decided not to report it to the police. They said that they made that decision to protect us girls from the sort of treatment they expected us to receive from the police and the legal system.
When I much later reported the abuse to the police, the police were (mostly) good. Certainly the woman who took my statement treated me as I would want anyone else to be treated. I developed the cynical view that the real reason the adults had been reluctant to report the paedophile back in 1981 was that they didn't want their way of life put under the spotlight.
Histories such as yours help me to accept that many of them may in fact have decided not to report for exactly the reason they gave, and with good reason; and also to accept that even if some made that decision for the wrong reason, the outcome was likely better that way.
As for me: when I reported in 1991 (or maybe early 1992? I forget now) the police were excellent. I reported in Palmerston North. The woman officer who took my statement did so with respect and civility. She didn't respond emotionally, which I appreciated, as I didn't want sympathy, I wanted action. She described the paedophile as a "sick unit", which I also appreciated.
The case was then forwarded to Auckland. Our case officer was also excellent, and never treated me poorly. Once, when he was away, one of his colleagues gave me an earful for phoning them too often wanting to know when the sick unit would be arrested. That upset me a lot. But that was the only bad behaviour I experienced from the police. There were two years between my first report and the arrest, but there were four other complainants to collect evidence from, not all of them in the same city, and a lot of evidence to collect. And when they did finally arrest him, the case was sufficiently strong that he admitted guilt almost immediately.
So I didn't feel I had to be brave. The worst bit was first making the decision to report, which I made alone, and with real fear of what would come next. But after that, I was well supported.
The major difference I note is that I was reporting historical sexual assualt on a child, rather than recent rape of a teenager or adult. Later, there was also the advantage of having five complainants and adults to whom he had admitted the abuse when first discovered; and the boxes of photos of us on the beach without clothes on that they found under his bed would have helped too. But that first officer in Palmerston North didn't know that that's how it would be when she first took me in to take my statement, and that's the point when it probably most mattered.
Would I advise my daughter to lay a rape complaint with the police? Yes. No matter what the circumstances? OK, possibly not.
-
Hard News: Going solar?, in reply to BenWilson,
Not forgotten by any means (collecting brush and wood, breaking and splitting kindling were all part of my chores as a child), though if you don’t mind spending the money you could get round some of that by buying your wood pre-split. Though of course that eats into the savings.
-
Hard News: Going solar?, in reply to Farmer Green,
a decent second hand wood stove will cover all cooking , house heating , (radiators) and hot water for washing needs, of a large household.
The only problem might be the life expectancy of such a system . . . 50-100 years.
Still , good value for the money.We used a wood stove through my childhood on the commune.
The only problem being life expectancy is only the only problem if you're time rich.
Apart from the additional maintenance and cleaning (compared to an electric or gas cooktop/oven), they're not much chops for coming home at 6.30pm and whipping up a quick dinner in 15 minutes or so for the tired hungry troops. The fire needs to be stacked, and lit, and coaxed (if it's winter). And you can forget about whipping up a quick batch of muffins before your short-notice guests arrive, as it takes a lot longer for the oven to warm up, and keeping it at the required temperature to bake takes more input as well.
I love wood stoves, but they suit my country life, not my city life.
-
Hard News: Going solar?, in reply to Farmer Green,
a decent second hand wood stove will cover all cooking , house heating , (radiators) and hot water for washing needs, of a large household.
The only problem might be the life expectancy of such a system . . . 50-100 years.
Still , good value for the money.We used a wood stove through my childhood on the commune. The only problem being life expectancy is only the only problem if you're time rich. Apart from the additional maintenance and cleaning (compared to an electric or gas cooktop/oven), they're not much chops for coming home at 6.30pm and whipping up a quick dinner in 15 minutes or so for the tired hungry troops. The fire needs to be stacked, and lit, and coaxed (if it's winter). And you can forget about whipping up a quick batch of muffins before your short-notice guests arrive, as it takes a lot longer for the oven to warm up, and keeping it at the required temperature to bake takes more input as well.
I love wood stoves, but they suit my country life, not my city life.
-
Hard News: Going solar?, in reply to James Green,
drain water heat recovery...
A minor quibble, but presumably you'd need to adjust your shower mixer a bit in the early minutes of your shower, as the cold water starts to heat up and so the hot water needed becomes less?
-
Hard News: Going solar?, in reply to BenWilson,
Which would, incidentally, be fair – passing on the real cost, rather than slipping it into the usage charges which fluctuate with the price of power.
It would be “fair” in that people would be paying their equal share of the cost. However, the current arrangement is kinder to low users and those who limit their use due to fuel poverty, and also does more to encourage energy efficiency.