Posts by WH
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Why can't these people bring themselves to condemn an act of violence against a woman lying on the floor?
Endless repetition is not going to turn that into a valid criticism. Stop circling the bandwagons.
At some point the denunciation of celebrity offending becomes self-gratification, conjecture and trial by media. I would suggest that point has been reached.
-
I agree that there should be an accounting (as there should be after all offending) but that accounting is primarily owed to the victims of the offence.
-
I tentatively support the victim's decision to privately negotiate the payment of compensation in these circumstances, although I'd accept that society has an independent interest in seeing Veitch rehabilitated that might justify the involvement of the state. I couldn't say whether the counselling he has mentioned should suffice, but I'd be surprised if he hasn't sought help or been compelled to seek it by the terms of the settlement.
Sometimes crime and punishment is treated, quite wrongly in my view, as the banal preserve of talkback callers and contributors to the Herald's Your Views discussions. This attitude strikes me as reactionary, but perhaps that simply reflects the undeveloped state of my own thinking. (Although I do not share the perspective of the author, there was an interesting interview with David Blunkett in the Guardian recently.) The issue is always in the news and I'd really like to read a recent assesment of where our government is at - if anyone knows where one is?
I agree with those who have noted that the tone and content of this thread is unusual for this forum. In a perfect world this case would have attracted the same amount of concern and attention as any other, but inevitably it has recieved much more. (I personally find the public critique of his media-necessitated apology and Matthew Ridge's brave stand in the face of adversity particularly unpleasant.) Obviously Veitch's celebrity makes him no less blameworthy or less human, but maybe the old saw about one case being a tragedy and one million a statistic has some truth. </bromides>
-
I really enjoyed your comment Rachel.
There were 20,623 serious assaults and 4,831 grievous assualts reported last year.
-
@ Craig: Peace out to the max, but you are getting some far out crazy feedback about your writing style. Obviously you can write whatever and however you want, but maybe peeps are saying that they feel that awesome-level communication is not always happening. I'm not player hating, just saying.
-
There are people at SPARC who know the differences between marketing and behaviour change, but I don't believe from what I have seen that they are either consulted or listened to during the implementation of these projects. I also suspect that SPARC lacks the resources to appropriately interrogate the evidence base behind some of these interventions.
What are the differences between marketing and efforts to change behaviour?
I hope that John Key is not against the idea of trying to improve lifestyles out of some overdeveloped aversion to social engineering. The Times reports that the Conservative Party is talking about Nudge, which I haven't read, but which seems interesting and a little disturbing at the same time.
-
I often catch myself pretending that I am (a) creative. I only have two things on my list,
1. Improvement in the Government's financial position
The commitment to running a surplus over the economic cycle, the resulting reduction in net government debt, the decision to pre-fund future superannuation obligations.
2. Sound economic management
Repeal of the ECA, moderate growth, low unemployment, low inflation with improvement in real wages, introduction of a national savings scheme, the renationalisation of Air New Zealand, demonstrating the viability of strategic state involvement in the private sector
If anyone knows any good writing on NZ's long term crime prevention strategy, whether on the MOJ website or elsewhere, I'd be curious to read it.
-
I also don't understand the Vettori-bashing.
I don't want to second guess Vettori, or suggest that he wasn't justified in being angry. Declining to shake hands at the end of the game certainly suggested that he was rather annoyed by Collingwood's decision. I'm glad that captains were able to eventually resolve the situation amicably. (As I write this NZ has posted 266/5, scoring 96 from the last 10 overs.) I suppose what fires one player up can leave another cold and put a third on tilt.
even if it is more honoured in the breach than the observance (ball tampering, sledging, walking etc)
I was just saying that cricket has not always been played in accordance with the spirit, that people disagree as to what the spirit requires, and that many people think its better to go for the doctor and win than play in the spirit and lose.
-
It's interesting that there has been so much agreement that the spirit of the game required Collingwood to withdraw the appeal or recall the batsman. The whole idea that you are expected to adhere to higher standards of conduct that the game's laws technically require adds to cricket's charm, even if it is more honoured in the breach than the observance (ball tampering, sledging, walking etc).
Presumably the spirit of the game also called for New Zealand to not throw its toys in objecting to Collingwood's decision, but I can't muster much negative feeling about decisions made in the heat of the contest. On two separate feeds the commentators (Ian Smith and this South African guy) noted that being known as the captain who made the decision would be punishment in itself.
-
Those causing all the grief are an incredibly small minority and to be patronising to those who are normal human beings because there's two punks in the class or a couple of hopeless parents (and I meet parents regularly who are 100% competent) is complete and utter BS. Also as a first time parent I refuse to be forced to give up my time to learn what I already know.
First, I don't think your suggestion that most people know how to be model parents before they have children is true. Second, I don't think that classes would be of sole, or even primary, benefit to the parents of the 'punks'. Third, I would be happy to drop tourism studies (or whatever) out of your obviously busy day to make the room. Fourth, I find it ironic that a person who was forced to spend at least a year training to be a teacher would have such a strong objection to the idea that looking after children is a learned skill.
I do accept that most people already take the time and effort to learn parenting skills, from friends, family, books, Plunket, classes, etc, and that most people are good parents. If you disagree with the idea that we learn parenting skills and would benefit from being made to learn more, then we disagree.