Posts by Lucy Telfar Barnard
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I don't know of any online free access to the Lancet paper, but I believe I'm allowed to email copies of the pdf, so if you're burning with interest, do contact me (I've made my email address available here temporarily for that purpose). However, you can find the (longer, sorry, but more detailed) report the paper was based on here, and I'm happy to take questions, with the usual caveat that my opinions may not necessarily be the opinions of the other authors.
I think the media coverage on the paper has been pretty well done, thanks in no small part to the work of the Science Media Centre. Getting an editorial comment from The Lancet was a bonus, particularly as it has meant a second round of media coverage on the issue.
-
Hard News: Reputation and remuneration, in reply to Hilary Stace,
Rumours are that the Human Rights Commission is facing cuts up to a third of its funding (although I haven’t been able to find confirmation of this), which will affect the ability of its Human Rights Review Tribunal to do its work. Punishment for taking up the case of the solo mother v the Minister?
I have no idea whether or not the HRC is under threat of a funding cut, but if it were, it would not affect the HRRT, as the HRRT is a court, funded by the Ministry of Justice (or whoever it is that funds courts), and not funded in any way by the HRC. However, I think you mean the Office of Human Rights Proceedings(OHRP), which prosecutes breaches of the Human Rights Act, the Privacy Act, and the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumer Rights. A cut to HRC funding could affect the OHRP, but I believe prosecutions under the Privacy Act are funded by the Privacy Commissioners, not the HRC. If this is the case, then a cut to HRC funding might limit Human Rights Act cases, but would be unlikely to affect Privacy Act cases (such as the case against Paula Bennett). Indeed, a funding cut to the HRC would presumably allow the OHRP more time to pursue Privacy Act cases, as the HRC would be less able to fund Human Rights Act cases.
-
Cracker: On the Weekend: Rotoroa Island, in reply to Jeremy Andrew,
Remember the punishment for bigamy is very harsh - two mothers-in-law!
Hilarious. Or might be, if I was male and born about 50 years earlier. My mother-in-law is awesome, and I'd very happily have two people like her in my life.
I realise this comment puts me in danger of proving the old joke about how many feminists it takes to change a lightbulb (answer: a deadpan "That's not funny.") but that's a risk I'm prepared to take.
-
OnPoint: Association of Community…, in reply to Carrick Graham,
public health researchers who hold themselves to be beyond criticism and take a holier than thou approach.
I am a public health researcher. I do not hold myself to be beyond criticism, but I do take the approach that I am holier than Carrick Graham. Is that wrong?
Nice work Keith. The question I would like answered is how the association between ACR and Big Tobacco came to be watered down, e.g. was it the original journalist or the editor?
-
Alas, no summer here. It snowed last Friday, but it's all melted and little likelihood of a white Christmas, even in Bradford, where we'll be. I will be taking pavlova(s), which seems to me wonderfully contrary considering it's become tradition in NZ in large part because it works so well as a summer dessert.
Went to Copenhagen for the weekend at the beginning of the month. It was freezing and eye-wateringly expensive. Can't say I noticed the Round Tower, but the mulled wine was good. Also, the Euro collapsing won't help you much as Denmark has retained its own currency just in case; and the people we were staying with said the Danish economy is rather sounder than many neighbours in part due to a different home loan system to those we're used to.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Damian Christie,
the day John Banks gets caught giving handjobs for crack. Note I said "gets caught", I'm not saying he doesn't already do it. He's just too wily.
I'm saying he doesn't already do it. How could he? Such a transaction would imply that the value of the goods being exchanged were equal. Following the rules of supply and demand, I think that a) if John Banks wanted crack, he would have to pay in hard currency; and b) if he wanted to distribute handjobs, he would have to do so for free.
-
Okay, I can accept that the problem with cherry-picking is that a) schools will be judged for outcomes without taking into account the different input (though I think that's solvable); and b) (related) that existing inequalities would be reflected in the likelihood of being identified as a cherry.
Otherwise, I reject the arguments that it's somehow character-building for cherries to have to stay in the company of whoever social and physical geography have thrown together .Seems like an issue of personal vs social benefit though I'm not sure that "marginalised" is the right word. Overlooked? Getting less of the teachy sunlight than a cherry feels they deserve, perhaps?
No Sacha, I meant marginalised. Not by the teachers, but by their peers. Cherries aren't always terribly keen on being caught in the "teachy sunlight", as they know it makes the marginalisation worse, not better.
Nor is it simply a question of personal benefit vs social benefit. If there were a special academy for outstanding rugby players, or musicians, where they schooled together when they weren't in training/practicing their instrument, I don't think anyone would blink an eye, or complain about it being publically funded, but when it's outstanding academics/intellectual curiosity/whatever you want to call it, people purse their lips and get all uncomfortable.
I get that there would be a problem with identifying who should be there, but I don't think it's insurmountable.
I have for many years been involved in an organisation that provides scholarships to a group of peace and sustainability-focussed international boarding schools (if you've got an over-committed, over-achieving 16 year old who wants to finish high school overseas, pm me!). One year I phoned about 40 secondary principals to ask whether they'd be nominating anyone. Among the predictable range of levels of enthusiasm, one principal said "no, we don't go in for that sort of thing at this school, we're more focussed on sport". If I were a cherry in that school, I'd very much appreciate the chance to be cherry-picked out of there.
I'm not saying I think charter schools are a good idea, but I don't think there's automatically anything wrong with publically funding selective schools, so long as the selection is managed so as to eliminate, as much as possible, advantage from existing inequalities. Though as far as I've read, that's not what charter schools are intended to be anyway.
-
Liquifudge?
-
OnPoint: Spending "Cap" is Fiscal Anorexia, in reply to HenryB,
The Dompost also has an editorial endorsing charter schools (except for a brief mention of concerns about it being used for ... possible cherry-picking).
Sorry, I'm three pages out of date and off-topic, but can someone please explain to me why cherry-picking is a bad thing?
I mean, sure, the schools losing their cherries (ahem) may not like it, but what about the cherries themselves? When you're a cherry, you may want to be able to learn in the company of other cherries, even if you weren't previously being marginalised by all the apples and tomatoes (the latter being unsure if they're even fruit at all).
Anyone?
-
Hard News: The Next Labour Leader, in reply to DexterX,
Managment should not be able to employ family members in such circumstance - it is too conflicted and just plain wrong.
I agree that a relative should not be involved in the hiring decision, as that is unfair on other candidates.
However, the Human Rights Act requires that people not be precluded from applying for a job when someone they're related to is also in the firm, unless there's a risk of collusion in the relationship. In other words, it's not Kettle junior's fault that Kettle senior is in management.Islander, do you actually know whether the mother was involved in the hiring decision, or how well advertised it was, or whether there were other candidates, or indeed anything about the hiring process? 'Cos if not, that's a pretty serious smear on the character of both parties.
But yeah, that salary, holy cow, where can I get me some of that???