Rodney Hide is being labelled a hypocrite after having his girlfriend accompany him on an overseas tour, all paid for by the Great New Zealand Taxpayer. A number of responses to the Your Views question "Are Rodney Hide's travel expenses justified?" have reacted with shock and disbelief at the suggestion that Rodney has managed to score himself a lady friend. However, overall this thread reflects one thing that Your Views users can always be counted on to do: continually reference politicians or other public figures not by their real names but by some kind of incredibly witty and cutting nickname. Oh and the heavy circulation of the same cynical phrases over and over again (PC gone mad being the most favoured). Okay so this phenomenon is by no means limited to the space of Your Views, as the public, journalists and politicians have been thinking up nasty names to call each other since the year dot. As Matt Southall from spEak You're bRanes notes, speaking about the BBC's Have Your Say section:
"Nobody ever writes "New Labour" or "Gordon Brown". These petty internet gnomes proudly write "Nu LiarBore", "Gordon CLOWN" or something similarly inventive and hilarious. You can almost see their smiles of satisfaction as they type it. Funny and subversive. Brilliant."
Hiawatha (Auckland Central)
Rhort-ney Hide, you deserve to be fired. What a sad hypocrite you are.
I'm sure Hiawatha is pleased with her shot at Rodney Hide. Yeah, make a funny word play on his name, that'll learn him! As we saw in a previous post about John Key's American adventure, to hilariously refer to John Key you say 'DonKey', for Helen Clark it's 'Auntie Helen' or 'Head Girl Helen'.
Certain phrases get circulated again and again, each time getting more and more frustrating to read and yet, gathering more momentum as they go...
wellwisher (Penrose)
Just another pig at the trough.
Shane (Grey Lynn)
Rodney Hide should first pay back his partners expenses then he should resign. He has no creditabilty and is just another pig with his face in the trough.
Huia Gold Coast (Queensland)
Hide is a pompous hypocrite who has shown that he is just another right wing reptile with his snout in the trough?
Yes, yes, we get it. Politicians are pigs with snouts or faces in the trough. Very creative! 10 out of 10 for all of you.
Margot Campbell (Napier)
The lefties will jump all over this. Rodney is the only one with steel balls in our parliament. Good that he brings a girl rather than a boy.
Don't look for the splinter on some someone else. Look for the log on yourself.
And if you weren't outraged by that, here's some more Margot for ya! From the thread "Would you trade your regular breaks for time off later?":
Margot Campbell (Napier)
Who cares about this? The only people who take 'smoko' are the bottom of th bell curve who put lids on yoghurt. They vote red anyway.
The more I read Your Views, the more Margot Campbell's posts stick out and the more convinced I am that she must be a fake whose posts are designed to piss off the "PC brigade". She is also the bright spark who inspired the 'Ratbags suckling at the public teat' label in the tag cloud. Interesting that the moderation lets through some appalling homophobic remarks too, especially as they promise to weed out any posts that could be "considered discriminatory on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual preference, nationality, age, disability, etc." Letting Margot's post go through just adds more weight to my theory that she is part of a Your Views forum conspiracy, dreamed up to incite maximum levels of offense and controversy.
Showing posts with label Ratbags suckling at the public teat. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ratbags suckling at the public teat. Show all posts
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Would you be happy to put up with polarised discussion?
Maori Television has so far put in the highest bid for gaining the rights to screen the Rugby World Cup games in 2011. The Herald reported on the likelihood of Te Reo being included as part of the commentary, saying that the majority of commentary would be in English but with 5-10% Maori phrases. They even included a wee English-to-Maori translation of common rugby terms down the bottom of the story.
Your Views asks the question: Would you be happy to watch Rugby World Cup games on Maori TV? Strange phrasing here, with a definite insinuation that watching rugby on Maori TV would not sit comfortably with some people. It might as well be saying: "Could you put up with the odd Te Reo word or phrase during a Rugby World Cup game?", as if the language is simply a nuisance.
"Would you be happy driving with screaming kids in the back seat?"
GT (East Tamaki)
No, I do not want to have to listen to Maori in the middle of the games. I don't mind if you want to spread Maori culture, but not like this. This would be akin to force feeding. Don't people know that it's rude to speak another language in front of people who don't understand it? What's the difference between that and forcing everyone to watch Maori TV where they wouldn't understand 10% of the commentary?
M. L (Remuera)
Just out of principle: Absolutely not! I'm just sick to death of Maori organisations constantly having their hands out to the taxpayer to fund their enterprises. They just have an insatiable appetite for Government handouts. If I need a "fix" of Maori culture I'll just trot off down to the Auckland Museum, thanks. I don't want it rammed down my throat, constantly.
Both of these responses liken the expression of Maori language and/or culture to force-feeding, as something which is being 'rammed down' people's throats. I'm sure GT doesn't mind speaking English in front of people who don't understand it. M.L's suggestion that Maori culture is best represented in the Auckland Museum shows his/her imagining of Maori as museum artefacts, not as a culture which might -GASP- change over time.
T Carrington (Berhampore)
Good on Maori TV for punching above their weight. If the Maori Affairs people are trying to get messages through to Maoris and also to promote Maori business then doing it at a time when most of the world is watching smacks of good thinking. Better than spending it on welfare benefits I say.
Sad to see so many people including your reporter eating and talking straight out of TVNZ's trough - the question is, who benefits from leaking all this bid information and that would be TVNZ - a broadcaster renown for long lunches whose bosses have been subsidised by my taxes for more than half a century - and yet we moan about little ol Maori TV?
Shame on those journos who pandered without thinking to an obvious TVNZ set up.
I continue to be surprised by the amount of criticism of the Herald's reporting being approved by the moderators of Your Views. Apparently they didn't let 'The brat prince' get away with his first submission to Your Views on this topic:
The brat prince (Queensland)
Take two, a less brutal summation as the NZ Herald declined to publish my previous rant. I find it offensive to be forced to learn a language that I do not care for. I am not alone; the majority of the population does not speak Maori.The fact that a station targeting a minority of the population thinks it has earned the right to hijack our national sport is presumptuous to say the least. Maori TV is kidding itself it thinks this will endear itself to the masses and generate interest in the Maori language, it will, and is having the reverse effect.
I hate to think what was written in the rejected response. No one is making you learn a language! Therefore you cannot take offence. Last I checked Aotearoa New Zealand had three official languages - English, Maori and NZ Sign Language - so you can expect any of them to pop up anywhere. Although here's a user who feels that Maori is a foreign language:
Tinnyliz (Wellington City)
As long as the commentary is 100% English I don't care which channel it's on. I can't stand watching anything in a foreign language.
Your Views asks the question: Would you be happy to watch Rugby World Cup games on Maori TV? Strange phrasing here, with a definite insinuation that watching rugby on Maori TV would not sit comfortably with some people. It might as well be saying: "Could you put up with the odd Te Reo word or phrase during a Rugby World Cup game?", as if the language is simply a nuisance.
"Would you be happy driving with screaming kids in the back seat?"
GT (East Tamaki)
No, I do not want to have to listen to Maori in the middle of the games. I don't mind if you want to spread Maori culture, but not like this. This would be akin to force feeding. Don't people know that it's rude to speak another language in front of people who don't understand it? What's the difference between that and forcing everyone to watch Maori TV where they wouldn't understand 10% of the commentary?
M. L (Remuera)
Just out of principle: Absolutely not! I'm just sick to death of Maori organisations constantly having their hands out to the taxpayer to fund their enterprises. They just have an insatiable appetite for Government handouts. If I need a "fix" of Maori culture I'll just trot off down to the Auckland Museum, thanks. I don't want it rammed down my throat, constantly.
Both of these responses liken the expression of Maori language and/or culture to force-feeding, as something which is being 'rammed down' people's throats. I'm sure GT doesn't mind speaking English in front of people who don't understand it. M.L's suggestion that Maori culture is best represented in the Auckland Museum shows his/her imagining of Maori as museum artefacts, not as a culture which might -GASP- change over time.
T Carrington (Berhampore)
Good on Maori TV for punching above their weight. If the Maori Affairs people are trying to get messages through to Maoris and also to promote Maori business then doing it at a time when most of the world is watching smacks of good thinking. Better than spending it on welfare benefits I say.
Sad to see so many people including your reporter eating and talking straight out of TVNZ's trough - the question is, who benefits from leaking all this bid information and that would be TVNZ - a broadcaster renown for long lunches whose bosses have been subsidised by my taxes for more than half a century - and yet we moan about little ol Maori TV?
Shame on those journos who pandered without thinking to an obvious TVNZ set up.
I continue to be surprised by the amount of criticism of the Herald's reporting being approved by the moderators of Your Views. Apparently they didn't let 'The brat prince' get away with his first submission to Your Views on this topic:
The brat prince (Queensland)
Take two, a less brutal summation as the NZ Herald declined to publish my previous rant. I find it offensive to be forced to learn a language that I do not care for. I am not alone; the majority of the population does not speak Maori.The fact that a station targeting a minority of the population thinks it has earned the right to hijack our national sport is presumptuous to say the least. Maori TV is kidding itself it thinks this will endear itself to the masses and generate interest in the Maori language, it will, and is having the reverse effect.
I hate to think what was written in the rejected response. No one is making you learn a language! Therefore you cannot take offence. Last I checked Aotearoa New Zealand had three official languages - English, Maori and NZ Sign Language - so you can expect any of them to pop up anywhere. Although here's a user who feels that Maori is a foreign language:
Tinnyliz (Wellington City)
As long as the commentary is 100% English I don't care which channel it's on. I can't stand watching anything in a foreign language.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
The Triumph of Commonsense
Police Minister Judith Collins launches a counter-attack on the Opposition who are drumming up "alarmist" claims about possible police station closures. Apparently back in 2000, the Labour government were criticised for not providing the bare necessities of facilities and equipment at police stations, including things like raincoats. NO RAINCOATS? Seriously? But how would they stay dry?
Anyway, the police 'Fit for the Future' project, which is to be presented to the Government, recommends that as a response to the need to cut-costs in the police force, patrol cars could be turned into "mobile stations" whereby on-the-spot punishments could be given out for minor crimes, giving police officers the ability to act as both prosecutor and judge.
All this talk of police raincoats and cost-cutting measures inspired Your Views to pose the question "Should police be able to process crimes at their patrol car or back at the station?", clearly designed to appeal to those who value "commonsense" arguments.
Margot Campbell (Napier)
Madness. The government should be slashing benefits and state houses. Ratbags suckling at the public teat should be the number one target. What sane person with disagree with this?
Thanks Margot, for providing We Encourage Wide Debate with an incredible label for the tag cloud! "Ratbags suckling at the public teat" - brilliant. Although her response does leave you wondering what question she was responding to. It could very well suit most Your Views questions, which often pit an "sane" idea against an "insane" one.
rodney mccardle (North Shore)
Yeap, Close down police stations and let us have guns instead.
I'm trying to convince myself that Rodney's comment is intended as a brief but hilarious comment, aka JD from Opawa with his "How else are we gonna get girls drunk and score?"-type response to the banning of the Rangitoto College ball. The thought of this comment as deadly serious makes me feel, well, seriously dead.
Hugh Jarse (Rotorua)
No, we dont have enough. If we look at the values that have changed over the last 20 years, unless we get back to those vales of love, respect , pride in oneself , ones people and this beautiful counntry of ours, then we do not have enough Police Stations.
For crissakes we are now putting in laws which stop gang members wearing their patches in Wanganui, we need to make this s standard law across the country. The values of our young have changed, violently.
Another instance of myth-making and nostalgia for the New Zealand of yesteryear. Back when there were police stations on every corner. Ahh, it was paradise wasn't it?
Anyway, the police 'Fit for the Future' project, which is to be presented to the Government, recommends that as a response to the need to cut-costs in the police force, patrol cars could be turned into "mobile stations" whereby on-the-spot punishments could be given out for minor crimes, giving police officers the ability to act as both prosecutor and judge.
All this talk of police raincoats and cost-cutting measures inspired Your Views to pose the question "Should police be able to process crimes at their patrol car or back at the station?", clearly designed to appeal to those who value "commonsense" arguments.
Margot Campbell (Napier)
Madness. The government should be slashing benefits and state houses. Ratbags suckling at the public teat should be the number one target. What sane person with disagree with this?
Thanks Margot, for providing We Encourage Wide Debate with an incredible label for the tag cloud! "Ratbags suckling at the public teat" - brilliant. Although her response does leave you wondering what question she was responding to. It could very well suit most Your Views questions, which often pit an "sane" idea against an "insane" one.
rodney mccardle (North Shore)
Yeap, Close down police stations and let us have guns instead.
I'm trying to convince myself that Rodney's comment is intended as a brief but hilarious comment, aka JD from Opawa with his "How else are we gonna get girls drunk and score?"-type response to the banning of the Rangitoto College ball. The thought of this comment as deadly serious makes me feel, well, seriously dead.
Hugh Jarse (Rotorua)
No, we dont have enough. If we look at the values that have changed over the last 20 years, unless we get back to those vales of love, respect , pride in oneself , ones people and this beautiful counntry of ours, then we do not have enough Police Stations.
For crissakes we are now putting in laws which stop gang members wearing their patches in Wanganui, we need to make this s standard law across the country. The values of our young have changed, violently.
Another instance of myth-making and nostalgia for the New Zealand of yesteryear. Back when there were police stations on every corner. Ahh, it was paradise wasn't it?
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Patch It Up
The City of Wanganui has banned the wearing of gang-affiliated patches which has encouraged the re-opening of the Your Views thread from May when the by-law was first spoken about. Your Views pose the question "Will banning patches reduce gang crime?", a complex question, perhaps best explored through the work of crime and deviance in Sociology. But no! We live in a democracy and therefore all have the right to provide our expert opinion on any topic we should wish to wax lyrical on.
Bridget (Auckland)
Get rid of them. They are intimidating to every day people who have more of a right to walk around without being scared than a person does to wear a stupid patch. A real man doesn't need one.
Good point Bridget - most people would agree that gang patches are a tad intimidating. But referencing what it is to be a "real man"? Uneasy alert! Do you mean "real men" like Buck Shelford who kept on playing during a rugby game even though he had his scrotum ripped and four teeth knocked out? The perpetuation of the "real man" concept has much to answer for in New Zealand, including the culture of heavy drinking and high male suicide rates.
Forrest Green (Pipiwai)
Ban gangs send them all to Afgan in a cargo plane or shipping container. Even if they do get arrested they wont pay the fine and they just go back to their housing corp houses and continue to suck the life blood from tax payers. Waste of police resourses, court time and more tax payers money. Money that could go bacl to the workers the ones that actually keep this country going.
First, where's Afgan? Second, can you imagine how much of the "tax payers money" would be needed to fund this scheme?
THE ROCK (Avondale, Auckland)
Banning patches isnt gonna reduce Crime! it will may reduce intimadation THATS it! what about if they start walking around half naked with their Tattoos that have their signs? Then what? Tax payer have to pay for the removal of these patches that are tattooed too? Get real mr councilman you havent covered your bases! And this is a beggining of a War that I'm afraid The NZ police are not equpt to win. Think about it NZ. Do we really need Tax payers money singling out a minority? I Say no ! im not a gang member either but i see no win to this by law only more crime and more disregard to police
Yeah! Get real Mr Councilman!
It's interesting that quite a few people on this thread who argue that banning the display of gang patches will not reduce crime state that they're not gang members.
Bridget (Auckland)
Get rid of them. They are intimidating to every day people who have more of a right to walk around without being scared than a person does to wear a stupid patch. A real man doesn't need one.
Good point Bridget - most people would agree that gang patches are a tad intimidating. But referencing what it is to be a "real man"? Uneasy alert! Do you mean "real men" like Buck Shelford who kept on playing during a rugby game even though he had his scrotum ripped and four teeth knocked out? The perpetuation of the "real man" concept has much to answer for in New Zealand, including the culture of heavy drinking and high male suicide rates.
Forrest Green (Pipiwai)
Ban gangs send them all to Afgan in a cargo plane or shipping container. Even if they do get arrested they wont pay the fine and they just go back to their housing corp houses and continue to suck the life blood from tax payers. Waste of police resourses, court time and more tax payers money. Money that could go bacl to the workers the ones that actually keep this country going.
First, where's Afgan? Second, can you imagine how much of the "tax payers money" would be needed to fund this scheme?
THE ROCK (Avondale, Auckland)
Banning patches isnt gonna reduce Crime! it will may reduce intimadation THATS it! what about if they start walking around half naked with their Tattoos that have their signs? Then what? Tax payer have to pay for the removal of these patches that are tattooed too? Get real mr councilman you havent covered your bases! And this is a beggining of a War that I'm afraid The NZ police are not equpt to win. Think about it NZ. Do we really need Tax payers money singling out a minority? I Say no ! im not a gang member either but i see no win to this by law only more crime and more disregard to police
Yeah! Get real Mr Councilman!
It's interesting that quite a few people on this thread who argue that banning the display of gang patches will not reduce crime state that they're not gang members.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)