Daily review 23/10/2019

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, October 23rd, 2019 - 46 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

46 comments on “Daily review 23/10/2019 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. gsays 1
    23 October 2019 at 5:51 pm

    I would like to heartily recommend the movie Laundromat.

    Great cast: Meryl Streep, Gary Oldman, Antonio Banderas.

    Meryl Streep is widowed in a commercial boating incident and the insurance company has been under written by a shelf company created by Mossack and Fonseca (Oldman and Banderas).

    Cleverly written, funny and well acted.

    On Netflix.

  3. Anne 3
    23 October 2019 at 6:39 pm

    So, the police announce an Independent Inquiry into the bullying culture within the Police Force and within a few hours of doing so, start to bully a former whistle-blowing cop who dared to speak to RNZ about his experiences:

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12279012

    Yes, he signed a confidential agreement not to talk about it, but he decided it was worth speaking out in the hope it would help to change that culture.

    • Rosemary McDonald 3.1
      23 October 2019 at 9:23 pm

      And that numpty Nash…shame on him banging on about how there is no bullying culture in the police….he needs to go back home and play with his fire engine.

      As for Nicholas…how can that brave woman manage to hold on to hope that the police can actually change?

      • Anne 3.1.1
        23 October 2019 at 9:44 pm

        A few nights ago on TV I heard Nash make the comment… there are always two sides to every story.

        When it comes to bullying and harassment that is a complete cop-out.

        There are the bullies who are almost always narcissistic by nature, and there are the bullied who almost always have done nothing to deserve their attention.

        The "two sides" argument is a myth perpetrated by those who want to cover up wrongful behaviour and try put some of the blame onto the victim.

        I've been the bullied one more than once and know exactly how it works.

        • Compass Rose 3.1.1.1
          23 October 2019 at 11:46 pm

          ‘Bullies who are narcissistic by nature’ and ‘two side argument is a cop out’ – truth in both these statements. I’ve experienced a situation recently in a voluntary organisation where I’ve been subjected to prolonged bullying of others. Resisted attempted enlistment by the bullies, defended the victims, stood up to the bullies, now I’m on the receiving end. The bullies are so narcissistic and conceited and entitled they are just blatantly rude, openly hostile and completely disrespectful to whomever they target then act like they’re the victims. Complete mindfuck. No wonder people commit suicide

          • Anne 3.1.1.1.1
            24 October 2019 at 10:09 am

            The more serious forms of narcissistic bullying – which is what I encountered – can do immense damage not only to the victim but to the victim's family and in some cases can destroy entire organisations.

            It's very sad to know it continues to this day and that the authorities – namely the police – seem unable to get their heads around it and don't want to be involved, especially if some of the bullies are people in high places. That is what happened to me.

            I don't know the organisation CR but I presume you have tried to tell the leaders what is going on. Oh yes… they are brilliant at playing the victim card. So much so even the psychological experts admit to sometimes being fooled by them.

    • Peter 3.2
      23 October 2019 at 9:53 pm

      Pondering.

      According to the link, "In a letter sent to his lawyer, the police said Woodward had breached confidential settlement agreements from 2014 and 2017."

      I know of various cases of confidential agreements being made in employment situations. If one of the parties in any of them broke confidentiality and were subsequently told to desist and otherwise abide by the agreement, is that bullying?

      John Woodward decided it was worth speaking out in the hope it would help to change a bullying culture. To then claim he is being being bullied by simply being reminded of his agreement and warned of what would be normal consequences? Could it be argued that he's the one doing the bullying?

      Or are such confidential agreements not worth the paper they're written on? I know his is an exceptional case but then all cases are exceptional. That's why they end up as confidential settlement agreements.

      • Rosemary McDonald 3.2.1
        23 October 2019 at 10:07 pm

        I'd be betting my boots that somewhere in that settlement agreement are words "good" and "faith".

        Implying that both sides truly believe that the settlement rights a wrong.

        If one party subsequently publicly declares that there is no issue after all then the offended party has every right to publicly counter that.

        Woodward did the right thing.

      • Anne 3.2.2
        23 October 2019 at 10:14 pm

        I'm a former public servant and I've been there Peter. Have you?

        That was – and apparently still is – a ploy by the upper echelons of the Public Service to cover up wrongful behaviour on their part. It became rife after the restructuring of the Public Service started by Roger Douglas et al.

        I was witness to bad behaviour including an attempted rort by one department on another department. They shut me up by placing a caveat on me which was time wasted because I had no intention of going to the media. They chose to bully me into silence.

  4. Ad 4
    23 October 2019 at 7:18 pm

    What's the Parliamentary word on the Euthenasia Bill?

    Will it survive the night?

    • Glenn 4.1
      23 October 2019 at 7:42 pm

      I hope it survives. It would be a travesty if it gets voted down.

      • greywarshark 4.1.1
        23 October 2019 at 9:16 pm

        https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/401644/end-of-life-bill-likely-to-go-to-a-public-vote-at-the-next-election

        Seems like a referendum next year to decide on euthanasia for the terminally ill. A plague on their houses. Too many of the well paid pollies have no stomach for making what should be a non-controversial decision for the terminally ill

        Heaven knows when we will get the right to decide when we want to go when we have just had enough. There will be more and more people forced to commit suicide. In the recent case of a couple in an attempt to do so, one misjudged his procedure and was resuscitated and charged, though the penalty waived. A double grief for him.

        In this Euthanasia Bill the inability to separate Church and State shows up, with Church unwilling to allow a timely death to people wishing itwith appropriate steps to be followed scrupulously.

        • Ad 4.1.1.1
          23 October 2019 at 9:40 pm

          If you've had enough, there's nothing stopping you.

          If MPs trusted their own citizens, they would have voted according to the great majority of submitters – who opposed it.

          Since they are doing marijuana legalization at the same time, it will be a political test as to how voters handle multiple referenda and voting at the same time.

          • Anne 4.1.1.1.1
            23 October 2019 at 9:57 pm

            … they would have voted according to the great majority of submitters – who opposed it.

            You mean the ones who were hauled kicking and screaming into a mass religious-based campaign and who all sent submissions which were pretty much identical?

            • greywarshark 4.1.1.1.1.1
              23 October 2019 at 10:16 pm

              That's the problem with majority votes. If there is a tide of emotion the small voice of reason and dissenting argument is lost.

              And you can produce such simple-minded justifications for certain policies Ad that I wonder about you.

            • Ad 4.1.1.1.1.2
              24 October 2019 at 6:33 am

              Awesome bigotry on display there Anne.

              Your main problem is that we think and we are organized in far greater numbers than any movement on the left.

              • Sabine …
                24 October 2019 at 8:17 am

                and now you claim that people on the left don't live religion?

                or are you just happy that you guys march lockstep when told?

                I hope that when your times comes that you do not have to suffer the consequences of your action. I really do hope this.

              • Rapunzel …
                24 October 2019 at 8:25 am

                How arrogant you are. I suggest you're right though but I also suggest it is one fairly uniform group that when the 18% of undecided voters choose to be a factor always remains at a steady 40%ish, give or take a few, of the total.

              • Anne …
                24 October 2019 at 10:20 am

                Bigotry Ad? That is an assumption you make without any evidence to back it up. I'm merely telling the truth – in a tongue-in-cheek manner. Unfortunately I've never found an emoticon portraying 'tongue in cheek'.

                But I do seriously admonish you for claiming only anti-euthanasia disciples can think. That is an absurd claim and you know it.

          • weka 4.1.1.1.2
            23 October 2019 at 10:02 pm

            "If you've had enough, there's nothing stopping you."

            Apart from access to methods that are humane.

            I don't think NZ is ready for euthanasia legislation (because we're still really bad at looking after elderly and disabled people). But that doesn't mean that there are already good ways for people to end their lives if the suffering warrants it.

            Competing needs, we're not very good at dealing with those either.

            • greywarshark 4.1.1.1.2.1
              23 October 2019 at 10:12 pm

              We have police raiding the houses of mainly elderly women, looking for drugs that might be used for 'suicide'. Not good is an understatement.

              And not looking after disabled people well? The fact that there are so many is an indication of how good we are at looking after disabled people. They get help all along their life path.

              Now that elderly people are living longer and getting treatment intended to delay death, the whole matter of when is the right time to die – having options to choose withdrawal times from the world?

              • weka …
                23 October 2019 at 10:32 pm

                "We have police raiding the houses of mainly elderly women, looking for drugs that might be used for 'suicide'"

                Got a link or reference for that?

                "And not looking after disabled people well? The fact that there are so many is an indication of how good we are at looking after disabled people. They get help all along their life path."

                We're actually pretty shit at it for a country this wealthy and resourced. We leave disabled people to live in long term poverty. There's a woman I follow on twitter who for a long time couldn't shower at home because she rented and there was no housing available for her with an accessible shower. I see disabled people in Wellington talking about not being able to go out at night because there is no public transport for people in wheelchairs. We lock autistic people up in close rooms at schools or in psych units because we won't look after them properly. There's a case in the news this week of elder abuse in a rest home and the HDC being unable to do much about it. MoH has been trying to decrease disability funding. They cut homehelp to elderly people a few years ago, under National but I don't think Labour have reinstated it. Those are just off the top of my head without thinking too hard about it.

                That disabled people aren't left to die doesn't equate to looking after people well.

                • Rosemary McDonald …
                  23 October 2019 at 10:50 pm

                  Valiant effort, and very well put Weka… but I fear wasted on Greywarshark.

                  Those pesky, unviable disabled and old people should do the decent thing and hurry up and die.

                  Eh?

                  • weka …
                    23 October 2019 at 10:57 pm

                    or at least be grateful for the crumbs because isn't society wonderful deigning to let so many of us live?

                    • roblogic …
                      23 October 2019 at 11:32 pm

                      Euthanasia… such a neutral sounding word. Be honest, it's legalised killing. Errors and abuses *will* occur.

                      Our suicide stats are already a disaster, I wish politicians would focus on making *life* better for people, instead of encouraging them to check out.

                    • Incognito []
                      24 October 2019 at 7:59 am

                      Do you really think that politicians encourage people to ‘check out’? That is and will still be illegal AFAIK if not immoral.

                      Do you think that politicians can and in fact do ‘walk and chew gum’ at the same time?

              • Chris …
                30 October 2019 at 11:21 am

                "The fact that there are so many is an indication of how good we are at looking after disabled people. They get help all along their life path."

                Yes, being paid an income less than the minimum wage for the rest of your life. Cheers for that, Greywarshark.

              • Chris …
                30 October 2019 at 11:40 am

                And not looking after [poor] people well? The fact that there are so many is an indication of how good we are at looking after [poor] people. [Poor people] get help all along their life path.

                • greywarshark …
                  30 October 2019 at 12:34 pm

                  Chris you make my point for me in an ill-judged emotional sort of way. There are a lot of poor people – everybody knows that. The help they get is piss poor, and a lot of people know that, and some of the wealthy even encourage that.

                  The way they think is that having some rich and a lot of poor gives an incentive for all those people who can work to try harder. This despite the fact that many wealthy people don't work as such, they cruise around looking for profitable opportunities, such as real estate agents, and property speculators. So a lot of us know that.

                  Then you make the point about whether poor people are looked after well. Most of us know they aren't. And some of us know that it is very difficult because they are sick from something, and some of us know that to the wealthy having dependent children when you are poor is regarded as a sickness (they shouldn't have children if they can't afford them). And some of us know that people don't help themselves because they pile on the weight too much, they drink too much, they don't make the effort to walk and do regular exercise etc.

                  Then you don't argue with me about there being many poor people, you just emphasise poor. And you agree that they get help all along their life path, and you emphasise poor there too. Many people know that they don't get enough help though, and some people know that many poor people aren't grateful for what they do get. Once they get more, they ask for even more, for themselves, and don't seem to notice others who are in need also. Racist people talk about the Maori grievance system, but old people, the poor male, they go on and on, giving little generous help to the community but demanding lots for themselves. Some of us notice that.

                  You think you have made some good points Chris, they are just emotional explosions. You haven't said anything new, demonstrated knowledge we haven't already got, and you haven't attempted to come up with an answer to the problems, or looked at them objectively.

            • Ad 4.1.1.1.2.2
              24 October 2019 at 6:35 am

              The entire palliative and medical establishment opposed the legislation in no small part because they wanted older people better looked after first.

              With a binding popular vote, it's up for all people who are going to be affected to be persuaded, not just the elected few.

              • Sabine …
                24 October 2019 at 8:21 am

                no they did not.

                but there is a lot of money to be made of old people – a pile of money actually – especially if you get around to not providing highest service but lowest paid service which according to the regular scandals coming out of old folk homes and the likes seems to be the fairly normal.

                our polititians have no guts. they have no vision, they have no humanity, especially the ones on the right. The left every now and then pays lipservice but that is about it, kinder and gentler.

                but not a one gives a care if you get left in your piss for three days because no nurse is gonna come to get you cleaned up and put you into clean sheets.

                Again, i hope that you do not suffer in old age what you so blithely dismiss as not happening when indeed it happens everyday somehwere in this country.

                t

              • greywarshark …
                30 October 2019 at 12:46 pm

                This despite the fact that the world is over-populated, that with longer life with reasonable health, the dementia rate will go up, and the state may not wish to provide for all the people who are unable to care for themselves who are aged. (It has already decided that it doesn't care about the youth of NZ in general, and having babies is not a case of particular concern, if we want more workers we will just import them.) So babies can be born in cars, at the side of the road, mothers sent home while they are hardly rested and haven't established feeding routines with their infants.

                All this care about people who fight to the nth degree in case someone might lose a month of life they might have existed in. They might pass on some of their money to the next generation who badly need it, before their life finally expires after years of deteriorating health and limited social contact, or years of being mentally absent.

                And all this worry when we are told that life may become intolerable for most within decades . How long before the penny drops that life is short; enjoy what you have, don't try and interfere with others choices except to be wise and helpful and ensure they are thinking things through appropriately and following steps to safeguard their rights and those connected with them.

  5. adam 5
    23 October 2019 at 9:17 pm

    NOW THAT HOW YOU TAKE DOWN THE ORANGE ONE!!!!

    https://twitter.com/DrJillStein/status/1185781996053766145

  7. joe90 7
    23 October 2019 at 10:30 pm

    Mr. Taylor's statement. (wpo pdf)

    https://t.co/mvJfFRTIQr?amp=1

  9. Dukeofurl 9
    30 October 2019 at 11:04 am

    The Democrats have decided to take up some of the Donalds impeachment 'suggestions'

    There will be a resolution passed in the house to formally authorise the process

    And Trump will be allowed to have his lawyer represent him in televised impeachment hearings.

    From memory , it was the televised hearings during Nixons impeachment process that turned the tide substantially against him and he resigned before a vote could happen.