Daily Review 24/07/2017

67 comments on “Daily Review 24/07/2017 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Poission 1

   24 July 2017 at 6:09 pm

   https://twitter.com/Kopapacafe/status/889046978985951232
   • mickysavage 1.1

     24 July 2017 at 7:25 pm

     Amen to that.
2. weka 2

   24 July 2017 at 7:28 pm

   More from Sean Plunket, the man hired by TOP to do their communications, who got into a spat on twitter when in reference to someone who already had kids he said that poor people shouldn’t have babies.

   https://twitter.com/publicaddress/status/889267031811293184

   https://twitter.com/FrankMcRae/status/889336105836855296
   • Andre 2.1

     24 July 2017 at 7:38 pm

     “Man” is an excessively charitable description of Plunket.
   • Sara Matthews 2.2

     24 July 2017 at 7:47 pm

     Plunkett is a tosser and always has been.
     • In Vino 2.2.1

       24 July 2017 at 8:01 pm

       Sara trying hard to sound like she is on our side. She must have so much time to spare…
       • Robert Guyton 2.2.1.1

         24 July 2017 at 8:31 pm

         Sarah’s not on our side (not in our tribe, not in our camp, not kin), it’s plain.
         • In Vino 2.2.1.1.1

           24 July 2017 at 8:50 pm

           Careful – she will get upset if you say that, and deliver a crushing defence of her stance. Or maybe not.
           • Sara Matthews 2.2.1.1.1.1

             24 July 2017 at 11:41 pm

             I don’t get upset In Vino, but I’m delighted that you think I would, have a pleasant day.
         • Sara Matthews 2.2.1.1.2

           24 July 2017 at 11:39 pm

           You don’t know me Robert, so please don’t speak on behalf of me. Stick to what you know, growing things and wasting ratepayers money at environment southland.
           • greywarshark 2.2.1.1.2.1

             25 July 2017 at 5:16 pm

             Oh that’s a reveal “wasting ratepayers money at Environment Southland”.
             No waste with Robert, he is against that sort of thing, and at supporting politicians who don’t take their job seriously and their supporters, concern trolls etc. It’s nice that The Standard gives people an opportunity to play at discussing politics isn’t it.
   • weka 2.3

     24 July 2017 at 8:41 pm

     Simmons says “He is part time contractor with his own career. Doesn’t speak for TOP. U really want to dissect the words of every contractor to a party?”

     https://twitter.com/drivethrupod/status/889399631381020673

     I don’t think I could name the communications bod for any other political party. Maybe they keep their heads down.

     Was that Pam Corkery’s job for IP?
     • adam 2.3.1

       25 July 2017 at 1:45 am

       Losing votes…
3. Stuart Munro 3

   24 July 2017 at 8:02 pm

   Interesting walkthrough of the falsity of employment stats

   https://www.businessinsider.com.au/unemployment-in-the-uk-is-now-so-low-its-in-danger-of-exposing-the-lie-used-to-create-the-numbers-2017-7?r=UK&IR=T
   • greywarshark 3.1

     24 July 2017 at 9:18 pm

     Stuart Munro
     I love those graphs going off in all directions – so sexy. Almost as much as the curvy Beyonce wearing sparkles and spangles in suitable places at the end on her end.

     As for the unemployment stats, they are specially concocted bedtime stories for pollies and their madvisors. And don’t look at them twice you will turn to stone, or a pillar of salt, they are curs-ed, and no good will come of them.
   • ianmac 3.2

     25 July 2017 at 8:54 am

     Looked at your link this morning Stuart, thanks. Disturbing here too. No wonder wages remain static and some with full time jobs cannot manage. The Government MPs gloss over the part time workers who even with 5 hours a week are classed as employed. Wonder what the true unemployment is for NZ?
4. Draco T Bastard 4

   24 July 2017 at 8:33 pm

   China making another land grab:

   According to Indian officials, about 300 soldiers from either side face each other about 150 metres apart on the Doklam plateau, an area also claimed by India’s ally Bhutan.

   India’s External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj said the border road has serious security implications.

   “If China unilaterally changes the status quo of the tri-junction, it becomes a matter of security concern for India,” Swaraj said in parliament last week.

   Wu, however, reiterated that the withdrawal of Indian border guards was a precondition to resolving the situation.

   China is very, very pushy and demanding of things that aren’t theirs.
   • OncewasTim 4.1

     24 July 2017 at 8:57 pm

     Indeed! Apparently there have already been ‘incursions’.
     It’s a bit like the land based equivalent of their Sth China Sea activities.
   • greywarshark 4.2

     24 July 2017 at 9:22 pm

     The Chinese are on a roll, they are on a high plateau, which they built using special Chinese skill and nous and just to show they could. If they could come back to earth and get alongside their suffering peasants and have a spring roll, instead of pie in the sky which is so western and indigestible, they could settle down and run the Chinese economy that would save the world.

     But no, they are planning to be a super race, and I have read, want to play around with genetics. What next, one sighs with a gasp.
     • exkiwiforces 4.2.1

       24 July 2017 at 10:39 pm

       Welcome to the world of the Han Chinese as they still remember the Mongol’s the Japs, half of South East Asia, the Indian’s, the Russians and us Westerners when we give them a flogging.
   • exkiwiforces 4.3

     24 July 2017 at 9:26 pm

     This from the Australian ABC website

     http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-24/china-state-media-warns-more-warship-deployment-to-western-water/8738328

     China had one of their Spook Ships in Australia’s EZZ during Ex TS17. The last time something like this happen was when a Russian Navy Task Group turned up during a APEC meeting in Brisbane some years back.
     • Draco T Bastard 4.3.1

       24 July 2017 at 9:50 pm

       And it’s things like that that tells me we need to be able to defend ourselves.
       • McFlock 4.3.1.1

         24 July 2017 at 10:03 pm

         Against China? Or Russia? Or the US?
         • Stuart Munro 4.3.1.1.1

           24 July 2017 at 10:19 pm

           Trick is to make attacking unpalatable – logistics go a long way in that direction already.
           • McFlock 4.3.1.1.1.1

             24 July 2017 at 10:25 pm

             Unless someone needs a launchpad to the Antarctic.

             We can raise the cost of invading us, maybe even as much as the actual getting here might cost, but really our main defence will be sitting between the superpowers and trying to stand away from the eventual bar fight.
         • exkiwiforces 4.3.1.1.2

           24 July 2017 at 10:23 pm

           How good are you at poker? Because I’m shit at it unless it’s the nags (trots)
           • McFlock 4.3.1.1.2.1

             24 July 2017 at 10:31 pm

             lol I’m abysmal.
             • exkiwiforces …

               24 July 2017 at 10:41 pm

               Is that poker or the nags or both?
               • McFlock …

                 24 July 2017 at 10:48 pm

                 If I walk into a room that contains games of chance and decide to play them to completion, I’d be lucky to walk out of there with a pair of pants on.

                 Same goes with any room that has an open bar, but for very different reasons 🙂

                 Basically, even playing for matchsticks I end up being the very early loser watching everyone else play for the rest of the night.
                 • exkiwiforces …

                   24 July 2017 at 11:13 pm

                   Look’s like I’ve got to teach how use a ugly stick then? I think the old man still has my 2 SLR’s, couple of old 303’s, the L4 Bren and the M-14 take your pick? If we get real hard up we always draft old Lyn up as well and I know few Vietnam gunners who still own and operate a couple of 25 pounders.
                   • McFlock …

                     24 July 2017 at 11:32 pm

                     Oh, I can use the ugly stick. And if it’s within 40 ft I can probably take me glasses off to do it. I’m just shite at hiding said stick behind my back.

                     But I’m not bad with reasonably precise mechanisms and a needle file, so I might be able to be useful.
       • exkiwiforces 4.3.1.2

         24 July 2017 at 10:27 pm

         You better ring up Draken and ask if can have our A-4’s and macchi’s back.
         • Draco T Bastard 4.3.1.2.1

           24 July 2017 at 10:46 pm

           Meh, the A-4’s were pretty much out of date when we retired them. The Aermacchi’s weren’t much better.

           Better getting something new. Developing it ourselves would be better but buying to start with. We could do what the Chinese did and buy a few Russian 5th gen fighters and reverse engineer them.

           And I’m not totally convinced that we need an air-strike wing. If we can see them then missiles will work.

           Of course, that is a big if these days.
           • Stuart Munro 4.3.1.2.1.1

             24 July 2017 at 10:57 pm

             If we were going that way we should develop drones – cost effectiveness is good, and the home advantage is that they don’t need amazing range. Drones are still relatively early at this point and a local variant might well be competitive. It would never happen politically though – major parties are not futurist.
             • exkiwiforces …

               24 July 2017 at 11:05 pm

               They will take out the GPS satellites and then we will be up shit creek with a fancy bit of kit on ground with no where to go.
               • Stuart Munro …

                 24 July 2017 at 11:26 pm

                 You could plan for that – lots of other navigation options.

                 Planes wouldn’t be a goer unless we were invaded by someone with an equally antediluvian airforce – only fairly new stuff is competitive. Draco’s missiles would be better but anti ship is a lot easier to create than anti-aircraft.

                 The drone advantage is in cost of development and training – much more flexible that way than single use rocket motor development – and civil uses like search and rescue could provide some value other than the catastrophic invasion scenario.
                 • exkiwiforces …

                   24 July 2017 at 11:48 pm

                   My only experience with UAV’s is the and IAI Heron and Scan Eagle. I know the Heron has a ground base station and you can use another Heron to retrans to another Heron, but it’s leaves a rather big electronic foot print hence why most UAV’S use satellites as there primary Comms.
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     25 July 2017 at 1:32 am

                     UAVs are really only useful out of visual range which means that the signal needs bouncing somehow. There are several technologies that may achieve this for short ranges around the NZ EEZ.

                     Helios – When I first heard about it the idea was to, maybe, have it fly over a single spot giving an effective geosynchronous unit that could over seas several million square kilometres. Doesn’t appear to have been developed past the crash though.

                     High Frequency Radio – been known for years but has some draw backs such as limited bandwidth.

                     Project loon – High altitude balloons used for receiving, amplifying and retransmitting comms signals.

                     As far as I know the only one available ATM is the HF radio.

                     Radio transmission always leaves a rather big footprint. The only way to reduce that is to minimise radio transmissions and keep the UAV in autonomous mode most of the time.
                 • greywarshark …

                   25 July 2017 at 4:49 pm

                   Yes the drones being used for useful stuff by responsible agencies sounds a good idea.
               • Draco T Bastard …

                 24 July 2017 at 11:33 pm

                 There’s solutions to that as well.
           • exkiwiforces 4.3.1.2.1.2

             24 July 2017 at 10:59 pm

             The airframes were ok just another rebuild like they were under the 1st Kahu, it was the black boxes, engines that need replacing and fitting of a proper anti ship missile on the centre ordnance position (whatever it was called) instead of the maverick ASM.

             Don’t like a Italian then? You don’t know what you are missing out on!
             • Draco T Bastard …

               24 July 2017 at 11:22 pm

               It’s more a question of matching 2nd/3rd gen tech up against 5th gen that I don’t like.
               • exkiwiforces …

                 25 July 2017 at 12:10 am

                 Actually our former ACF were bloody good at Maritime Strike and even taught the Royal Navy a thing or too on the 5 Power Defence Ex’s after the Kahu update. As my Uncle said me yrs ago “it was a shame that we never had a proper anti ship missile and the stupid National government didn’t allow us to upgrade the black Boxes to have a real proper data link to the the P3’s and the to Frigates then we would’ve a world class maritime strike force.”

                 You want to pop over to the Wings over the New Zealand Forum site and listen to a couple of podcasts in the ACF. A lot of RAAF pilots who flew fast jets that I’ve meet have said the Kiwi A4’s were a real handful after their Kahu upgrade, especially if they stayed low and said they knew their stuff in low level attack and at low level air to air combat.
                 • Draco T Bastard …

                   25 July 2017 at 1:36 am

                   Actually our former ACF were bloody good at Maritime Strike and even taught the Royal Navy a thing or too on the 5 Power Defence Ex’s after the Kahu update.

                   I’m sure they were and did but were they good enough to bridge the technology gap that would exist today?
                   • McFlock …

                     25 July 2017 at 11:52 am

                     without a further update after 30 years? seriously?
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     25 July 2017 at 1:58 pm

                     There’s more to the plane than just avionics. Specifically, there’s the stealth capabilities of the 5th gen fighters. The A-4s and the Aermacchi’s didn’t have those at all and so would have been easily detected at long range meaning that they could be effectively engaged and destroyed far beyond the range that they could detect and engage the hostile craft.
                   • McFlock …

                     25 July 2017 at 2:26 pm

                     A jet’s radar cross section can be decreased with a coat of paint (the Indians have done it), and there’s still the matter of low-level attack and other tactics.

                     Besides, IR search & track is passive and apparently has an effective range of 50 miles, and that’s a black box. Alongside ECM, which is another black box.

                     And then we get into the cost per kill issue – why spend hundreds of millions developing an aircraft we can’t afford to lose?

                     As an aside, there’s an interesting model being floated in the US of having more stealthy drones/snaFu35 as sensor pickets forward of a more conventional airframe converted to a C&C-arsenal aircraft. Because the picket aircraft have limited armaments, a converted B52 or similar could carry a battery of long-range missiles to engage aircraft or surface targets identified by the pickets.
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     25 July 2017 at 3:21 pm

                     A jet’s radar cross section can be decreased with a coat of paint (the Indians have done it), and there’s still the matter of low-level attack and other tactics.

                     Quite aware of the paint. Even the B2’s have radar absorbing paint. And low level attack no longer applies. This is quite an informative on that.

                     Besides, IR search & track is passive and apparently has an effective range of 50 miles, and that’s a black box. Alongside ECM, which is another black box.

                     Yep, they are – but it’s 50km rather than 50 miles and radar does 200km+ and the missiles can do 100km. That means that those non-stealth aircraft are dead before they even see the target. This is my point.

                     And then we get into the cost per kill issue – why spend hundreds of millions developing an aircraft we can’t afford to lose?

                     Heh, that’s what effectively killed off the battleships. Please note where I said that I’m not enthused about having an air strike wing.

                     As an aside, there’s an interesting model being floated in the US of having more stealthy drones/snaFu35 as sensor pickets forward of a more conventional airframe converted to a C&C-arsenal aircraft.

                     Yep, saw that in a documentary but the arsenal aircraft is only needed to project power. If we’re only talking defence then we have the picket aircraft or other long range communications/detection systems and land and/or sea based missile carriers.
                   • McFlock …

                     25 July 2017 at 4:11 pm

                     Low level flight still applies, it just has limitations as your article pointed out.

                     Basically, even in your pessimistic model the stealthy opposition aircraft will be forced to launch their limited munitions at longe range, leaving plenty of time to figure out an evasion plan (because missiles are not stealthy, they’re hot). And then they’re out of ammo.

                     Whereas some small aircraft with long range anti-radiation missiles can play over-the-horizon peek-a-boo with any opposition radar emitters, if their black boxes are good enough to see them.

                     If you want to destroy the opposition before they get to our shores, you’ll need aircraft. Long range missiles are all well and good, but you can’t launch ’em until you need them. Land launchers are limited to land, and sea platforms don’t have the response time to fill in gaps that aircraft do.
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     25 July 2017 at 5:52 pm

                     leaving plenty of time to figure out an evasion plan (because missiles are not stealthy, they’re hot).

                     If you can generate a miss which itself is becoming less and less likely as missiles and detection systems become better. Which is the problem with the A-4s and the Aermacchi in that they’re very easy to detect and track.

                     Whereas some small aircraft with long range anti-radiation missiles can play over-the-horizon peek-a-boo with any opposition radar emitters, if their black boxes are good enough to see them.

                     That’s another if. The f35 and other stealth aircraft can use radar from other sources (Such as the C&C aircraft you mentioned) which themselves can be out of radar and missile range.

                     If you want to destroy the opposition before they get to our shores, you’ll need aircraft.

                     Not necessarily. Satellites for long range detection and guidance. Over the Horizon Radar for medium range detection and guidance and finally local radar (passive and active) on the missiles themselves. Best option would be to combine them.

                     Long range missiles are all well and good, but you can’t launch ’em until you need them.

                     Well, obviously you wouldn’t be launching them if you didn’t need them. You seem to be implying that we need aircraft for the initial detection which is wrong.

                     Aircraft may play a role but it wouldn’t be fighter aircraft but AWACs.

                     Land launchers are limited to land, and sea platforms don’t have the response time to fill in gaps that aircraft do.

                     Land launchers are limited to striking anywhere in the world. Sea launchers are a little shorter ranged.

                     What gaps?
                   • exkiwiforces …

                     26 July 2017 at 4:55 pm

                     This link show’s what Kahu 2 should’ve looked like if Labour decided to dump the F-16 and kept the ACF going as the then Maccih’s also due a mid life upgrade as well. This for everyone’s info the Maccih’s won’t the first choice for the Airforce btw.

                     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_A-4AR_Fightinghawk#Specifications_.28A-4AR_Fightinghawk.29

                     Compare with the original Kahu upgrade,

                     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Kahu

                     There was some talk of using Radar Absorbent Material (RAM) and some short of RAM paint for the Kahu 2 upgrade to further reduce the A4’s radar signature. In the book called Black Box Canberras pg168 talks about the Brits conduct trails using a Canberra and most of that research project is still classified today.

                     There was a small team within ACF wing HQ that develop a lot if its tactics and this small team casted a rather large net that resulted talking to such Nations as RAF, Luftwaffe, Norway, Israeli, Swiss Airforces and of course the Argies to help re write its Training, Tactics and Procedures (TTP’s or SOP’s in old money) for ACF. This study also had a profound a effect in the way the RNZAF trained its pilots and its technical personal after the Kahu upgrade. The end result was that RNZAF ended up with a world class Pilot training syllabus and Technical training syllabus that the rest of world look on with envy and only be thrown out on a whim by then Labour government which turn took the RNZAF as a whole about 10yrs to recover from.

                     Low level attack and Low level Air to Air Combat is still quite valid in todays modern world and in fact both skill sets its become a dying art in most Airforces as they becoming more risk adverse in their training management policies as both subjects are very hard master. The ACF knew the only way for them to survive was to make the big boys come to them not the other way round which suited the A4 strengths and when you throw in atmospheric, environmental, terrain considerations, the law of physics etc and the high standard of training of RNZAF pilots made the A4 a very nasty aircraft to go up against.
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     26 July 2017 at 6:09 pm

                     This link show’s what Kahu 2 should’ve looked like if Labour decided to dump the F-16 and kept the ACF going as the then Maccih’s also due a mid life upgrade as well.

                     The Aermacchis may have been mid-life but the A4s were end of life and needed to be replaced. That’s what the f16s were for after all. The problems I had with the f16s is a) that we were being over charged for them and b) because they were second hand we were going to need to replace them in short order.

                     only be thrown out on a whim by then Labour government

                     It wasn’t really a whim you know. We really don’t have use for an air-strike wing.

                     I really would go for a land based missile shield with satellite and ground based detection and guidance. A high reliance upon the army with multiple fixed and mobile sites. I’d turn the airforce/navy into a coastguard with more of a policing and rescue role.
                   • exkiwiforces …

                     26 July 2017 at 6:42 pm

                     The so called Second Hand F-16’s some had no more than 10 hrs flying time and lowest had about 3hrs. Yes they were a block 15 model and the governments idea of getting the F-16’s was to save some money by not doing the Kahu 2 upgrade which would’ve push Skyhawk replacement out to possibly 2025-2030 and transfer that money to upgrading the F-16’s instead.

                     The Governemt of the day said that only 75SQN and 2SQN were going to get the chop and 14SQN would stay as its a vital part of the pilot training syllabus during the advance phase of basic wings cse and it could provide support to the other 2 services. Then there was a sudden about turn and 14SQN went as well, hence “ACF was only be thrown out on a whim by then Labour government”.

                     The end result was flying and safety standards suddenly drop to a point where RNZAF almost couldn’t do its mandated tasks because the experience personal had left and the Government against Airforce advice to keep 14SQN going or buy a new training aircraft until National government came power and brought the T-6’s at cost of $250millon NZD or there about.
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     26 July 2017 at 9:50 pm

                     No, it wasn’t a whim:

                     Absence of appropriate priority-setting mechanism

                     Clearly, there is no significant prioritisation process in place in the NZDF, which determines whether one particular project should be approved before another. Projects are ticked off, or not – as the case may be – when they have come to the top of the tendering process list, or are needed for an urgent deployment (to say East Timor or Bosnia); or are the subject of a special paper
                     to Cabinet because they are deemed to be an attractive opportunity buy”. The fifth maritime helicopter and the F-16 project are examples of the latter.

                     A paper prepared for the Treasury by Dr Arthur Grimes and Dr James Rolfe, completed late in 1999, titled Defence Objectives and Funding, notes that what this approach continually fails to do, is look at the desired outcomes of defence policy and expenditure from the perspective of questions like:

                     * What does national security mean?
                     * How best can it be achieved?
                     * What is the best balance between diplomatic and military means to achieve
                     * security?
                     * What trade-offs are there?
                     * What are appropriate roles for the armed forces?

                     We may not like it but it seems that prior to the 5th Labour government defence spending was on a whim.
                 • exkiwiforces …

                   26 July 2017 at 11:23 pm

                   Firstly I’ll thank you for the link and would have a look at it later.

                   My advice comes from my uncle (was once a Labour supporter) who was on the Project team for Strikemaster replacement, he also was involved with introducing the 339C macchi in service, number of former A4 drivers and technicians, The book called Skyhawks “The history of the RNZAF Skyhawk” by Don Simms and Nick Lee Frampton and the podcasts on Wings over the New Zealand forum sites.

                   I was serving in the Army in mid to late 90’s in a Recce SQN as part of 3 Land Force Group and we were ineffect asset strip to keep units that made up 2 Land Force Group operational. Hence why I finally punched out and that goose mallard told me to fuck off during the Labour Party Conference in Christchurch in late 97 when I standing as the Labour youth rep for the National Council and what he said to me was some nasty stuff about us work class should know our place etc. Informed my backers and to my grandmother and promptly went on the TF Ex that was begin held on that weekend. The rest is history.

                   One last thing, do you know the if the Quigley review ordered by the then Labour government is that available for public view? The reason I’m asking this, is it’s findings and the 2001 Review into options for a Air Combat Capability were not available for public because it went against the then government view that 75 and 2SQN’s should be disbanded with 14SQN to be retrained at reduced level. When the last review was presented to cabinet that the Alliance party went ape shit at the report and they demanded that 14SQN to disbanded as well at the last minute. That’s what I was told from Labour MP who was member of cabinet and certain faction threatened to walk out hence why it’s kept under wraps and it seems to be the view of a few other people associated with the last review.
                   • exkiwiforces …

                     26 July 2017 at 11:42 pm

                     I was meant to reply to DTB, sorry using my ipad atm and got more fat fingers than a fat kid in a candy shop.
     • joe90 4.3.2

       24 July 2017 at 11:55 pm

       They’re busy.

       http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/21/us-closely-tracking-chinese-navy-baltics-war-games-russia/
       • exkiwiforces 4.3.2.1

         25 July 2017 at 12:23 am

         There’s a couple of NATO Ex’s going on as well in the Baltic region according to Janes Defence ATM and surprise they aren’t collisions as it must be a little bit crowded in the Baltic Sea ATM.
5. Incognito 5

   24 July 2017 at 10:09 pm

   A clear call to vote: Something is brewing in NZ politics.

   Edit: link keeps changing!? http://www.voxy.co.nz/politics/something-brewing-nz-politics/268/288464
6. Pat 6

   24 July 2017 at 10:24 pm

   https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jul/24/revealed-pseudo-public-space-pops-london-investigation-map

   truly disturbing (right down to the private policing of unknown rules)….is there a similar process emerging here i wonder?
   • Draco T Bastard 6.1

     24 July 2017 at 11:02 pm

     Probably. I heard a awhile back of something similar happening to Catherine Street in Henderson.
     • Pat 6.1.1

       24 July 2017 at 11:22 pm

       is that a public/private space?
       • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1.1

         24 July 2017 at 11:39 pm

         That’s just it. I don’t know any more. It used to public but that I read said that private security guards were moving people out of it for being scruffy/noisy which they shouldn’t be able to do. I can’t recall clearly if it said that the place was now privately owned and I can’t find the article either.
         • Pat 6.1.1.1.1

           24 July 2017 at 11:44 pm

           unless they were perhaps employed by the council and they were enforcing some bylaw (maybe for noise, can’t imagine one for scruffy though nothing would surprise completely ) but i can see the similar issues existing here as we follow the same privatisation model as the UK, perhaps even more so.
   • Molly 6.2

     25 July 2017 at 3:08 pm

     Yes. Have a look at Joel Cayford’s blog to see a few examples – particularly in downtown Auckland.
7. RTM 7

   25 July 2017 at 2:33 pm

   Don Brash insists that his Hobson’s Pledge organisation exists to promote racial equality. Why, then, has the group’s facebook page been promoting apartheid and neo-Nazis? http://readingthemaps.blogspot.co.nz/2017/07/brashs-ugly-facebook.html
8. greywarshark 8

   25 July 2017 at 5:03 pm

   Oh what a lovely war.
   This is out of date clip but all discussions about war seem to be other-worldly. Always a bit different and always rather unsatisfactory an end.
   (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zr5ksOyxZRU

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS