- #1740655huiatahiMemberMember since: March 22, 2017
Replies: 1112huiatahi January 14, 2020 at 2:03 pm
I think Prince Andrew should be thankful Harry and Meghan seem to have taken the heat off him
huiatahi#1740665gabyoneMemberMember since: November 13, 2008
Replies: 2834gabyone January 14, 2020 at 2:29 pm
I think the news media seem to be beating up on Megan. Some pretty awful things said on talkback this morning & a very biased host. Given Harry’s background I think it is understandable that he might like to step back & away from endless reporters/news media harassing them. The only supposed direct report from the Queen seemed out of step with what news media are saying.
Gabyone Auckland region#1740667rob023MemberMember since: October 7, 2011
Replies: 1621rob023 January 14, 2020 at 2:35 pm
I’ve been reading up freedom of speech and have watched several videos, two of which I’ve pasted below.
Freedom of speech. … In particular, freedom of expression is preserved in section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
Does anyone here have an opinion on how that’s going here in New Zealand in the light of recent ‘events’?
Here’s Rowan Atkinson on Free Speech.
What is orthodoxy and who decides it is what it is?
Here’s one Katie Hopkins speaking at a Oxford University debate on de-platforming.
“Who will be the arbiter?
I do not need a person in a position of authority to decide for you what you will be allowed to hear”#1740669rob023MemberMember since: October 7, 2011
Replies: 1621rob023 January 14, 2020 at 2:45 pm
Gabyone, biased hosts and biased news media are examples of I/We will decide for you what you will be allowed to hear.
It’s because of that forcing upon me that I never tune into TVNZ news presentations.
Personally I admire Harry and Megan for making the decisions they have.#1740687Hero42 January 14, 2020 at 4:03 pm
Not sure what recent events Rob023 is referring to but as far as I can see we are allowed to say and hear what we want as long as it isn’t hate speech which we can do without.
As far as the arbitrator I would see that as with our democracy the court system. Parliament pass a law and it is up to case law to decide what is acceptable and what isn’t and so far as far as I can see the courts in NZ are getting it right.
Sometimes it is a case of someone saying you can say that but not in this building or in this institution or on this website or on this thread as it would be inappropriate to do so.
I know I have posted facts on certain websites pointing out were they were making incorrect assumptions and those posts have been removed by the website administrator. That is OK because that website allows for that to happen. It is in their rules and joining the website commits one to the rules.
The same applies here on GrownUps although some people get upset when they are admonished for breaking the rules they agreed to when they joined.
Cheers 🙂#1740689Hero42 January 14, 2020 at 4:14 pm
As far as biased hosts and news media goes it is the observer who determines that there is a bias, especially if the facts being presented are at variance to what one believes. After all facts are facts and facts cannot be biased.
On the other hand an opinion is different from facts. Opinions by their very nature will have a bias. However some presenters are more forceful in presenting their opinions as facts rather than just their views.
Fortunately most of us are sensible enough to listen to the opinion, decide if it is accurate or not, change their mind or not as suits them and move on. Some sadly are not so open minded to the possibility that there are other opinions and facts contrary to their beliefs and just won’t listen to them.
But that is their right. We live in a free country and there are not re-education camps as there are in some other countries.
Cheers 🙂#1740697jensMemberMember since: May 3, 2006
Replies: 7746jens January 14, 2020 at 4:28 pm
paulinem – yes indeed, I actually do receive interest free credit for up to a date in each month on my credit card, and if that purchase sum is repaid by that date in the month.
But after that it is expected to be re-paid with interest.
And it is not “debt free” for the banks either, because if I don’t repay it for what I bought by that date of the month, the bank pays it to the retailer.
And paulinem – if the bank could grant its credit out of nothing, there would not be any bankruptcies and no need for banks, and we all would have to save much harder before we can enjoy ownership of e.g., a house.
So there you are folks – boring as it may be, but is it not utterly desirable and necessary to enlighten paulinem and others with insufficient knowledge on how banking and the economy works, in order to strengthen the perception of truthful reality ?
This is not to kill off the debate, but perhaps those bored by it could reveal with explanations how they understand the beneficial or harmful influences of banking in any economy.
(Would we be better off without banking?)#1740698Hero42 January 14, 2020 at 4:29 pm
Y2K is back except now it is called the Y2020 bug.
Back in my days in the IT industry we did the job properly and fixed the bug completely but it seems some people wanting to save money only did a quick fix by interpreting any dates with a year between 00 and 19 as 2000 to 2019 and now some systems are failing as the programmers have moved on the fix hasn’t been updated and the bug has reappeared.
The old adage of do it once and do it right comes to mind.
Cheers 🙂#1740732gabyoneMemberMember since: November 13, 2008
Replies: 2834gabyone January 15, 2020 at 7:29 am
Some good news in Herald business today. Seems we are building new homes at the highest level since 1974. Surely this is a step in right direction to reduce homelessness and poor quality homes that cause ill health. Looking back to 1974 even the low paid for had an opportunity to get into home ownership.
Gabyone Auckland region#1740736paulinemMemberMember since: July 8, 2006
Replies: 1144paulinem January 15, 2020 at 9:03 am
Yes Gabyone you were right ie back in 1974 even the low income had a chance at home ownership. When my sister was married in 1959, her and husband later moved to a new built home in Wainuomata ( yes spelling maybe wrong :))
At this time this was possible for her and husband etc as in 1974, as families back then were paid a individual family benefit by the state, for their children they had. In regards the home ownership for families this was possible as back in the 60s and 70s ( as you mentioned) and maybe the 1980s as well for families were allowed to capitalised on combined family benefits payable to them for the growing time of their children until adulthood.
This sum of money the state gave to them would then be used as a deposit for their home ownership been built etc for them and their family, They also if thier income was low able to get a low interest State advances ( now called Housing corp ) mortgage to assure ownership of the home This was how my sister enjoyed home security in her married life with husband and children.
It is a pity the same is not available for especially low income families today, as such an arrangement would give valuable security of a home to live in for our NZ most important and vulnerable ie our now and future young families.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.