A couple of days ago it was reported that Lisa-Marie Thompson, who owned the number plate “ARYAN1″:

She said she had no idea what “Aryan” meant and the apparent nod to Adolf Hitler’s “master” race actually referred to her former boyfriend – Andrew Ryan.

I was a bit suspicious of this claim, and so was the Dominion Post who did some nice investigating:

A woman who claims that her personalised licence plate “ARYAN1″ is the initial and surname of a former boyfriend has links to white supremacist groups and is backed by the National Front.

Upper Hutt mother Lisa Marie Thompson – who has references to neo-Nazi white-power organisation Blood & Honour on a personal webpage – has denied being racist.

The Facebook page of the body piercer, seamstress and mother of three includes “friends” posing before swastika flags and claiming allegiance to “white nationalist” skinhead groups such as Crew 38 and Hammerskin Nation.

And final proof:

An Upper Hutt woman said she had trespassed Ms Thompson from her home and a former workplace because of concerns about her behaviour.

“Once she was yelling out, `You’re a nigger – dirty abo.’

“She’s always hassling me, at work, at home. I’ve called the police on her multiple times.

“She knows exactly what `Aryan’ means. She’s the most racist person I know.”

A former boyfriend said Ms Thompson – who works part-time at an Upper Hutt tattoo parlour – was prejudiced against “everyone who’s not really her kind”.

Her kind being bigoted lowlife. I feel very sorry for her kids. Growing up with a mother who hates, can warp you. On the other hand, sometimes it will push them in the other direction – they’ll be determined not to end up like the mother.

Peter Dunne has released some options for change. A summary document is here. There seem to be two major changes proposed:

1. That child support payments should take account the income of the parent with majority custody, not just the parent who has to pay.
2. That there should be more recognition of the amount of time non custodial parents spend with the kids. AT present if it is under 40% you get no credit – they propose that if the kid/s spend more than 14% of the time with you, this should be reflected in how much child support you pay.

Some non custodial parents get a raw deal at the moment. They split with their partner. The partner gets custody against their wishes, so they lose their partner and their kids. They are earning say $35,000 a year. The partner is earning $100,000 a year, and getting child support payments from the non custodial partner on $35,000 a year. And even if the $35,000 a year partner looks after the kids every weekend, they get no credit for that.

Now many custodial parents also get a raw deal, where the other parent disappears overseas, and pays nothing. That is a harder problem to fix.

A new blogger at Gotcha, Blondie, has some issues with the proposed changes:

Sec­ondly, under the pro­posed for­mula, if the cus­to­dial parent’s income increases, the child sup­port lia­bil­ity decreases.  Thus, if the cus­to­dial par­ent works harder to get a payrise, their ex – not them­selves, not the child, but their ex – ben­e­fits.  This just doesn’t seem right.  It would reduce the incen­tive for cus­to­dial par­ents to be pro­duc­tive – after all, why strive for a payrise if you won’t ben­e­fit from it?

I presume the abatement rate will be fairly low, so that any payrise for the custodial parent will mean they still receive benefit from it.

It will grate some that their payrise means their ex will benefit, but this is already what happens with the non custodial parent. They get a payrise and the ex gets more money. What this change will mean is that if either ex-partner gets a payrise, both they and the ex will benefit (but not to the same degree).

The Herald editorial is supportive:

Reform along some of the lines suggested in a Government discussion document is overdue. Eighteen years have passed since the system was last overhauled. Much has happened subsequently to warrant change.

The document, Supporting Children, has an array of options. One of the most eye-catching is that the income of both parents should be taken into account when childcare payments are set.

That seems a reasonable notion given more women are now in the workforce, especially in part-time jobs. Additionally, it is right in principle that parents should provide financial support according to their capacity to do so, whether or not they are living with their children.

Indeed, such a change would echo the situation if the parents were still together.

You can share your views direct with IRD at their dedicated website. The online survey is well done, as it makes it far easier to complete than sending in a formal submission.

Wellingtonians may wish to subscribe to WCC Watch. It provides detailed analysis of who is standing for Council, and related issues. Every local body should have a blog like this.

My only criticism is that the site is anonymous. I trust people – I don’t trust URLs. For all we know, one of the candidates runs it. It leans left, but seems pretty fair with their comments.

The International Policy Network has published a paper exposing some myths about “green jobs”. The seven myths are:

Myth 1: Everyone understands what a “green job” is.

Fact 1: No standard definition of a “green job” exists.

Myth 2: Creating green jobs will boost productive employment.

Fact 2: Green jobs estimates in these oft-quoted studies include huge numbers of clerical, bureaucratic, and administrative positions that do not produce goods and services for consumption.

Myth 3: Green jobs forecasts are reliable.

Fact 3: The green jobs studies make estimates using poor economic models based on dubious assumptions.

Myth 4: Green jobs promote employment growth.

Fact 4: By promoting more jobs instead of more productivity, the green jobs described in the literature actually encourage low paying jobs in less desirable conditions. Economic growth cannot be ordered by national governments or by the United Nations (UN). Government interference in the economy – such as restricting successful technologies in favor of speculative technologies favored by special interests – will generate
stagnation.

Myth 5: The world economy can be remade by reducing trade and relying on local production and reduced consumption without dramatically decreasing our standard of living.

Fact 5: History shows that individual nations cannot produce everything that citizens need or want. People and countries have talents that allow specialization in products and services that make them ever more efficient, lower-cost producers, thereby enriching all people.

Myth 6: Government mandates are a substitute for free markets.

Fact 6: Companies react more swiftly and efficiently to the demands of their customers/markets, than to cumbersome government mandates.

Myth 7: Wishing for technological progress is sufficient.

Fact 7: Some technologies preferred by the green jobs studies are not capable of efficiently reaching the scale necessary to meet today’s demands.

The study is not based specifically on the NZ “green jobs” policies, but I suspect much of it is relevant.

I’m off to Aussie tomorrow for the third time this year. The other two times were for work, but this one is a holiday – even better a free one.

I blogged in February that I had won the Drink Savvy party competition, run by Asia-Pacific Breweries – on the basis of the “drink savvy” party I blogged about on New Years Day.

The prize was $3,000 of travel vouchers, which have been shared with The Chef and the Ginga, as they hosted the party with me. We’re in Sydney from 4 to 8 September and Melbourne from 8 to 12 September. First time overseas for The Chef, so the trip has been much awaited. We will be taking full advantage of the duty free allowances at the airport, but in a “savvy” way

The trip will also be a double birthday celebration – one on the 4th and one on the 11th. Hope the duty free allowance lasts that long!

The Herald reports:

More than 470 of its 900 or so staff have had cards, and in the six months to January this year – a time of cost cutting – they spent $3.18 million. Almost 100 of the cards had a monthly cap of at least $10,000.

Mr Ellis racked up more than $140,000 on his own company plastic in two years – including $32,000 entertaining.

He and senior executives will be among those losing their cards, and soon there will be as few as 50 left at TVNZ.

Staff will now have to apply to get work-related expenses reimbursed, though some field staff will retain their cards.

Having half the staff with credit cards was excessive.  Most companies have very few credit cards issued, and other staff are on a reimbursement system.

I’ve never had a company credit card in my life, yet in certain roles have had tens of thousands of dollars of expenses – I just file expense claims.

But sadly it is Labor, not Labour that does. Just another example of how ideologically rigid and captured by the unions NZ Labour is.

In the excitement of the aussie campaign, I o overlooked this story:

JULIA Gillard yesterday promised parents and principals greater control over their schools as she turned to her policy strength of education.

In two major policy moves, as she attempts to regain political momentum, the Prime Minister yesterday outlined a $484 million plan over six years to give parents and principals greater autonomy from education bureaucracies and a $668m boost in family payments to 16 to 18-year-olds to keep them in school.

Under the schools plan, principals and school boards would be able to hire teachers and control their own school budget, directing resources to their students’ specific needs.

Superb. The NZ counterpart won’t even support better reporting of student achievement to parents, let alone bulk funding.

At the next election, National should campaign to implement Julia Gillard’s education reforms.

This may be Bernard’s best post ever. It should be pinned up on every South Island noticeboard. Some extracts:

Dear Allan Hubbard:

Please say sorry and thanks.

Please say sorry to the taxpayers of New Zealand and investors in South Canterbury Finance who now have to bear the burden of cleaning up your mess.

Please say thanks to the Finance Minister Bill English, Prime Minister John Key and the millions of taxpayers who are now having to pay for your mistakes.

Please say sorry to the South Canterbury Finance preference share holders who have lost all of the NZ$120 million they invested with you on the strength of your reputation.

Please take responsibilty for the mess created by the boom and now bust of the South Island’s largest financial institution.

Please appear in public yourself to answer questions about what happened at South Canterbury Finance.

Please don’t leave it up to your wife Jean, your PR advisors and your supporters to defend you in public. Please understand the scale of the damage done or your role in it.

Please be the humble man who does not shirk responsibility and cares deeply about your community that you are reputed to be.

Please don’t publicly attack the government, the Statutory Manager, your fellow directors and anyone else who criticises you and then refuse to answer questions in public.

Please show some humility and some concern for the wider community. Please don’t be more worried about your reputation than the impact on the business community or the public accounts of the nation. …

Please explain why you chose to repeatedly lend to related parties of other companies and interests that you either personally owned or controlled.

Please explain why you represented an equity injection in 2009 as a real injection of fresh money when it was nothing more than a merry-go-round of assets for shares.

Please explain why you refused to be interviewed or engage with the financial press in any meaningful way for years.

Please explain why you thought making interest free loans to young farmers to buy overpriced land was a prudent way to run a business.

Please explain why you chose to run so many businesses yourself without any outside scrutiny. A search of Companies Office records show you were or are a director and/or shareholder in 552 companies. The attached spreadsheet shows there are 1,690 companies registered from your offices at 39 George St, Timaru.

Please say sorry for saying repeatedly that South Canterbury Finance was a ‘heartland’ financier of rural businesses when it actually lent more than NZ$100 million to a luxury Auckland hotel redevelopment, the building of townhouses on Paritai Drive in Auckland, as well as to bars in the Viaduct. Please explain why you thought lending money to property developers in Queenstown who were unable to find funding was a good idea.

Please explain why there was so much related party lending between your companies and South Canterbury Finance and why you thought this was OK.

Please explain why you allocated NZ$13 million in shares to investors in Hubbard Management Funds that Grant Thornton has found in its second report did not exist.

Please explain why you reported to investors in Hubbard Management Funds that you had NZ$6 million in cash on hand when Grant Thornton said you actually had NZ$350,000 in cash.

Please explain why in March this year you had to mortgage your own assets to ensure you had enough cash to pay the interest on investments in Aorangi Securities. Please explain why you thought this was a legitimate thing to do and why you thought you should have been allowed to continue to do it for the entire group without outside scrutiny. …

Please explain why you believe you could say this in June this year and believe it: “I don’t believe in the history of New Zealand that any person has acted more honourably than myself”

Most of all Mr Hubbard. Please acknowledge the pain you have caused your investors and the taxpayers of New Zealand.

Please say sorry and thank you.

Regards

Bernard Hickey

I’ve said it before. Good intentions are not enough. Bernard has forcefully summarised the many unanswered questions, and how all we get in response is attacks on others.

Andrew Wilkie has declared he will back Labor. This is no surprise. I wonder how many of his massive 26 point policy wishlist did they agree to. While no surprise, it gives Gillard momentum coming on the back of Treasury disagreeing with the coalition on the costs of their plans.

On the vote count, the coalition now has a 11,000 vote lead on the TPP vote.

I expect Gillard will do a deal with the three Independents in the next few days.

The four speakers are Simon Power, Charles Chauvel, Caroline Morris and Philip Joseph. I missed some of the written constitution session as I had to go out and buy a new power cord for my laptop.

Power is speaking first. Basically just going over work to date – MMP referendum, new Electoral Commission, EFA repeal. Highlighting that the crucial thing with its replacement has been a transparent inclusive process.

Power has effectively said that any further changes to the finance law will require identification of some clear harm to be fixed, that is agreed across the political spectrum. This means that not everyone will be happy, but that there will be nothing that any group finds offensive.

Next up was Chauvel. Mainly focusing on why MMP is good.

Joseph argued that the Maori seats should not be entrenched and in favour of a longer and fixed parliamentary term. I agree with him on all points. He only favors a fixed term if it is longer.

However Joseph is pessimistic on the chances of reform.

Finally Morris is up. Focusing on conduct of MPs. Says discipline of MPs should not be left to party leaders.

I have advocated for some time that the requirement for the Attorney-General to advise the House if a bill breaches the Bill of Rights, should be expanded so that such opinions are not just given for first readings, but also at second and third readings.

Keith Locke has a bill, which will do effectively that and more. I hope it gets drawn and referred to a select committee. The PR says:

It will require all legislation to be checked for consistency with the Bill of Rights, and it will enable Courts to send a report to Parliament where legislation is inconsistent with the Act. The Government will be obliged to respond to such reports.

“The bill will help protect our rights, by making it harder for a government to ignore conflicts between its legislation and the Bill of Rights Act,” said Mr Locke, Green party human rights spokesperson.

“My bill requires vetting of legislation for consistency with the Bill of Rights at all stages of the parliamentary process.

There is one aspect I am not sure about:

The bill also entrenches the Bill of Rights Act, by requiring a 75% majority of the House to change it.

It should only be entrenched if 75% of Parliament vote for it to be so. A basic majority should not be able to require a super-majority to over-turn it.

Some readers may recall a 1987 documentary on “big dealers” which featured a youthful John Key. NZ on Screen has made the programme available on the web for anyone to view. It is here – http://www.nzonscreen.com/title/close-up-big-dealers-john-key-1987.

NZ on Screen does a superb job of keeping alive shows and programmes that really make up part of our cultural past.

Colin Espiner does a final blog:

So this is it. The last post, if you like, from On the House.

It’s been more than three years and 378 blog posts since the Stuff editor asked me to write a blog on politics, and it’s been a hell of a ride.

Even though Colin departed from the press gallery some months ago, I still found his blog a must read. As a political blogger he stood out from his colleagues – both with frequency of posts, but also his willingness to stae what he really thinks, and engage with the commenters.

So the Stuff editor and I thought it was probably time to lay On the House to a well-deserved rest.

But the good news is that out of the ashes a new politics blog will rise – keep your eyes peeled for more on that soon. I certainly hope many of you will check it out and continue your arguments – sorry, discussions – in the new forum.

I’m hoping to start up another blog at some point myself, though I’m not sure on what yet. I’ll let y’all know.

I look forward to the new Stuff politics blog, and also any future blog from Colin. I’d be interested to read a blog about life in a newsroom.

Danyl blogs:

About to hear from Michael Cullen and Dean Knight on republicanism. Dr Cullen described himself at morning tea as a “moderate monarchist” and not too far away from Dean Knight whom he called a “moderate republican”.

Jim Bolger is the Chairman. He has been talking for around five minutes so far. I should run a book on whether he will end up speaking for longer than the actual speakers

Heh. Dean just said that after reading in the Herald on Sunday that Dr Cullen now supports NZ becoming a republic, he wondered if he should just sit down and claim victory. Jim Bolger retorted that instead he should just not read the Herald, which got good laughs. It seems Dr Cullen feels they mis-stated his position.

Dean advocates a minimal change republic. Promote the Governor-General from being the effective Head of State to the actual Head of State – but with the same powers.

The selection of the Head of State should not be hereditary, discriminatory and foreign, Dean said.

The GG is currently effectively appointed by the Prime Minister. Dean advocates that Parliament should approve any appointment by a super-majority.

In terms of the Treaty obligations, Dean states these have already been transferred from the British Crown and Govt to the NZ Government, and these would not be affected by a move to the republic.

Dr Cullen has said that the GG is indeed our effective head of state. He points out the unusually, the selection is purely by the Government of the day.

He rejects the notion that the Queen is foreign, and that being a monarchy means we are not independent. He says countries like Australia and he UK are not fully foreign, as other countries are. Also says Canada shows you can be regarded as absolutely independent yet they have kept the Queen.

Cullen says if no change is made, Charles will become King of New Zealand automatically when he become King of the UK, even though he will probably be 80 when it happens.

Cullen totally against Judges being able to strike down laws on the basis of supreme law. Will lead to highly politicised Judges. Says if the move to a republic is dependent on having a written constitution as supreme law, then both Charles and Williams will have happy reigns as Kings of New Zealand.

Says if NZ Head of State has executive powers, then elect at large. But if they have no executive powers is silly to have an election for it, as they will have nothing to run on. I agree.

One amusing observation made by Bolger is that he and Cullen are old sparring partners, but now are the Chair and Deputy Chair of NZ Post!

Just caught up with John Armstrong’s column from yesterday:

Watching John Key and Bill English dispose of South Canterbury Finance yesterday was a bit like watching a python swallowing an antelope.

Except it all happened a lot quicker.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance must have swallowed hard at the prospect of forking out $1.6 billion under the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme.

They had no choice. But they did have plenty of warning of the likely receivership. So the Government was ready with a plan.

That involved wrapping its jaws around the company, swallowing it whole and spitting out anything which might have stopped it becoming the sole creditor.

That way the Government is now calling the shots, even though the failed company is technically under the control of receivers.

So good marks for the Government. And Labour:

Otherwise, this was one of the smoothest crisis-management operations conducted by this Government.

It is on such days that the Opposition is better off displaying bipartisan support.

Phil Goff, instead, took the line that the firm might have traded its way out were economic conditions more favourable. It was the Government’s fault that was not the case.

This line is truly hard to swallow given South Canterbury Finance’s difficulties sprang from the heady boom times in the property market when Labour was in power.

Goff would have been better advised to have said nothing.

One of the challenges of Opposition is to hold your tongue and not try for cheap publicity on every issue.

Believe it or not, a fan has set up a website dedicated to Paul Henry. Has some of his finest (or worst) moments.

I’m attending the Reconstituting the Constitution conference today and tomorrow. Topics being discussed are:

• Overseas constitutional reform lessons
• The republican question
• The need for a written constitution
• The future of electoral law
• Australian constitutional reform
• Influence of international treaties
• The trans-tasman relationship
• The role and governance of sub-national government
• Protecting future generations

I hope to blog some of the contributions.

UPDATE: The conference is being webcast for those who are interested in these issues – http://www.r2.co.nz/20100902/

Grant Robertson, as host, did the welcome address. He must have read my blog this morning as he remarked how looking around the people gathered in the Legislative Council Chamber, he thought what a fine upper house they would make. Then seeing me at the back, he hastened to add on “except for David Farrar”. I guess Grant prefers one party rule

In a  nice twist the opening speech is not from one of the “good or great”, but a couple of recent Victoria law graduates – Greg who now works for Crown Law and Catherine who is a clerk to Justice Arnold of the Court of Appeal.

Greg made the point that most people probably know more about the US constitution, than the NZ one. He went on to say this is partly because our arrangements do work. He does see the future as NZ having a document which is supreme law, and NZ being a republic.

He also touched on how to get better engagement with these issues. Looking around the room I note there are very very few MPs or media present. If one really wanted to get constitution debate going you need the people who can actually do something about it there and participating.

Catherine touched on how the projected population growth for Maori (21% vs 11% for non Maori) means it is likely treaty issues will become more important in future. She compared our approach to constitutional issues as being like McGyver – we patch it up with number 8 wire and think she’ll be fine mate.

Was a very good idea starting with two young graduates. Any constitutional changes in future will affect them most of all, and it was refreshing hearing from them.

The Herald reports:

Three non-executive directors have been appointed to the Treasury’s board, but Labour is continuing to question the reason for the board’s existence.

Treasury Secretary John Whitehead, who announced the governance board last month, said it would include private and community representatives to provide advice.

Mr Whitehead would be able to veto the board’s advice.

He said he would continue to answer to the State Services Commission and Finance Minister.

I think this is a good initiative. It may stop Treasury getting too insular, and provide some external views on how Treasury are doing.

Labour’s state services spokesman Grant Robertson said the board challenged the neutrality of the public service and public service bosses’ responsibility to ministers.

With various working groups, purchase advisers, a review of public sector advice and now a board for the Treasury, the Government was fundamentally changing the nature of the public sector, he said.

“This board looks designed to lock in place the economic thinking of the current Government.

Oh what tosh. I should remind people that Mr Whitehead was appointed to his role in 2003 under a Labour Government, and incidentally one of his former jobs was Deputy Director of the Labour Parliamentary Research Unit.

Okay. I aim to get a new laptop every three years, and am already eight months overdue. Considering they get used around 12 – 15 hours a day (are are meant to only be used for one battery life per day), my current one has lasted well – a HP Compaq nc4400.

The current one is very small and light. A 12.1 inch display and weights just under four pounds. That has been useful as I travel so much with it. Having said, that I could go for something larger, as the new iPad means I can leave the laptop behind more and more.

I am what you call a power user. At anyone time I will have half a dozen or more applications open, and a dozen or more webpages. Plus all the background apps such as MSN Messenger, Twitter running. So lots of power and RAM is vital. I routinely handle data bases which are 1 GB or more in size. 4 GB RAM would be the minimum I’d consider and I’d prefer something that would allow me to stick up to 8 GB in.

It has to be a Windows laptop. I know Macs can emulate etc, and how I should use Linux etc etc. Decision has been made that I am staying with Windows. So don’t even bother telling me I am wrong.

What I am after is recommendations (preferably from personal experience) on good grunty laptops. Ideal features are:

• Fast
• Long battery life
• Relatively light
• Quick start up
• Can handle multiple apps open at same time
• Resilient
• 500 GB or more storage
• 4 GB or more RAM
• Not a serious gamer, so doesn’t need to be optimised for that
• Doesn’t freeze when multiple things happening

The operating system will be Windows 7 Ultimate (which I have a copy of).

All feedback appreciated.

Oh these are good. The Telegraph reports:

The Herald:

In the end, South Canterbury Finance was not, as some had predicted, too big to fail.

The Government, quite correctly, resisted the temptation to support the recapitalisation of the country’s second-biggest finance company, consigning it to receivership. …

There was, however, no point in keeping South Canterbury Finance afloat. Bad governance and loan practices have destroyed a once strong brand.

The Press:

South Canterbury Finance’s decision to call in the receivers yesterday had an inevitability about it. …

But the investor repayments, and the fact that the receivership process means there will be no fire sale of assets or fast call-in of loans, should limit the economic, and perhaps political, fallout. This might otherwise have been more serious at a time when the economy is still fragile, a strong reason for the Government to act.

The Dom Post:

The failure of South Canterbury Finance is a tragedy – for founder Allan Hubbard, for South Island businesses and for taxpayers who must now make good the deposit guarantee made by the last government.

Mr Hubbard, 82, is no Mark Hotchin or Rod Petricevic. There are no multimillion-dollar mansions, flash cars or luxury yachts lurking in his cupboards. He lives in a modest Timaru bungalow and drives an ageing Volkswagen Beetle.

However, the $1.6 billion SCF owes investors is roughly three times the amount Mr Hotchin’s Hanover and Petricevic’s Bridgecorp each owed investors when they collapsed. …

It is time for the loyal band of letter-writing supporters who believe Mr Hubbard can do no wrong to bite their tongues. Their hero is decent, generous and well-intentioned. Earlier this year he put family assets worth more than $150m into SCF in an attempt to shore up its balance sheet. Those assets have now been lost.

The interim report of the statutory managers appointed to run his affairs, plus those of other companies and charities associated with him and his wife, Jean, suggests the acumen that made him the South Island’s richest man has deserted him. …

Many will wonder why the last government ever agreed to guarantee the deposits of investors who went looking for higher interest rates in finance companies. The answer is that both Labour and National, then in Opposition, considered the guarantee the lesser of two evils. Better payouts than the total collapse of the financial system. They may have been right, but the payouts announced yesterday still stick in the craw. This is not what we pay taxes for.

The Dom Post is on the money. It is easy in hindsight to say that one should not have had the guarantee scheme, but in late 2008 the wordl financial system was on the brink of possible collapse, and pretty much every OECD country did much the same as a stability measure.

The ODT:

But with SCF’s investors largely covered by the guarantee scheme, the Government chose to see it go into receivership at least in part so that it could have some degree of control over the impact of the company’s failure on the core South Island economy – and so the fallout could be managed, as far as possible, in an orderly manner.

SCF may be regarded as the biggest single South Island casualty of the recession, and without the greatest care by the receivers and the principal debtor – the taxpayer – the long-term consequences may be a chief cause of slowing the economic recovery.

Everyone in the South will hope that prospect can be avoided.

On the brighter side, some sensible reduction of rural land prices may eventually result from this failure, just as it appears to be occurring in the urban property market once the speculative bubble burst.

None of the four editorials are saying the Government should have stepped in to stop receivership, which is what some were urging.

Some quite amusing questions in this week’s quiz. 45 seconds.

I think their question 4 may have the wrong answer though. I am not aware of any tobacco major reforms proposed last week, but there were some alcohol ones.