Why Family First do so well
March 1st, 2008 at 3:09 pm by David FarrarRarely does a day go by, without Family First in the news. This is because Bob McCoskrie is a very very smart media operator. Not only does he do a press release a day, but he thinks outside the square.
Sure they do still sometimes do dumb stuff like trying to get Californication off the air through an advertiser boycott. Probably sent ratings soaring. But they are very smart when they do releases like this one in my inbox:
Family First NZ has offered to pay for a child to join their family on a dream holiday to Disneyland if they win the ‘nightmare’ trip in More FM’s current radio competition.
First prize in the competition is a family trip (worth $20,000) to Disneyland in both LA and Florida for 10 days. However, if the winning family tosses a coin and it is ‘tails’, one of the children has to stay behind.
“The competition has been ill-conceived and is potentially traumatic for a young family,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ, “and our understanding is that More FM has received a number of complaints about it, and that even some staff have concerns.” …
Family First hopes that the winner gets ‘heads’ on the coin, but in the event that it is ‘tails’, they are offering to fund the extra airfare so that the whole family enjoys a brilliant family trip together.
“Who wants to be at the departure lounge when little Jeremy waves goodbye to the rest of his family as they embark on their dream trip to Disneyland?”
This is seriously brilliant PR. Instead of just complaining about the More FM competition, they front up with the $2K or so for the extra child, in case the family flips tails.
Today they have launched a ‘Have dinner with your family” campaign on billboards and in newspapers. Not at all political – just pushing a families message.
If all they did was go on about smacking and rude shows on TV, they would be marginalised. But Bob M manages to find a family angle to almost every issue, and get in the news on it. A quick check of NZPA finds around 40 references to Family First – just in February.
Now don’t take this to mean I agree with all of Family First’s aims. Of their four current action alerts, I oppose them on three of the four – Californication, Hell’s Pizza, and Boobs on Bikes. I do agree on the anti-smacking law.
But one doesn’t have to agree with a group on something, to admire their media skills. Likewise I don’t agree with the EPMU and Andrew Little on a lot of things – but I do admire his media operation.
Related posts:
- Family First rates the Leaders
- Family First rates the leaders
- The Forum on the Family Conference
- A good BSA decision
March 1st, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Credit where credit is due? – now this IS a refreshing change. Smart media on FF’s behalf, or simply having a heart and putting their money where their mouth is, whilst retaining their dignity when in conflict? I say the latter, which is why they get my money.
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Ah, so in answer to my earlier question (on the Douglas thread) it seems the astute political operatives are just abandoning the mainstream parties. Like you DPF I disagree with Family First on almost everything (Californication rates as one of my favourite series) but hats off to them on this one.
There’s no substitute for hard work… we used to do 6 releases a day and up to 9 different speeches a week at NZF. Eventually something seeps through into the MSM. But there’s also no substitute for applying a bit of creativity to what you’re trying to do, like upstaging a mornic and potentially harmful stunt with a positive stunt of your own as in this case.
Now if only the parties in Parliament would look outside the small circle of one-eyed acolytes and start hiring advisors who’d give them a bit of stick, we might be spared the spectacle of almsot every major political figure stumbling from pratfall to pratfall while be applauded only by the dimwits who tripped them.
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Family Fist are the media’s new go-to guys – they seem to have taken over from “Sensible” Sentencing. Bob McCoskrie has broadcasting experience and can constract a good soundbite. Like “Sensible” Sentencing, they seem to be doing some good (I like the idea of encouraging families to eat together) it’s too bad they do so much harm in other areas…
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 4:03 pm
“Harm in other areas” – such as weezguy?
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Let’s see, supporting convicted child hogtiers, for instance…
As for “Sensible” Sentencing, how about damaging the chances of having a debate about law and order that is based on evidence?
Why the thumbs down? What does that achieve?
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 4:12 pm
I thought I would give Californication a go. Typical American rubbish. Won’t be watching again.
Vote:Boobs on Bikes – can’t see the big deal. Don’t like it? Don’t go.
Hells Pizza condoms in letterboxes – just plain stupid (and bad taste). While some thought it funny and some don’t see any real harm, there are some who don’t like it. So an unwise decision from Hells Pizza to go with this. Including the negative press, they probably lost customers (net, since they probably gains some new sales as well). I can’t see the sense in a business turning customers away. You’d think the people running that business would have a few clues, it seems the company has grown quite fast in recent years.
March 1st, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Go Family First when a government puts Family Last !! Shame on Labour,who are in the fractured family business. Ask any lawyer and you’ll get a bent answer.
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 5:19 pm
This will make Cindy Kiro look even more ridiculous next time she parrots her pathetic mantra that FF are “extreme right wing religious fundies”.
Kiro does not seem to appreciate that a civil servant bad mouthing private citizens is a bad look, especially when they have the support of 80% of the population (on the smacking issue) and Kiro represents a fringe 20%.
Who is the real extremist?
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 5:20 pm
I’ve not seen or heard any media release by Family First and I don’t know who Mr McCroskie is. Honestly. It could be because I live at present in the Arabian desert.
However, your introductory criticism of the group and the rather shallow ‘don’t-like-the-message-but-like-their-PR-work’ point speaks volumes about the state of NZ politics and society.
Could it be that the appeal of Family First and Mr McCroskie is because they and he have something sensible and principled to say about what sort of a country we want to live in? I think so.
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 5:47 pm
I am beginning to suspect David has an unhealthy obsession with Andrew Little. While he obviously disagrees with Little on many occasions, David seems to – without fail – always make the point about how much he admires him. The thing is that it is not just once or twice that David pays a compliment but every time he posts on Little/EPMU. In this post it is not even about Little/EPMU yet he still manages to yet again declare his admiration. For goodness sake, get a room!
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 6:00 pm
kiwitoffee – good point.
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 6:14 pm
sean: or DPF is trying to be fair. Unlike some on other blogs that shouldn’t be named, who can only do “Labour good, National bad.”
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 6:40 pm
No PaulL, you have missed my point. Davids usually pragmatic approach to issues is what makes Kiwiblog so successful. But the admiration of Little never abates – getting close to hero-worshipping.
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Like you DPF I disagree with Family First on almost everything (Californication rates as one of my favourite series) but hats off to them on this one.
Dude, Californication is one of the worst pieces of shit ever. You want proper porn check out http://www.spankwire.com, http://www.megarotic.com, etc.
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Well, it’s hardly surprising. Bob used to run Rhema’s breakfast show, so he knows full well how media and politics work.
He’s also had plenty of time to adsorb the failings of those that came before.
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 7:31 pm
I’m not really that much of a fan of anyone who advocates censorship – especially in the case of ‘we should censor everything our particular group disagrees with’. But Family First seem to have been steered pretty expertly in terms of profile and have been effective lobbyists. Credit where credit’s due – now let’s not forget the contribution to NZ that non-family folk make!
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Family First have been an excellent pressure group during the last 9 years when families haven’t had a voice
They have done a great job!
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Democracymum, can you elaborate on what you mean when you say ‘familes haven’t had a voice’? I was under the impression that parents had votes they could cast too, and therefore had as much of a voice as everyone else?
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 7:40 pm
I don’t understand the point being made by those who claim they “disagree” with Family First? Disagree with what exactly? FF conducted a campaign to encourage people who were offended by Californication to boycott the advertisers sponsoring the show. So what? They have every right to take such action. Its perfectly within the law. What’s to disagree with?
Whats more, I’d like to see how those criticising FF on such issues would react if there was ever a TV show that defiled homosexuals to the extent that the Californication script writers defile the Christian religion. I guess that seeing they “disagree” with FF, they’d remain mute if such a show ever eventuated.
Of course a show that attacks queers will not eventuate. While post modernist “liberals” have declared open season on Christians, they turn nasty if anything similarly negative is ever said about homosexuals, a group who are apparently, (thanks to the success of their propaganda campaigns aimed at controlling speech and thought), still subject to irrational exultation and considered due special treatment by a large sector of NZ society.
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Sure a sense of PR is important, and equally if not more so is a sense of how to avoid bad PR which e.g. Copeland sure don’t have.
But for a pressure group reliant on public support the critical thing surely is the content. A pressure group doesn’t exist unless people see enough of a gap between reality and govt policy to put their money into it. In NZ people are tight with their money and it has to be a serious message to get people to part with it year after year. Sensible Sentencing taps into a long-term belief that govt crime policies don’t work and Family First taps into a belief that this Liabore govt is anti-family values. Both messages have resonance because – newsflash – they’re demonstrably true.
The govt’s attempts to marginalise the message from both groups will never work. And they can’t do anything else because both issues have arisen as a result of their core beliefs. Which just goes to show: lefties really are deluded. And if they’re not deluded, they’re evil. There does not appear to be a third alternative.
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 7:47 pm
“I was under the impression that parents had votes they could cast too, and therefore had as much of a voice as everyone else?”
She means their views were marginalized by powerful left wing propaganda campaigns. As if you didn’t know poser.
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Redbaiter, there are other channels, and the best form of protest is to not watch something. I guess I’m under the impression that mature, well-adjusted individuals can always choose to turn off, instead of having something removed from the airwaves that they aren’t going to watch anyway. Why should someone else take that choice away from me?
In case you haven’t noticed, RB, homosexuals haven’t exactly had the smoothest run as a group throughout history – mostly thanks to the sort of people that FF claims to represent.
Excuse me, but I hardly think that’s posing. For all your claims of ‘attacking the family’, they seem to have done pretty well in terms of tax breaks.
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 7:50 pm
“Family First have been an excellent pressure group during the last 9 years when families haven’t had a voice”
Kind of puts Dunne’s effort into perspective
Vote:Mr Conmansense Family Values was nothing more than a cynical face to grab a couple more baubles.
March 1st, 2008 at 7:55 pm
dog_eat_dog:”homosexuals haven’t exactly had the smoothest run as a group throughout history – mostly thanks to the sort of people that FF claims to represent.”
And who are those “sort of people” DED?
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 7:56 pm
“Why should someone else take that choice away from me?”
Its called democracy. If FF want to protest, they’re quite free to do so. If TV3 wants to ignore them or alternatively take the show off its up to them. That’s how a free society works. Leftist fascists always have trouble understanding this.
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Nice try Redbaiter, not a lefty. FF doesn’t stand for democracy, it stands for censorship. They don’t want to boycott, they’d prefer the show not to be on at all.
Reid – generalisation on my part – my bad. FF is a strongly Christian organisation, – at least what I can recall from the recent SST article – and christian doctrine isn’t renowned for it’s homosympathy.
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Those sort of people reid, are people like me who have nothing against gay people but just wonder about the irony that the next generation of gays is only possible by successful families.
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 8:01 pm
dog_eat_dog
I think you are fooling yourself if you think our voice is our vote once every 3 years
Under MMP we may get a vote, but the real deals are made in the back rooms of the beehive, often well in advance of the election
The real power and change comes from people like Families First – who will pressure a vote during the election about the Anti Smacking legislation
Even the journalists can no longer ignore the blogs like Kiwiblog
Our real voice is coming from the people – and more power to them
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 8:02 pm
DED, you obviously don’t know Christians very well, perhaps you’re generalising your view from a newspaper.
DED: “FF doesn’t stand for democracy, it stands for censorship.”
Perhaps it stands against madness like this, and it sees programs like Californication as being worthless trash that contributes to the breakdown of desirable social norms.
If you’re really arguing for freedom of speech, and you have daughters, then I assume you wouldn’t mind them attending the sex-ed classes at age 5, and probably by the time they’re 12, they’ll be able to watch full penetration porn on local TV while mum or dad cook the dinner. Won’t that be good.
The point is DED, just because you can do something, doesn’t mean it should be done.
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Everyone said MMP would be great for representation
But how many mothers are there in parliament?
Mothers are on every kindy committee and school board throughout the country but how many have a real voice in parliament?
Family First is a group that really does lobby for family values in the absence of system that does not support their representation
I’m a Christian and I’m not against gay people, but how many more gay people does Labour need in parliament?
Mothers probably make up around 30% of our population and where are they on the government’s front benches?
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Reid, I was generalising with regards to my comment about Christians as people, but there can be no denying that the Bible doesn’t have great things to say about it as a hobby, can there?
Democracymum, I share your sentiment on MMP – we don’t to vote on the concessions made in government by each party in coalitions. Therefore we don’t have real representitive government. I agree. And I’m happy for lobby groups to put their case – until we have the power to recall a government, it is not operating on our whim – and so we need those lobby groups to tell politicians where we stand.
But FF stands for censorship – not allowing people to make an informed choice to not watch these shows, not for personal responsibility even, but beyond that – it’s the ‘we know better’ mindset, from a different angle.
(The Anti-Smacking deal I would contend is not so much ‘Anti-family’ – rather just someone with far from mainstream views (ie, no clue) Sue Bradford trying to tell other people how to raise their children).
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 8:13 pm
“they’d prefer the show not to be on at all.”
Again, so what?? They’re entitled to that preference, and if they can convince TV3 to take notice of them then again, so what?? Would you deny them the right to protest? Sounds like it. I have no problem with FF’s protests. If TV3 wants to risk running a show that offends a large section of the population then that’s their choice, and if FF want to protest, again, that is their choice.
As I’ve said, TV3 would not run any such show that offended homosexuals, and whilst they might be big brave liberals doing their best to defile Christianity, they’re too cowardly and /or PC to run anything similar on Islam.
Those who are complaining about this are unable to avoid being hoisted by their own petard- blown sky high by rationale and their own hypocrisy.
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Yep the bible is down on homosexuality in many places DED, it’s also up on love, respect and compassion and those aspects are sometimes missed by those who haven’t read or understood it.
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Actually I think the healthiest thing we could do for our democracy is have a really strong media
Blogs, Print and Television – the more the merrier
We have had such a pathetic MSM for the past 8 years that the government have been able to get away with
pretty much whatever they want, because there is no-one with the balls to question anything
They are all too worried that if they upset Queen Helen, she won’t grant them any more interviews.
I remember someone else who used the same tactics, I think his name was Rob Muldoon
(Interestingly enough a distant relative of mine…)
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 8:23 pm
I’m not denying their right to protest – and I wouldn’t deny that to anyone. I can disagree with what they are protesting for, can’t I?
Reid, I agree.
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 8:24 pm
I’m very annoyed at the media’s PC attitude that avoids saying anything bad about their religious motivations. They have a particular religious attitude to everything, essentially that are the inheritors of Graham Capill’s public attitudes. They have a cheek calling themselves family first. Who isn’t family first. Come on media, including you David, expose them for who they are! I don’t respect anyone for their good media skills, I respect them, or not, for what they say. Fascists with good PR aren’t any less Fascist. Key needs to stay well away from these people or he will lose liberal national party voters like me!
[DPF: Actually I reject your thesis FF is the same as Christian Heritage. You seem to think all Christians are the same and all Christian groups are the same.]
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Larryq – you try to play the fundy Christian fascist card. Get a brain drop kick! Stop the hand wringing liberal bullshit and consider the array of forces of every description battling for the destruction of the family by a callous government who want too criminalize fatherhood with feminazi social policy!
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Does anyone actually believe that the ninth floor has any time to plot the destruction of the ‘family’ when they are too busy destroying their own party’s reputation?
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 8:39 pm
“I can disagree with what they are protesting for, can’t I?”
Of course. The only people suggesting otherwise are those who have stated they disagree with FF’s actions, and you’re one of them.
“Key needs to stay well away from these people or he will lose liberal national party voters like me!”
Good. Go and vote Labour. Its the home of hate filled intolerant bigots, and those who write such banal incomprehensible nonsense as you have written.
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 8:41 pm
DED, have a look at the Fabians. Lefties love social engineering. It’s their raison d’etre. Comes from their communist roots. The 4th Liabore govt has been a textbook case of social engineering since day one.
You can see the same underhandedness in a different arena by looking at what they’ve done to transform the defence forces into a peacekeeping role without access to anything pointy. I can’t recall them announcing that in their manifesto, but it’s happened, and most haven’t even noticed.
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 8:42 pm
“Does anyone actually believe that the ninth floor has any time to plot the destruction of the ‘family’ ”
Anyone who doesn’t is an idiot, or someone with a vested interest in defending the left. Most likely both. You need to understand gradualisation. Look up Gramsci.
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Well Redbaiter, I think we can agree to disagree on this one. I can’t abide any group’s actions that serves to acheive a goal of removing personal choice and responsibility from anyone. I think we do agree on something here, and I think I do understand what you’re saying.
I’m not going to call names, I’m not going to do what Larryq did either. I guess I’m somewhat confused – maybe I’m one of them there homersexualists!?!
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Level 9 is run by radical feminists, who want to destroy traditional family values and loyalties, because they’re the hardest for the bias and vindictive regime to break and control . No wonder crime levels are increasing with our troublesome youth, as pc namby pamby liberal crap is saturating parent power and carpet bombing common sense !
Vote:This country is run by a freak show !
March 1st, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Dad4justice – I take it all back. With your fantastic way with words you should become a spokesperson, sorry spokesman, for FF asap.
Redbaiter – vote Labour – I can’t sorry, but if National lose people like me they stay in opposition. Is that what you want?
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 8:55 pm
larryq – how is the Courts Minister rick barker going with the United Nations directive addressing unlawful male gender discrimination within our judicial system? It was only due 6 months ago?
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 8:57 pm
D4J, while I would stop short of calling it a liberal conspiracy, I agree with you that Sue Bradford has no right telling others what is and isn’t an acceptable way of raising children.
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 9:10 pm
D4J. The Labour party doesn’t have a monopoly on liberal views, the National Party, thankfully, has a long tradition of it. It waxes and wains in the party and at present it seems to have wained a bit, especially with Katherine Rich’s departure. Rest assured they will keep FF, and your views D4J, at an arms length if they want to govern.
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 9:32 pm
“Is that what you want?”
Yes. The sooner the bottom of the leftist death spiral is attained, the sooner the return to sanity. Electing a lefty wishy washy National Party is merely prolonging the agony.
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 9:46 pm
DPF – given the religious affiliations of FF’s leadership and the similarity of their attitudes on moral questions to those of the old Christian Heritage I think it’s a reasonable to regard them as being form the same stable. Clearly FF have far better PR skills. FF realise that the there is little chance of a Christian Party having any real direct power in our system and are attempting to do it through other activities which, thankfully, they and anyone else has the right to do. What really annoys me is that they are selling themselves as some kind of middle of the road family advocate, when they in fact have a particular religious focus that is being down played by them because they don’t want to scare the horses. The media need to make the link between what they are advocating and its biblical basis so that the public can make up their own minds. At least Christian Heritage were up front.
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 10:11 pm
“when they in fact have a particular religious focus that is being down played”
Please explain. What is that “particular” focus and how is it being “downplayed”? Did you read the SST article last Sunday?
I would attribute much of FFs success to them being totally up front, even to the extent of McCroskie admitting his mistakes in that article.
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Please, the SST article that claimed to be investigative was a puff piece for Family Fist.
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Disclosure: Curia was given a contract by Family First.
[DPF: And both before and after that singular poll, I have criticised them publicly.]
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 11:07 pm
(DELETED)
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Okay, Bob M is known to be a bit of a christian – so what. Does that make him religious? Does that make his opinions any more or less valid? Does that mean he is homophobic or homosexual? Of course not. What he is doing is making an impact – and not the sort of impact that Capill made. I know both Bob and the pre-prison Capill, and although Bob is certainly not liberal, he doesn`t come across as fundy either. I would go as far to say that more people support the general thrust of FF’s message than the current message of the Labour Government.
Vote:March 1st, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Natural Party of Govt:
I hope you have a suitably factual basis for this potentially defamatory statement?
[DPF: It is no secret - the poll was published by FF at the time. Some clients publish polls Curia does for them, some do not - it is up to each client]
Vote:March 2nd, 2008 at 2:18 am
Dear POC,
a. I do
b. I don’t see the statement as particularly defamatory whether true or not.
You obviously do, would you care to explain why you believe DPF has reduced himself in your eyes if he had done an assignment for Family First?
Vote:March 2nd, 2008 at 3:52 am
Natural Party of Govt:
a. “I do” – and your basis for this confirmation is?
b. I believe my words were “potentially defamatory” – it all depends on the innuendo you intended to convey.
You obviously have a point to make, would you care to explain why you believe DPF has reduced himself in your eyes if he has (so you claim – I don’t have specific knowledge) done an assignment for Family First?
Vote:March 2nd, 2008 at 4:46 am
NPOG:
I should perhaps explain my interest in your vicarious disclosure statement.
I’m fairly certain that, for DPF, client confidentiality is paramount (and, in his line of business, appropriately so). That means he isn’t going to disclose the identity of his clients to the likes of you or me. DPF can no doubt confirm this.
So if that’s the case, I ask again: what’s your basis for this claimed knowledge?
[DPF: Indeed we never reveal our clients as to do so would be unethical and unprofessional. If we did, we would have none. But we are always happy for our clients to reveal if we have done work for them, as several have done.]
Vote:March 2nd, 2008 at 6:05 am
Disclosure: Curia was given a contract by Family First.”
Is kiwiblog a collection agency for the publication of false statements, which damage a person’s reputation? Liarbour scum continually sling libellous claims, because Aunty Helen has taught them well in the land of no accountability and consequences!
Vote:March 2nd, 2008 at 8:52 am
Though, the coin toss would probably not come out as tails anyway.
Vote:either that or More FM would have been planning to announce a change of heart if it was tails.
Even without this negative publicity.
March 2nd, 2008 at 9:55 am
Simple question DPF, has Curia ever done any work for Family First?
Vote:March 2nd, 2008 at 8:53 pm
DPF. Shouldn’t you have told us you have a commercial relationship with FF? I regard you as an honest, bearing in mind your right wing bias, broker, but this looks a little fishy. Do you think some mild criticisms of them on some matters keeps your honest broker status in tact. I don’t think so. Best to be upfront I reckon.
What about todays advertising by FF, where they suggest that eating dinner as a family is good. I take it this is good PR because we are all so stupid we don’t realize eating and conversing with our families regularly is a good idea, or are they are doing this to make them looked balanced and not just a bunch of religious nutters. Being patronized doesn’t work for me.
[DPF: Who my polling company does business with does not affect my honest portrayal of opinion. I have criticised many of my clients at various times. It probably means I get less business than I would otherwise, but that is the price I pay for having a blog. I could probably double or triple my income if I gave up blogging.
It is unethical and unprofessional for me to talk about who is or is not a client. In the case of FF they released the poll, so the work was public domain. Any two year old who knows how to Google could find it. ]
Vote:March 3rd, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Family First/McCroskie also wrote a piece in the Herald last week or the week before (no link for some reason) about the need for affordable housing i.e. the social benefits of ‘having somewhere to call your own’, social unity, communities etc…good stuff. I did notice that that is exactly what the Herald columnist Tapu Misa called for on the 20th of Feb “Paying families living wage is a battle worth fighting” http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=87&objectid=10493388
Vote:March 3rd, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Thanks for the reply David. I take your point about client confidentiality, however, given that it was in the public domain, surely it would not have been unethical for you to tell us this fact? Your popularity is based on the appearance of even handedness, but IMHO you have been too kind on FF. Having said that I am impressed at the volume of quality blogs you put out in a day. If I attempted to blog as much as you do I would be sacked, divorced and defending multiple libel cases.
Vote: