Tom Scott par excellence

May 22nd, 2012 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

I missed this last week.  You can see all of Tom Scott’s cartoons here. Superb.

Tags: , ,

27 Responses to “Tom Scott par excellence”

  1. tom hunter (4,012 comments) says:

    Well yes, and I posted the Scott cartoon link to the Hodgson thread. Just shows you how uncaring and evil the left can be in their War On Women!!

    But I still prefer my original suggestion for a different cartoon narrative on the matter:

    The scene shows a young women holding a baby, surrounded by several little ones at her feet, looking up at her with sadness. She has bruises on her face (presumably from the guy who left her with the kids).

    In front of her are Sue Bradford and Annette King, both holding their hands out in the “Stop Signal” manner and proclaiming: “No free contraceptives for you young lady”.

    Baby steps Mr Scott. Baby steps.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Nookin (2,891 comments) says:

    Who needs the pill. Put that picture of Bradford in every bedroom. That ought to do it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. pete (428 comments) says:

    Has Sue Bradford spoken out against free contraception for beneficiaries? Or only against WINZ administering it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. mikenmild (8,925 comments) says:

    Ha, you said you wouldn’t be holding your breath tom!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. wreck1080 (3,533 comments) says:

    bene’s breed bene’s.

    Maybe bradford should question why the rich-poor gap is increasing— because the poor have so many kids they cannot afford to raise.

    The ‘rich’ might be ‘rich’ simply because they have less children.That tends to happen why you must pay for them yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Yvette (2,591 comments) says:

    Pete –
    Auckland Action Against Poverty spokeswoman Sue Bradford this morning said while the contraception was voluntary, it was “totally unacceptable” for the Government to get involved in women’s reproduction.
    “Most New Zealand women will not accept that. It’s because beneficiaries are seen as people who are worth less than others,” she said.
    Bradford said the Government was persuading women to take contraception through sanctions, such as having beneficiaries who have an additional child on the benefit to look for work when that child was one.
    “We believe that women in this country have the right to control their own reproduction,” she said.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6876758/Beneficiary-contraception-plan-intrusive

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    “The ‘rich’ might be ‘rich’ simply because they have less children.That tends to happen why you must pay for them yourself.”

    Yeah not too sure about that comment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. BeaB (1,960 comments) says:

    It was a shameful display by a lot of privileged women who let their ideologies and hatred of the Right lead them into some distasteful postures.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Lloyd (125 comments) says:

    My wife is a midwife – about as pro-women’s rights as you can get. But she heard about this policy and said, “Excellent! That will help a lot of women.” She said that it actually gave more choices and more control to women, not less.
    Sue Bradford advocates for who?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Lloyd (125 comments) says:

    I mean, ‘whom’…
    Dammit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. mikenmild (8,925 comments) says:

    Not the Nine O’Clock News had a very funny skilt about ‘who’ and ‘whom’. Back in the day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. pete (428 comments) says:

    @Yvette: There’s nothing in that article that suggests Sue is against free contraception for beneficiaries, as opposed to the Government coercing them into using it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Pete George (21,831 comments) says:

    There’s a real chance WINZ staff could encourage beneficiaries into using contraceptions, just like there’s a chance they could encourage them to use their benefit, and their accommodation allowance. Maybe there should be no human interface, so there’s no chance of any influence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Yvette (2,591 comments) says:

    pete – you asked “Has Sue Bradford spoken out against free contraception for beneficiaries? Or only against WINZ administering it?”

    I just dropped in what she reportedly said. I don’t pretend to understand what she means – who does?
    If it is a National idea with the word ‘beneficiary’ in it, she’ll be opposed.
    [As for those who call her Phyllis Diller, I think that is utterly insulting to Phyllis Diller, who infinitely more intelligent, coherent and entertaining]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. pete (428 comments) says:

    @Pete George: perhaps people could make that case then, rather that misrepresenting other people’s positions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. mikenmild (8,925 comments) says:

    Therea good item on this at Hard News – http://publicaddress.net/hardnews/the-editorial-image/ – including referencing the Kiwiblog faux outrage of a few days ago.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    The long term unavoidable shot in the arse contraceptive jab is what should be being introduced for these tramps…..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. tvb (3,952 comments) says:

    That is the point. Welfare is NOT a good option. It is a life of poverty. It is made worse if the caregiver smokes and drinks which many do. People who are working control their fertility why can’t welfare people. They are bringing children into poverty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. F E Smith (3,277 comments) says:

    Tom Hunter,

    Good comment, except the bruises are more likely to be from a subsequent partner, rather than the father of the children. Of course, it gets a bit murkier if each child has a different father…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. thor42 (781 comments) says:

    A very good cartoon by Scott. For once, he has put his leftwing views to one side.

    There is a lot of truth in what wreck1080 said. “Maybe the rich are rich because they have fewer children.” As the old saying goes: “poverty breeds poverty”.
    As for Sue Bradford – she actually **needs** there to be poor people in this country. If everyone were rich, she would have nothing to moan and bitch about, and that would piss her off more than anything else.

    I’m not convinced that the offer of free contraception will do much at all.
    If a beneficiary gets paid “x” dollars extra per week for having another child, then in 95% of cases that is all that they will think about (and be motivated by). They would never even think about the extra costs involved in caring for the extra child. It’s all about “money up front”.

    The more that I look at the so-called “welfare reforms”, the softer they look, and Working for Families is STILL untouched. Bloody ridiculous.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. tom hunter (4,012 comments) says:

    Ha, you said you wouldn’t be holding your breath tom!

    Ha, indeed mm. I confess amazement that a solid lefty cartoonist like Scott could actually dare to do this.

    … good item on this at Hard News …

    Awwwww – and then you ruin the ride by referencing the jowly one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. jaba (2,069 comments) says:

    that PHOTO reminds me of the Helen Clark campaign one a few years ago .. airbrushed to make her look more attactive

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. hj (5,720 comments) says:

    Surely all women in New Zealand have the same rights to sexual activity and to bear children, without suffering any penalty.

    (then) Green MP Keith Locke.

    http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/06/10/hard-hearted-immigration-policy-does-nz-reputation-damage/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    hj

    So you agree with Keith, then?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Daisychain (3 comments) says:

    The Government also provides women with maternity care (ie deliveries), pre/post natal care, care for prem babies and Plunket to name a few – all part of the reproductive system – and as a former user of all these services, I certainly appreciate that they were all free and in no way an intrusion or invasion on my and my offsprings’ health and welfare. One of the post-natal services is to ensure that one doesn’t rush into number two, three, four… too quickly. Is Bradford also against this government support?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Liberal Minded Kiwi (1,560 comments) says:

    And to think that the wider use of contraceptives in females in the 60′s was credited for giving women more choices and liberation. It helped fuel the feminist revolution back then – and yet Comrade Sue is now telling us it’s anti choice and anti women? Pull the other one love.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. wikiriwhis business (3,309 comments) says:

    The govt never announced contraception. National announced sterilisation. Far different kettle of fish. and a sign beneficiaries are never going to be able to improve their lot. Plus left in a fourth tier of no benefit, no employment , no hope.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.