The Herald reported:

The Department of Conservation will axe 140 jobs and reduce the number of conservancy regions in a department-wide shake-up.

Director-General of Conservation Al Morrison announced the cuts this afternoon after the proposals were put to staff around the country this morning.

The cuts include 118 regional management and administrative roles, as well as 22 operational roles including asset management, planning and inspection positions.

Less managers means more money for operations. Sounds good to me.

Of course there is a balance. Every organisation needs manager and administrators, but they tend to grow in every company and organisation and from time to time you do a restructure.

I am a huge fan of the work DOC does, and the conservation estate they administer. But that doesn’t mean they are immune from the pressure to be as efficient as possible.

“DoC must adapt if it is going to meet the conservation challenges that New Zealand faces – even if you doubled DOC’s budget tomorrow we would still be going ahead with this proposal,” Mr Morrison said.

I think that statement is a massively important one – that this proposed restructuring would be put forward regardless of funding. That the sign of a chief executive focused on  improving their organisation.

I don’t know enough about the details, to critique it in depth. But Al Morrison is pretty respected for the work he has done as Director-General, and I am sure DOC with 1,200 staff can continue to deliver.

Of course for those staff directly affected, it is a tough time. No amount of talk about organisational improvement is consolation for a loss of job security.

Le papier ne sera jamais mort / Paper is not dead on influencia.net ! from INfluencia on Vimeo.

Heh – nicely done.

Stuff reports:

A public servant has appeared in court after allegedly dragging his partner along the floor by the hair, before beating her.

The man is one of two senior Waikato public servants due in court this week charged with assault.

The cases are unconnected, with the second defendant accused of having assaulted two people – one allegedly a family member.

Extensive suppression orders prevent naming or giving details of the occupations of either of the men, who are from different Waikato towns.

I have zero information on either case, or the identity of the two men.

But the codewords used by the media are easy to decipher.

If you are a “senior public servant” and also live in a town, well 99% of the time you must be a police officer. You don’t see a lot of Ministry of Health offices in Huntly or the like!

Note again i have no actual information on the cases, and am just making an educated guess. As I don’t know the identity or occupations of either man, I can’t be breaching a suppression order.

The point I am making is that the media have effectively pointed to the occupations by using a combination of generic role and location that narrows it down.

It’s like the time I was the off the record source for a story for a newspaper in the early 1990s and they referred to me as a “Senior Young National” in Wellington. I somewhat irately pointed out to the reporter that they might as well have printed my name, date of birth and photo as the description was so obviously me!

Judge David Harvey has blogged a keynote speech he gave to the Australian Digital Alliance Forum on copyright law in the modern era. It’s a fascinating essay on the history of copyright, the changes over time, the balancing of rights etc.

He summarises his own proposal for copyright going forward:

 1. Copyright should not be seen as a property right – either actual or inchoate

 2. A copyright owner’s rights should not be absolute.

 3. Copyright should be seen as an exception to the wider rights of freedom to receive and impart information guaranteed by Art. 19 ICCPR – and, given copyright does not engage until expression (according to current copyright theory),  it must be subject to the supremacy of Article 19.

 4. Interference with Article 19 rights requires justification by the “copyright owner”.[49]

 5. Once interference with the Art 19 right is justified, any restrictions to the general right and any advantages that accrue for the benefit of the “copyright owner” may be permitted to the extent that they are:

a) necessary to meet the copyright owners interests and justification and

b) proportionate in terms of the extent of the interference

 6. Concepts such as fair use, protection term, remedies (and their extent) fall within the tests of necessity and proportionality rather than exceptions to a copyright owner’s right.

 I like the idea of the major right being the right to receive and impart information, and copyright restrictions must fall within this right as justifiable limitations or exceptions. I think that is superior to having copyright as the “major right” and then having to justify exceptions to copyright for purposes of quoting, parody, satire, academic scrutiny etc.

Daniel Adams at the Waikato Times reports:

Hamilton’s mayor is being accused of using mayoral forums to electioneer ahead of this year’s election – a claim she rejects.

Mayor Julie Hardaker also rejected the claim that ratepayers are helping fund her re-election after a complaint was made to electoral officials.

Councillor Dave Macpherson has asked for a ruling from the city returning officer on a series of branded forums organised by staff for Ms Hardaker.

He claims the mayor’s forums are electioneering in disguise and should stop.

Or it is a Mayor doing their job and making themselves available to ratepayers to discuss any issues they have. Macpherson is being silly and petty.

The best quote on Mr Macpherson comes from his former leader Jim Anderton:

But Anderton was dismissive of the remarks.

“Dave Macpherson is one member of the Alliance, he is on the Hamilton City Council… last thing I knew he was the deputy chairman of the subcommittee of the dog control appeal authority.”

Attacking a Mayor for actually getting out there and meeting ratepayers is just silly.

The Law Commission has published its final report as part of their review of regulatory gaps and new media.

I blogged on their draft report in December 2011, and said I thought their draft report was excellent.

I also blogged my submission on the draft report in March 2012.

Their final report is not hugely different to their draft report, but there have been some useful changes, especially around the key area of having any media regulator totally independent from Government (unlike the current Broadcasting Standards Authority).

The report is a welcome dose of common sense and respect for a free media, which avoids the excesses recommended in the UK an Australia.

The Law Commissions cites four policy objectives in their report:

• recognise and protect the special status of the news media, ensuring all entities carrying out the legitimate functions of the fourth estate, regardless of their size or commercial status, are able to access the legal privileges and exemptions available to these publishers
• ensure that those entities accessing the news media’s special legal status are held accountable for exercising their power ethically and responsibly
• provide citizens with an effective and meaningful means of redress when those standards are breached
• signal to the public which publishers they can rely on as sources of news and information.

They note:

Finally, there is a strong public interest in ensuring that any accountability mechanisms for the news media encourages rather than stifles diversity. It must therefore provide a level playing field for all those carrying out the functions of the fourth estate, irrespective of their size, commercial status, or the format in which they publish or distribute their content. In other words it must be technology neutral focusing on content and context rather than the format or delivery platform.

I agree, and that is why I support their key recommendation of just one self-regulatory standards body, rather than the existing three bodies (one Govt regulatory, and two self-regulatory).

Some of their recommendations are:

• A news media standards body (the News Media Standards Authority or NMSA) should be established to enforce standards across all publishers of news.
• Membership should be entirely voluntary and available to any person or entity that regularly publishes or generates news, information or current opinion.
• To gain the full legal rights of news media (which are extensive), an entity or person must be accountable to a published code of ethics and the NMSA.
• The NMSA should be chaired by a retired Judge who is appointed by the Chief Ombudsman and the majority of complaints panel members should be representatives of the public who are not from the media industry.
• The NMSA will have a code of practice and may also have sub-codes for different mediums (I think is is important as I think online media should focus more on correction, which is less of a remedy in broadcast or print media).
• NMSA powers will include publishing of their decisions, website take downs, corrections, right of replies, apologies, censure and ultimately termination of membership. However no power to fine.
• A three person appeals body is also recommended.
• No state funding of the NMSA for its regulatory function – will be entirely industry funded.
• A working party of seven people to establish the NMSA, with the Chief Ombudsman appointing the Chairperson and the Chairperson the other six members – with industry representatives in the minority.
• NZ on Air funding of news and current affairs will only be open to media that are members of NMSA.
• BSA would have its role reduced to good taste and decency and protection of children standards only.

I think this report is an opportunity for the media to move from a mixed model of partial government regulation and partial self-regulation to effectively full self-regulation. I also like the opening up of opportunities for non traditional media to gain the legal privileges of the media, so long as they are willing to sign up for a code of practice and complaints procedure.

To some degree the status quo isn’t broken, so I wouldn’t call this a legislative priority for any Government. We’ll see a formal response in 120 days (off memory). But it does represent a sensible way forward and is worth pursuing.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

Questions to Ministers

1. DAVID SHEARER (Labour) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?
2. Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National) to the Minister of Finance: What progress is the Government making in its programme to build a more competitive and productive economy?
3. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
4. JAMI-LEE ROSS (National) to the Minister of Corrections: What announcements has she made on the introduction of prison performance tables?
5. Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour) to the Minister of Conservation: What is the total number of staff that will lose their jobs at the Department of Conservation as a result of staff cuts announced today, and how many, if any, of those are “frontline” staff?
6. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister for Social Development: How is the Government’s Social Workers in Schools initiative making a difference for vulnerable children?
7. EUGENIE SAGE (Greens) to the Minister of Conservation: Can he guarantee that any job cuts announced today will not impact on the Department of Conservation’s ability to protect the conservation estate?
8. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Greens) to the Minister for the Environment: Does she agree with Guy Salmon’s comment that she is a Minister who wants to lower environmental standards?
9. Dr CAM CALDER (National) to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: What has New Zealand’s income from international education been for the past 12 months?
10. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (NZ First) to the Minister of Trade: Does he believe that a multi-million dollar fraud case involving one of Zespri’s import agents in China has hurt New Zealand’s international trading reputation?
11. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour) to the Minister of Education: Does she have confidence in the Ministry of Education; if so, why?
12. LOUISE UPSTON (National) to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: What recent progress has been made towards the settlement of historical Treaty of Waitangi claims?

National is asking five questions, Labour four, the Greens two, and NZ First one. Labour is asking on staff cuts at DoC, confidence in the MoE, and two gotchas to the PM. The Greens are also asking on staff cuts at DoC, as well as environmental standards. NZ First is asking on a fraud case in China. Patsy of the day goes to Melissa Lee for question 6: How is the Government’s Social Workers in Schools initiative making a difference for vulnerable children?

Government Bills 3.00 pm – 6.00 pm and 7.30 pm – 10.00 pm

1. Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill – committee stage
2. Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) – committee stage (cont.)
3. Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) – committee stage

The Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill amends the Social Security Act 1964 to introduce a new system of main benefits, drug testing requirements, and work and child welfare obligations for beneficiaries. Paula Bennett is in charge and it just barely passed second reading, with National, ACT and United Future the parties supporting.

The Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) was introduced by Peter Dunne in August 2012, in his role as Minister of Revenue. The Bill introduces data-matching with the New Zealand Customs Service to locate borrowers in serious default when they enter or leave New Zealand. It will also change the definition of income, bringing it into line with the definition used for Working For Families tax credits and student allowances, from April 2014. At second reading only the Greens and Mana voted against.

The Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) was introduced October 2012, in response to the John Banks donation saga. The Bill amends the principle legislation in regard to provisions for the conduct of local elections; transparency and accountability around electoral donations; and the integrity and efficiency of the electoral system.

Stuff reports:

Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee is demanding answers after EQC’s “unprecedented” privacy blunder while his Labour counterpart has called for his resignation.

Brownlee said last night he would meet EQC chief executive Ian Simpson and chairman Michael Wintringham this morning to insist on answers.

Brownlee, who found out about the 73,000 extra claimants only at 2.21pm yesterday (the media conference was at 3pm), said the blunder was embarrassing and he had a “lot more to find out”.

“On Friday when we first learned there had been a mishap, it was in the realms of being a forgivable mistake but when you learn that rather than 9700 claims affected it’s more than 80,000, well, that escalates it a little bit further to say the least.” …

Labour earthquake spokeswoman Lianne Dalziel said Brownlee needed to “make an appointment with the Prime Minister and hand in his resignation notice”.

A staff member didn’t notice that his auto-complete function had inserted the wrong recipient name, and sent an attachment to the wrong person.

And Dalziel thinks this is a case for the Minister to resign.

All I can say is that Labour will need a very large caucus if they get into Government, because I expect Ministers will be resigning every week or so based on this new hysterical standard.

The ODT in February 2008:

Principals around the country are criticising the Ministry of Education after major payroll errors, which have created a bureaucratic nightmare for many schools.

Datacom is contracted by the Ministry of Education to provide payroll services to more than 80,000 New Zealand teachers. The latest payroll round – the first of the school term – was filled with errors, New Zealand Principals Federation president and Balclutha Primary School principal Paddy Ford said.

‘‘A number of schools have not received any pay, and many support staff have been paid the incorrect amounts.

Staff who are on leave have incorrectly received full pay, changes that were sent to Datacom in November have not been actioned, and staff are being forced to fill forms out twice with exactly the same information.” …

Mr Ford said: ‘‘Schools deserve better. It’s a nightmare. We are dealing with unnecessary bureaucracy and huge numbers of errors.

Payroll systems have changed for the worse and we need to have immediate action from the ministry, directing their payroll service providers to shape up or ship out.”

Ministry of Education Schooling Group resourcing senior manager Kevin Wilson said 99% of school employees had been paid correctly at the start of the 2008 school year.

if you changed the dates and the names you would swear that is a story from February 2013, not February 2008!

“Eddie” at The Standard asserts there are three broad factions in the Labour caucus. S/he divides them up as:

The Right (nine MPs)
David Shearer (leader)
Phil Goff
Annette King
David Parker
Clayton Cosgrove
Shane Jones
Damien O’Connor
Kris Fa’afoi
Ross Robertson

The Left (14 MPs)
David Cunliffe (leader)
Nanaia Mahuta
Louisa Wall
Sue Moroney
Su’a William Sio
Lianne Dalziel
Parekura Horomia
Rajen Prasad
Rino Tirikatene
Carol Beaumont
Raymond Huo
Moana Mackey
Iain Lees-Galloway
Andrew Little

The Careerist Left (11 MPs)
Grant Robertson (leader)
Chris Hipkins
Jacinda Ardern
Phil Twyford
Clare Curran
Maryan Street
David Clark
Trevor Mallard
Darien Fenton
Megan Woods
Ruth Dyson

It is the last faction that Eddie says holds the balance of power. S/he notes:

Of the 11 MPs in the Careerist Left, 7 are former parliamentary staffers. This group has some good people but there’s a strong thread of personal advancement running through it, which is why they’ve brokered a deal with the Right. Robertson is wary of the ‘Left’ faction, because he doesn’t think he’ll do as well out of a deal with Cunliffe.

Seven former staffers – the new professional elite. Have any of them ever spent a day in the private sector generating wealth?

I think what we are looking at is a Cunliffe v Robertson battle for the leadership, if Labour do not win the next election. The left vs the careerist left. Who will win? No idea. Who will lose? New Zealand 🙂

Snopes reports that President Obama (and other Presidents) have a food taster.

It seems that even on Capitol Hill, he can’t eat food without a taster checking it out first. During a lunch with Senate Republicans he couldn’t eat lunch as his taster was not present.

I guess I can understand the use of a taster when say travelling overseas. But it seems silly to require one at things like a private lunch with Senators.

City to Sea

EveryTrail – Find trail maps for California and beyond

The City to Sea Walkway was the final walk of my summer of 13 big Wellington walks. Probably the most challenging as there are almost no flat parts to it, you go up and down almost a dozen times.

The official guide says this walk takes six hours but I managed to do it in just under three hours. Did this one solo as everyone else was busy so you go faster when not talking and walking! Got to listen to some the Economist podcasts until me headphones died.

Starts at the Bolton Street Cemetery and goes up into the Botanical Garden up to the Cable Car. Then down into Kelburn Park and through the Mount Street Cemetery at VUW. You then head along above the Terrace past Boyd Wilson Field and down into Aro Valley.

Then up through Tanera Park and the community gardens there passing into Central Park. You go up over the Renouf Tennis Centre and into Nairn Street Park and Prince of Wales Park. then through some town belt into McAlister Park .
After all the parks you hit the Berhampore Golf Course, then trek up from that to the Tawatawa Ridge and then mainly downhill until you hit the climb up to the Oku Street Reserve. From there you go down into Shorland Park in island Bay on the South coast.

It’s my favourite walkway as it just sneakily manages to link all these discrete parks together, while winding its way from the city to the South coast. Many great views to be enjoyed.

A Sonja Lawson complained to The Press Council:

Miss Lawson phoned a complaint to the editor of Taranaki Daily News, followed up by a letter, alleging factually incorrect and misleading information relating to the ‘abusive faxes’ column comment. She followed this up over a month later with a further letter complaining about both articles. 

She complained that no response had been received to her multiple calls, faxes and now letters to her claims that the articles are inaccurate, unfair and unbalanced; that her privacy had been breached as she had name suppression; that the headlines were inaccurate and misleading; that the paper had used subterfuge and had refused to correct errors. She demanded retraction and apologies in a prominent place in the paper. 

Very ironic that she is guilty of sending offensive communications, and when the paper reports this, she starts sending them numerous communications.

The editor of Taranaki Daily News responded to the Council that the published articles had been taken from a Court of Appeal decision and a hearing in the Hawera District Court, and he was unaware of any inaccuracy. Furthermore no suppression order was in place regarding Miss Lawson. …

Miss Lawson does not have name suppression (the Court of Appeal judgment is available online) and the newspaper had a right to report each case.

I’m amazed this case even went to a full hearing of the Press Council. Her allegations of name suppression are a figment of her imagination and I thought that would be enough to make her complaint invalid.

Also in terms of dopey complaints, we have an H Malcolm who complained to the ASA over this Tui billboard:

“Mine’s a Footlong

Just like Subway’s                                          Yeah Right”

The delicate complainant said:

“I believe this billboard breaches public decency by the inference to male genitalia and is unsuitable for public viewing.”

Oh dear.

Tracy Watkins at Stuff reports:

Seated across from each other in a New York restaurant they made for an unlikely couple.

On one side of the table was John Howard, one of Australia’s most successful prime ministers; darling of the political Right, bogeyman of the Left after taking the role as America’s deputy sheriff in the Pacific, and becoming the villain in the Tampa affair.

His lunch companion was Helen Clark, the socially liberal former New Zealand prime minister, a flag-flying Iraq war opponent, standard bearer for the Left-wing social democratic movement – and the woman who even now, four years on from losing the election, can spark visceral dislike among many on the Right.

Mates? Of course, says Howard, after they caught up recently for a chinwag in New York.

“We don’t just exchange Christmas cards.”

It reflects well on both Howard and Clark that they worked well together, despite being from different sides of the political spectrum.

 But historic and geographical ties have not always been enough to put the relationship on a friendly footing. Before Howard and Clark it was Lange and Hawke, Muldoon and Fraser. Tension, backstabbing, and suspicion reigned.

Fraser was an idiot, and Muldoon a bully. Hawke thought Lange was a flake, and he was right. There was also Bolger and Keating – Keating was just simply untrustworthy.

Gillard and Key, again polar opposites politically, have forged even stronger bonds than Clark and Howard.

Key says getting the personal dynamics in the relationship right is “critical”. With Gillard, it helps that their partners get on as well.

Once all the official business was out of the way during their two-day summit in Queenstown last month, Key and Gillard escaped to the exclusive Millbrook resort for dinner with partners Bronagh and Tim. They did the same in Melbourne last year.

“We have a no officials, casual dinner, have a drink together,” Key said.

A good relationship between leaders is no guarantee of success, but it is almost a precursor.

The big unknown is a possible Tony Abbott government – though he and Key have already struck up a good relationship, and speak to each other regularly.

Howard, meanwhile, is confident Abbot can only be good for New Zealand.

“He’s got a good start. His wife is a New Zealander.”

Heh, that may be useful.

Claire Trevett at NZ Herald reports:

Just over half of those asked in a Herald-DigiPoll survey said they believed the three-year term should stay, while 48 per cent believed it should increase to four years.

That’s a promising response showing NZers are open to persuasion on this issue.

Mr Key has said any such change would be made only if there was sufficient public support, likely to be determined through a referendum.

I think there should be a binding referendum in 2014 on this issue. I would tie two things in as part of it:

• Have a fixed date for elections, removing the PM’s ability to set an early date for tactical reasons. Only have an early election is a Government loses a confidence vote.
• Don’t have the change in term come in until 2020 – ie make absolutely clear the next two terms will remain at three years. This means people won’t think it is about the current Government trying to get a longer term

David Farrar, a National-aligned blogger, supported a move to four years, saying three years was not enough time in which to assess whether new policies were working. He expected it would result in more one-term Governments – something that has happened only twice so far in New Zealand’s political history.

“People do feel three years is not long enough to judge. With a four-year term, more Governments might get chucked out after one term because people would say, ‘It’s been four years, we should have seen some impact.”‘

Three years is pretty much the shortest term in the world.

The Press editorial:

By Winston Peters’ admittedly not very high standards the questions he raised in Parliament this week about alleged fraud and corruption in the earthquake recovery were terribly thin stuff.

If they were intended to embarrass the Minister for Earthquake Recovery, Gerry Brownlee, they were so lacking in specifics the minister easily brushed them off.

Even if, as is more likely, they were intended for no more elevated purpose than to get Peters’ name into the news and along the way to make a casual smear and raise vague conspiratorial suggestions of corruption, they were not up to much.

They never are, but I agree these allegations were even lamer than most.

Peter Beck writes that he will not be standing again for Christchurch City Council:

I’m struggling with the committee work and the paperwork and the number of projects and plans that I need to keep up with as the council makes the major policy decisions which are its responsibility. There are others with much more ability than I have to scrutinise and work with this crucial committee work, reviewing and monitoring the proposals and recommendations of the council staff. I hope the councillors and others in our wider city community with these skills will step up and stand for election.

Many people don’t realise how much work is involved on a Council.

I have found the political infighting hard. At the council table I listen and contribute to the debate and then seek to make the best decisions I can for the city, not concerning myself as to whether or not it will win me brownie points with the electors. I’m sure my colleagues would say the same thing. But it is hard to build the trust that is really needed to ensure the very best decisions are made. It may be that the Westminster style of government with its combative culture, is the best we can hope for, but certainly at a local level, I reckon we can find better ways of governing our city.

It is a pity Beck doesn’t say who is responsible for the infighting.

Personally I blame party politics. When people are more loyal to their ticket and party, than to working together for the city. As I blogged previously if you are going to have party politics at local Council level, then you need to look at having a Mayor with more executive authority.

At this stage Bob Parker has declared that he will stand again. My hope is that there is one, and only one, seriously credible alternative so that the city has a clear choice. That is good for democracy. It is good for both candidates. Whoever is elected will then hopefully carry a real mandate of the people.

It will be interesting to see if this comes to pass, and if so who it will be.

Aaron Leaman at Stuff reports:

Some of the worst criminals sentenced to preventive detention are being freed after serving on average only 11 years in prison.

Corrections Department figures show preventive detention might not be as tough as the public perceives it to be.

A total of 22 inmates sentenced to the stiffest penalty the courts can provide have been freed on parole in the past seven years, 17 in the past three years.

The average time served was 11.7 years, despite the sentence enabling offenders to be kept locked up indefinitely.

Legislation introduced in 2002 lowered the minimum age for the imposition of preventive detention from 21 to 18.

However, it also reduced the minimum non-parole period from 10 to five years.

Thanks Labour!

However I don’t think we get enough data in this story to make conclusions. First of all the average release time of 11.7 years is just of those actually released – 22 people.

What we don’t know if how many people have not been released at all. There were 96 given preventive detention from 2006 to 2012. There may be 200 prisoners on PD in total, so the 22 released may be just 10% of the total.

I’d also be keen to see more than just the 11.7 years average. How many of the 22 were released in under 10 years?

But most of all what I really want to know is how many of those released on parole despite having PD have reoffended?

Those who get a finite sentence basically get automatic parole at two thirds of their sentence, so it is inevitable there will be a fairly high level of offending on parole for those prisoners.

However to get parole, if you have a PD sentence, is meant to be much harder – rather than a default assumption of release, there is a default assumption of no release. If not confident they will not reoffend, the Parole Board can keep them in for ever.

Hence I would expect a very very low reoffending rate for those given parole who have a preventive detention sentence. If the rate is not low, then it suggests the Parole Board is getting it wrong.

Does anyone have that data?

Dave Trott at The Gate blogs:

My favourite news story last week was about  Curtis Woodhouse.

He’s a light welterweight from Hull and he lost his title in a boxing match.

Immediately one particular anonymous person started insulting him on Twitter.

Someone called Jimmybob88.

“Retire immediately, can’t even defend a pathetic little title, you are a complete disgrace.”

At first Woodhouse tried to treat it like a joke.

But Jimmybob88’s insults got worse.

“Haha u lost u silly mug, fight a 10 year old next time if u want to actually win u waste of spunk.”

And this went on for months and months. So did Woodhouse do?

He turned the anonymity around.

He turned it from something to hide behind into a game.

He offered a Twitter bounty.

£1,000 to anyone who would give him Jimmybob88’s name and address.

Even that didn’t frighten Jimmybob88.

He knew he was anonymous and could do what he wanted.

So he kept on.

“What u going to do, knock me out like your last opponent? Ooops.”

But …

But someone did give him Jimmybob88’s address.

It was Mount View Road, Sheffield.

And his real name was James O’Brien.

And Sheffield was just 50 miles away from Hull, where Curtis Woodhouse lived.

So he got in his car and began driving over there. …

But then Woodhouse arrived at his street and tweeted a picture of it.

He tweeted that he was looking for the house number.

Suddenly Jimmybob88’s tweets became pleading.

“I am sorry. It’s getting a bit out of hand. I am in the wrong, I accept that.”

And then Woodhouse knocked on his door.

And finally, at that point, Jimmybob88 stopped tweeting.

In fact he practically stopped breathing.

He cowered inside his house and wouldn’t answer the door.

He even called a friend and begged and pleaded with him to find a way to make Woodhouse go away.

And when Woodhouse could see how pathetic the kind of person he’d been letting get to him was he got in his car and drove back home.

Leaving Jimmybob88 hiding behind the sofa.

I can just imagine him cowering at home refusing to answer the door, after he had so bravely spent months calling Woodhouse names and taunting him.

Andrew Geddis has a very informative blog post on the impact of Louisa Wall’s Marriage Bill on the adoption act. Professor Geddis writes:

A LGBT individual already may adopt a child under the Adoption Act 1955. Take the example of a lesbian woman who has a 6 month old nephew who is orphaned in a car crash, with that woman being named as the child’s guardian in the child’s parent’s will. That woman already can apply to become the child’s “parent” by way of a sole adoption order under s.3(1), and her sexuality will not be an issue in deciding whether or not such an order should be made. 

This is a key issue. There is no current ban or even reference to sexuality when it comes to adoptions. The only difference in the law will be both partners in a same sex relationship will be able to adopt (if they are married), rather than one partner adopt and the other become a guardian.

Last year there were only around 50 “stranger adoptions” in all of New Zealand to married couples. There are far, far more couples (straight and same-sex) wanting to adopt than there are children put up for adoption. So even when married same sex couples are permitted to “stranger adopt”, the number of children placed with a same sex couple will be vanishingly small.

I doubt there will be even one a year.

Consequently, the true impact of the change wrought by the same sex marriage law is to open a route for same sex couples to jointly adopt a child under s.3(3). Because a married same sex couple will be “spouses” in terms of the Adoption Act (just as married straight couples are now), they can go to court together to seek an order that they both be recognised as the parents of a particular child.

Again, that is the only real change. Instead of one partner being the adoptive parent and one being a guardian, they’ll both be adoptive parents.

Louisa Wall says much the same in the NZ Herald:

The only change that will occur if my bill passes is that if a couple marry, they will be deemed “spouses” and they qualify as joint applicants for an adoption order. That means both parents will have the same status under the law …

Mike and Virginia opened at Circa on Saturday night, and it was 100 minutes of almost non stop laughs.

It is billed as a romantic comedy about romantic comedies. The lead characters of Mike and Virginia are both lecturers in film studies and the audience at times are their class. Virginia is the ice queen who tells you how romantic comedies always have an incompatible couple (due to personality, background etc) who implausibly overcome all barriers to show love conquers all, even though it doesn’t.

Mike is the popular wise cracking Kiwi bloke, who is a published author as well as a lecturer. Of course Virginia hates him, and vice-versa and of course they form the focus of their own romantic comedy.

There is some audience interaction, which was also comic. Mike has a thesis that all films have a monster. He goes through various films such as Shawshank Redemption and asks who the monster is. He then gets to Love Actually and asks the audience who is the monster in that film. The woman behind me yells out “the writer” and we’re all in hysterics.

There were five actors making up the cast, and while in some plays there are one or two stand outs, I thought in this play all five nailed their characters.

Gentiana Lupi (you may have seen her in Eagle vs Shark) was the icy Virginia. Her character started slightly one-dimensional but as the play progressed you saw her sense of humour and playfulness.

Will Hall (Kip from Shortland Street) was perfect for laid back wise cracking Kiwi bloke Mike.

Jennifer Martin was hilarious as the young and beautiful but rather clueless student poet who falls madly in love with, well I won’t give the plot away. But you’ll love her performance.

Stephen Papps and Perry Piercey play the respective best friends of Mike and Virginia – their characters are Harry and Sally!

Papps’ Harry shares his nuggets of wisdom in a very droll fashion and generates aughs a plenty. He just fits the role of down to earth tradesman so well.

Piercey’s Sally is an actor, and gets possibly the best lines of the play. I won’t give too many plot details away but one part of it is how they are meant to be just friends with benefits but Virginia freaks out when Mike holds her hand at one point. She heads home alone complaining to Sally that Mike is getting too intimate. Sally responds with “You’ve had his dick in your mouth with no problems, and you’re complaining that he held your hand!” – classic.

The music and sound effects were done incredibly well, adding to many a dramatic moment with comic effect.

Mike and Virginia was hilariously good fun. Is on until 20 April, and well worth seeing.

The SST headline:

Call to ban ministers from share float

Except they already are. Ministers absolutely can not take part in the share float.

In fact the conflict of interest obligations are taken so seriously that when Contact Energy was sold in the late 1990s, I was one of those banned from buying shares when it floated as I worked in the PM’s Office. Now I had zero involvement in the float, saw no papers about it, but still was banned.

So a headline that suggests Ministers are not already banned is absolutely misleading.

We asked our readers if they wanted a similar rule to Australia’s “Standards of Ministerial Ethics” that require ministers “to divest themselves of all shareholdings other than through investment vehicles such as broadly diversified superannuation funds or publicly listed managed or trust arrangements”.

That is a very separate issue to the suggestion that Ministers can take part in the Mighty River share float.

Incidentally I think it is a good idea for Ministers to follow the lead of the PM and put their shareholdings in a blind trust. But a one size fits all rule may be overly prescriptive  You may have a Minister who has say 10,000 shares in one company prior to becoming a Minister and requiring them to set up a Trust for such a minor shareholding could be a bit over the top.