Vodafone has purchased TelstraClear for NZ$840m. This means that many of our original ISPs such as Clear.net and Ihug are now Vodafone.

It’s a sensible move for Vodafone, as the two companies complement each other and means they can go head to head with Telecom in landlines, mobile, broadband Internet and ultra-fast broadband.

What I will be looking for is whether Telstra, once the sale is approved, then makes a take over bid for Telecom, or at least a significant stake.

Stuff reports:

A national port strategy bringing all the country’s ports under central public ownership would allow the industry to deal with foreign-owned shipping companies from a position of strength, a union boss has said.

The best performing port is Port of Tauranga. Almost all its own employees are shareholders. Why would you want to destroy that model?

Reuters reports:

The Russian version of online encyclopedia Wikipedia closed its site on Tuesday in a one-day protest against what it said were plans by President Vladimir Putin to create his own version of the “Great Chinese Firewall” to block dissent on the Internet.

Supporters of amendments to Russia’s information law, which were proposed by the ruling United Russia party and will be discussed in parliament on Wednesday, say changes are needed to protect children from harmful sites.

But leaders of anti-Putin protests say the new law could shut down websites in Russia such as Facebook and Twitter without a court order and is meant to stop their opposition movement, which is organised via social networking sites.

“These amendments may become a basis for real censorship on the Internet – forming a list of forbidden sites and IP addresses,” Russian Wikipedia said in a statement.

“The following provisions and wording undertaken for discussion would lead to the creation of a Russian equivalent of the ‘Great Chinese Firewall’ … in which access to Wikipedia could soon be closed across the entire country.”

This is the same Russia that wants the ITU to be given regulatory authority over the Internet (see previous post and link to petition).

A group of like minded individuals and groups have launched a petition calling on the New Zealand Government to vote against extending the regulatory authority of the International Telecommunications Union to the Internet.

The petition is here, and it takes less than a minute to sign.

Vote against the ITU having regulatory authority over the Internet Petition | GoPetition

The background to the petition is:

Right from inception, the Internet has had no central ruling authority. But this December, the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) is conducting a review of the international agreements governing telecommunications and aims to expand its regulatory authority to the Internet. 

Countries such as Russia which are advocating the ITU have regulatory authority over the Internet have advocated restrictions over the Internet “where it is used to interfere in the internal affairs of a state”. This represents a dramatic threat to the openness of the Internet, where countries could regulate content not just within their own borders, but over the entire Internet.

Geographically isolated nations such as New Zealand and other Pacific Island nations have a significant economic and social interest in an open and well functioning internet. Accordingly, such changes to the ITU may harm our social and economic well being more than other nations.

The ITU has been a closed organisation for nearly 150 years – they represent the antithesis of the Internet community’s open and inclusive approach. Civil society, private sector, technical experts, and Internet users will only have limited input in the process. This would be a significant departure from the open, participatory, multistakeholder model that has made the internet a successful driver of social and economic growth.

If you support the continuing evolution of the multistakeholder internet, you are invited to read and sign this statement of principles.

We are calling on the NZ Government to specifically:

We request the New Zealand Government to vote against any amendments to the International Telecommunications Regulations, to be considered at the World Conference on International telecommunications 2012 (WCIT-12) which would give the ITU regulatory authority over the Internet, as it is not a truly open and transparent multistakeholder institution, but ultimately a body controlled by Governments.

We also request the New Zealand Government to take a pro-active stance in advocating to other states the benefits of retaining the current open and transparent multi-stakeholder governance of the Internet and to invest in proactive representation and promotion of the Internet as a vital, global platform for access to information and communication, and an enabler of economic and social opportunity.

Again, feel free to sign and promote the petition within your networks. This is an important issue.

Stuff reports:

Police have named a Wellington woman whose body was found on Mt Victoria but say it could take six weeks to determine how she died.

She was Sofia Helen Athanassiou, of Newtown.

The 39-year-old was found by a group of joggers about 11am on Monday off a running track near Alexandra Park, above Wellington Girls’ East College.

By coincidence I was walking with a friend on the same area of Mt Vic the previous (Sunday) morning.  And there was a (in hindsight) slightly surreal conversation as at one point the track splits and we went down the path which was very bushy and surrounded by trees. My walking companion said “Are you taking me down this way so you can …”. I interrupted and said “No I only dispose of bodies in swamps, not forests”. She exclaimed back “I was going to say have sex with me, not kill me. Why are you thinking of killing me”. My response was “I’m not, why are you thinking of having sex with me”. We both laughed and carried on.

So it was rather weird to then read barely 24 hours later someone had been found dead in close to the same location.

He said an autopsy completed late yesterday was inconclusive and police were awaiting the results of further laboratory tests which may help explain how or why Athanassiou died.

Those tests could take up to six weeks.

“While it will ultimately be for the Coroner to determine the cause of death, we are still treating Sofia’s death as ‘unexplained’ and a key focus of the police investigation is establishing how or why she died.”

Twelve investigators continued to work on the case.

Hopefully it was natural causes, not homicide. A tragedy for her family and friends either way, but worse if foul play is involved.

Heh helping people indeed.

Hat Tip: Whale Oil

Claire Trevett at NZ Herald reports:

Labour is expected to give party members an equal or even greater say than the party’s MPs in electing its leader in the future – but it is understood to have backed away from the British Labour Party model which gives one third of the vote to trade unions.

Good. Union members who wish to join Labour should get a vote, but union bosses shouldn’t get to have bloc votes. If this is correct, it is good Labour is resisting giving unions a vote in leadership selections. Now, they just need to get them out of candidate selections.

Labour leader David Shearer said yesterday there was general consensus within the caucus that it was time for the membership to share in that vote – something the members made clear during last year’s leadership contest. He said the details were yet to be worked out, including the exact split of the vote.

It is understood the party is debating options including giving slightly more weight to the vote of party members than to the vote of the caucus or at least giving them an equal vote.

I think this is a good move. Maybe one day National will do the same. What is interesting though is whether Shearer would have been elected leader over Cunliffe if the membership had a vote. Cunliffe appeared to have far more membership support.

Senior members said there was some concern that giving too much weight to the membership vote over the caucus vote could result in a leader being chosen who was deeply unpopular within the caucus – a result which could be unworkable in practical terms.

However, there is also a desire to ensure the members’ vote was not purely tokenism and to give them a real influence. Debate was also under way about whether the caucus portion of the vote would be a bloc vote and how affiliated unions should be treated.

If the caucus portion of the vote is a bloc vote (winner takes all) then the membership portion would be tokenistic. Both blocs should be split according to how their members split. Let’s say they do a 50/50 split and they have 37 MPs and 2,000 members vote.

Say (for example) the caucus votes for Shearer 20 to 17 over Cunliffe. But Cunliffe wins 1,200 members’ votes and Shearer 800.

The caucus vote is 54% Shearer and 46% Cunliffe, and the members vote 60% Cunliffe and 40% Shearer. On a 50/50 split then the combined vote is Cunliffe 53% and Shearer 47%. Cunliffe would win in that scenario, despite losing the caucus vote.

Danya Levy at Stuff reports:

Opposition parties are calling on the Maori Party to walk the away from its support agreement with National over the Prime Minister’s “insulting” comments about the Waitangi Tribunal.

The “insulting” comment was noting the fact that the Tribunal’s recommendations are not binding on the Government and Parliament.

As opposition parties are calling on the Maori Party to walk away from the Government on this issue, I can only assume that means it is their intention to make the Waitangi Tribunal recommendations binding on Government and Parliament.

Bronwyn Torrie at Stuff reports:

 “Fat hatred” should be banned like racism or sexism, says a pro-fat scholar who argues that obesity isn’t a health problem.

I wonder if she read Bob Jones’ column of two weeks ago. Under her anti-fat-discrimination laws, he’s be in for a lengthy jail term!

Massey University lecturer Cat Pause says “the war against fat” and “fat phobia” were much more damaging than carrying a few extra kilos or, in her case, a lot.

“Obesity is not a big health problem. If you really look at the science, that is what comes through.”

That’s a novel argument.

But Dr Pause, who has a PhD in human development, says it is “fattism” that should be feared, not expanding waistlines.

She called on New Zealand to be the first country to outlaw discrimination against fat people, which has been described as the “last socially acceptable form of prejudice”.

After banning discrimination against fat people, we will also ban all ginga jokes.

New Zealand’s first fat studies conference – entitled New Zealand Fat Studies: Reflective Intersection – begins in Wellington tomorrow.

It is organised by Dr Pause, and topics include fat pride and teaching children about fitness and fatness.

I do hope that the taxpayer isn’t funding this conference.

This photo from Jacinda Ardern of the Labour Party leadership. Captions should be funny, not nasty.

NZ Herald reports:

Opposition parties say job cuts at KiwiRail are a step towards its sale, but the Prime Minister has assured New Zealanders the troubled company will not go on the block.

Consultation documents released by New Zealand First show the Government-owned company needs to save $200 million over three years.

I doubt we could sell it for even $1. No one would be as stupid as Labour was, and want to buy it.

Prime Minister John Key said the Government did not plan to sell KiwiRail and would continue to invest in the company, but would not intervene to save jobs.

“The Government has been a heavy investor. We’ve put $1.8 billion into KiwiRail in recent years and we will continue to support the business.”

Labour and Greens say the $1.8b is not enough. Kiwirail is a bottomless pit when it comes to money for them it seems.

Sunrise Over The Moeraki Boulders, Coastal Otago, New Zealand

Welcome to Wednesday folks.

This week’s wallpaper is from my favourite coastal photography location – Moeraki, North Otago.  The spherical forms of the Moeraki Boulders combined with the mercurial nature of the tides make for endless shooting options – toss in a fleeting sunrise, and you have a truly memorable photographic experience on your hands 🙂

The full size wallpaper can be downloaded here

View more Moeraki images in our New Zealand photo galleries.

Cheers – Todd

[Facebook] [Twitter]

Eric Crampton blogs:

Last week, anti-alcohol advocacy group Alcohol Action NZ put out a press release where the University of Otago’s Jennie Connor was quoted:

“A recent Canadian study has shown that a 10% increase in the minimum price of alcohol reduces its consumption by 16% relative to other drinks”.

Eric did something very unusual then.

I got in touch with one of the authors of what has to be the study to which she’s referring. 

Chris Auld reported that the -1.6 price elasticity figure indeed only refers to a measure of own-price elasticity. Except it isn’t quite own-price elasticity. Because the estimation technique doesn’t correct for substitution effects, it combines the own-price elasticity with cross-price elasticity from other products. 

Eric then starts quoting formulas which will turn off neurones in most people, but they are there if you want to read them.

Chris also confirms that the -0.34 estimate is the one that best reflects the expected effects of an across-the-board price increase like minimum pricing

That means a 10% increase in prices would reduce consumption by 3.4%. Eric concludes:

Jennie Connor really should retract her press release or issue a correction. It leads people to believe that a minimum price will have far more effect on harmful drinkers’ consumption than can be supported by the evidence. Otherwise, how much weight should anybody place on any “fact” claimed by Jennie Connor in her press releases?

But to show he is balanced (and Eric is one of those guys who is all about the facts), he sides with Ross Bell of the Drug Foundation over John Key re the impact of minimum pricing on the quality of drink. But he also corrects Ross on a couple of things also. A post well worth reading.

Stuff reports:

Is there a boycott brewing in the halls of power?

There is nothing more Wellington than coffee and Parliament, but the price of a flat white has climbed 7.5 per cent at the Beehive eatery Copperfields, causing rumblings among the caffeinerati who point out the price of coffee and milk is falling.

The price rises at Parliament’s “staff cafe” and at the Beanhive takeaway outlet were unveiled yesterday.

A long black is now $4 and a flat white $4.30  among the highest prices around, and above those at specialist coffee outlets neighbouring Parliament.

The complaints over the food and prices at Parliament seem to have reached a new level (they have never been great). I understand the new provider is the same provider of prison food, and the consensus of many staff is that Parliament gets the left overs from Rimutaka Prison 🙂

There is a simple solution to this which I have advocated before. Rather than grant one exclusive catering contract, they should turn Copperfields into a food court. Have three or four competing food outlets there. A sushi bar would be hugely popular. Maybe have a Subway also. Basically just work out a nominal rent, and let in anyone who they think can make a profit selling to 1,000 MPs and staff. Those who don’t provide a quality product will not be profitable.

Gareth Morgan writes at NZ Herald:

Sir Owen doesn’t like the fact that we have different levies to reflect different accident rates in different industries or with different kinds of vehicles.

His assumption is that people naturally take all care necessary and don’t need financial incentives – higher levies – to self-manage their risk. Sadly that is a sweeping assumption that has been shown to be wrong.

The history of the world teaches us that incentives matter.

My own experience with the wonderful world of ACC over the last 18 months has involved trying to understand what has been driving the bills for on-road motorcyclist injuries through the roof.

That work has revealed that we could do this a lot better. Already the annual relicensing bill for larger motorcycles is more than for cars, and that’s despite the fact that the average bike traverses way fewer kilometres a year than the average car.

In fact research we’ve done at the Motorcycle Safety Advisory Council indicates that the risk of serious and expensive injury on a motorcycle is around 45 times higher per person-kilometre travelled as it is for occupants of other vehicles.

Ouch, that is a huge difference. It is right then that motorcyclists should pay higher premiums, rather than motorists subsidise their accidents.

It gets worse. We also found that up to 31 per cent of our injuries arise from incidents involving no other vehicles. In other words we do this to ourselves because we can’t handle the road conditions.

Now of course we can blame the road as some of us are wont to do, but the reality is in most cases it’s pure incompetence or lack of self-management.

Any charging regime that gives riders an incentive to ride within their level of competence, to self-manage risk by wearing better protective clothing for example, or even lifting competency levels has to be a win-win doesn’t it?

Sir Owen might say no, that all care and no responsibility is the right ACC model and motorcyclists’ natural preference for self-preservation is sufficient.

But he’d be wrong and the rocketing bill is the evidence.

Agreed.

At present we are charged for our ACC cost on a per-bike basis. Even though you can only ride one motorcycle at a time, the more bikes you have the more you pay.

It’s some sort of wealth tax I guess but it bears no relation to the risk of injury.

Of course we do the same with cars but given that the cost to ACC of motorcycling injuries is way more per rider than it is for other vehicle types, this disjoint between risk and negative reward (the premium) is material.

The conclusion I reached, once I got to grips with what was happening in the motorcycling injury scene and what is driving ACC’s bills in this area, is that it’s pretty obvious that the levy should be charged per rider – say through an annual rider licence renewal fee.

This makes sense to me. Not sure about the practicalities, but ideally all of the vehicle insurance funding should be based on the driver, not on the number of vehicles.

Here’s a first pass at what I’d do:

* Introduce a no-claims bonus – the annual rider licence fee should be discounted for the number of successive years you have maintained your motorcycle licence but had no ACC claims.

* An excess – there needs to be a limited discount on the annual rider licence fee available to the extent you are prepared to self-insure. All riders should be liable to pay say the first $200 of any ACC claim – this at least gets rid of expensive but trivial claims. Then as well as that, a discount should be available, say up to 10 per cent on your licence fee, if the rider is prepared to foot the bill for a further $500 of injury claims.

* A break in maintaining your annual rider licence renewal should trigger a user-pays relicensing process. Obviously by imposing the ACC levy via an annual renewal of your riding licence there is a strong incentive for riders who aren’t intending to ride not to renew that class of their licence. That’s a good thing because it enables the gate to be controlled for returning riders to ensure their competency levels are adequate. Injuries to returning riders have been a source of much angst and expense. The extent of the relicensing required should depend on how long a break from riding has been taken.

* A limit to the income replacement component to ACC’s entitlement claims can be opted for by the rider when they relicense each year. It is a fact that riders with high salaries who get injured cost us a hell of a lot more in the levies we pay. Why don’t we put a limit on income replacement, or impose an additional levy if you want income replacement above a certain level? That would reduce significantly this component of the entitlement claims made on ACC that the rest of us are compelled to fund.

All good ideas worth considering.

Under this regime those who got their motorcycle licence years ago and haven’t ridden for yonks, or at least relicensed every year, face hurdles getting back on the bike. We know returning riders are a greater injury risk and we need them to be adequately competent for the bike they get on when they return.

By switching from ACC levies being imposed on the bike to imposing them on the rider we can control the gate on who is competent to ride a motorcycle. A five-year break, say, would require a full testing process again. Shorter breaks might demand a rider training course.

Yes this is a further assault on Sir Owen’s incorporation of accident insurance within the social welfare regime.

But then unbridled social welfare without limits, where accountability is a dirty word, is a very poor piece of social engineering anyway.

The key with ACC is to achieve the benefits of avoiding litigation, so retaining the benefits of universal entitlement but all the while providing incentives for self-management.

Hear hear.

Stuff reports:

Meanwhile, Labour MPs will today consider a proposal that would give members – and possibly unions and supporters – a say in who leads the party; something now determined only by MPs.

Shearer yesterday confirmed that, if approved, it would be “a mix of caucus and the membership in terms of electing the leadership”.

The percentage votes allocated to each group were “up in the air”, and he would not yet disclose what part unions and affiliates would have.

But the party’s discussion paper, released earlier this year, points to Britain where in leadership ballots MPs’ votes count for one third, the membership vote for one third and affiliated unions and supporters for one third.

I think giving members a vote in the leadership would be a good thing. But it should be one person one vote. Giving union bosses a huge bloc vote would be a huge mistake. It would make Labour even more captive to them.

Vernon Small reports:

Labour leader David Shearer has backed MP Clayton Cosgrove who has faced criticism for drafting a law that would have benefited a friend.

Cosgrove has publicly declared $17,500 in donations from Independent Fisheries, whose chief executive, Mike Dormer, is a longstanding friend.

The company was one of several that stood to gain from the law drafted in 2009. It was never drawn from Parliament’s members’ bill ballot and Cosgrove let it lapse in 2010 after the Canterbury earthquake.

Shearer said Cosgrove was “as honest as the day is long”.

I commented on Twitter yesterday that it was another unfortunate quote to defend Cosgrove, being made in the middle of winter when the days are at their shortest.

The Dom Post editorial touches on their other defence:

Warning bells should ring in the Labour caucus room whenever the party’s MPs find themselves defending colleagues on the basis that the only thing they are guilty of is “helping their constituents”.

That, they should remember, was the explanation Helen Clark and her deputy Michael Cullen tendered when questions were first asked about former Labour MP Phillip Field’s efforts to secure citizenship for Thai immigrants who just happened to be doing cut-price work on his South Auckland rental properties and Samoan retreat. That didn’t turn out too well. Mr Field has only just emerged from prison after being convicted on bribery and corruption charges.

Labour’s defence of Cosgrove has been very clumsy. I’m presuming this is incompetence, not malice.

Given his personal relationship with Mr Dormer – a “mate” – and the fact Independent Fisheries has donated a total of $20,500 to his electorate campaigns – an unusually large sum – it would have been wise for him to publicly declare his relationship with Mr Dormer and distance himself from any initiatives that could benefit the company. He did not. As late as August last year he was writing to Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee advocating on behalf of landowners in the affected areas.

That is fair criticism. It is the lack of disclosure – which extends beyond the statutory regime in the Electoral Act.  I also criticised John Banks for his advocacy of behalf of Kim Dotcom – but Banks was at the time only a private citizen, while Cosgrove was an MP, and actually writing legislation to benefit a donor.

I blogged last week on the massive vote in the European Parliament against ratifying the ACTA copyright treaty. I noted:

The final version of ACTA was in fact relatively benign. The draft versions pushed by the US had some draconian provisions, but the New Zealand Government, and other Governments, insisted that there be nothing in there that would require a significant change to our copyright laws. Eventually the US backed down, and the final version is, well as I said, fairly benign.

What New Zealand politicians should reflect on is if even a relatively benign copyright agreement such as ACTA can provoke such opposition that only 5% of the European Parliament will vote for it, think what electoral fate would await politicians who vote for a truly horrendous copyright regime?

Well the Australian Parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on Treaties has recommended not ratifying ACTA at this time. The full report is here.

Again, this reinforces the importance of New Zealand and other TPP negotiating countries staying firm on the TPP negotiations, and rejecting the IP chapter proposed by the US. Any IP provisions in the TPP agreement should be compatible with existing NZ law and policy.

Today at the gym made my midpoint goal. I’m under 95 kgs (in fact 93.5), which is halfway to the goal of under 80 kgs, having been 110 kgs a year ago. I blogged just before the election about getting to under 90 kgs, and the combination of food and exercise.

Ironically I put on 3 kgs the week of the election. That wasn’t food, but drinking until 5 am on election night, 2 am the day after and midnight the day after that. Thank goodness we only have elections every three years :-). After that I was in Africa having far too many great meals, so started the year back over 100.

Total weight loss for the last 12 months has been 16.5 kgs, which is as I said is just over half my goal of 30 kgs. I’ve lost the following in terms of measurements:

• Arms 4 cms
• Thighs 9.5 cms
• Chest 10 cms
• Hips 14 cms
• Waist 17 cms

The scary thing was having so much to lose!

Next goal is to get under 90, and to able to do a 10 km run by end of September.

Purpose of the post isn’t to get feedback (hence no comments) but just to share that the right combination of exercise and eating does work, if you make it a priority.

A funny advertisement for beef, featuring well giant balloons that look like Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott.

On BFM, David Shearer said on mining in Northland:

 “I think we would be, you know, behind it.”

“I guess it’s only right to look at that as an option” 

“Everything that comes into New Zealand has to be mined somewhere, so the fact that we’re going to say no mining here but import it from everywhere else seems a bit sort of incongruous to me. 

Now I agree with David Shearer that it is hypocrisy to import things dependent on mining, yet say no to mining in New Zealand.

I do wonder though how his pro-mining stance fits with this photo, of David waving a placard saying “Ours. Not mines” with a placard behind him of John Key as Hitler. Now of course David will say that he is only against mining on Schedule 4 land, but I do wonder if his fellow marchers shared his nuanced views.

As I said, it is good to see the more nuanced view.

The Herald reports:

Talkback host Michael Laws breached good taste and decency standards in an on-air tirade about shooting Herald on Sunday journalists, the Broadcasting Standards Authority has ruled.

In his Radio Live morning slot on November 18, Mr Laws accused the media of going “mad” over the Teapots Tapes scandal engulfing election coverage and said “if I had a gun I’d shoot them, put them out of their misery”.

He called the Herald on Sunday “rabid” and questioned why somebody hadn’t “taken a shotgun there and cleaned out the entire news room”.

In a majority ruling issued this afternoon, a BSA panel found the part of the diatribe referring to shooting Herald on Sunday journalists breached good taste and decency standards as it had the potential to distress or offend.

This is hardly a surprise. The BSA ruling is here. It was a 3-1 majority decision. The majority said:

In our view, some of the words in the statement embraced specificity. They embraced specific people in a specific target area and they referred to the specific weapon of a shotgun being used to kill these people. When these words are heard or read, they do convey an image of a small group of known and specified people in Auckland being shot. We do not think that the use of metaphor or any attempt at humour was sufficient to disconnect the words used from the reality of the image. We think it likely that there was a conscious effort on the part of Mr Laws to create this image to shock and attract attention but in such a way that it could be passed off as something light and frivolous. It is difficult to achieve both of these objectives, that is, to shock and attract attention with imagery, but to have this imagery being seen as humorous or unreal.

In other words it is okay to talk generally about shooting journalists, but not okay to talk abour shooting specific journalists 🙂

They also note:

There is some irony in Mr Laws, under the mantle of freedom of expression, saying that journalists who expressed views with which he did not agree should be closed down (or “shot”). We see that as being a legitimate manifestation of freedom of expression so long as the language does not go too far.

There is a tendency for some broadcasters, out of a desire to shock, to test the boundaries of acceptability. It is our responsibility to endeavour to determine where the boundaries of acceptability lie. On this occasion we judge the totality of the words used by Mr Laws as having gone too far.

The dissenting view:

I find that Mr Laws’ speech on this occasion fell within the same permissible range as the speech considered in these cases. I do not consider that the “specificity” of Mr Laws’ comments in this case took them beyond what was acceptable. In previous complaints which were not upheld, Paul Henry was specific in his comments about Afghan security forces.¹⁸ Paul Holmes was specific in suggesting Noam Chomsky be shot.¹⁹ Indeed the colloquialism invariably involves a specific candidate, or candidates, for shooting. The target of Mr Laws’ speech was specific (but not to the degree of identifying an individual), and legitimately so, as that necessarily follows given the subject being considered was the media, and specifically the Herald on Sunday, and its behaviour over the “tea tapes” incident.

So other specific references to shooting has not been upheld.

The style of talkback hosts may and does vary widely. The context here is Mr Laws. Like South Park, his programme has its own demographic. His programme is long-running. Mr Laws’ usual listeners would not have been surprised or offended. Others who find him distasteful are sufficiently well informed by the well known nature of his programme to make an informed choice about whether or not to listen.

In other words, don’t listen to Michael if you are going to be offended by him. Sage advice.