New Zealand’s a wonderful place you know

There’s parts of the world where thousands dying of starvation, or some ghastly plague, merits not even a line or two in the media. And then there’s places, as Bernard Levin once observed about the regulation of TV advertising, where the biggies have been dealt with. Levin’s point was to glory in a society where an official body actually adjudicated upon whether a potato crisp manufacturer could claim to have crunchier crisp than a rival. Only in a society that had dealt with the biggies could that be possible.

And so we come to New Zealand and one of today’s leading stories:

Mystery pooper back in action

3News NZ  – ‎1 hour ago‎
A mystery pooper who has been striking pools in the south of the country has been in action again today. This afternoon, swimmers had to get out of Moana Pool in Dunedin and the Splash Palace complex in Invercargill after faeces were found in the water.
A society in which some random nutter crapping in swimming pools (over 6 weeks!) is front page news can indeed claim to have solved most of life’s problems. Congratulations to New Zealand.

36 thoughts on “New Zealand’s a wonderful place you know”

  1. Actually “PM goes to Lindt Café” possibly meets Levin’s test even better.

    Personally I would have vacated the public baths when instructed; I would have been the very first out of the Splash Café!

  2. I once wrote the specification for the management of a public swimming pool, and the amount of faecal matter allowed was about the size of one small to medium sized human turd.

  3. Such news stories could reflect a slightly different reality though: a media class distracting the people with trivia while suppressing issues of real national interest. I’m sure we can all think of an example from our shores.

    Still in this case New Zealamd really is a quiet and pleasant place to live.

  4. NZ is a govt-controlled shadow of what it might be. They have far worse troubles and concerns for their future than shite in pools. Shite floats and –in NZ as everywhere else—the biggest turds are at the top.

  5. Steve, this is just brilliant!

    “…we, in Unite, will not go gently into the night. We will rage against the dying of the light. We will drive forward with modern technology and use it to increase turnouts in our ballots without being shackled by prescriptions – such as postal ballots – imposed in another age. We are not going to let the Tories destroy our democracy by shackling us to archaic procedures.”

    Dinosaurs vote for asteroid strike!

    But as Cameron isn’t you, the twat will ignore it.

  6. Rob,

    It’s really that they can’t be bothered. If it’s not on a press release, or around the corner, or raised by a political party, or can be lifted from blogs/twitter they don’t report it.

  7. There are a small number of laws based on the Golden Rule that should stand. The rest are tyranny. Laws that say you cannot meet with or represent your members (in the case of trade unions) are just as much tyranny as a law saying all blogs have to be govt approved and all comments under real names. McLusky is correct to tell the Tories to stuff their law just as the ciggie makers would be correct to tell Camdog to stuff his plain packets and supermarkets to tell him to wrap the ciggie packets in free platic bags before he shoves them up his arse. If you obey “laws” of that kind you will get tyranny by legislation that is all. A shame Unions are run by socialist scum but there it is.

  8. For that matter a shame that the Conservative party is run by middle-class Marxist scum but there it is.

  9. @Theophrastus, but that amount of fecal matter would’ve been spread out over the whole swimming pool rather than a single turd.

    Spread out over the whole pool, the NTU would be very low and probably not changed by the dirt from dead skin cells and other crap. #ShowsHisKnowledgeOfWaterSampling

  10. Mr Ecks:“Laws that say you cannot meet with or represent your members (in the case of trade unions) …”

    Agreed, but we don’t have those. And we aren’t ever likely to.

  11. The laws are designed to make it more difficult to represent their members if they do not comprise an outright ban.

    There is no need for such laws. The only place that Unions still have much presence is the public sector and as a cause of the UK’s ongoing decline they are way down the list. Financing ZaNu is their worst crime and these laws won’t (and shouldn’t) affect that. PCS the civil service union isn’t affiliated to and does not pay toward ZaNu. The members money–without them being asked–goes to Ritchie and that is bad enough. These laws are just the BlueRat trying to masquerade as if his gang retain some shade of their former shelves. “Yeah–we’ll bash those “Reds”” –says the Guardian-slurping, PC/UAF supporting, femmi-sucking upper class cultural Marxian macro-puke.

  12. “says the Guardian-slurping, PC/UAF supporting, femmi-sucking upper class cultural Marxian macro-puke”

    But he speaks jolly highly of you Mr Ecks.

  13. SBML:

    Correct. Of course, all the kiwis needed to do was to use a blender, and there would have been nothing much to worry about.

    That said, ever since I wrote that specification, I find myself wondering just what is floating off my neighbour in a swimming pool…

  14. JuliaM – If David Cameron was me, I’d vote for his party again.

    Mr Ecks – here’s what has Len McCluskey wanting to man the barricades:

    Introduce a 50% turnout threshold for strikes. This will effectively mean any strike will need a double majority to be lawful: an absolute majority of those eligible to vote participating in the ballot and a simple majority in favour of industrial action.

    Seems fair enough to me. Why should a minority be able to take a million public sector workers on strike without the consent of the majority?

    Reform picketing rules to make the current code of practice on pickets legally binding, and make illegal picketing a criminal offence. This would not take away the right to picket, but it would limit how, where and why picketing can take place. The Conservatives claim they want to “better protect those who want to come to work”.

    Seems reasonable. Note Mr McCluskey’s objection is: “scabs will be licensed to break strikes.”

    He wants to retain the ability to bully and abuse people who show up at work during a strike. People just trying to earn a fair day’s wage. People he dehumanises by calling them “scabs”. A vile, hateful word, used by vile, hateful people.

    Force unions to provide specific details about the nature of the dispute and a requirement to vote on each aspect of the dispute. It would also require unions to set out clearly the form of the proposed action on the ballot paper (eg time of year, length)

    Why shouldn’t they?

    Extend the notice period unions are required to give employers from seven days to 14 days before industrial action.

    14 days is an appropriate period of notice.

    Remove the requirement to trigger action within four weeks of a ballot and set a firm time limit of three months on the duration of the mandate.

    Another sensible requirement. Nobody – except hard-left union bosses – wants to drag out labour disputes longer than necessary.

    Personally, I’d be inclined to get rid of all trade union legislation, and restore their absolute right to organise and strike (but not picket, or disrupt) as they see fit… as long as employers have an absolute right to sack on the spot any employee for any reason they choose, including bolshy trade union agitation.

    But we don’t have that system: trade unions have legal privileges in our society, especially now that most of their members are in the public sector – so are difficult to sack even when they’re hopeless at their jobs. It’s right that their activities should be tempered by legal responsibilities.

    If they don’t like state regulation when it applies to them, maybe they should stop demanding state regulation be imposed on the rest of us.

  15. Seems fair enough to me. Why should a minority be able to take a million public sector workers on strike without the consent of the majority?

    Strangely we don’t use the absolute majority principle to elect MPs and Prime Ministers, nearly all of whom would fail the test.

    Ecks is correct. All these laws are a violation of the basic right of free association and for organisations to choose their own rules. Just because it’s people you don’t like under attack, doesn’t make such laws unjust. Nobody is forced to join a union and can leave it if they don’t want to join a strike, just as anyone can choose to not voluntarily participate in any organisation.

    Give me the right to reject the laws made by a government elected on the largest minority of those who voted (rather than a majority of the eligible electorate) and I’ll at least stop calling them dirty hypocritical bastards.

  16. IanB

    “Nobody is forced to join a union and can leave it if they don’t want to join a strike, just as anyone can choose to not voluntarily participate in any organisation.”

    You are being naive. The social pressure or intimidation to join a union and its strikes is often enormous. I have crossed picket lines and been jeered and spat at, and I was junior management, not a scab.

  17. Steve–They are all methods designed to make it nearly impossible for employees to have a dispute with management. In a laissez-faire world where they are plenty of jobs then you can tell your employer to get stuffed and go somewhere else. In the dying corporate socialist shithole we live in that is not so easy.

    Disputes arise and the vast majority are not the result of socialist agitation. I stand second to nobody on this blog in my hatred of socialism and my desire to see it utterly destroyed and it is a tragic circ that socialism has taken over the leadership of UK unions and the Tory party. That said few disputes are political and many are caused by the underhand antics of arsehole bosses. I hate injustice and bullying as much as I hate socialism. These bullshit laws are written to make it impossible for a trade dispute to take place. If similar antics were applied to prevent ordinary people going to the courts for redress it would receive massive condemnation from all sides. If similar measures were applied to harass and stop BlueGreenLabour windmill crookery the middle-class shouting would be heard in as far as Pol’s Umbrian villa.

    It is not only socialist numpties who seem to have some sort of automatic default response evoking loss of reason and common sense–Thatcher on one side/ Unions on the other.

  18. Ian B – Strangely we don’t use the absolute majority principle to elect MPs and Prime Ministers, nearly all of whom would fail the test.

    Yar, but we’re not talking about electing people to public office. We’re talking about under what circumstances a trade union can lawfully shut down large parts of the public sector or business.

    Asking them to obtain an absolute majority doesn’t seem unjust to me. If their cause is serious enough to strike over, they’ll get an absolute majority.

    BTW, I’d be quite happy if we elected MP’s on the same system.

  19. Steve-

    It’s a rule based not on a reasoned principle of justice, but on making whatever rule will get a desired outcome. That’s something I’d have thought people would generally oppose here. It’s no different in spirit from “taxing bankers because we don’t like bankers”. It’s Tory Ritchie-ism.

    Like Ecks, I thoroughly dislike these people and what they stand for. But if I cannot stand up for the rights of those I dislike, I’ve no right to stand up for my own.

    I wonder how many MPs would be happy with the right to an absolute majority referendum to allow them to pass any law? Not many, I’ll bet. They are not interested in people power, or justice. And if the government has problems with its own labour force, it is not a matter for laws, but management. Industrial disputes in the private sector are not a matter for the government at all.

  20. The trade union business is awfully simple: we should go with FDR’s policy – unions of government employees are not recognised.

  21. @steve – “Asking them to obtain an absolute majority” ,

    if this (is it?) “an absolute majority of those eligible to vote participating in the ballot and a simple majority in favour of industrial action.”

    then its an absolute quarter only.

    A union should be able to call its members out unconditionally, but should exercise that power carefully, and the members of the union should accept ultimate responsibility for their union.

    Its usually something properly bad that causes staff to strike.

  22. So Much for Subtlety

    Ian B – “Nobody is forced to join a union and can leave it if they don’t want to join a strike, just as anyone can choose to not voluntarily participate in any organisation.”

    It is a more complex question for public sector unions, which are, more or less, the only ones left. Because it is not the government’s money they are playing with. It is mine. When I worked for the government, back in the day, at least, it was still compulsory to join the Union.

    As for TW’s larger point, this is just Francis Fukuyama’s claim in The End of History. Democracy makes countries boring. Was he ripping of Bernard Levin? I don’t object to everything FF writes, but I think Levin was a much greater intellectual.

  23. @SMFS: “It is a more complex question for public sector unions, which are, more or less, the only ones left. Because it is not the government’s money they are playing with. It is mine. When I worked for the government, back in the day, at least, it was still compulsory to join the Union.”

    That is interesting stuff to know about you, SMFS, if it is true.

    So SMFS worked for the government and claims that s/he was compelled to join a union. That’s called a “closed shop”, outlawed in UK law since 1990. A year previously, “closed shop” had been closed off in other EU nations. But SMFS was a victim.

    So SMFS was 17 or 18 years of age in 1990? Or is s/he just making stuff up?

  24. So Much for Subtlety

    Charlieman – “That is interesting stuff to know about you, SMFS, if it is true.”

    Happy to please Chuckles.

    “So SMFS was 17 or 18 years of age in 1990? Or is s/he just making stuff up?”

    Actually I can remember saying “All this talk of a People’s Budget is fine, Dave, but if you don’t do something about the Trades Unions you will regret it, you daft Taffy bastard”. But he didn’t listen to me.

  25. So SMFS was 17 or 18 years of age in 1990?

    Not sure I grasp the logic there. When I worked for my local authority, it was still compulsory to join the union. (Until I contravened union policy, was “invited” to a meeting with the committee, and was threatened with withdrawal of my card. I handed it over and walked out of the meeting.) That was in 1983, when I was much older than 18.

  26. I can’t say as to local govt but there has been no closed shop in the Civil Service ever to my knowledge.

  27. I was assuming that SMFS is younger than early 40s, which would be the minimum age to have worked when closed shop was legal in the UK.

    Like Mr Ecks, I’m not aware of the closed shop operating in the Civil Service (very unlikely after 1979, I’d guess) but I am keen to read informed comment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *