Minor revamp

Hi all, I've done a minor refurbishment of this place so that the sidebar works, added a number of new blogs and other links, and done some other bits and pieces. Some more changes coming soon.

Greens call for more bans

.

Sue Kedgley can't help herself! Remember PC's post recently on how much the Greens want to ban things (Reading the Bans)? Well add two to the list:

.

- Ads for prescription medicines; and

- Cancer linked pesticides.

.

You see because only NZ and the US allow direct to consumer advertising of medications (which I actually doubt) it must be evil, we know, after all, how many people want to leave the USA and how evil and awful it is to live there. Sue doesn't like people learning about new medications, because you're too stupid to know whether it is worth asking your doctor about them, and he is too inept to say no to your demands to get prescriptions of unlimited viagra or flixotide or whatever else upsets Sue. She presents NO evidence of the freedom of advertising having ill effects, she just hates pharmaceutical companies being able to advertise their heavily regulated products (but she likes vitamins, minerals and all sorts of natural snake oil being advertised).

.

"I am calling on the Government to ban this dangerous practice immediately, and to instead set up an independent medicine and health information service that is free of commercial interests"

.

Well Sue, they are prescription medicines and you can't control people who get controlled drugs from abusing them, except you probably want to ban people from ingesting drugs without direct medical supervision - from a union, state approved culturally safe doctor. So we should be forced to pay for bureaucrats who will be lobbied by pharmaceutical manufacturers to make our decisions for us? Thanks Auntie Sue, don't know how I survived so long without your whip keeping me in line!

.

Then, she wants some pesticides banned because they are clearly killing us all - without evidence beyond saying "Endosulfan has been banned in 20 countries because of its link with breast cancer, its persistence in the environment and because it disrupts the endocrine system." She then is anti-bureaucrat by saying "The food safety authority seems to have a well-rehearsed public relations strategy to deal with any food safety scare other than microbial contamination – namely to downplay the issue, seek to pacify consumers and deny there is any public health risk. "

.

Gee well Sue, maybe there isn't one? Have you any evidence of its harm to people in New Zealand or do you remain the perennial princess of scaremongering?

Unite should fuck off - go McDonalds!

.

Sue Bradford this time, and her solidarity with the Marxist Unite Union, getting upset at McDonald's employees who don't want to join the union.

.

McDonald's has taken the principled and entirely laudable stand as reported by the Green's press release that “As advised at the last meeting, it is likely McDonald’s will decide not to pay the above increases to UNITE members. That is simply because franchisees and McDonald’s are concerned that UNITE’s industrial tactics have the objective and/or effect of damaging the McDonald’s brand and their business and they don’t see any merit in rewarding that behaviour with a pay increase.”

.

Nor should it!! Who wants employees that belong to an organisation out to destroy your business? Franchisees own McDonalds restaurants, putting their OWN MONEY (think hard about the concept Sue) at risk, employeeing people and providing a service. Would Unite employ people who complain about how useless the union is and are anti-union?

.

What is more funny is Sue's outrage saying "McDonald's is attempting to undermine union negotiations for better wages by negotiating directly with non-union staff" . I guess none of the union staff are looking for other jobs regularly are they? Besides why SHOULDN'T McDonalds negotiate directly with non-union staff - the union doesn't represent them because it is (think this one through carefully Sue) their CHOICE not to belong to a union. Choice!! Something you and your commie colleagues opposed when National TWICE introduced it, in 1983 and 1991. You hate people who negotiate directly with the employer, because you don't think those people can look after their best interests - well Unite is arrogant, militant and fortunately employees are not forced by the state to belong to it. There is nothing more democratic than the market - and the market says Unite is not wanted by many McDonald's employees.

.

Sue says:

.

"In the meantime, McDonalds should stop its anti-union tactics, withdraw the meagre offer it has made to non-union staff, and begin genuine negotiations with the union with a view to paying staff realistic wages,"

.

I would say Unite should stop its anti-business tactics, negotiate in good faith to pay employees according to performance and work with McDonalds to improve the success of the whole business. If people working there don't like it, they can go find someone else who has risked their own money to create jobs. If Unite doesn't like it, they can fuck off and so can Sue - let employers and employees negotiate with whoever they want, and are contractually obliged to.

.

Unite is a communist union, on its supersizemypay forum, it has a definition of capitalism that could have come out of North Korea, it is utter drivel. However, go to that forum and post contrary views to the commies - it's good to piss them off.

.

I once worked at McDonalds, I'm not regretting having been fired from it by a lousy boss who was exploitative - nobody has to work there, and nobody has to buy their products. .

.

It's called freedom!

Rachealle Namana - evil bitch

.

There are every so often, entities who make me angry enough to almost support the death penalty - except I don't think it is good enough for them.

.

Rachealle Namana - child killer - is one.

.

Setting aside the four years she spent in prison for ending the life of a baby girl, time she spent partying, taking drugs, downloading porn - because it is "impossible to keep contraband out", much like it is at hotels. You see we can screen people getting on flights, but not people meeting prisoners - but I digress.

.

Namana was pregnant with her 5th child (which, of course, she had no responsibility for) and was "taking out her frustrations" on 18 month old baby girl Hinewaoriki Karaitiana-Matiaha, known as Lillybing (pictured). Of course, her stepsister Terina Matiaha (Lillybing's "mother") would leave Lillybing with Namana repeatedly for long periods - so there is another unaccountable bitch. The existence Lillybing experienced, of a mother who didn't give a damn, and an auntie who abused her were clearly not the whole story. Lillybing had been delivered to Namana on 20 July 2000, without nappies - so Namana attempted to toilet train her by creating steps to the adult toilet, and smacking Lillybing's legs to make her go up. The next day Namana and her sister noticed a bloody discharge from her vagina but decided not to report it to the doctor - obviously fearing either one of them, or another of the extended family could be held accountable for abusing a baby girl.

.

"The toddler fell many times during the day and on one occasion sustained a large lump on her forehead. Following this she lost consciousness at least twice. Both sisters being trained in first aid, they applied an ice pack to the wound. This was followed with the application of a cloth soaked in boiling water, which burnt a layer of skin from below her eyes to the top of her forehead". Stupidity? or torture? Plain fucking evil letting a child be ill, lose conscious and then burn its forehead.

.

That night Namana and her sister spent some time at the local pub - hey, may as well have some fun while a child has been tortured.

.

"When Lillybing woke, the lump she had received the day before had become dark and the burn on her face was likened to a drying grass burn. She was unable to stop falling over and complained a lot." Namana got angry at Lillybing because she was crying a great deal and shook her violently, causing a brain haemmorhage that ended her life. She had a hematoma on her forehead, severe scald burns to her entire forehead, the top of her head, cheeks and eyelids, bruising to her chin, mouth, and loose teeth, cuts on her legs and thighs. It remains a mystery as to why Lillybing has suffered severe abdominal bruising and vaginal injuries, it doesn't really bear thinking about what vile entity is responsible for that.

.

So there you have it, Namana smacked her about, applied boiling water to her head, left her alone while going to the pub, ignored her vaginal injuries and shook her about because the poor baby girl was in agony and crying. Had Namana sold cannabis, or had this been a man who abducted Lillybing and tortured her, it would have been a different story - but Namana is a woman who killed a baby girl. Not intentionally, but recklessly and she couldn't really have given a damn.

.

So when a Labour Cabinet Minister tells you that this government is tough on crime - look at Namana, she got four years, enjoyed her time in prison and has no regrets. She didn't commit a sexual offence so there is no pressure to register her, or have her name and address notified - yet she is as abusive as any child molester or rapist - and should never be allowed near children ever again - but she is. Instead, Labour banned men who when 16 had consensual underage sex with their 15yo girlfriends from being bus drivers - because it is universally outrageous that men sexually abuse children - unfortunately, women physically abusing children is not seen as so serious.

.

Women's prisons are a joke if what Namana said is endemic, and one only wonders how Tania Witika, who is many times more evil than Namana, enjoys prison life.

.

So do you want the state to protect children from the likes of Namana and stop her from ever being a parent? I do - her sentence should have included a permanent ban on custody of children - as it should for all child abusers.

.

Lillybing's case

Nanny's ever creeping hand.... while she allows scum to party at our expense

.

The oppression of adult smokers continues with Julian Pistorius blogging about a proposal in New South Wales to ban smoking in cars!! Your own private property, your own space – well, given so many acquiesce to it being banned in businesses you own, its only natural that the anti-liberty brigade would choose cars next. Not exactly rocket science to figure out what is next. The idea, you see, is to protect children. Now this is easy to understand by motive – see I have asthma and both my parents smoked at home until my late teens – something they both regret now. It would be preferable if parents didn’t smoke around their children. It would be preferable if parents did lots of things and didn't do others - the things is there are laws to prohibit parents neglecting, physically and sexually abusing their children. They do little to stop it happening, but it does mean they are brought to account.

.

Now you know my opinion on smoking, I hate it personally, but believe it is up to adults to decide what they put into their own bodies, and whether or not they allow smoking on their property. That was explained in my post on the forthcoming ban in England.

.

This call for banning smoking in cars - to protect children - is far more insidious. The road to hell is paved with good intentions - and the means to this end are terrifying indeed. How is this going to be enforced? Are you going to be fined and stopped by cops for smoking in your own car? Remember the odds are that if your car is stolen it will get next to no police attention, but ohhhhh smoke in it - then you're in trouble, breaking Nanny State's Parenting Laws.

.

This can't be the end though - you see, if parents are to be controlled according to what is harmful to their children, what next will it be? After all, the harm caused by exposure to tobacco smoke in cars would be minor. Banning smoking everywhere must be next. Then limits on alcohol storage and consumption by parents? Regulations on storing poisons and knives? Regulations to prohibit male parents being alone with their children (sex abuse). How about a daily diet ration for children so parents don’t feed them too little, too much or the wrong food? How about banning books that are suitable only for adults in parents' houses? After all - it is for children - what's more important than protecting children from negligent or harmful parents?
.
Oh I forgot to say, the Bill to ban smoking in cars covers ALL cars, whether you're a parent or not - after all, can't be TOO careful when we are protecting people from themselves?

.

So who wants to do this? Political correct socialists? No. The Reverend Fred Niles, well known NSW evangelist MP who leads the Christian Democrats and hates homosexuals and wants to ban Muslim clothing. Fred clearly thinks that the state should regulate parenting.

.

Of course we know the Maori Party would condone this – being the fascist bullies who want to ban smoking. Lindsay Mitchell and ZealandWhinge both blogged on this. The Maori Party wants to "protect children" by taking away the rights of adults - seeing the state as parents of Maori who it does not think can make their own minds up themselves.

.

So think, if you're a non-smoker - what does banning smoking in cars mean? What does it mean that there are people wanting to expand the justice system's role into prosecuting smokers - when at the same time, a woman can kill a baby girl and get four years of prison she describes as "It's not as hard as people make out". The Sunday Star Times reports how she enjoyed drugs, porn and partied in prison - if the Maori Party can't get viscerally outraged by the entity that killed Lillybing like it gets outraged by smoking, then it can't even pretend to have any interest in the issues that truly hurt Maori people.

.

and you might think about where state priorities should be.... smoking, or child killers?