http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWvyp5eEPyY
Thursday, 30 May 2013
First Snow Dunedin May 2013
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5o-H-C14SQs
You'll need to copy & paste link as Blog App doesn't enable me to insert HTML link.
Camp Columba Father & Son weekend
We had a great time building rafts & bivouacs, riding motorbikes, shooting paintballs and generally doing blokes stuff.
Check out the 75m water slide!
Morning Tea Today
"Thanks Dialysis Lolly & Blair" Lolly is one of our RN's. We made short work of the cake over coffee!
Thursday, 23 May 2013
New 'standard' set for the defence of criminal behaviour by NZ Police
I haven't read the Independent Police Complaints Authority report into the conduct of NZ Police concerning their 2007 Urewera raids as a result of concern about the activities of certain Maori Activists.
Interestingly the Police accept that their conduct was illegal as stated in the report. Not surprisingly, those affected by the NZ Police conduct want accountability, "heads must role" said one woman.
What really concerned me was the response of the NZ Police Commissioner, when in reply to this demand, he was reported to have said, "no police will be held accountable for all our staff acted professionally and in good faith."
So, if I understand him correctly it doesn't matter if one breaks the law, is proven to have done so and even admits to one's guilt! All that matters is the manner in which one went about one's law breaking. So long as one is professional about it & goes about it in good faith it's ok! Sounds like ignorance of the law could even be a defence after all.
Tuesday, 21 May 2013
Eye Eye
Over the weekend Alana was in Twizel for rock climbing competitions and on
Sunday she won a spot prize – a whole Mt Cook Salmon. By the time she got home
it had started to defrost, so tonight we baked it and enjoyed every morsel – what
a treat.
After tea, Sam started dissecting the salmon, looking at the spine and then
freaking Danielle out by placing the salmons eye on her plate. Such comments as
“we’re keeping an eye on you” were heard while Danielle squealed with disgust.
Sam then dissected the eye, suggesting that he might glue the other eye to
Danielle’s door. Blair then dared Sam to do a ‘Fear Factor’ challenge and eat
the eye. As you can imagine, there were varied reactions and squawks. Blair
upped the challenge by offering Sam $10 for a successful chew and swallow of the
eye. Considering Sam is a food texturephobe we thought we were pretty safe in
our dares. But to our complete surprise, Sam popped that little eye in, gave it
a decent chew and down it went!!!!!!
So you never know what your kids will do!
Sunday, 19 May 2013
Exhausted but thrilled
Alana has been away in Twizel this weekend at a rock climbing weekend. No photos yet as they were all taken by one person so still to come. Alana was worried about the expense (actually not too bad at all) of the weekend and initially wasn't going to go. She has had a wonderful time. When she presented us with the following we were stunned. The value of her prize almost approaches that of the weekend! Have a look at this beautiful Mt. Cook Alpine Salmon!!
Saturday, 11 May 2013
Out of the mouths of babes
For a few months now Paige had had a wee imaginary friend called, "Bubby." Where ever Paige goes and whatever she does Bubby does as well.
When Ann took Danielle to Alexandra for camp Bubby went. Unfortunately Bubby fell out of the car and had to be scooped up in Ettrick on their way back through!
Tonight after tucking Paige in she exclaimed that Bubby wasn't in bed! "Yes she is" I replied I saw her hop in before you got in. We prayed and then I tickled Paige, managing to slip my hands out, wiggling my fingers and saying, "that must have been Bubby."
Paige looked me straight in the eyes and said with the most amused grin on her face, "Daddy, Bubby's not real!" I was totally flawed by this comment for I was convinced Paige believed she, Bubby, was real.
Which is just as well because apparently Ann ran over her in the car earlier this week.
Thursday, 9 May 2013
Comment on the Charities Registration Board's decision to de-register Family First as a charity.
Open letter to the Board of the Charities Registration Board.
On what basis and what evidence has the judgement been made that Family First is of no public benefit?
Family First gives voice to the views of a significant number of New Zealanders whom otherwise would cease to have their views heard and would be increasingly silenced in today's changing society.
The fact that societies values may change does not therefore mean that a certain sector of society should cease to have a voice in the public debate on values in NZ. In fact representation becomes all the more important and of public benefit. Just because a particular group may not represent a majority group, or what is perceived as main stream, does not disqualify it from being of public benefit.
Family First serves the public good because it seeks to represent those New Zealanders whose views are being disregarded and becoming marginalised; values and beliefs that for years have underpinned our society. For this reason Family First's work is of greater significance when it comes to public benefit than, for example the NZ Vegan Society, but that doesn't mean the latter (a registered charity) is of absolutely no benefit and so should be de- registered and nor should Family First. The decision of the Charities Registration Board appears to be an anti-democratic one and how does that serve the public good?
Family First gives voice to the views of a significant number of New Zealanders whom otherwise would cease to have their views heard and would be increasingly silenced in today's changing society.
The fact that societies values may change does not therefore mean that a certain sector of society should cease to have a voice in the public debate on values in NZ. In fact representation becomes all the more important and of public benefit. Just because a particular group may not represent a majority group, or what is perceived as main stream, does not disqualify it from being of public benefit.
Family First serves the public good because it seeks to represent those New Zealanders whose views are being disregarded and becoming marginalised; values and beliefs that for years have underpinned our society. For this reason Family First's work is of greater significance when it comes to public benefit than, for example the NZ Vegan Society, but that doesn't mean the latter (a registered charity) is of absolutely no benefit and so should be de- registered and nor should Family First. The decision of the Charities Registration Board appears to be an anti-democratic one and how does that serve the public good?
Many churches would feel there is much common ground between the values of Family First and their members. Are churches next on the list for de-registration for not being of sufficient public benefit? After all their views, it could be argued, are seen as antiquated, of less relevance to today's society (in some people's minds) and their numbers are declining. (That in itself is not how public benefit ought to be defined). If churches are not next for de-registration, in the light of the Family First decision, why not?
Your decision is a grave misjudgement.
To say that Family First only invites people to its events / conferences that represent its views is factually incorrect when one considers the broad spectrum of political speakers that have attended such events in the past. The invited attendees / speakers are a matter of public record: Sue Bradford, Phil Goff, John Key, the Children's Commissioner. Such people are from a diverse political spectrum and certainly would not participate with groups whose purpose is indoctrination, as the Board has put it.
Having said that it should be of no surprise that organisations generally do seek the views of those who are supportive. That said I believe Family First can easily evidence its willingness to engage both sides of the debate on a wide variety of issues that affect NZ families.
Charitable groups which seek to be of public benefit must engage with the political process and engage in challenging the debate surrounding the issues and political decisions affecting the lives of NZ families. This does not make them single issue political pressure groups and therefore irrelevant, of no public benefit, to what is arguably an increasingly pluralistic society of tolerance and inclusion. Not that the de-registration decision reflects this at all. This decision appears to be one of political intolerance and political correctness.
The onus is on the Charities Registration Board, and its decision makers, to prove the objective basis for this decision and to hold it up in the light of other recent and comparable decisions. I put the challenge to the Board to be open, honest, consistent and transparent about the processes followed that lead to this outcome.
It is my view that the Board is there to serve society, and serve the public good, and not to drive any one political agenda. I believe there would be shock and surprise at the Board's decision to de-register Family First from a wide range of New Zealanders of various persuasions.
What recourse, or right of appeal, is there for Family First to pursue in order to challenge this decision of the Charities Board?
Respectfully
Blair Donkin
Dunedin
Wednesday, 8 May 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
