Philocon

No they are not running the club John, that is run by its members as it always has been. The people you say you imagine are running it (the club that is) are only running the track and race meetings there. In spite of all the allegations floating around the Manawatu club never got the mix on the track wrong to such an extent or had the scales malfunctioning for successive meetings etc. But why are we discussing these issues here still? Why not move to the sites mentioned earlier on another thread where the site management would be more supportive of the greyhound code, rather than with a new management here that has made it pretty clear they (or he) doesn't care for the code and unlike the previous management regime has no interest in the industry codes working together unless it is to the maximum benefit of his own and at the expense of the other two. Perhaps these threads and discussions could be replicated on those other sites suggested earlier in an environment more conducive to discussion of the code's best interests.

You are both right because it's a combination of both. The pathetic and childish behaviour of some here as Mike says was an embarrassment to serious greyhound proponents and untypical of the majority of the industry. It also ruined serious discussion of issues from admin to breeding etc. However the intervention purporting to clean it up wasn't much different. If you catch children dropping their pants in public, peeing on the footpath, or shoplifting, you don't solve it by first joining in dropping your own pants yourself, peeing with them on the footpath and helping them do a little shoplifting; then announce it is wrong and you are going to punish them. Maybe an alternative forum is the best answer but you'll likely get the same people spoiling that as did here. Hopefully the moderator on such a site has the sense to handle such offenders early and more appropriately than the self appointed sheriff here. If being part owner of a site means you can behave as badly as the worse contributors on the site then there is a strong case to go to another forum. Unfortunately the behaviour of a minority may have put many off going to any discussion forum in future and for those who have not it can take a while to break the habit of the old one and change allegiances. But given time it can happen.

That's part of it all right. Shane Jones according to recent polling is closing the gap rapidly on Sharples and looking like a very winnable candidate. The other thing is that having allowed the very thing they (the Maori Party) criticise previous such events as doing - failing to adequately showcase Maori culture etc - they realise they are heading down the same path again but this time they will cop the blame and be held accountable for it being part of the govt that is involved. So they have come up with this at the last minute to rescue them politically from such accusations by their own supporters. Furthermore it smacks of favouritism and elitism when there are many other iwi in the Auckland region besides Ngati Whatua who could and should have been involved if such a project was to be successful. It also smacks of tokenism, the very thing Maori have been fighting against for years. Promotion of Maori heritage and culture should always be part of any major national or international event hosted here or when NZ is showcased overseas. But it should be integrated and woven into the overall picture, and involve all the iwi that wish to be; not added on at the last minute as an afterthought because it was almost overlooked and almost ghettoising Maoridom with a last minute hastily thought out sideshow and adjunct. I'm no fan of Rodney Hide and ACT but his "blankets and beads" comments resonated on that aspect of the issue. There is a lot wrong with this project but focusing on the cost is a red herring. As Sharples points out it is but a drop in the bucket compared to the overall budget and an alternative would not have cost much less if any. To argue that the money should be spent on health etc is equally pointless as the spending in health, social security budgets etc would also be a drop in the ocean. Following that argument it would be more effective to argue for the cancelling of the entire world Cup project as the millions saved there might have a very small impact on health and other social service budgets. But that's not a viable argument either. The compelling arguments are the ones mentioned - political expediency to save the Maori party and its leader, playing favourites with certain iwi, tokenism, the risk that it could become another tacky sop and insult to Maoridom etc because of the rushed, ad hoc and tacked on nature of it.

Up till the late 1960s early 1970s there were sapling races here for pups over 9 months old and under 12months. They were discontinued about the early 1970s I think because firstly a general consensus was reached that it was too young to race a dog and secondly some trainers would not use good judgement and pushed young dogs further than they should be pushed at that age if we should even contemplate testing a pup that age anyway. I think at that stage the minimum age a dog could race was set at 12 months and it has stayed that way ever since as far as I am aware. There were puppy races for youngsters from 12 to 18 months and I think the rule book for a while recognised this as a specific age group and the races were RA races similar in stature to 2 yr olds in the equine codes. There were several major prestige classic puppy races at that time including the Vetinerary Puppy in Auckland, I think it was the Telmin puppy in the northern region and the Hawera Puppy & Wellington Puppy Championship were some of the features that spring to memory. there were some outstanding performers among these puppies that took no harm from their early racing and went on to experience long and successful careers but again we can't estimate how many with potential might have been 'spoilt' by over eager owners and trainers pushing them forward too early. We only keep track of the good ones not the ones that fail to perform and disappear over the horizon. Puppy races faded out in the 80s for similar reasons to the phasing out of sapling races - seen as encouraging trainers to start some dogs when they may be too young etc. For a while Juvenile races including the age of the old puppy grade but extended to 2yrs or thereabouts I think were not uncommon but they too seem to have gone the way of the old sapling and puppy races. So while the minimum age is 12 months, I don't know anyone in their right mind who would have a dog racing at that age. Starting racing at 14 months is seen sometimes mainly fast early developing and very precocious bitches but again it relies on the trainer's judgement and restraint not to push or over race them. However the general consensus is to not race any younger than 18 months and some dogs may not debut till 2yrs or older but there are exceptions to every natural rule and there are also probably still people around whose impatience to get a dog to the track may exceed the best interests of the dog's long term race career - that can even include starting at an older age as well e.g. 18 months when 2yrs may have been wiser. There are also some dogs usually bitches that may be able to handle racing at 14 months but again it comes down to the trainer's knowledge, experience and judgement. Anything younger than 14 months would probably be seen to be verging on insanity and I can see why Australia has a rule limiting the age to 18months as opposed to our 12. Much of the above is relying on my own experience and judgement so may be open to correction or refinement in some parts but overall I think I have got most of it right from memory.

Another myth that doesn't really stand up under scrutiny. Certainly it could be argued that a substantial number of teachers may support Labour just as a substantial number of lower paid workers also do. Some might even possibly argue that a majority do. I would say that there is strong support for Labour in the teaching unions and amongst many teachers because overall going back to the first Labour govt in 1935, it's record in educational reform and access to education has been better than it's alternative. So much so that most of Labour's educational reforms over the years have remained in place while many of National's have been reversed or severely modified because they had no long lasting support or popularity. Requiring all teachers to achieve in another industry before they teach is a nonsense. At pre-school and primary level their training requires them to be "jack of all trades" taking every subject available in the curriculum. Their training is geared to that. For those coming straight from school they experience the outside world in one way or another. you can't live in a world without experiencing it. When I attended primary teachers coll I had worked in the motor assembly industry, as a factory process worker and the public service for a few years after leaving school, others had different experiences in other occupations, some came straight from school. I doubt if you would find the teaching abilities of any of that group related directly to their backgrounds. In the end it was other qualities that made people good or bad teachers. At secondary and tertiary level specialisation is required and many teachers or lecturers in this sector are recruited from other backgrounds especially in technology and trade subjects. One of my lecturers when I did my computer tech training had worked in the industry for some years, run his own computer business for some time and then did the same course he was now lecturing and tutoring in. One gets a background on how the "'real world' operates" by living in it, not choosing to work in any particular industry.

One's background coming into Parliament is not a major issue except for those wanting to score political points. One of the reasons for having 120 MPs is to ensure a diversity of views and backgrounds among legislators and that generally happens in most parties. Criticisng Labour as having too many teachers, academics or trade unionists in its ranks is as pointless as criticising national for having too many accountants, farmers and large employer reps. The fact is that labour over the years has many form other occupations including accountants, farmers employers etc. The class nature of society and the parties that form as a result will naturally reflect the makeup of those classes. A Prime Minister with an actual accounting background left the country's economy in the worst mess we have seen for decades - RD Muldoon - giving rise to all sorts of draconian experiments and medicines that compounded the problem. Because of the nature of our society career structures most people entering parliament have a very limited experience of life overall depending on their chosen professions and private interests. Thus having a reasonable number of parliamentary seats ensures that the diversity we need in parliament can achieve this. All of us in varying degrees rely on the tax payers, public servants etc. You cannot switch a light on, turn the stove on, walk along the footpath or drive on the road without being dependant on public servants or taxpayers. There was a time when schooling was voluntary so it is not thinking outside the box at all but seeking to return to a past which has been generally long rejected. A past where inequality thrived and access to education was limited and which few people want to return to. If you were to think outside the box then looking at innovative changes to how we educate children and developing teaching theories that work better than current ones is what is really required. By that I do not mean revisiting the old chestnut of vouchers etc which is simple rejigging the access and then not in the best interests of the most vulnerable. I am referring to teaching practice, child learning etc. Also there are many myths around about teacher competency and performance. There are processes that are invoked to deal with poorer performing teachers and it is part of the principal's and the board's job to monitor this. Making it the only criteria in pay and conditions is unlikely to achieve the stated targets as teacher competence is a subjective area and what some regard as a great teachers others might disagree. Where a case is made for poor performance there is a process a principle and board use called running competency and I have seen it used several times. There are also many processes and tools available to monitor teacher performance but the school and its staff are only as good as the principal, his/her management team and the board provides for. Also part of the process is identifying teacher shortcomings and ensuring suitable training professional development etc to either rectify failings or improve existing skills. Teaching is no different from many other occupations in that there are many processes and tools available to principals and boards to reward good performing teachers including promotions etc just like any other workplace. Like all other workplaces teachers are also entitled to the same protection against unfair treatment and dismissal and that includes assessment. Changing the system to only rewarding certain well performed teachers with pay increases opens a bigger can of worms. As assessment has a large subjective component it opens the way to favouritism, internal biases and does not necessarily guarantee that the best teachers will be rewarded. In the hands of the wrong board and principal it can be a step backward. Teachers like other workers whether they are top performers or not still require a reasonable take home pay that keeps pace with the cost of living. If you feel it should work for teachers why not also shop assistants, labourers etc and the entire workforce. As it is staff annual performance assessments take up considerable management time in most public service organisations and many private ones. Having been a manager in both I can attest to that. There are many ways to encourage and reward staff performance without negatively denying some workers annual increments and COL adjustments.

But others are also entitled to challenge them on that, it is also called freedom of speech. Like unacceptance of any group by individuals or other groups there is also a point where it can exceed freedom of speech and becomes abuse as you mentioned or incitement to act violently or unacceptably towards those people. There is a difference to expressing one's opposition to tolerating certain groups and openly encouraging or inciting people to act unacceptability (such as violently) against them.

Most of the research is done using social surveys which are required to be done to an agreed standard amongst the social science community and the first suggestion of it being 10% was the Kinsey Report in 1948 whose findings in many areas have has since been disputed and regarded as suspect. Because Kinsey has been widely debunked in many areas because of his methods and sample groups, some question whether gays are a significant proportion of the population. However surveys following more accepted practice have consistently shown that lesbians, homosexual men and bisexuals of both sexes who have openly declared their sexuality has varied from 1-2% 5-6% to 12 % depending on where the sample is drawn from. Despite all the advances made over the years, we still live in an overall closed minded society and world and many homosexuals are scared to be open about it. So while much of Kinsey's report which has often used as the basis for many people's belief that it is 10% is suspect, the 10% represents a reasonable guestimate based on the many surveys and research conducted over the years. One survey suggested that it may be as high as 20% while others have suggested it could be closer to 1 in 20 than 1 in 10. However whatever survey you care to take, a large percentage of gays are not likely to disclose their sexuality because of the close minded sections of the world they encounter and the prejudice that still exists out their even in the most liberally minded communities. So around 10% is a reasonable and generally accepted estimate that may be lower in some places and higher in others as many gay people will move from the less accepting places to the more accepting. San Francisco is likely to show very different results in a survey than Salt Lake City. It also depends on what your definition of gay is. Most surveys work on the basis that it includes homosexual men, lesbian women and bisexuals of both sexes. Most transgender people don't class themselves as gay.

except that it is not possible in the way modern society is structured for everyone to be able to do that. as for the law only applying to a minority of bad employers, that may well be the case and I think and hope it is. However the criminal law is also designed to deal with a small minority of the population and we don't apply the same logic there. Most restrictive law is designed to restrain the unreasonable, unfair dangerous etc behaviour of a minority and protect the majority from them. Only a minority of jockeys, drivers and greyhound trainers appear before judicial hearings, so we could use the same logic to get rid of stipes and the JCA.

Maybe you should stick to things you know best like racing, because your knowledge of genetics and homosexuality doesn't look too hot. Gene's don't cause one to understand bodily functions of either sex, at least not directly anyway. The brain and the mind does that. It has nothing to do with genes at all. It has to do with attraction to the same sex and there is no known gene that determines that. There has been speculation on whether there is a gene that determines it or not but one has not been isolated yet. Even if it was it only would determine sexual attraction nothing else. Most males have not developed "a gene to understand the makeup of a female and her sexual function'" gay or straight from what I can see. Many straight men elect to "take a a smelly bung hole and make love to it" too. The only difference is it often happens to be a woman's "smelly bung hole". Or do you believe that anal sex is an exclusively gay activity. Still at least you show a bit more tolerance than some of the posters here and you deserve some credit for that.

Nonsense the research shows that those estimates are likely across the whole population. In small rural centres where the population is less tolerant of gay people they are sometimes forced to keep quiet, move away or risk putting up with various forms of social isolation and discrimination, some subtle some not so. Anyway what has Perigo's sexuality got to do with his political perspectives? It is irrelevant. Personally while I might concur with him on some civil liberties and other matters I have little or no time for the neo liberal economics he supports and his attacks on social security, equal access to public health, and other social services, or govt intervention to regulate where the so called free market consistently fails to behave equitably and fairly. But he is entitled to his views and some of his libertarian social views might just rub off on some of the conservative rednecks on this site so long as they don't catch his neo liberal economic virus that wrecked many South American economies, African, Asian, NZ, UK USA and many others - in fact everyone who came in contact with it.

The New Testament Bible stresses turning the other cheek in situations like that. But make sure you pull your trousers back up afterwards.

PS: I love horses..................... But I'd be struggling to eat a whole one at one sitting.

There's not much of a market in this country for dog roll so they don't produce it but the pet food companies make a killing out of rolls made from horsemeat. People seem to accept that it is fine to use horses in pet food but there'd be an outcry if they found out petfood companies were using dogs in the same way. The SPCA in Auckland recently kicked up a helluva stink when some people were found to be eating pet dogs but they are aware that horses are used often in greyhound and pet food. Sounds like most people value greyhounds more highly than horses.

Agree with you once again. I know many who accept the evidence of evolution but still believe in a deity or some sort of supernatural being to start it all. there are many scientists and biologists who accept the fossil evidence etc on evolution and see it as compatible with their religious beliefs.