• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Sandpiper last won the day on January 19 2013

Sandpiper had the most liked content!

About Sandpiper

  • Rank
    Maiden - R50

Recent Profile Visitors

630 profile views
  1. Expect more website fuckups as IP around the chain of bandaids to the legacy systems migrates out the door
  2. Redundancies are not expensive (compared to paying wages the business cant justify for further months). Are you saying TAB cant even get a bridging loan to pay people out? If they can blow 50 mil plus 20 mil p.a. on a website Im sure they can unfurl a few parachutes.
  3. Hard luck kloppite we had it between us
  4. I can see how time limiting bonus bets would appeal to marketing depts trying to increase 'engagement'. They assume though that punters care about their service enough to remember. They don't. Its hubris. Im picking they aren't being sneaky dicks in this instance. Perhaps theyll note the feedback and put a sensible time limit on the bonusses, and also send punters a notification before bonus bet expiry. That would be the classy thing to do.
  5. Mike you could do worse than kickback and look into the form with a nice sancerre.
  6. She has come out of the race well and takes the logical path forwards onto the 1000 Guineas next week, aiming to beat Can I Get An Amen home and reclaim the title of best maiden in NZ.
  7. With the history of failed infratructure planning it doesn't seem unreasonable if anyone has the political leverage to demand to go to the front of the queue. A 20 year package is going to survive a number of governments all wrapped up in ribbons and unchallenged? That's a good one. As it happens, any decent solution would have rail also going through Mt Vic anyway. Just share a fecking tunnel. And the Basin can go, if you're dumb enough to put a stadium on / build non futureproofed roads around the site of an obvious future choke point you can't moan later about losing the history.
  8. In a police chase if you go fast enough the cops will back off for safety of all involved and surrounding. I believe its the same logic being applied.
  9. Standard collective brainfades off a slow pace .. been a few years since we had such a scenario in the cup. Doesn't take long to get complacent! The ride on Vow And Declare put a lot of the other jocks to shame. Nothing extraordinary, simply ordinary elsewhere. On the overhead you can see how few jocks are choosing to risk doing anything with their mount at all other than let it sit wherever it happens to break and settle. Vow And Declare was a decent result for me but I really didn't fancy him any more come post time and wouldn't even back him again tomorrow at 20s, that's how good the ride was. Anyone on any of the fast finishers can could themselves pretty unlucky. Funny game.
  10. 1st Constantinople 2nd Mustajeer Last Hunting Horn
  11. Idk what happened there ^ . Anyways... Obviously true. But crucially and just as obviously not always the case, hence this whole discussion. Sorry to hear that. If you were aware of likelihood of harm to self or others, yes to some extent for sure. Since in that case he should not have been out of line of sight supervision. Or at work at all, or with access to heavy machinery. At least without professional assessment first. Mentally unstable individuals operating heavy machinery... uh huh. Is the airline to blame? What? This is absurd whataboutism. What about cheesegrater manufacturers when someone grates a baby to death? Fisher and Paykel when someone makes microwave kitten? But omg cute kittens and babies. Omg cute todders. It depends. Perhaps in your anarchic world it is ok for parents to let clueless 3 foot idiots over whom they hold full dominion and responsibility wander among the wheels of cars. Not in mine. Of course the parents have some responsibility, what the actual fuck? Just because we feel sorry for them and know it could have happened to us doesn't change that. Likewise, perhaps the driver was just 'unlucky'. Who could have expected a child to be there, in a childcare carpark? Did the driver know mirrors dont cover all the angles, were they even using them, did they choose to park somewhere with good visibility, did they choose to drive in bonnet first and thereby back out when there would likely be more foot traffic later, were they distracted. And so on. As for the centre, they have a more indirect role to play. Traffic guardians are an interesting point, and obviously employed by schools who have a more concentrated peak time before and after school. Daycare has more dribs and drabs pick ups and drop offs for a typically smaller role so very uneconomic in comparison. I think daycare has an educational responsibility to either be clear that their care starts and ends at their front door, or take some measures. And if they own the car park, they have no choice. At the very least take time to consider possible issues and have a forum for this. For example are there issues around the layout of their carpark, ideally design them away - fence off cars from people, have cars going in one direction only, etc. Assuming car park is preexisting, what areas might cause a problem: is there a play area across the street that might cause kids to run out, is the gate secure, are there corners or other blindspot for drivers and so on. See no evil hear no evil is not the way forwards. Sounds like a lot of trouble to go to? Good drivers will be fine? Hubris is a thing, many self declared good drivers kill others needlessly. Many good trainers have jockeys die on their premises. Are some deaths inevitable? Probably. One thing is for sure, regardless of all the car park controls outlined above, if you are driving appropriately in a childcare car park you will never kill a child. Never. Its not about McKee.
  12. It depends what happened of course. If the young girl were an employee of the skifield then it is a comparable scanario. The skifield absolutely must have appropriate controls in place to prevent harm. If a teenager who could not ski well had been allowed to go out alone to signpost a black trail before coming a cropper, and the skifield had poor systems in place to manage that risk, the skifield is vastly to blame there. If you're talking about tourism well whats the point as it has nothing to do with the situation here. Do you really think an employee demanding to do anything in a place of work forms any kind of a reasonable excuse for an employer? Who is in control in that situation? Please.
  13. Truly astounding victim blaming. Who is the person responsible here in this workplace, the "young lass", or the people running the business? There's a fact you should get straight before gobbing off. Yours is a shocking response, and cowardly. As if the family are even reading this and about to try to pounce on you for libel. They have far more fucking pressing matters. Assuming the trainer isnt now cup in hand on queen st what effort is required now to maintain the systems they should have had in place beforehand? Thats another fact you should have before gobbing off. Because if it is actually something - holy horseshit - reasonable that would prevent overenthusiastic/overconfident employees putting themselves in unreasonable danger then that would make a lie of the whole 'scandal', wouldn't it. And what if the fine doesn't turf the operation out onto queen st? Or even come close? What if (hypothetically speaking, not being at liberty to divulge) it represents a small proportion of the business assets? Well then, hypothetically, you'd be left with a dinosaur raging at the clouds and lumping weasel-worded misery onto a family guilty of having an overenthusiastic 19 year old daughter left in the care of a 30 year industry veteran professional.
  14. Some mug the handicapper is giving you a point back on that latest effort. If you can get one of those useless weight lumpers to start toppie in the cup he'll scoot home.