Revisionist Media

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4570410/Ariana-Grande-concert-ahead.html
I don’t know any of Ariana’s songs but I’ve always thought she was awesome on Sam and Cat and Victorious, a brilliant actress. I was really saddened by the terrorist attack at her concert a couple of weeks ago. Kids were killed or maimed on a fun night out and awaiting parents were killed or injured, heartbreaking stories. It wasn’t Ariana’s fault her concert was targeted for an attack and no one could blame her for what happened that night but what she has done since that night has me in awe of her brilliance.

Straight after the incident Ariana left the country and simply Tweeted she was broken. She genuinely seemed devastated by what happened. She didn’t try and grab the limelight she shared her grief and kept away from the media. Then she contacted the families and offered to pay for the funerals. She organized a benefit concert and gave free tickets to those who were at the concert that night and with the tickets sold raised $2million for the victims of the attacks. Plus she visited the victims in hospital and it would have had a much more positive impact when she visited , unannounced without media presence, than had she visited straight after the attack before the victims had had time to mentally process what had happened to them. Ariana even mentioned some of the fans who were victims during the concert. Ariana is a hero. It must have been so hard to come back after what happened, she was very brave. It would have been hard to see the victims and their families, but she did it. I’m sure a publicist told her what to do but she carried it out and was so respectful to the victims and their families, it seemed to be all about the victims not about her and her image. 

I have so much respect for this celebrities actions around this attack. So many stars seem to do things just for the headlines, to get their face on magazines, but Ariana seems so genuine. She is so talented and so respectful to others. I hope she continues to spread kindness to others and her attitude sets a good example to everyone.

http://i.stuff.co.nz/national/92493924/under-the-line-a-mothers-struggle-to-put-food-on-the-table

You know the left wing run the media when your commonsense comments to an article never get printed and this article is an example of that. I queried about the comment of how all her partners income went on the mortgage yet there is no mention of what happened to the house when they broke up. As her partner of clearly more than 2 years given they have four kids together, she is entitled to half their assets. Given they lived in Mangere, a suburb of Auckland, their house prices would have skyrocketed as they have been steadily increasing over the past 10 years as this article shows http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11344724. How much money they made depends on how long ago they brought their house but they must have been sitting on a goldmine. They separated three years ago so the property split should have come to a resolution by now, but no mention, maybe it got eaten up in lawyers fees through custody battles, but why is her owning a house completely disregarded? That would be because it’s hard to say someone lives in poverty when they own a house. To me this story is pointless when you don’t know what happened to the house that even had they brought with 100% finance would have gone up by likely 100k so they must have had at least $100k equity. So with this kind of equity in a home any poverty should be short term whilst things get settled.

I also find the abusive story hard to believe when she had four children with the guy. Having kids when you are in an abusive relationship is irresponsible and simply abuse to your children. I have a friend who is separated from his wife and she claimed abuse and when I asked he said it was emotional abuse because he was tight with the finances and occasionally yelled at the kids when they misbehaved. (Everyone yells at their kids when they misbehave!) The court gave her full custody and she moved cities which has him spending a fortune on petrol driving 3 hours each way to see the kids, on accommodation when he goes to see the kids and for any family court hearings, $20k on lawyers to see his kids and she is racking up the legal aid probably at the same level as him so if they do get back together, which she will if he moves to the city near her parents – where there is no work for his skills, then he will be responsible for her debt too. You can see why he had to control the finances, she doesn’t have a clue. She has never worked and he brought all the money into the relationship. So I have my reasons for doubting people who call abuse. But assuming the abuse was so bad that she had to move cities, why didn’t she move somewhere there was work in her field rather than needing to retrain? And Nelson is beautiful, that’s why it’s so expensive, still cheaper than Auckland but there is a lot of other places to go that are cheaper than Nelson.

Finally, when you have four kids to feed, why would you start doing a degree. Work to feed your family! I completely understand wanting to better yourself and wanting to get a degree that interests you, I would love to further my study too, but right now my kids come first and providing for them is my number one priority. Plus, I have a family member who recently completed a social work degree, great worker, fantastic personality, yet she couldn’t find work and is still doing the work she did prior to getting her qualification so there is no shortage of social workers, so she has no guarantee of work afterwards. In Nelson, a place many go to retire, there is a shortage of home care workers for aged care and it’s also home to a lot of agriculture and we import workers from overseas for picking berries – which whilst seasonal work is still work and there is a lot of tourism work as well. Yet she choose to study. The NZ taxpayer is already putting a roof over their heads, food on the table, paying for her pet and her son to do boxing and rugby so being pretty generous. She is following her dream of being a social worked, most likely through a student loan that the government had kindly given her through our interest free student loan scheme. She has it pretty good. At the end of the day her situation is the result of her choices. I’m not saying it isn’t easy but who has an easy life? Not many. We all make our choices in life and she has chosen to study rather than provide for her four children. Prior to leaving her partner all his money went to pay the mortgage and she paid for everything else so if she got the same job with same pay elsewhere instead of choosing to study the only shortfall would have been the roof over their head – which she may have qualified for a accommodation supplement or they could have cut back a little – and things are cheaper in Nelson anyway and between a little savings and the child support that her ex would have to pay despite their mortgage (hense why the house must have been sold, right? Where’s the equity gone?) then they should have been able to get by just fine, especially when the equity for their Auckland home comes through. So despite the media who are clearly blaming the government and expecting them to do something about the situation, I believe people need to make the smart choices for their kids, it is not the NZ taxpayers responsibility to pick up the bill to fund other people’s lifestyle choices.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4358820
A judge in the UK waited until she was residing on her last case to give this advise: Drinking to excess or taking drugs makes you more vulnerable to be targeted as a victim of crime. Drunk woman make things easier for rapists. Yet there was backlash against her comments. The judge said it is never the  victim is at fault just that there are things that you can do to make yourself less likely to be attacked. She’s right. This makes sense. Why are we attacking the judge for such good advise? It’s about time we wise up. People who are drunk shouldn’t be taken advantage of but they do make easy targets so the baddies out there are going to look for those who have let their guard down. Even the victim agrees with the judge. So why do we always bash the voice of reason? Let’s face it, men get drunk too and they do stupid things without thinking clearly. If the woman is so drunk she can’t remember what happened is it not possible that a man can get that drunk too and do something they normally wouldn’t sober? I’m not a big fan of alcohol but believe if you must drink to excess do it in the company of friends and family so you have people who love you looking out for you. I agree with this judge. We have a responsibility to ourselves to drink responsibly so we are less at risk of being a victim of crime and so we stay healthy as alcohol causes liver damage. We also have a social responsibility to look out for people who are drunk and to keep them safe – put them in a taxi so they get home safe, take their keys away if they are threatening to drive, call a family member to collect them, be aware, be present and act responsibly. Don’t let a night of alcohol ruin your life.

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11868236
As shocking as it may sound, sometimes stories aren’t about you. Sometimes they are but sometimes they aren’t but this lady went crazy because it was a story about a mum being home for her child after school and that didn’t fit with their family situation.  What made me crazy about her story is she gets state funded after school care. I don’t get state funded after school care and I have 5 kids so working hours which would need me to pay for after school care won’t be a possibility for me for a long time unless I want to work for free or pay to be working, so I will be at home after school for my kids. I don’t judge people who aren’t but I don’t expect them to judge me and the fact that she needs to change the story makes me feel that she looks down on my decision to be a stay at home mum – I do work too by the way, but I work around my kids schedule. I worked full time before kids, 3 days a week after my first and various hours after my second – not many hours but enough so my CV isn’t empty. I enjoyed work and I hope to get back to more work once all my kids are at school, but as I said, given I am not entitled to state funded after school care because my husband is on a good income and given my husband often works away, caring for the kids is down to me and because I don’t have the skills to be on an insanely high hourly rate, I’m going to need to be there for my kids after school and during school holidays.

Personally I think she should be focused on her kids rather than putting down others situations. When my son comes home with a story that doesn’t match our life it doesn’t bother me, people are different. But it bothers me that a mum looks down on stay at home mums. There is nothing wrong with our choices, everyone’s situation is different, take away state funded childcare and she might find herself standing on the opposite side of the fence too. So be respectful of others choices. Me and my husband made our life choices and we pay our own way – we get no state benefits to help us with our kids, so kind of insulting for someone who gets free after school care to insult our way of doing things as if she lived in our country my husband’s hard earned taxes would be contributing to her luck of getting funded childcare whilst we have me working for free to provide ours.

http://i.stuff.co.nz/business/93087153/mcdonalds-under-fire-over-happy-meal-toys
I went to McDonalds at the weekend too. I had to order 5 happy meals for 2 girls (my nieces) and 3 for my boys. The toys were Ninja Turtles or mini soft animals. We have heaps of Ninja Turtles and soft animals despite being a family of 4 boys so I asked my boys what they wanted. 2 wanted the soft toy – which in my opinion is a gender neutral toy, not just a girl toy, and one wanted the Ninja Turtle, my oldest wanted an adult meal and had grown out of toys from about 5. When I got up to the counter I was not surprised by the boy toy or girl toy question, I ordered 4 girls toys and 1 boy toy. The sales assistant didn’t care if I actually had 4 girls – it wasn’t a test, I had the choice. So why is this woman making such a song and dance about this, just ask for the girl toy.

Yes, this is gender stereotyping, but you know what? Often the gender stereotyping is correct. This is the first time my kids have ever wanted the girl toy and have been quite upset on the odd occasion McDonalds didn’t ask and I got a toy that was stereotypically girl – My Little Pony comes to mind, some boys might like My Little Pony but they wanted the car toy.
I used to belong to Playcentre and this organization tries very hard to give kids the freedom to be free from stereotypes. But you know what? The majority of the time kids do fall into the stereotypes even when playing with what is typically the opposite gender. The boys loved the push chairs and shopping carts but would chuck the dolls out and chase everyone around. The girls would nurture the baby and act out the shopping. Girls who liked to dress up in stereotypically boy roles such as fireman wanted to save the baby or animal from the burning building whereas boys wanted to get out the hose and squirt everyone. A huge percentage of the time stereotypes are correct, that’s how stereotypes come about. But stereotypes don’t need to be bad and even better is to be out of the box and do something differently. Be a leader. Be a trail blazer. Stereotypes change as behavior changes. We live in an age where people are free to do what they want, if you are a boy and you want a girl toy, you can and vice versa, so long as you are not hurting anyone you are free to do as you want. So be who you are, be proud that you are strong enough to make choices that go against the grain of society but please don’t write stories about it and try and change what works for 90% of the population because then you are taking from them. You don’t have to take from others to be who you are just be polite and ask for the toy you want. I was a Tom boy playing in trees and with skateboards yet I did ballet which was a strange mix. There are woman mechanics who pile on the make up and a gorgeous dress for an evening out – just because someone likes a different genders toys doesn’t make them the other gender. We are all unique, we are all different, embrace it and stop being so PC all the time if someone misspeaks in your opinion, like asking if they want a boy or girl toy, just brush it off, ask for what you want or inquire as to what the toys actually are, and then get on with your day. Wish I could get on with my day but I have an 8 week old baby that wakes up every time I put her down. I just need to think about making another attempt and she opens her eyes.  If I wasn’t able to type this up on my phone whilst breastfeeding my baby girl I wouldn’t bother. Makes me question how someone has the time to complain about the choice of labeling of a McDonalds toy as for a boy or for a girl – surely people have something more important to do. My little girl is going to be surrounded by boy toys and often wear boy hand me downs – she’ll still be a girl.

Why is it on the TV show Border Control people have whole suitcases filled with food and no declaration for it get a warning and this family, <a href=”http://i.stuff.co.nz/travel/travel-troubles/92967401/mpi-issued-a-400-fine-for-having-fruit-but-a-judge-thought-it-warranted-20&#8243;, declared they may have food and then got caught with food got a $400 fine? I can see how a person can forget a piece of fruit they had on the plane or that their child ate and they had no knowledge of, that should be a warning, but those people who have piles of food and then say they don’t speak English – irrelevant given the forms are printed in their own language to make sure everyone understands – gets fined. This makes me angry. The Border Control shows are always catching a certain group of people, Asians, with food and they always get off on the Border Security show yet these guys are fined – seems really unfair actually it seems racist. Last time I felt someone was unfairly fined was 12 years ago, Hilary Swank, again a white woman, got fined for an orange and an apple that she forgot her husband had packed for her https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/mar/31/filmnews.film. The lack of consistency of our border control staff angers me. The scenarios that are shown on Border Security are far more serious and deliberate but they are let off yet those which were clearly accidents not deliberate acts of deception get huge fines. It’s just wrong. I can understand leniency to mistakes with a warning that they will be fined again but suitcases of food and no declaration should always be fined. They don’t take the risk serious enough and yes, the risk of the fruit was a serious one too but most crimes accidents are treated less harshly than deliberate acts – like murder versus manslaughter. I think they have things around the wrong way when fining both Hilary and this family.

http://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/92810065/greens-unveil-families-policy-pods-and-universal-parental-tax-credits
The Greens have released their policy and yet again, it makes no sense. The Greens want to pay people who don’t work Paid Parental Leave and out of school care. Paid Parental Leave is when you take leave from a JOB, if you don’t have a job you can’t take time off from it. If you are not working, then you shouldn’t be having a child as you can’t afford it, and those not working who can afford a child don’t need the Paid Parental Leave anyway. It makes sense to encourage people who can’t afford kids to have kids, that just breds poverty, as does encouraging students to have kids. Students should be encouraged to graduate and get some work experience before having a child. There comes a point you have to contribute not bounce from a student benefit to Paid Parental Leave.

OSCAR – which is after school and school holiday care is there in response to a need by working parents. Their work hours don’t fit in with their work schedule so they need to put their kids into care so they can finish their work day or keep working during school holidays. This is not a problem beneficiaries have as they have no pesky job to get in the way of them caring for their kids. They should not be getting subsidized care. It’s really just a tax break for workers because they have an additional cost associated with doing their job – again not something beneficiaries need to worry about, it just gives them a break from their kids. Think about that from the point of view of someone who races home from work, collecting the kids on the way, and then needs to cook their dinner and give them and any preschoolers they have a bath before bed – these workers aren’t getting a holiday from their kids, they are working hard and dealing with peak hour traffic.

And the sleeping pods – these are essentially a bassinet that you put in the bed and cost around $100 http://www.changeforourchildren.nz/pepi_pod_programme. Does the Greens leader have shares in the company that makes them?A baby would have grown out of it by the time they are 6 months old so the parents still need to buy a cot. Babies can go straight into cots if people can’t afford bassinets so simply wasteful. You don’t want a 6 month old in a bed by that age they can roll yet don’t know the danger of falling – so cots are essential, bassinets are optional

Every single policy in their ‘Budget for all Mothers’ is an epic failure and hugely wasteful. If you want to help mothers give a tax break on house cleaners, then they can afford some help and get a break. Their ideas are just a handout to the very people who already get handouts and shouldn’t be having more kids so don’t offer them more encouragement.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/92638606/what-poverty-looks-like-meet-the-sikaleti-brothers

This article about the Sikaleti brothers claims it is the picture of poverty. Another poorly written article which fails to give a clear picture. If you read through the comments the majority of the commenters are asking the right questions. The big one being: Where is dad? Mum actually responded to one of the first people who asked this question and said that dad found a new girlfriend and ran off to Australia. And where is the family? The family are financially secure and therefore can’t understand what she is going through.

Firstly, why is it acceptable for dad to run off and abandon all responsibility that he has for those children? When you are a dad, you are a dad for life. He might have fallen out of love with mum but he still needs to be responsible for those kids. Dad could be doing great but we aren’t told anything about him. Given New Zealanders can’t get benefits in Australia, then it is highly likely dad is working, and therefore dad is perfectly capable of paying for these kids rugby fees. Problem solved! The issue is what systems do we have in place to make men accountable for their children? What we really need to look at is making sure men do not run off and abandon their children. This would fix most poverty problems. It takes one person to look after the kids and one to work – or a mix, or hired help so both can work – arguing about who gets to work is not the point, the point is had dad not run off mum could have been doing fine looking after the kids whilst dad pays and even though dad has left, dad should still be paying. I’m sick of the media and their fake news slandering the government and expecting the government to pay and also asking for people to give to charities who help pay, we all have to pay for our own families, the man who has failed this family should be paying and the government should be making him pay. We are already paying them a benefit, so the NZ taxpayer is already doing their bit, dad should be made to help. He isn’t even paying tax here. We have a good relationship with Australia, we must be able to get child support from men who run off there, I mean we can get student loan payments back, why not child support payments? I honestly don’t know if them not getting child support payments from dad is a result of failings by the government for not having systems in place or failings by the woman who just can’t be bothered, because the solution to this families problem has not been discussed. The media is too busy pushing their line of poverty rather than looking to why people are in poverty and what can be done to help them out.

This woman also says her family network are financially stable but can’t understand her predicament and they also blame her for her situation. If I had a family member get sick so they had to quit their job and then their husband left them for another woman, moved country and failed to pay for the kids, I would be angry at the man and want to support my family member in any way I could because it is an absolutely disgraceful situation to be put in through no fault of their own. Which is why we have to ask, is it through her own fault? I mean why would the family not have sympathy for her having her husband leave her? There has got to be more to this story. I for one have total sympathy for people who either have a partner walk out on them, die or become too ill to work. It is a horrible situation to be in and people who find themselves in this situation need help. And what about the man’s family? If my brother walked out on his wife for no reason at all and left her with the two kids to raise on her own, I would be horrified. I would also help out by offering to babysit from time to time so she could go out and by spoiling the kids at birthdays/Christmas and offering to pay for school trips and activities so they didn’t miss out. I would make sacrifices in my life to make sure my niece and nephews didn’t miss out. So either this woman has some of the the worst family and in-laws around or there is more to the story.

‘Mum Lufilufi Sitagata sacrificed paying the $200 club rugby subs and buying new rugby boots to free up money for food, school uniforms and petrol.’ Firstly, buy the uniforms second hand. Money for food – make lunch. She is giving the kids $5 for lunch at school, it doesn’t clarify if that is each for just one of them to share but even at $5 a day to cover both the kids, that’s $25 per week. Two loafs of bread would cost $2, margarine $3, a jar of jam $3 and a kilo of pears or kiwifruit is only $3 per kilo this week (these is normally one fruit such as apples or grapes on sale each week) or a bag of oranges is $4.49 for 1.5kg. You can also get chocolate fingers biscuits as a small treat for $2, that gives them quite a few biscuits per day. So $2 (bread) + $3 (margarine) + $3 (jam) + $3 (a kilo of fruit) + $2 (chocolate finger biscuits would go the furthest but there are other $2 options which will give them a couple of biscuits in their lunch each day), this adds up to $13. And the margarine and jam would go further than a week so wouldn’t need to be brought as often but this is a saving of $12 per week ($37 per week if it is $5 per child). She says she isn’t eating properly so they don’t go without, everyone can eat if you put in some effort, probably not putting in the effort as so tired from not eating and not taking her meds properly, she needs to make her meds a priority over everything as without her the kids will be far worse off. and if she doesn’t stay healthy she will never find work, that just makes the situation worse. Then if she is talking about petrol then assumably she has a car unless she is contributing to someone else’s petrol. If she gets rid of the car she would be doing fine. I’m sure if she spoke to the coach of the rugby team that she could afford to join without a car that she could be hooked up with another team member for a ride, she could contribute some toward petrol, win win for both families.

Conclusion: This isn’t a family in poverty. It is a family that needs to sort itself out. It needs to chase down the dad to take responsibility. Name and shame him amongst friends and family. It is a family who needs budgeting advice. Stop buying lunch every day, get rid of the car, buy second hand clothes. The kids can walk to school or sort out a carpool, you can contribute some petrol money, still cheaper than having a car. Having a car isn’t even going to help her with her heart condition because if she has an issue and needs to get to a doctor, she won’t be a state to drive. On the rare occasion doctor’s visits are required, an Uber would still be cheaper than having a car on hand every day. But hey, why would they do that? There are lots of comments from people who say they will pay for them. There is a charity set up to help ‘people like them.’ Clubs often don’t charge fees to those in need. It seems to me people don’t want to try and help themselves. Why help yourself when others will pay? It’s like this country is on a big race to get to the bottom. The more pathetic you look the bigger the prize. It’s a sad reflection on society. New Zealanders used to be people who worked out a solution, not whined and asked for others to solve their problems.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11854693

This article makes my blood boil. It starts off talking about how for some mums Mother’s Day isn’t about special breakfasts and pampering and that for some mums it is just another day to scrape by. This woman just got art from her kids for Mother’s Day. That is the best gift. The kids took the time to create something for their mum. Incidentally, it is exactly what I got for Mother’s Day too and it is exactly what I wanted. However, I don’t begrudge the mums who did get pampered for Mother’s Day, good for them. I hate that this article is trying to put down the pampering because I don’t believe in being jealous of what others have, I believe that if you see something you want then you should use this desire to get it by focusing and pushing yourself to chase after that dream. I wish the woman in this article could have the same belief because at this point she is doing nothing to better her situation and is, along with the Auckland Action Against Poverty Group (AAPG), blaming the government.

This woman’s situation is not the government’s fault, yet AAPG are protesting the government instead of helping her find solutions to her situation. The government is giving her $550 Jobseeker allowance and this full amount goes on her rent. It’s expensive living in Auckland. The government recently offered people up to $3,000 to get out of Auckland, and given the article says that the kids don’t get Christmas presents you can assume that this woman isn’t getting any family support so there is no reason for her to stay in the most expensive city in the country spending a big part of her benefit putting a roof over her families head http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11645668, she could simply take up this offer and have her rent drop by $200 a week by moving to a cheaper city. She is also getting a family tax credit of $350 per week, so that brings her weekly income up to $900, that’s $46,800 a year that the NZ government, so the hard working NZ taxpayer, is paying to this family. That is a real blessing, yet they are still going to go and protest to the government. Despite the $46,800 had out that they are getting they are living off food parcels. Something is very wrong here and that something is clearly obvious when you look at the breakdown of how she spends her benefit.

$179 of her taxpayer funded weekly gift goes on debt. It doesn’t say how she accumulated her debt but the NZ taxpayer is funding her choice to take on debt. The money is supposed to feed, clothe, house and keep warm her family, not pay debts. The other thing that she is wasting money on is fuel, so there is a high probability that the debt is for a car loan. She cannot afford a car. Cars require insurance, WOF, registration, maintenance, fuel – cars guzzle money. A car is a necessity if you are working and it is how you get an income but a car is a luxury if it isn’t an essential for work. Let’s be honest, when you have 6 kids you are not looking for work, caring for six kids is a full-time job. She needs to get rid of the car. The only three things I can see that she needs a car for, since she is not working, would be getting her kids to school – they can walk to school. Living in Manurewa there would definitely be schools walking distance, if not (which is extremely unlikely as this is a suburb in Auckland), could they not walk to a friends house and get a lift? Getting groceries – well at the moment she isn’t getting groceries, she is getting food parcels so she’s not needing the car for the shopping, and going to the doctor when her kids get sick, which would be such a rare occurrence so surely someone could lend her a car or a taxi would still be cheaper than an on-call car, so how is she spending $40 per week on fuel? I spend less than $40 per week on fuel yet we have several activities we drive to so where is she driving to when she has no money to spend when she goes places? This story isn’t adding up. Get rid of the car, this might get rid of the debt if that is what the debt is for, or at least part of it, she might still have money to pay off for the car because of depreciation so the car is worth more than the loan, but this will still cut her costs significantly and will eventually have her out of debt. If the debt is not a car debt then she could look at following an option on from this website http://www.ird.govt.nz/yoursituation-ind/debt/bankruptcy.html I don’t agree with people getting away without paying their debts but if this is a case of her applying for retail debt that she clearly couldn’t afford, yet the lending companies agreed to lend to her anyway, then it’s partly their own fault if they don’t get their money back. So she has loads of options to get out of her financial situation on the living within her means side of the equation, how about the expanding her means side.

You are allowed to earn an extra $100 per week on top of your benefit before your benefit is affected. https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/on-a-benefit/tell-us/income/wages/deduction-tables/jobseeker-support-sole-parent.html. So if AAPG want to help her, the best course of action would be for them to assist her by looking after her kids so she can go out and work to earn the extra $100. The minimum wage in NZ is $15.25, so she only needs to work 6 and a half hours a week or less if she earns more than the minimum wage, that isn’t many hours. In fact, the NZ government is probably prepared to pay her child care costs in order for her to work these 6 hours, or even more hours http://www.youthservice.govt.nz/documents/for-providers/gcap-quick-facts.pdf. It makes more sense to support her working as eventually as the kids grow up, working will be easier for her so having a part time job now gives her some work experience so she is not starting on the bottom rung of the ladder when her children grow up. At the moment we have so many jobs in NZ that we are importing unskilled labour to fill the jobs. If AAPG put their efforts into helping her find work and into assisting her with childcare it would be far more beneficial than protesting the government who are already spending the equivalent of the average income in NZ on her family already (for medium NZ income see: https://www.careers.govt.nz/jobs-database/whats-happening-in-the-job-market/who-earns-what/. It is really unfair to ask for more when some people are working a 40 hour week to earn what she gets not working, plus those who have to work to earn their money are also spending a lot of their time traveling to and from work and have to pay for their transport, and as discussed above, if they need a car for their job they have a big expense just to have their job so personally I think the NZ government/taxpayer are being very generous. They say if you give a man a fish you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime. The problem is we keep giving people fish and then acting surprised that they never are able to catch their own fish, we need to teach them how to provide for themselves and this needs to happen or else her 17 year old child will follow in her footsteps.

At 17 I was working. At 17 I had been working, and saving, for two years. I was lucky, my parents didn’t need my money, so I didn’t have to pay board until after I graduated university because my parents wanted to support my learning and help me save for a house. You would think living in this dire situation that the 17 year old would be motivated to get a job – the article doesn’t say he has, but it doesn’t say he hasn’t either. I was working 16 hours a week when I was 17. NZ does have a starting out wage for youth, which is 12.20, so it is possible that this is what they would start on, but you are only on this for 6 months, so if we take the number of hours I worked at his age, 16, and use this as the wage he would earn, he would be getting $195.20 for his first 6 months of work and then going up to $244 before tax after 6 months of working. Would it not be fair for him to contribute half his salary to his mum considering the family cannot afford food? Instead of protesting, AAPG should be helping him find an after school job.

And now the most obvious thing, 6 kids is expensive. She created this mess. The government didn’t choose for her to have 6 kids. In fact, the government actually gives her incredibly cheap contraceptive care because she is a beneficiary, $5. Yes, that’s right. If you have a Community Services Card, and she would as a beneficiary be entitled to one, it would cost her $5 to be seen at family planning and for many contraceptives, there would be no other charge http://www.familyplanning.org.nz/clinics/fees#CSC. So the NZ government actively discourages people on benefits to have children by hugely subsiding their care. So she definitely can’t blame the government here. The person she could blame is dad, or dads, where is he in this story anyway? He isn’t paying for the kids, he isn’t giving them birthday and Christmas presents, is he dead? And if dead, would the grandparents not step up and help out in this area. Where is the family support? I would love 6 kids but kids are expensive and time-consuming. I believe having 6 kids would mean my kids would miss out because I wouldn’t have the money to spend on them or the time to spend individually with them so I stopped at 5 (well, never say never, right?). It’s a personal choice. She chose to keep having kids when she clearly couldn’t afford them and to me, that is child abuse. If AAPG want to protest, protest at the house of the children’s father (or fathers) or the grandparents, the NZ taxpayer is already doing their bit, it is time for this mum to sort her life out. For her son to step up and get a job and pay some money towards the house (yes, I feel sorry for him being put in this position but it is better than living the way they are, begging for food) and for the family to be stepping forward. Because whilst it is true, “It takes a village to raise a child”, every member of the village needs to step up. And what I’m seeing here is the NZ government and the NZ taxpayer stepping up whilst mum, dad and family do nothing – come on, step up and contribute. We all have to play our part and if we all expected others to pay for everything like these people do, the country would be an absolute mess. The safety net of a benefit is meant for those who are too sick to work or have to care for sick family not to just choose to live off by living beyond your means. If she had the 6 kids she could afford and then something happened, like the dad dying, then that would be more understandable, but it doesn’t say that and I’m sure if that was the situation you would be leading with the explanation of how you got yourself into this situation.

Happy Mother’s Day everyone. Mother’s Day is about reflecting on being the best mum you can be and by that I mean providing for them financially and emotionally. Quite frankly the mum in this story simply doesn’t deserve any pampering for Mother’s Day because she has failed her children and they deserve better. She won’t get any better when protesters reinforce her failures and ask the government to pay for her mistakes, she won’t even try to make changes to improve the life of her family whilst these groups say her behaviour is okay and this is extremely sad for the victims of this story, her children.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/world/asia/bbc-interview-kids-professor-robert-kelly.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share

It would be hard to find a funnier story this year than this. Professor Robert Kelly, an expert on Korea, was being interviewed on a serious news story, in a serious looking office with maps and books when his young daughter opened the door and danced her way into the room. The whole scene could not have been made funnier had it been a script from a comedy. Robert tries to pretend to ignore the whole situation but the reporter comments that it looks like his child has entered the room. Robert tries to block her and keeps the show going talking like nothing has happened when a baby in the walker wonders into the room. Seconds later mum arrives and tries to ‘descretely’ pull the kids out of the room. But there is no way to do it descretely at this point most viewers would be in hysterics, a far more exciting scene than anything that is happening between North and South Korea.

Robert apologizes as she scrambles them out of the room. He is clearly embarrassed, and then attempts to continue with the very serious interview. 

I loved this because I understood it. Working from home is awesome. You choose your hours, you can work around your family needs and you save on travel time but kids interrupting you whilst you work is a huge draw back. Both my husband and I work from home so I could totally relate to this hilarious scene and I feel others must have been able to relate too as the story went viral. 

Of course there are always the crazies with a cause who can’t just laugh at the unscripted mayhem and have to find a cause to jump on, we had people complaining that the child was being abused because he nudged her out of the way of the interview and calls of casual racism when many thought the woman who raced into the room was the nanny, not the mum.

Firstly, the ‘child abuse’. He merely tried to block her from the camera and continue doing his job. The girl wasn’t even upset. She also didn’t seem very scared to dance into her dad’s office so it doesn’t seem like a scene of abuse at all. I wish the crazies would focus on actual abused kids. There are so many kids who need help out there, pick someone who needs help, this girl and her brother, are clearly fine.

Then the racism. There was no racism. People make assumptions when they don’t have all the facts and the things that influence people to believe she is the nanny is A) she seems to be the person who should have been looking after the kids and keeping them out of the office because she is clearly in a panicked state. Nannies look after kids and nannies would be in a panic that they would lose their job if the kids hurt their dad’s reputation at work. Too be fair, mums also look after kids and panic if their husbands are going to get into trouble at work because of the behavior of the children. So it is a reasonable assumption either way.

B) She is dressed in the kinds of clothes you were about the house. Like a nanny or a mum. If she looked like she was heading off to a professional job then people may have thought differently.

C) In a lot of Asian countries hiring a nanny is very common.

D) Mixed marriages are less common than marriages of the same race.

E) To me, she looks so young in the clip, like a nanny. Maybe in the way she wears her hair, or her fast pace as she looks older in other pics. Although men can marry woman a lot younger so again neither mum or nanny is ruled out as an option.

F) At a quick glance the kids don’t look Korean, the subsequent photos yes, but we only saw a few seconds of her, so naturally when someone young of a different race in casual clothes walks in nanny is a reasonable assumption.

Why do people need to put their issues in the way of the video clip? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/13/nanny-bbc-interview-robert-kelly-small-children Even the family themselves took no offense to being called the nanny by some. Lots of mums get confused with being a nanny or relative. I know at the supermarket random strangers have started speaking to me and were surprised I was the mum, “You are to young to have so many children.” When I was in my 30s people were still asking me for ID to buy alcohol. There is no need to take offense. 

People even managed to find a way to take offense when comedy duo Jono and Ben asked if the interview would go down differently had it been a woman who was being interviewed and created a funny skit, but people claimed that was sexist.

When will society just grow up and have a laugh when something unpredictable and unexpected happens instead of creating into something it isn’t. 

This family is awesome. I think they handled the whole situation so well. It makes me smile every time I see the clip. I don’t think I’ll ever be able to watch it without giggling. Honest, unscripted view of what it’s like working at home around kids and the Jono and Ben skit was funny as well. Learn to laugh and enjoy life. Why are we always looking for something to complain about? Be happy.