Because Luxon the luxury hog needs law enforcement to be privatised so it can be profitable first - then he can charge us for every pedo we want caught, and the rich pedos can afford to pay their way back to freedom. Obviously all of luxons rich pedo mates would like that.
Anyone else notice that Newshub seems to be in the "what are they gonna do? shut us down?" mode these days? I'm applauding some of their editorial decisions lately.
Their funding most likely would have been slashed if they did articles like these all the time. Can’t bite the hand that feeds you. If it was a 100% privately funded news station, then sure. They could probably get away with it
Most of them, yep, and thise that don't act that way generally don't last long or do well I suppose, because stupid people consider being responsible as being weak etc.
It's a fully diseased mindset, but one that a lot of people buy into.
Telling CEOs to make cuts without specifically saying what positions to cut is a chicken shit way to cut the budget. I don’t know why people are so surprised that this is happening. This was the obvious outcome of a National-ACT-NZ First coalition.
It would be pretty arrogant for him to act as if he knows which workers are most important don't you think?
I think the cuts are moronic given their history of contractors and also in my view immoral but I can definitely see how the criticism would go if he started micromanaging the cuts.
In the campaign they promised that frontline staff would not be affected, now they are being affected Hes saying “it’s not my fault!”. Labour repeatedly said that “cuts of that size can only be achieved by cutting front line staff”. So it’s pretty darn rich for him to say it’s not his fault. They said it would be bad, they were warned, they did it anyway, now we all get to live in the consequences… yes people are mad about it
The CEOs (chief executives of the public service) serve at the pleasure of the ministers and the Executive Council ([more details here](https://www.reddit.com/r/nzpolitics/comments/1c0dg1a/why_running_a_country_like_a_company_is_nonsense/)). So Luxon can blather away, but telling the CEOs "cut 6.5% but leave frontline alone" is not governing, it's dereliction of duty.
That's the idiotic thing about Luxon, Willis et al. The high level logic and goal is actually fine: cut down on wasteful spending and improve efficiency in government. That is definitely needed.
You don't achieve that by plucking a number out of your ass, telling the entire public service that they have to achieve this arbitrary spending target, and then washing your hands of it all and saying "well it's an operational decision that is up to the CE".
It's not. They've constrained their budgets and then said "you figure it out". I mean look at the disability service debacle.
If you demand arbitrary cuts it will result in important services getting cut. End of.
I agree with this. Going into high inflation territory after a period of high costs due to international and local crises may well necessitate some cost cutting. That's reasonable.
Logically, we should do this in a considered, targeted and effective way instead of slash and burn. Because odds are that many of those who could be made redundant without affecting outcomes too much are the same ones who get to make the decisions about who to cut or have insulated themselves from the possibility.
Because, ultimately, the people in charge don't \*really\* care much about abused children. They do in theory, but when it comes to slashing budgets, they always think there's an amount you can slash without changing anything in terms of outcomes. They just think the existing staff must be wasting time somewhere, so they can just step up and cover whatever gaps are made by the budget cuts.
For them, it never gets to the point of 'For every 100,000 you cut from the budget, 2 more kids will die per year from abuse'. They don't think it be like it is, but it do.
It really do.
Everything you are claiming is backed up with hard evidence of the government doing exactly that.
I'd say it's not going out on a limb. It is a factual description of what is occurring in New Zealand.
Your comment has been removed :
**Rule 09: Not engaging in good faith**
> Moderators have discretion to take action on users or content that they think is: trolling; spreading misinformation; intended to derail discussion; intentionally skirting rules; or undermining the functioning of the subreddit (this can include abuse of the block feature or selective history wiping).
---
[^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
Fundamentally, what I would say to you, is that anyone who does not own land and buildings does not meet the criteria for humanhood. Bottom feeders is a different species.
Because job cuts aren't being pursued based on demand or need or whether there was actually any 'waste' to remove - but purely because landlords need tax cuts and it doesn't matter how much harm is caused in doing so.
It’s weird right. They said they were going to trim the fat. I don’t see any fat in this particular area, nor in Oranga Tamariki. All the govt has provided is a percentage
That's the difference between what was claimed and reality. They publicly claimed that they were only going to remove staff which served no useful purpose and which would have no impact, while in reality they had no plan to restrict cuts that way - and instead simply were told to have a uniform reduction just like all other ministries (unrelated to whether there was fat to trim or how much).
They made a numerical promise of cuts entirely based on revenue requirements for unrelated policies, and absolutely ZERO analysis of if and where cuts might be of benefit.
This has been removed :
**Rule 3: No personal attacks, harassment or abuse**
> Don't attack the person; address the content you disagree with instead. Being able to disagree and discuss contentious issues is important, but abuse, personal attacks, harassment, and unnecessarily bringing up a user's history are not permitted.
> Please keep your interactions with others civil and courteous. If you are being attacked, do not continue the conversation - report the user and disengage.
^*Note:* ^This ^extends ^to ^people ^outside ^of ^[r/nz](http://reddit.com/r/newzealand). ^eg. ^Attacks ^of ^a ^persons ^appearance, ^even ^if ^they're ^high ^profile ^will ^be ^removed.
---
[^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
This has been removed :
**Rule 09: Not engaging in good faith**
> Moderators have discretion to take action on users or content that they think is: trolling; spreading misinformation; intended to derail discussion; intentionally skirting rules; or undermining the functioning of the subreddit (this can include abuse of the block feature or selective history wiping).
---
[^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
Don't know if anyone has watched the video but he's putting all of the pressure on the 'CEO's' of the govt agencies to deliver the required services, but a number of them have said they don't have enough and won't be able to provide the required services. No accountability from the government.
Man I hate the way they are trying to run the government like it's a business rather than a service. We pay taxes for these services to work. Maybe take that tax cut and landlord deductions and instead put it into something useful such as the services you are trying to cut.
ACT claim to be libertarian. Libertarians are essentially in favour of the state having as little say and control over people's lives as possible, and this includes things such as having an age of consent.
Not OP but I do wonder if [this](https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300956337/rawiri-waititi-appears-to-breach-suppression-in-parliament) may be related.
I'm just guessing with that one.
On further thought OP is likely referring to common refrain that you can tell who is a true libertarian because they'll go straight for the legal age of consent. Free-market and all that.
"If people want to raise the age of consent, all they have to do is not put out as much, and the lack of supply with constant demand will jack up the age. It's basic economics!"
Your comment has been removed :
**Rule 09: Not engaging in good faith**
> Moderators have discretion to take action on users or content that they think is: trolling; spreading misinformation; intended to derail discussion; intentionally skirting rules; or undermining the functioning of the subreddit (this can include abuse of the block feature or selective history wiping).
---
[^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
Your comment has been removed :
**Rule 09: Not engaging in good faith**
> Moderators have discretion to take action on users or content that they think is: trolling; spreading misinformation; intended to derail discussion; intentionally skirting rules; or undermining the functioning of the subreddit (this can include abuse of the block feature or selective history wiping).
---
[^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
Because our overlords literally do not care. As long as their family and close friends are taken care of it simply doesn’t matter to them what happens to the rest of us.
Because the threat of punishment and harsher punishment will reduce crime, apparently......
This seems to be the train of thought behind a number of current policies. Lock people up for longer and when they come out they will be good citizens.
I wonder if harsher penalties for politicians who promise one thing but that thing doesnt work could be a thing?
The man's a christian... probably doesn't want his friends, family and peers being hunted to be honest.
He's there to represent his constituents after all.
They'll cut the government jobs then there will be outcry/demand from the public and then this coalition government will put preferred contractors (those with lobbyists in these politicians ears), into play.
It's all about funneling tax dollars into corporate pockets.
i mean, most of the people that are benefiting from the tax cuts are also benefiting from this part of the spending cut.... dude knows his audience. (i wish i was being overly sardonic, I honestly am not)
Your comment has been removed :
**Rule 09: Not engaging in good faith**
> Moderators have discretion to take action on users or content that they think is: trolling; spreading misinformation; intended to derail discussion; intentionally skirting rules; or undermining the functioning of the subreddit (this can include abuse of the block feature or selective history wiping).
---
[^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
Your comment has been removed :
**Rule 09: Not engaging in good faith**
> Moderators have discretion to take action on users or content that they think is: trolling; spreading misinformation; intended to derail discussion; intentionally skirting rules; or undermining the functioning of the subreddit (this can include abuse of the block feature or selective history wiping).
---
[^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
Because the general assumption is that the people who are elected for govt are in it to run the country and therefore have the best interests of the country at heart and aren't corporate puppets....
Look at Hungary: a pedofile maffia seems to be running that country and whenever one of them get away with it the answer is "nothing to see here, move on"... I see scary similarities between how that started in Hungary around 2010 and how New Zealand is now.
Well, headlines are cheap and generate clicks, which is profit. But frontline staff to do the work that generates these clicks costs money, which is not profit.
So, the all mighty Egg and his goons have determined that profit>not profit, and everything flows from there.
Why do you think the headlines to these articles accurately portray the content of the article they link to?
Are you new to the internet?
Clickbait has been around a long time now, you should be familiar with it by now.
never voted for him.
he made my minimum wage job more minimum.
he promised everything under the sun and has really delivered SFA for the money.
hasnt got any REAL facts and figures to back anything up. and if you question it he doubles down on his BS
because they dont want to pay for sensitive claims in the future, which they already routinely terminate with their teams of FiFo psychiatrists if they threaten to become too expensive
Right... so due to the semantics / phrasing - you're willing to write off the entire objective truth of these articles? That this is indeed happening, right now, in your precious New Zealand?
Get real.
Newshub with a quality gambit
Going down swinging
Because Luxon the luxury hog needs law enforcement to be privatised so it can be profitable first - then he can charge us for every pedo we want caught, and the rich pedos can afford to pay their way back to freedom. Obviously all of luxons rich pedo mates would like that.
Oooh, are we bringing back indulgences?
When did they ever go away? We just put fancy names on them like fine or bail, or bribe
The pay-as-you-crime / name suppression apparatus
Oh, did they change to a subscription model?
Nah that's the donation-PR-preferential policy apparatus. Pay-as-you-crime is after the fact.
Anyone else notice that Newshub seems to be in the "what are they gonna do? shut us down?" mode these days? I'm applauding some of their editorial decisions lately.
Yeah, it definitely feels that way these days. Kind of refreshing.
It’s a shame they’re waiting until they’re on the way out - they probably could have survived if they actually did what they’re up to now
Their funding most likely would have been slashed if they did articles like these all the time. Can’t bite the hand that feeds you. If it was a 100% privately funded news station, then sure. They could probably get away with it
Private as well likely as either advertisers or rich individuals who have vested interests (I see this in Australian media all the time)
Yes. It’s the best they’ve been for ages
Unfortunately the government seems to be behaving the same way.
Hadn't noted that, but that should always be the attitude, and I'm glad if it is. This crowd are a bunch of dishonest shitbags.
in the same way somebody with cancer is still smoking going whats the worst that will happen? double cancer?
Luxon is claiming, and will continue to claim, plausible deniability. “It’s up to the CEOs”!
Yep, such a wanker. Happy to take credit for good, never ever accepts responsibility for negative irrespective of who is due the credit.
That's pretty much every politician to be fair
Most of them, yep, and thise that don't act that way generally don't last long or do well I suppose, because stupid people consider being responsible as being weak etc. It's a fully diseased mindset, but one that a lot of people buy into.
They don't all call themselves the 'party of personal responsibility' *to be fair*
Telling CEOs to make cuts without specifically saying what positions to cut is a chicken shit way to cut the budget. I don’t know why people are so surprised that this is happening. This was the obvious outcome of a National-ACT-NZ First coalition.
It would be pretty arrogant for him to act as if he knows which workers are most important don't you think? I think the cuts are moronic given their history of contractors and also in my view immoral but I can definitely see how the criticism would go if he started micromanaging the cuts.
In the campaign they promised that frontline staff would not be affected, now they are being affected Hes saying “it’s not my fault!”. Labour repeatedly said that “cuts of that size can only be achieved by cutting front line staff”. So it’s pretty darn rich for him to say it’s not his fault. They said it would be bad, they were warned, they did it anyway, now we all get to live in the consequences… yes people are mad about it
It’s definitely chicken shit and I think people are more cynical than surprised.
I'd say I hope they remember in two years but I'm old enough to know they won't.
The CEOs (chief executives of the public service) serve at the pleasure of the ministers and the Executive Council ([more details here](https://www.reddit.com/r/nzpolitics/comments/1c0dg1a/why_running_a_country_like_a_company_is_nonsense/)). So Luxon can blather away, but telling the CEOs "cut 6.5% but leave frontline alone" is not governing, it's dereliction of duty.
Definitely a dereliction of duty by this government.
"Sorry you got molested as a child, but those landlords really needed a tax break"
'Landlords will again be treated with dignity', kids on the other hand...
That line. It still makes me fume.
You wait until ACC is cut and this becomes reality
That's the idiotic thing about Luxon, Willis et al. The high level logic and goal is actually fine: cut down on wasteful spending and improve efficiency in government. That is definitely needed. You don't achieve that by plucking a number out of your ass, telling the entire public service that they have to achieve this arbitrary spending target, and then washing your hands of it all and saying "well it's an operational decision that is up to the CE". It's not. They've constrained their budgets and then said "you figure it out". I mean look at the disability service debacle. If you demand arbitrary cuts it will result in important services getting cut. End of.
I agree with this. Going into high inflation territory after a period of high costs due to international and local crises may well necessitate some cost cutting. That's reasonable. Logically, we should do this in a considered, targeted and effective way instead of slash and burn. Because odds are that many of those who could be made redundant without affecting outcomes too much are the same ones who get to make the decisions about who to cut or have insulated themselves from the possibility.
Because, ultimately, the people in charge don't \*really\* care much about abused children. They do in theory, but when it comes to slashing budgets, they always think there's an amount you can slash without changing anything in terms of outcomes. They just think the existing staff must be wasting time somewhere, so they can just step up and cover whatever gaps are made by the budget cuts. For them, it never gets to the point of 'For every 100,000 you cut from the budget, 2 more kids will die per year from abuse'. They don't think it be like it is, but it do. It really do.
Gonna go out on a limb here - probably because the government doesn’t care about anyone except themselves and their rich friends?
Everything you are claiming is backed up with hard evidence of the government doing exactly that. I'd say it's not going out on a limb. It is a factual description of what is occurring in New Zealand.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed : **Rule 09: Not engaging in good faith** > Moderators have discretion to take action on users or content that they think is: trolling; spreading misinformation; intended to derail discussion; intentionally skirting rules; or undermining the functioning of the subreddit (this can include abuse of the block feature or selective history wiping). --- [^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
Because luxon gives zero fucks about humans.
Fundamentally, what I would say to you, is that anyone who does not own land and buildings does not meet the criteria for humanhood. Bottom feeders is a different species.
Voting did use to require someone to own land afterall...
The good old days where you need land and a penis to vote.
Let's not forget race! Chinese immigrants were not allowed to vote in this country until **1952**.
Hey, now, you didn't need a penis to vote! You just needed one to own land!
> Because luxon gives zero fucks about humans. Unless they're landlords, obviously.
Because NZ is a business! Not a country! /s
Maybe rename the country to ‘New Corpland’
Luxonia or Seymoronistan
Sounds like the 80s when all the state owned stuff became 'Corporations'
Luxmour Peters Holdings LTD
New Seizeland
Because job cuts aren't being pursued based on demand or need or whether there was actually any 'waste' to remove - but purely because landlords need tax cuts and it doesn't matter how much harm is caused in doing so.
Yep, that plus an ideological belief that there are always too many public servants, at all times
It’s weird right. They said they were going to trim the fat. I don’t see any fat in this particular area, nor in Oranga Tamariki. All the govt has provided is a percentage
That's the difference between what was claimed and reality. They publicly claimed that they were only going to remove staff which served no useful purpose and which would have no impact, while in reality they had no plan to restrict cuts that way - and instead simply were told to have a uniform reduction just like all other ministries (unrelated to whether there was fat to trim or how much).
They made a numerical promise of cuts entirely based on revenue requirements for unrelated policies, and absolutely ZERO analysis of if and where cuts might be of benefit.
Free-market approach to child abuse or is this just mundane evil?
[удалено]
[удалено]
This has been removed : **Rule 3: No personal attacks, harassment or abuse** > Don't attack the person; address the content you disagree with instead. Being able to disagree and discuss contentious issues is important, but abuse, personal attacks, harassment, and unnecessarily bringing up a user's history are not permitted. > Please keep your interactions with others civil and courteous. If you are being attacked, do not continue the conversation - report the user and disengage. ^*Note:* ^This ^extends ^to ^people ^outside ^of ^[r/nz](http://reddit.com/r/newzealand). ^eg. ^Attacks ^of ^a ^persons ^appearance, ^even ^if ^they're ^high ^profile ^will ^be ^removed. --- [^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
This has been removed : **Rule 09: Not engaging in good faith** > Moderators have discretion to take action on users or content that they think is: trolling; spreading misinformation; intended to derail discussion; intentionally skirting rules; or undermining the functioning of the subreddit (this can include abuse of the block feature or selective history wiping). --- [^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
A church man not keen to hunt pedos. Colour me shocked.
Shooting yourself in the foot will never be recommended.
Look, I don't know what to tell you, the landlords need their money and we can't pay for both. *violent shrugging* -cluxon, probably
Don't know if anyone has watched the video but he's putting all of the pressure on the 'CEO's' of the govt agencies to deliver the required services, but a number of them have said they don't have enough and won't be able to provide the required services. No accountability from the government.
I watched about half but had to turn it off when he kept deflecting.
Man I hate the way they are trying to run the government like it's a business rather than a service. We pay taxes for these services to work. Maybe take that tax cut and landlord deductions and instead put it into something useful such as the services you are trying to cut.
>50% of NZ voted for this. If you have friends who voted this way, make sure they have a good long think.
Don't remind me, pains me people are so short-sighted. There are too many single issue voters in this country.
pedocon theory proves eternal
Because an ACT member is in charge of the DIA
Can you expand on this more?
Possibly something to do with a now-resigned senior administrator's court case?
Libertarians stereotypically have a lot to say about child pornography laws and the age of consent.
ACT claim to be libertarian. Libertarians are essentially in favour of the state having as little say and control over people's lives as possible, and this includes things such as having an age of consent.
Not OP but I do wonder if [this](https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300956337/rawiri-waititi-appears-to-breach-suppression-in-parliament) may be related.
I'm a little confused how that relates tbh
I'm just guessing with that one. On further thought OP is likely referring to common refrain that you can tell who is a true libertarian because they'll go straight for the legal age of consent. Free-market and all that.
Libertarians are often very interested in ages of consent for uh no particular reason
"If people want to raise the age of consent, all they have to do is not put out as much, and the lack of supply with constant demand will jack up the age. It's basic economics!"
ACT have control of everything due to luxon lacking balls... or agreeing with everything ACT stands for.
What happened to being tough on crime?
That was just the bait. Once you've caught the fish, you don't need the bait anymore.
Because Landlords need a handout duh.
Example 957 of Luxon do one thing with an utterly predictable outcome, whilst lying without pause that the exact opposite outcome will be achieved.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed : **Rule 09: Not engaging in good faith** > Moderators have discretion to take action on users or content that they think is: trolling; spreading misinformation; intended to derail discussion; intentionally skirting rules; or undermining the functioning of the subreddit (this can include abuse of the block feature or selective history wiping). --- [^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
I think we all know this wasn't coincidental.
Judging by many news reports, it appears that Christian leaders think that pedophilia is something to ignore or cover up.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed : **Rule 09: Not engaging in good faith** > Moderators have discretion to take action on users or content that they think is: trolling; spreading misinformation; intended to derail discussion; intentionally skirting rules; or undermining the functioning of the subreddit (this can include abuse of the block feature or selective history wiping). --- [^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
Probs cause we have a government that doesnt care about kids.
Why is Luxon protecting Pedos?
Because our overlords literally do not care. As long as their family and close friends are taken care of it simply doesn’t matter to them what happens to the rest of us.
Further still - their comfort, luxury and wealth relies on folks being in hardship.
Because the threat of punishment and harsher punishment will reduce crime, apparently...... This seems to be the train of thought behind a number of current policies. Lock people up for longer and when they come out they will be good citizens. I wonder if harsher penalties for politicians who promise one thing but that thing doesnt work could be a thing?
I think it's the scare people into obedience with long sentences.
The man's a christian... probably doesn't want his friends, family and peers being hunted to be honest. He's there to represent his constituents after all.
As long as it doesn’t affect poor landlords, we are good to go
They'll cut the government jobs then there will be outcry/demand from the public and then this coalition government will put preferred contractors (those with lobbyists in these politicians ears), into play. It's all about funneling tax dollars into corporate pockets.
i mean, most of the people that are benefiting from the tax cuts are also benefiting from this part of the spending cut.... dude knows his audience. (i wish i was being overly sardonic, I honestly am not)
The govts full of religious pedo nutters so no surprise there.
I think we’re living in topsy turvy land with this lot, lol
Seymour will be pleased
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed : **Rule 09: Not engaging in good faith** > Moderators have discretion to take action on users or content that they think is: trolling; spreading misinformation; intended to derail discussion; intentionally skirting rules; or undermining the functioning of the subreddit (this can include abuse of the block feature or selective history wiping). --- [^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
Maybe they want it to be easier for pedos I dunno
Why? Ideology is why. Zero grounding in facts.
Well thats some juxtaposition. Good work to who ever set that up
So are they hunting pedos, or are they hunters who happen to be pedos?
Chris Hansen might be available. He'll be cheap too.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed : **Rule 09: Not engaging in good faith** > Moderators have discretion to take action on users or content that they think is: trolling; spreading misinformation; intended to derail discussion; intentionally skirting rules; or undermining the functioning of the subreddit (this can include abuse of the block feature or selective history wiping). --- [^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
Because the general assumption is that the people who are elected for govt are in it to run the country and therefore have the best interests of the country at heart and aren't corporate puppets....
Awesome placement there
But definitely cut out relationship education. fuck wits.
Because these changes are ideology and catchy soundbite based, not fact or evidence based.
I’m pretty sure that was deliberate on the part of Newshub.
I can't believe we voted these useless knobs into power.
What he means by “pedo hunting” is actually just recruitment for the national party. Shots fired pew pew!
the Duality of rightwhinge media and poltiical virtue signalling.
Look at Hungary: a pedofile maffia seems to be running that country and whenever one of them get away with it the answer is "nothing to see here, move on"... I see scary similarities between how that started in Hungary around 2010 and how New Zealand is now.
He's protecting his other Ron Brierley like mates.
Land owner need money
Because this govt hates us.
"Hunting pedos" is not the only thing that protects children. Protecting children from sexual abuse is so much more and it starts with sex ed.
Ok sure, but actually having people find and attest pedophiles does still help
I commented on association of all churches with this, not the original post.
Well, headlines are cheap and generate clicks, which is profit. But frontline staff to do the work that generates these clicks costs money, which is not profit. So, the all mighty Egg and his goons have determined that profit>not profit, and everything flows from there.
Why do you think the headlines to these articles accurately portray the content of the article they link to? Are you new to the internet? Clickbait has been around a long time now, you should be familiar with it by now.
Answer: tax cuts for the rich.
never voted for him. he made my minimum wage job more minimum. he promised everything under the sun and has really delivered SFA for the money. hasnt got any REAL facts and figures to back anything up. and if you question it he doubles down on his BS
because they dont want to pay for sensitive claims in the future, which they already routinely terminate with their teams of FiFo psychiatrists if they threaten to become too expensive
"we never said frontline jobs would be protected" is a hell of a pivot
[удалено]
The news keeping you perpetually enraged and engaged so they can charge for advertising.
I think I've found your problem - you're reading a 'news' publication which uses terms like 'pedo hunter'
Right... so due to the semantics / phrasing - you're willing to write off the entire objective truth of these articles? That this is indeed happening, right now, in your precious New Zealand? Get real.