Posts by Heather Gaye
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
But wherever reasonable I feel family is the best port of call
You're making the assumption that the state doesn't think this way. Had a quick look at the Ministry of Youth Development site; there was a bit in 2006 outlining the improvements they were making specifically for people on the Independent Youth Benefit, including one-on-one couselling, helping them find work, substance abuse counselling where applicable, and greater work with CYFs to establish whether the family breakdown is indeed irredeemable. Maybe it's changed a bit since your friend was 16. Or...perhaps the policy is solid & the execution is lacking funding.
Also, I found some stats for Independent Youth Benefit in 2007, and the number of people on it have been steadily decreasing since 2001. It's almost exactly a third of what it was then - 1200 people in 07.
-
mark taslov:
The mere existence of a benefit does not automatically mean that it's being thrown around willy-nilly at individuals in the absence of other avenues of support. Likewise, just because you heard of someone that's flagrantly abusing it, doesn't mean that every beneficiary is.
Obviously there are plenty more resources - financial & practical (as there is are every suboptimal circumstance) - that could be done to support those individuals financially, domestically, emotionally, whatever. However, I'm sure that most posters are expressing the opinion that eliminating a benefit entirely - essentially removing state-based support without offering any kind of substitute - is a pretty crap way of addressing the issue. Your point re: BEnglish not offering anything other than "fuck that shit" is bang on.
So... as per usual, you're starting with an inflammatory and ill-constructed point, and are back-engineering it into a very sensible point on the fly, to placate your opposition. It'd be great if you could start with the reasonable points & build on them instead.
-
I assume, given they and others
..that is, the two women at the heart of the controversy.
-
After hearing John Key referring to student loans, I did a bit of digging.
So: people on a benefit (looks like anything that isn't Unemployment benefit) can apply for a student loan to cover fees and course costs. This still applies if they're studying part-time.
If they get a TIA, the amount they're allowed to borrow is reduced by the amount of TIA they get, except for TIA that covers such expenses as transport, child care and disability-related costs.
I assume, given they and others have invested time, effort & organisation into petitioning the minister, that they're not short of a few braincells, and had already filled out the loan application forms. I also imagine, given the TIA figure I saw mentioned was a grand total of $28/week, that they're relying on TIA for exactly the aforementioned expenses.
Here's the relevant studylink page.*
* Disclaimer: This post utilised the Bennett research method. Treat accuracy of information with some caution.
-
Re:
she's (at best) being textually harassed
In full context of reply-to-post, edited for clarity:
If someone comes to [m]e complaining that she's (at best) being textually harassed [which is already bad enough, but complaint may yet be of even worse behaviour], you'll pardon me if Goff's example is one I won't be following [because he also failed to handle the complaint with the gravity it deserved]
So... wrong about it being a jab, and right about Craig's rhetorical flourishes obscuring his actual meaning. The trash-heap has spoken. As you were.
-
Disclaimer: in the most kiwi of traditions, I met Suraya at my best friend's wedding last year, & later discovered my boyfriend knew her cos she'd flatted with an ex-girlfriend of his last century.
-
Feel free to post your alternatives.
As with everything else in, for & pertaining to the mag, the title (and the strapline) were pretty well-researched. There were a stack of other suggestions ("Spitfire" and "License" were popular suggestions) but most of them were either already taken, or didn't quite evoke the right spirit.
-
...sorry, as in my previous post. I think I'll go to bed. Nothing to see here..
-
man, that previous post was pretty poorly written.
..in other news, if the hoardings on private properties are representative of general support in these here parts, David Shearer's got it wrapped up.
-
He was able to predict
that she would be unstable if he left,
so that was sufficient reason
for him to leave.
Wow.No, the point is that this particular suicide is (or should be) incidental to the divorce. This wasn't a murder her; regardless of why the ex-wife felt that death was her only option, it doesn't mean that either the ex-hub or Rankin somehow eviler for it.
Giovanni's original point was that it should be sufficient that Rankin's on her fourth wedding, so obviously on a practical level she's acknowledged that often a perfect nuclear family isn't viable - yet she still espouses the views of nuclear purists.