In a confession that has shocked the twittersphere, and is sure to cause ripples of outrage across middle New Zealand, TV3 Senior Political Reporter Patrick Gower has confessed his hatred for eggs, and as an extension, the entire primary industry that is the backbone of this nation.
His colleagues, friends and family would not comment, giving rise to the certainty of their condemnation of Gower's actions and their lack of support to his anti-nationalism sentiment.
Seymour McTurken from the New Zealand Egg Federation was both saddened and disappointed on hearing about Gower's outburst. "I am both sad and disappointed. Gower has undermined the economic fabric of this country and insulted New Zealanders everywhere. Who doesn't like an Eggs Benedict on a Saturday morning? Traitors to this country, that's who.'
Gower could not be reached for comment which suggests that he is both remorseful and unrepentant for his actions.
Monday, December 3, 2012
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
John Banks and Talent2
John Banks was a shareholder in Talent2, the company behind Novapay that was contracted by the Government to provide the payroll system to the Ministry of Education. The 2012 Register of Pecuniary Interests states this on the Parliament website. John Banks is also the Associate Minister of Education.
Banks has since released a statement:
The Hon John Banks Family Trust has not held shares in Talent2 International Limited since 28 May 2012 when Talent2 moved to privatise the company and de-list from the Australian stock exchange.
Or, to put it another way, John Banks has not held shares since he could no longer do so. The choice was taken away from him due to the de-listing of the company.
Mr Banks advised the Cabinet Office of the sale of his Family Trust’s shares on 29 May 2012.
Mr Banks became a shareholder in Talent2 as a result of Talent2’s acquisition of Sugar International Limited which the Hon John Banks’ Family Trust held shares in.
What was Sugar International (formerly Business Solutions) involved in and why did Talent2 acquire it? His relationship was more than shareholder of Sugar International as he was also the Chairman. He also bought half share into the company and the Huljich family was also involved. The long sorry saga of that particular relationship can be found on NBR. Needless to say there were charges.
John Wall was the Managing Director of Sugar International alongside John Banks and founded the company in 2001. John Wall is now CEO of RTO at Talent2. Banks was Wall's mentor and they remain 'firm friends'.
Talent2's relationship with the NZ Government is more than just Novopay and the payroll system. They also are involved within other areas as well. Putting talent2 into the parliamentary website pulls up such examples as this.
Mr Banks declared his Family Trust’s shareholding in Talent2 to the Cabinet Office when he first became a Minister.
He has to. It's required. Like donations. *slowly raises left eyebrow until it falls off head*
He has never received any government information or briefings regarding Talent2 (or any company they are connected to), or participated in any discussions at either Cabinet or Cabinet Committee.
A follow up tweet from the ACT Party, who are suddenly interested in me, bless:
.@Dovil No discussions occurred in front of him. He declared potential conflict and was not involved in any discussions.
So he has a relationship with at least one person that we know who works for Talent2 and we can be relieved to hear that he never participated in, or heard, any discussion about an issue involving a portfolio that he is Associate Minister for. Yay, Government!
I know nothing, I heard nothing, I remember nothing. A slogan for this current Government if there ever was one.
The issue of the pay system is outside Mr Banks' responsibilities as Associate Minister of Education, and the Novopay contract was signed off in September 2008 by the previous Labour Government.
Absolutely, it was. The original contact was signed under a different Government. But apparently this particular contract may not be as cut and dry as all that.
Note: Andrew Banks, Chairman of Talent2, is not related to Hon John Banks.
Lol.
Who knows, maybe John Banks is squeaky clean on this. Squeaky clean like bee pollen. But what a gamble to take. *snare drum*
Business doesn't need to lobby Government any more, because Business is Government. There is a definite incestuous vibe with some of the wheelings and dealings that are going on, and with huge amounts of public money going into the pockets of private companies I think there needs to a much greater scrutiny undertaken by media and the opposition to make sure that there isn't anything untoward going on during such things as tendering processes. It might not be as sexy as teapots and coups but it's definitely needed.
I'm not media, and so not the right person for the job, but if someone could look into this and other contracts, such as with Serco (which is so god damn controversial and yet barely a squeak from press here), that would be fantastic. Boring work, sure, but if you did find something out you can run after politicians and shove microphones at them and that's always fun and makes for great tv.
Banks has since released a statement:
The Hon John Banks Family Trust has not held shares in Talent2 International Limited since 28 May 2012 when Talent2 moved to privatise the company and de-list from the Australian stock exchange.
Or, to put it another way, John Banks has not held shares since he could no longer do so. The choice was taken away from him due to the de-listing of the company.
Mr Banks advised the Cabinet Office of the sale of his Family Trust’s shares on 29 May 2012.
Mr Banks became a shareholder in Talent2 as a result of Talent2’s acquisition of Sugar International Limited which the Hon John Banks’ Family Trust held shares in.
What was Sugar International (formerly Business Solutions) involved in and why did Talent2 acquire it? His relationship was more than shareholder of Sugar International as he was also the Chairman. He also bought half share into the company and the Huljich family was also involved. The long sorry saga of that particular relationship can be found on NBR. Needless to say there were charges.
John Wall was the Managing Director of Sugar International alongside John Banks and founded the company in 2001. John Wall is now CEO of RTO at Talent2. Banks was Wall's mentor and they remain 'firm friends'.
Talent2's relationship with the NZ Government is more than just Novopay and the payroll system. They also are involved within other areas as well. Putting talent2 into the parliamentary website pulls up such examples as this.
Mr Banks declared his Family Trust’s shareholding in Talent2 to the Cabinet Office when he first became a Minister.
He has to. It's required. Like donations. *slowly raises left eyebrow until it falls off head*
He has never received any government information or briefings regarding Talent2 (or any company they are connected to), or participated in any discussions at either Cabinet or Cabinet Committee.
A follow up tweet from the ACT Party, who are suddenly interested in me, bless:
.
So he has a relationship with at least one person that we know who works for Talent2 and we can be relieved to hear that he never participated in, or heard, any discussion about an issue involving a portfolio that he is Associate Minister for. Yay, Government!
I know nothing, I heard nothing, I remember nothing. A slogan for this current Government if there ever was one.
The issue of the pay system is outside Mr Banks' responsibilities as Associate Minister of Education, and the Novopay contract was signed off in September 2008 by the previous Labour Government.
Absolutely, it was. The original contact was signed under a different Government. But apparently this particular contract may not be as cut and dry as all that.
Note: Andrew Banks, Chairman of Talent2, is not related to Hon John Banks.
Lol.
Who knows, maybe John Banks is squeaky clean on this. Squeaky clean like bee pollen. But what a gamble to take. *snare drum*
Business doesn't need to lobby Government any more, because Business is Government. There is a definite incestuous vibe with some of the wheelings and dealings that are going on, and with huge amounts of public money going into the pockets of private companies I think there needs to a much greater scrutiny undertaken by media and the opposition to make sure that there isn't anything untoward going on during such things as tendering processes. It might not be as sexy as teapots and coups but it's definitely needed.
I'm not media, and so not the right person for the job, but if someone could look into this and other contracts, such as with Serco (which is so god damn controversial and yet barely a squeak from press here), that would be fantastic. Boring work, sure, but if you did find something out you can run after politicians and shove microphones at them and that's always fun and makes for great tv.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Confessions of a Former Christian Homophobe
Sometimes you’ll come across articles where people talk
about how they used to be religious but then untangled themselves from the
shackles of faith and walked out to be bathed in the sun of logic and reason
while a choir of Angel’s didn’t sing as they don’t exist. Then they point out
that they were children at the time and my lip curls in disdain. Way to rub it
in.
I was a fully fledged adult when I finally slipped out of
religions paws. Reason wasn’t enough for my desertion. Hey, reason couldn’t
dent the years of fear that had been indoctrinated in to me. “If you are
lukewarm God will spit you out” was a phrase I often was told about God’s appalling
table manners and my ever imminent descent to hell. I was a doubt away from
being cast out of God’s love in to a lake of sulphur. I’ve been to Rotorua,
this was not an eternity I wanted.
I first got a taste of Christianity in primary school
because of a teacher who pushed it during Easter and Christmas with colouring
in of manger scenes and other religious imagery. If I signed up there was a
life of chocolate eggs and presents ahead of me and what kid doesn’t want that.
Also there was the promise of an omnipresent Parent who would always love me.
Religion can be awfully Freudian and the appeal of pleasing a parent figure is
an innate drive in all of us.
That was my first hit. My second, and when I became an
addict, was as a teenager in High School. I answered an ad looking for
volunteers to participate in a school play. No mention was made that it was for
the school’s Christian group, and by the time I found out I had already been
lured in with the promise of the lead part. And everyone was super friendly!
That’s because they wanted something from me, but still, friendly! Being new in
town and lost in a sea of scowling teenage faces this promise of instant
friendships was enough to get me signed up.
First of all it’s the best feeling ever. Love from God, love
from your fellow believers, but once they’ve got you hooked they start reeling
out the next phase: fear. Now, I don’t know if you’re familiar with the Ten
Commandments but the first four are pretty much setting up the faith as the one
and only. You’re in the club, or you’re doomed, you slip up and you’re doomed.
This is all about maintaining compliance; are you with us, or are you against
us? You’ve got to be in it to win it. Wait, I think that’s Lotto.
What effect does this have? Well, religious leaders have a
hell of a lot of power. If they tell you that homosexuality is a sin, you
believe them, no independent research required, especially when you’re a teenager.
Conformity is the goal and this is one of the reasons why otherwise good people
can do evil things if they’re told that evil things are in fact godly. You
should feel guilty for having sexual feelings, for not being devoted enough,
for listening to Crowded House because they were satanic…there was a lot of
confusing, weird, guilt.
I was a good Christian girl, and as such because I had been
told this was the case, I believed that homosexuality was a sin against God. Jesus was a champion of the underdog and was invested in helping the poor and the suffering, but our High School group followed the adult who led us instead. I
am sure during that time I made homophobic comments. I am also sure that in all
probability I had made a homophobic comment in front of someone that was gay. I
am deeply, deeply ashamed of my conduct. I am ashamed that I let other people’s
prejudice become part of my worldview, I am ashamed that I felt I was right in
exhibiting a behaviour that was hurtful, that was toxic, and that sought to marginalise
people for nothing more than for who they were. I am ashamed that because I was
too scared to think for myself that I allowed myself to become part of a
culture that harmed others.
After High School I moved from small town NZ to the Big
Smoke, attended uni, and having escaped that environment, and with the tools to
now think for myself, realised just how horribly wrong I had been. Ironically
some of the best and closest friendships I have made in my life have been with
people who are gay; how horrifying to think that I could have lost out on that
because of something as stupid as prejudice. How much less of a person I could
have been.
Some homophobes want to have power and control others, some
because they’ve fallen under the influence of others, but there is hope that
people’s thinking can be changed. I’m really, really proud of the younger generation
of New Zealanders who are a lot more forward thinking and inclusive of their fellow human
beings. There is hope that people can change if
the thinking behind it is challenged and if common human decency is championed. Think before you hate because the harm you can do to other
people is real.
Nothing good ever came out of intolerance and hatred, except
maybe chocolate eggs.
ETA: Submissions for the Marriage Equality Bill close off tomorrow and can be made here: http://ht.ly/eKg27
ETA: Submissions for the Marriage Equality Bill close off tomorrow and can be made here: http://ht.ly/eKg27
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Colin Craig: We Don't Just Hate Gays, We Hate Doe-Eyed Children As Well
The Children of Delinquent Parents Shouldn’t Get Lunch
PRESS RELEASE23 October 2012
The Children of Delinquent Parents Shouldn’t Get Lunch
Recent discussion over the effect of lunchlessness (a word recently created by conservative think tanks over a grueling six days), on educational outcomes arising from Auckland University’s research misses the point says Colin Craig, Leader of the Conservative Party.
"The issue is not whether lunchlessness is detrimental to learning. Rather the issue is a parents’ duty to provide for their children," says Mr Craig. "It should be noted that I didn't actually read the research, but I'm outraged that people are expecting charity and kindness which I can proudly say that the Conservative Party is certainly not about."
"Where a child is regularly sent to school without a lunch, the parent is being delinquent. Proposed solutions such as state funding of school lunches, which Bill English says the Government is open to, will only encourage this delinquent behaviour by allowing the child to survive to go on to have children of their own. Such programmes are noble ideas, but end up being another pathway into government dependency, and an ever-growing cost to taxpayers. We want these children to learn the best way possible by starving their young developing brains of important fuel and nutrients. That will show them."
"We recognise that it is entirely inappropriate to encourage other bad behaviours. We don’t encourage people to take illegal drugs, or to drink too much or to encourage young children to eat when they're hungry. Instead we recognise the appropriate response is intervention. Intervention holds a person to account and demands a change in behaviour and the only socially humane way of doing this is to cover our ears with our hands so we can ignore the cries of a child who has a hungry stomach and no way to fill it, dependent as they are on others."
"We need to recognise there are no ‘free lunches’. ‘Free lunches’ are a case of responsible New Zealanders picking up the tab for delinquent parents. If a child falls over on the street breaking their leg and their parent does nothing, the only thing to do is to step over the crying mangled body of the child and continue on my way."
"The proper response to delinquent parents is to charge them the cost of rectifying their bad behaviour so if a child does come to school hungry because the parents don't have enough money for food we will help them by fining them. As a country we need to start expecting people to be responsible for themselves and their families or letting these children starve in the streets. We need to stop a continuation of the culture of entitlement and only letting generations die of hunger will put an end to this. It's what a modern caring society would want."
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
How to Be a Tobacco Industry Apologist
“Boo hoo, tobacco causes suffering and premature death,” sack cloth wearing hippies shriek. “Government is merely enforcing the will of the people by legislating against these death merchants,” they hand wring. “If Government knew then what it knows now it would never have been a legal product,” they high-pitch warble while playing hacky sack.
Nobody likes a hippy, so here’s a guide on how to be an apologist for the tobacco industry.
Let’s face it, trying to put together an argument for tobacco is hard work, so don’t bother. Slippery slope your argument into easy street and make connections that don’t exist so you can argue for that instead. Confused? Don’t be!
Take the lead from Family First – the idea of two adults of the same sex being able to get married might not bother the average reasonable person, but the idea of incestuous poly marriages just might. Link the two things and before you know it you’ll have someone who is pro marriage equality trying to defend the concept of an unholy cousin-brother-sister alliance turning up at a church doorstep demanding for the local priest to de-basterdise their brood of blobby web-fingered children.
So don’t be silly enough to try and argue for tobacco, instead drag wine or fast food in to it and make it about that instead. If you eat a burger or consume a glass of wine as recommended there is no undue health effects, in fact you might even get some vitamins and antioxidants. If you consume tobacco as intended there is a high probability that you will get sick and die prematurely. BUT if someone ate a lot of burgers and drank a lot of wine there would be a chance of health problems, so link them, now skip the part about tobacco, and make this an argument about people trying to stop you enjoying a glass of vino and wanting to run into a children’s birthday party and stab Ronald McDonald in the head. How is THAT reasonable?
If you legislate for marriage equality you are legislating for poly-incest web-fingered babies. If you legislate against tobacco you are legislating against children’s clowns and your god given right to enjoy a frosty beer on a hot summers day. What a compelling argument! Yay, you’ve won!
On a side-note if someone tries to do the opposite and equate tobacco with addictive substances such as heroin or cocaine be incredibly indignant and say that they’re nothing alike and they’re trying to derail the argument. That should put them in their place.
Also talk about rights a lot. People like those. Damn it, as an adult you have the right to be able to smoke and make informed decisions! See what I did there? I made this not about passing legislation so that brandings can’t be displayed, I’m making this now about important information being withheld from you and rights, the rights of an industry that purposely harms it’s users, to keep profiting from it, and what’s more important than that? The right not to be harmed by a product that kills half its users? I don’t remember seeing that in the Bill of Rights, you human loving, corporate hating, weirdo! Also try and make it sound like it’s not just branding being removed, but somehow imply that government is trying to ban the sale of it, or that smokers will no longer be able to remember what brand of cigarettes they smoke because of artery damage in their brai…no, wait, skip that bit.
And the tobacco industry has a right to use its branding. It’s spent money and research on specific colours and fonts to create an image for people to want to identify with so that they’ll become loyal. And with all those addictive chemicals thrown in they have the potential to be pretty damn loyal – high five!
Who are those adults making these informed decisions? Well since most smokers don’t jump brands, the industry is worried about their bottom line when it comes to attracting new smokers. After all they’ve spent a lot of energy equating smoking cigarettes with being aloof, cool, sophisticated and rebellious – and coincidentally enough the group that this would most appeal to is the group that are the ones that start smoking in the first place – teenagers.
Most smokers are around 14 when they first started smoking, and knowing this (hey, they’re super child friendly, from hiring policies to advertising ones) and it’s important these kids are kept informed as to whether they want to be seen as a sophisticated gold pack smoking Benson and Hedges customer, or a happy go-lucky Holiday smoker. With plain packaging cigarettes will have their veneer stripped away and will only be seen as what they actually are – a container filled with pieces of paper which has had plant material and chemicals rolled in to it. And with reminders of what the product actually does to you (tumours, black lungs, death, despair, misery) teenagers who otherwise think they’re immortal, and whose brains aren’t fully formed yet for the best decision making, might have another psychological reason to take up smoking removed. Which would certainly be bad for tobacco’s right to make a multi-billion dollar profits from their pre-mature deaths, which we can all agree would be wrong.
So to sum up: pretend that the argument you are making is for something else entirely, something that’s easier to argue for. Talk about rights and freedom to try and give yourself a moral platform to speak from. Because most users tend to be the most vulnerable in society, if you’re going to be a spokesperson for tobacco try to be a white male of privilege to add balance. And remember, never, ever acknowledge the reality of what the tobacco industry is or that it knowingly sells an addictive substance that maims and kills its users, because people might become repulsed by that and think that you’re an amoral douchebag who smells funny.
Nobody likes a hippy, so here’s a guide on how to be an apologist for the tobacco industry.
Let’s face it, trying to put together an argument for tobacco is hard work, so don’t bother. Slippery slope your argument into easy street and make connections that don’t exist so you can argue for that instead. Confused? Don’t be!
Take the lead from Family First – the idea of two adults of the same sex being able to get married might not bother the average reasonable person, but the idea of incestuous poly marriages just might. Link the two things and before you know it you’ll have someone who is pro marriage equality trying to defend the concept of an unholy cousin-brother-sister alliance turning up at a church doorstep demanding for the local priest to de-basterdise their brood of blobby web-fingered children.
So don’t be silly enough to try and argue for tobacco, instead drag wine or fast food in to it and make it about that instead. If you eat a burger or consume a glass of wine as recommended there is no undue health effects, in fact you might even get some vitamins and antioxidants. If you consume tobacco as intended there is a high probability that you will get sick and die prematurely. BUT if someone ate a lot of burgers and drank a lot of wine there would be a chance of health problems, so link them, now skip the part about tobacco, and make this an argument about people trying to stop you enjoying a glass of vino and wanting to run into a children’s birthday party and stab Ronald McDonald in the head. How is THAT reasonable?
If you legislate for marriage equality you are legislating for poly-incest web-fingered babies. If you legislate against tobacco you are legislating against children’s clowns and your god given right to enjoy a frosty beer on a hot summers day. What a compelling argument! Yay, you’ve won!
On a side-note if someone tries to do the opposite and equate tobacco with addictive substances such as heroin or cocaine be incredibly indignant and say that they’re nothing alike and they’re trying to derail the argument. That should put them in their place.
Also talk about rights a lot. People like those. Damn it, as an adult you have the right to be able to smoke and make informed decisions! See what I did there? I made this not about passing legislation so that brandings can’t be displayed, I’m making this now about important information being withheld from you and rights, the rights of an industry that purposely harms it’s users, to keep profiting from it, and what’s more important than that? The right not to be harmed by a product that kills half its users? I don’t remember seeing that in the Bill of Rights, you human loving, corporate hating, weirdo! Also try and make it sound like it’s not just branding being removed, but somehow imply that government is trying to ban the sale of it, or that smokers will no longer be able to remember what brand of cigarettes they smoke because of artery damage in their brai…no, wait, skip that bit.
And the tobacco industry has a right to use its branding. It’s spent money and research on specific colours and fonts to create an image for people to want to identify with so that they’ll become loyal. And with all those addictive chemicals thrown in they have the potential to be pretty damn loyal – high five!
Who are those adults making these informed decisions? Well since most smokers don’t jump brands, the industry is worried about their bottom line when it comes to attracting new smokers. After all they’ve spent a lot of energy equating smoking cigarettes with being aloof, cool, sophisticated and rebellious – and coincidentally enough the group that this would most appeal to is the group that are the ones that start smoking in the first place – teenagers.
Most smokers are around 14 when they first started smoking, and knowing this (hey, they’re super child friendly, from hiring policies to advertising ones) and it’s important these kids are kept informed as to whether they want to be seen as a sophisticated gold pack smoking Benson and Hedges customer, or a happy go-lucky Holiday smoker. With plain packaging cigarettes will have their veneer stripped away and will only be seen as what they actually are – a container filled with pieces of paper which has had plant material and chemicals rolled in to it. And with reminders of what the product actually does to you (tumours, black lungs, death, despair, misery) teenagers who otherwise think they’re immortal, and whose brains aren’t fully formed yet for the best decision making, might have another psychological reason to take up smoking removed. Which would certainly be bad for tobacco’s right to make a multi-billion dollar profits from their pre-mature deaths, which we can all agree would be wrong.
So to sum up: pretend that the argument you are making is for something else entirely, something that’s easier to argue for. Talk about rights and freedom to try and give yourself a moral platform to speak from. Because most users tend to be the most vulnerable in society, if you’re going to be a spokesperson for tobacco try to be a white male of privilege to add balance. And remember, never, ever acknowledge the reality of what the tobacco industry is or that it knowingly sells an addictive substance that maims and kills its users, because people might become repulsed by that and think that you’re an amoral douchebag who smells funny.
Monday, October 8, 2012
National: Youth Wages Are Just the Beginning
National have announced on the back of their Youth Wage
policy a new financial incentive to hiring more employees that harks back to
the days of old. Key explained that it had come about from discussing the job
creation potential that would ensue from paying young people only 80% of the
minimum wage. “We realised that if employers could now afford to hire 1.2
people that there was room for real economic stimulation to occur if only we
had the drive and the vision to push this even further”.
The second rollout from the Youth Wage will be entitled the
No Wage. Employers will instead be incentivised to take on more workers by not
having to pay any wages at all. “Obviously employers will be legally required
to cover board and food,” Key said, noting that workers would no longer be able
to pay for such things from their weekly wage of nothing at all. “Planet Key
isn’t the kind of place where we would just leave people to starve on the
street, because then there is the additional expense of retraining another set
of workers which is financially inefficient.”
Key suggested that the ratings success of such programmes as
Downton Abbey meant that the public had a hunger to embrace the ways of the
past and this new policy would prove popular. “With No Wages, employers will now
be able to build large stately manors that will also entice more tourists to travel
here to take photos of these and the serfs happily toiling in the fields below.”
Key further noted that with Government expecting lower tax
revenue the privatisation of public assets would be accelerated. Offers had
already been received from Hollywood for using the Beehive as a backdrop and this
was scheduled to be blown up for James Cameron’s new blockbuster being filmed
next May.
Jetstar: We're Sorry You're Easily Offended
PRESS RELEASE
Jetstar have been in the press on more than one occasion lately, and it’s not been for reasons that the company would like. Clocks not being adjusted for daylight savings meant some flights had to be cancelled, and two pregnant women were asked to disembark from flights despite Jetstar having been happy to fly them to their destinations. Adding to Jetstar’s public relation woes a woman was recently asked to produce a medical certificate before boarding, despite the fact that she was not pregnant.
A spokesperson for the airline said that crew were asked to request a medical certificate “if they have reasonable belief” that a passenger was pregnant. Mr Albert Cummings from Customer Care has since issued an apology in relation to this recent incident. “Obviously the passenger was most likely fat and we sincerely apologise if any offense was taken by pointing that out in front of other passengers that her grossly rotund belly looked like another human being was gestating inside of it when it wasn’t”. Mr Cummings was also quick to note that fat people were more sensitive to taking offence even when none had been meant. “Customers should also take responsibility by having a medical certificate if they are fat or wearing unflattering clothing just so all bases are covered.”
Management at Jestar have met with staff and a new policy will be implemented requiring all people at the gate to state whether they were fat or pregnant before boarding the plane, while baggage handlers would rate their clothing out of marks of ten. Passenger could then expect to sit on the tarmac for four hours because the pilot forgot to set their alarm clock. There had also been discussions around halting the practice of spitting on customers, but a final decision would be postponed until the AGM in early November.
Air New Zealand were reported to be busy spinning around in their chairs and flinging their arms up in delighted glee.
 |
| Jetstar Spokesperson Mr Albert Cummings |
A spokesperson for the airline said that crew were asked to request a medical certificate “if they have reasonable belief” that a passenger was pregnant. Mr Albert Cummings from Customer Care has since issued an apology in relation to this recent incident. “Obviously the passenger was most likely fat and we sincerely apologise if any offense was taken by pointing that out in front of other passengers that her grossly rotund belly looked like another human being was gestating inside of it when it wasn’t”. Mr Cummings was also quick to note that fat people were more sensitive to taking offence even when none had been meant. “Customers should also take responsibility by having a medical certificate if they are fat or wearing unflattering clothing just so all bases are covered.”
Management at Jestar have met with staff and a new policy will be implemented requiring all people at the gate to state whether they were fat or pregnant before boarding the plane, while baggage handlers would rate their clothing out of marks of ten. Passenger could then expect to sit on the tarmac for four hours because the pilot forgot to set their alarm clock. There had also been discussions around halting the practice of spitting on customers, but a final decision would be postponed until the AGM in early November.
Air New Zealand were reported to be busy spinning around in their chairs and flinging their arms up in delighted glee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)