Lie to me.

So in the words of the fictional Dr Gregory House “Everybody Lies”, and yes we all do it but most of us restrict this to social lies, you know the “does my bum look fat in these” type of lies (the answer not the question) or the “I love it just what I wanted” option. We all know that sort of stuff that makes for an ability to operate in a social group without offending everyone. What’s more when we hear these potential lies (sometimes you really do love the gift) we understand the rules and accept the practice.


On the other hand there are lies we do not find so acceptable and these are generally of the self serving kind that have the potential to damage others. The “I didn’t break the window, he did” type of lies. The motivation for these lies is of course obvious, we wish to avoid the consequences of our actions or perhaps even worse persuade others to action for our own benefit. The “buy this perfume and be instantly desirable” type lie.

Now I understand personal motivations for actions that benefit you, we are after all pretty selfish organisms it is the process by which we ensure our survival. But there is another form which I really don’t understand at all and that is when you lie for no obvious personal benefit.

So once upon a time I was on a flight from Dunedin to Auckland which lands at Wellington on the way to put down some passengers and pick up others. The flight was running late (as usual but that is another story) and so the Auckland bound passengers were asked to remain on the plane. After a while an announcement was made telling us that the plane had encountered an “engineering issue” that needed rectified and there would be a delay. Duly the situation was sorted and the Wellington passengers joined the plane, however they reported that the plane was delayed due to “crew change problems”. Now I neither know nor care which one of these options was correct but clearly one group had been lied to and for no good reason, which ever option was the truth was just as useful a reason as the other option. Potentially neither was the truth and there was a third reason but that would have been ok too I suppose. So why did they do it.

My thought on this little incident is that the marketing “spin doctoring” is so out of hand within Air New Zealand that they now find it difficult to tell the truth. They are too worried that they will “look bad”. You see attendance to an engineering issue might make them seem careful and caring. Not having the right staff in the right place potentially makes you look sloppy and careless. Maybe it is that sort of thinking that drives this sort of behaviour.

A current example that is more serious than a mildly interesting anecdote is the continual lies that swirl around the new Stadium here in Dunedin, the recent statements regarding the $5M of “extras” is a prime example, no doubt some of what was said was true but other things beggar belief.

So none of these are actual quotes but for example, internal signage was the responsibility of the naming sponsor but this has failed to come to fruition. Really? Well if it was agreed with them why not sue them for performance rather than revert to the rate payer. How about this as a reason, it wasn’t agreed. I have no knowledge of the agreement but I bet if it was agreed the rate payers would not be paying.

How about, the catering contractor is contributing $3M to kitchen fit out but a further $2.5M is required. Really? Are you trying to tell me it costs $5.5M to fit out a kitchen, that is an awful lot of pots pans and plates etc. Again I have no actual knowledge but this statement doesn’t ring true with me.

And what about, when the stadium was designed large replay screens were not in use in stadiums and are now common place. Now this is definitely wrong as Carisbrook has had one for years or did they never look at Carisbrook before deciding it was a no go option.

You see that is the big problem with “spin doctoring” the truth, eventually we doubt everything corporate’s say be it the truth or otherwise. And what’s in it for the spin doctors, just as with my Air NZ example often the truth would have done just as well and eventually we would believe you and trust you. Isn’t a trusted brand what marketers strive for? Corporate truth telling would be a useful start.

Rule Victoria..

Victoria was Queen of England from 1837 to 1901, from the age of 18 to 81 which has a nice symmetry about it, this is of course the formative years of our nation (the treaty was signed in 1840) and other commonwealth nations. These years are known as the Victorian era and were an unprecedented period of industry, trade and conquest as Britain surged ahead on all fronts.


Many of the values, ideas and institutions that have sway today owe a great deal to this period of change and advancement and at times I wonder if we aren’t still living in a version of that same era. It was Queen Victoria and her rather prudish ideas about sex that gave us separate male and female toilets rather than the uni-sex arrangements common on continental Europe as an example of her direct influence but mostly it was the driving engine of the industrial revolution that made this time one of such change and influence rather than the queen herself.

It was a time when science was hitting its straps and dabbling in science became a popular pastime amongst the gentry. One of the things of interest became the past or perhaps more particularly antiquity. While Britain was charging around the globe grabbing countries it was also doing a bit of looting on the side. Not that the Victorians would have thought of it that way but the British Museum is not filled with priceless artefacts like the Elgin Marbles because they were presented as gifts, they were mostly taken as of right. (although in the case of the Marbles there was some doubtful paper work associated with them that might have given Lord Elgin permission, not withstanding that the Greek government would now like them back) The “desecration” or destruction of historic sites was not of much concern to these folk provided that bagged a mummy or two to show the folks back home how the trip went.

Another popular pastime were Barrow parties, and it did not involve moving the food in a wheelbarrow it was when the group would identify an ancient burial mound (known as a Barrow) and dig it up for a days entertainment and see what if anything was buried in there. This was done with no scientific rigour much less respect for the fact that the barrow was destroyed in the process.

Along side this sort of “fun” was wholesale development of Britain and many of the grand buildings to be seen in various British towns today were built in the Victorian era (including the British Museum building). This sort of thing lead to the enactment of The Ancient Monuments Act of 1882 which appointed an inspector who had little power other than to ask land owners nicely if they would mind awfully not desecrating the countries heritage. A short time after the act was passed a few individuals established the National Trust in 1884, which was a charity that tried to buy properties to protect them from redevelopment.

It is from these roots that our own Historic Places Trust and our ideas on preserving heritage spring from and as we can see it is a relatively modern idea that old buildings have some sort of value other than economic. Can you imagine the spluttering that would have erupted if you told a Victorian Gent that he couldn’t alter the look of his house because it was of “cultural or historical” significance?

Given the age of our country a lot of the buildings that have suffered structural damage in the recent Christchurch earthquake will owe some of their look to that great period of British expansion. They are also a product of that thinking when things were valued for their utility and the historic importance idea was still in its infancy, but that idea has now been thrust to centre stage as the powers that be consider saving or demolishing these "significant" buildings.

Significant above is in quotes because there are clearly arguments to be had, one mans trash and all that and none of this blog is an argument for the retention or destruction of these buildings but the generalised hand wringing that has accompanied the “red stickering” of many “historic” buildings in Christchurch is an interesting example of the ongoing clash between aesthetics, history, economics and land owners rights.

Which Victorian view will we adopt, progress and modernity or the preservation of history. Because in this case we have up to 50% (in terms of building numbers) destruction I suspect economics and progress will win out.

First The Good News...

The courts have overturned Wanganui’s ill advised by-law banning “gang patches” from the CBD.

So firstly the usual disclaimers, I don’t agree with the illegal activities of gangs, nor do I find their generally life style attractive, however....

Like them or loathe them they are members of our society and should therefore be afforded the same protection under the law as the rest of us. More importantly an attack on the civil liberties of this group is an attack on the civil liberties of us all.

There is no particular difference between a gang member wearing his “colours” and me walking down the street in my team’s rugby jersey. They both indicate affiliation to a certain group and presumably identification with whatever that group represents. The only difference is that the council has decided they don’t “like” gangs.
Well over and over in history we have seen examples of groups deciding they don’t like other groups and it seldom works out well. This is why we tolerate others in society and among other things allow them to dress as they please. Admittedly there are limits to the dress as you please rule, not wearing enough could get you into trouble and wearing clothing that is regarded as offensive also but these laws apply to all not just to a select group. If you want to try and use these laws to pick on gang patches be my guest but passing a specific law targeting a minority group, no matter how much you might dislike them leaves me nervous.

The other thing that interests me is, How is this going to help? Nobody in their right mind would imagine that gangs will suddenly fade out because they aren’t allowed to wear their patches in Wanganui’s CBD. They are even unlikely to disappear from Wanganui. One of the reasons people join gangs is no doubt a sense of isolation or exclusion from society and this rule is going to reinforce this rather than change anything. There are now “youth gangs” in Auckland modelled on The Bloods and Crypts who do not have patches but they are still a gang.

If you don’t like gangs how about you work on youth employment or tackle family violence or whatever else drives gang membership. As I have opined before simply banning stuff doesn’t work.

The other sighted reason is that people find the patches intimidating? Really? Personally I find the people inside the patches intimidating and I am confident that they can be plenty violent and intimidating without the patch if they choose to be. This is another example of a silly idea up there with micro chipping dogs to stop them biting people, actually why don’t we just micro chip gang members that should sort them out.

So in words much sharper than mine

First They came.. - Pastor Martin Niemoller

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Now the bad news.
As I understand it the court said that the process in creating the by-law was flawed not that the council couldn’t do it. So stand by for a potential further attack on your civil liberties by the Wanganui Council. Or feel free to email them at wdc@wanganui.govt.nz and tell them you object.