Mayoral hopeful berates council chief executive
A Southland mayoral hopeful has taken shots at a council chief executive during a fiery public speech.
On Wednesday, Wendy Baker presented to district councillors about the council's dog control policy and bylaw review.
But her presentation began on an unrelated note when she read out a letter she had received from the minister of sports and recreation about her sporting accomplishments.
"I wanted to bring that up because it's a positive letter of praise. And unfortunately, just recently, your CEO — who is extremely well paid — sent me a letter which was very upsetting to me," Ms Baker said.
"This letter as you all know has gone to the ombudsman. A leader needs to build people up, and I will not be bullied when I do amazing amounts of volunteer work, which your council ignores formally, I feel."
Ms Baker would not divulge the contents of the chief executive's letter, but confirmed to Local Democracy Reporting it was not related to the minister's letter.
The letter was out of the blue, unnecessary and untimely, she said.
"They should be praising the work I do and not sending a letter that upsets me."
In response to questions, council chief executive Cameron McIntosh was tight-lipped.
"We have raised some matters with Ms Baker. They are between council and Ms Baker," he said.
"We will leave it with Ms Baker to decide if she wishes to share the contents of the letter with media."
Ms Baker's presentation also took aim at the council over a perceived lack of dog control.
She said a dog had come on to her property twice in three weeks — once on the eve of Anzac Day attacking a possum and once attacking a back fence at 4am.
"I pay $4099.50 in rates to SDC ... and what do I get for it? Stuff all."
The mayoral hopeful is one of three candidates in the running for the top job this October.
At the 2022 election, she finished last out of six candidates with 211 votes.
■ LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
12 hours ago
- Scoop
Misusing The Children: The UK Online Safety Act, Privacy And Censorship
The United Kingdom can always be relied upon to supply us with the eccentric, the admirably dotty, and the odd extreme bit of adventure in policy. Lately, those mad protectors and censors with their shields of false virtue and hollow intellect have decided to launch an assault on the users of the Internet. In this, they are joining the platoons of hysteria from such countries as Australia, where age verification restrictions on platforms are all the rage. It's all about the children, and when adults start meddling with children, all sorts of trouble arise. Much in line with the foolish, and potentially dangerous efforts being made by the eCommissioner (not a misspelling) in Australia to impose 'industry codes' of child safety, the UK Online Safety Act (OSA) is being used to blanket social media, search engines and virtually any other site of service with age verification restrictions. The OSA lists three categories that are said to be harmful to children: primary priority content, priority content and non-designated content. Primary priority content is a British favourite of the repressed classes: pornography, and content that supposedly encourages suicide, self-harm, or various behaviours and disorders with eating. (If only there was a form of pornography that might encourage good eating habits.) Priority harmful content covers abuse relevant to race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability or gender reassignment and any content that incites hatred against such people. To this, among others, can be added bullying, the promotion of 'serious violence, and depiction of serious violence' whether authentic or fictional. To make things even more expansively ludicrous, the regulations cover content that is non-designated (NDC), which might as well be the entire body of knowledge and existence on this planet and beyond seen by the regulators of the day as dangerous. Examples are skimpy, and do not mention the enriching apple in the Garden of Eden offered to Eve by the opportunistic serpent. Something, however, is 'NDC if it presents a material risk of significant harm to an appreciable number of children in the UK'. What a triumph of insufferable vagueness. The onus is placed on the online service providers to ascertain whether the hosted content is harmful to children. 'As the regulator, we won't be accessing individual pieces of content, or telling online services to remove legal material,' states the UK Office of Communications, Ofcom. They are, in effect, being enlisted by the government as moral, vigilant guardians, never the wisest thing when it comes to technology companies. If the providers in question determine the material to be harmful, they must implement various mitigation measures. Ofcom lists some of them: 'highly effective age assurance to protect children from [harmful content online]'; safer algorithms to limit access to such harmful content (goodbye much literature and culture); effective moderation; transparent reporting and complaints processes; supportive information for children and 'strong governance and accountability'. This constituted a true charter for docile imbecility. The platforms are told to implement an age verification process that is 'technically accurate, robust, reliable and fair.' These include, among a range of options, facial age estimation, granting the age-check service access to bank information, digital identity services, which include digital identity wallets, credit card age checks, mobile network operator age checks and uploaded photo-IDs. Social media platforms such as Reddit, Bluesky, Discord, and have already imposed age checks to comply with the July 25 deadline. Ditto Pornhub, the most visited pornographic online provider in the UK, Tube 8, YouPorn and RedTube. The well named Carl Dong, Obscura VPN founder, is not shy in calling the law a 'ticking time-bomb for the privacy of UK citizens.' The broader consequences of the OSA are snappily summed up by Paige Collings, senior speech and privacy activist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation: the OSA is nothing less than a 'threat to the privacy of users,' a restriction on free expression by arbitrating online speech, an imposition of 'algorithmic discrimination through face checks' and excludes 'millions of people without a personal device or form of ID […] from accessing the internet.' The cleverer users will simply make a mockery of the whole show by using other means of regulatory subversion, including installing a VPN (Virtual Private Network) and browsing the web as if the user was from another country where age-verification rules do not apply. 'The logistics,' explains Graeme Stewart, head of public sector at Check Point Software, 'are near impossible. You could, in theory, ban the sale of VPN equipment, or instruct ISPs not to accept VPN traffic. But even then, people will find workarounds. All you'd achieve is pushing VPN underground, creating a black market for VPN contractors.' A rush for the most appropriate VPNs has already been ushered in while a petition featuring over 481,000 signatures urging the repeal of the OSA has gathered steam. On July 28, the government responded in the customary tone deaf manner, admitting to having 'no plans to repeal the Online Safety Act'. Instead, it was 'working with Ofcom to implement the Act as quickly as possible to enable UK users to benefit from its protections.' Critics of these digital walls of restriction and exclusion face a body of manipulated public opinion. Gone are the days when everyone could post, mention and vent on any topic with merry impunity and noisy enthusiasm. Information superhighways have become potholes fought over by tribes and regulatory zealots inoculated against debate. Many members of the public seem to want censorship as a form of stand-in parenting, and a YouGov poll found a majority of Britons satisfied with the law (the latest figure as of July 31 comes in at 69%). Yet again, such an encroachment is being done in the name of the children, who are to be left permanently immature and unspoiled by the richer, more complicated life. Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures at RMIT University. Email: bkampmark@
Otago Daily Times
a day ago
- Otago Daily Times
Door closing on chance to post vote
PHOTO: ODT FILES Today is the last day to enrol on the Electoral Register to receive a postal vote in the upcoming local elections. Before the Oamaru Mail went to print this week, statistics on the Electoral Commission website shows 83.94% of eligible voters in Waitaki are enrolled, leaving 3181 people eligible to vote but not enrolled. The most enrolled age-group is the 70 and overs, with 4113 (94.97%) enrolled, just 218 eligible voters in the age group are not enrolled. At the other end of the scale, just 53.83% of 18 to 24-year-olds are enrolled, leaving 789 eligible voters off the electoral register. Of those enrolled in Waitaki, 16,112 are on the General Roll and 516 on the Maori Roll. Nationwide, 88.62% of eligible voters are enrolled for the upcoming Local Body Elections. People enrolling after today will not get voting papers in the post and will need to contact their local council and cast a special vote in-person. Waitaki District Council says it will be letting people know when and where they will be able to do that next week. Today is also the last day for nomination to stand for council, mayor, community boards and local licensing trusts. Before the Oamaru Mail went to print this week, there were three nominations for Waitaki mayor, (David Wilson, Mel Tavendale and Guy Percival). One nomination has been posted for the sole Ahuriri Ward seat (Brent Cowles) and the Waihemo Ward seat (Frans Schlack). Two nominations had been posted for the two available Corriedale Ward seats (John McCone and Sven Thelning). Seven nominations had been posted for the six Oamaru Ward seats (Andy De Boer, Peter De Rues, Jim Hopkins, Ferdie Kruger, Courtney Linwood, Richard Vinbrux and Nathan Barnes). Nominations had also been posted for the five available seats on the Oamaru Licensing Trust and the Ahuriri Community Board. However, before the Oamaru Mail went to print only four nominations had been posted for the five seats available on the Waihemo Community Board.
RNZ News
3 days ago
- RNZ News
Southland mayoral candidate berates CEO, brags about sporting accomplishments at meeting
Wendy Baker is upset at the council over a letter she received — the contents of which remain a secret. Photo: LDR / Supplied A Southland mayoral hopeful has taken shots at a council chief executive during a fiery public speech. On Wednesday, Wendy Baker presented to district councillors about the council's dog control policy and bylaw review. But her presentation began on an unrelated note when she read out a letter she had received from the minister of sports and recreation about her sporting accomplishments. "I wanted to bring that up because it's a positive letter of praise. And unfortunately, just recently, your CEO - who is extremely well-paid - sent me a letter which was very upsetting to me," Baker said. "This letter as you all know has gone to the ombudsman. A leader needs to build people up, and I will not be bullied when I do amazing amounts of volunteer work which your council ignores formally, I feel." Baker would not divulge the contents of the chief executive's letter, but confirmed to Local Democracy Reporting it was not related to the minister's letter. The letter was out of the blue, unnecessary and untimely, she said. "They should be praising the work I do and not sending a letter that upsets me." In response to questions, council chief executive Cameron McIntosh was tight lipped. "We have raised some matters with Baker. They are between council and Baker," he said. "We will leave it with Baker to decide if she wishes to share the contents of the letter with media." Baker's presentation also took aim at the council over a perceived lack of dog control. She said a dog had come onto her property twice in three weeks - once on the eve of Anzac Day attacking a possum and once attacking a back fence at 4am in the morning. "I pay $4099.50 in rates to SDC... and what do I get for it? Stuff all." Baker said she had begun watching a programme called Mastering Leadership: Common Canine Misbehaviours, and planned to donate it to animal control staff or the library. The mayoral hopeful is one of three candidates currently in the running for the top job this October. At the 2022 election, she finished last out of six candidates with 211 votes. - LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
