A racially slurring Work and Income employee has fallen afoul of minority races across the North.

The aforementioned incident took place one Night at a Taupo bar where the Work and Income New Zealand worker was heard to refer to a Polynesian bouncer using ‘the N word’; they were promptly removed from the premises.

Makes me wonder though, what goes through the head of some drunks? The doorman in question in fact foresaw the acrimony unfolding and had the presence of mind to film the ordeal, leaving the accused in a decidedly untenable position.

The other thing concerning me is this so called ‘N word’ that pops up on the News every Now and again. Whenever I hear a News story – this one included – where the reporter talks about someone using ‘the N word’ I wonder: what could be so bad about this word beginning with N that they feel unable to articulate it in full?

I’ve been through in my head most every N word I kNow and honestly, None of them are that bad. I can understand many of them being used as insults (except Nice, unless they said Not Nice, but then that’d be two N words, wouldn’t it) but for them to be so taboo as to Not be able to broadcast them on National television..?

I mean, Nefarious, is pretty shocking but it’s not that bad. Nob, is reasonably insulting also but I believe it’s usually spelled with a K. Numb, is harmless by itself but couple it with another, Numbskull, and it becomes quite bad as well. Obviously, Nincompoop, is one of the worst words anybody can call anyone, but I’m pretty sure I’ve heard that on the news; I’ve read it in picture books anyway.

I know a few more N words too but none of them are that bad – certainly no worse than Nincompoop.

Article by Tim Walker

Edited by Nina Com Pauper

Photography by Ray Shale Slur

At what point did a high security prison sentence in New Zealand become less a disciplinary measure and more a leisure activity?

Further footage has been released of Mount Eden’s prison inmates doing not only as they please but essentially upholding the run of the place. These videos have depicted rampant drug and alcohol usage as well as a very laid-back and easy-going atmosphere…

I always thought the idea of going to prison was supposed to be so repugnant, so very terrifying that after such consideration a life of unequivocal law-abiding would follow. As it turns out though, jail for these guys is nothing but an ulterior existence boasting all the comforts and modern conveniences of home life.

…Leading me to wonder, how much are prison staff being paid to look the other way? As stated previously, this entire escapade smacks of corruption.

Regarding supposedly misappropriated funds, then there’s the story of the Kiwi bloke who had a baby with that Armenian woman who then deserted them because it turned out the kid suffered Down’s Syndrome and a Down’s Syndrome child in her land would bring nothing but disgrace so the man went about setting up an online fundraising page which thanks largely to the goodwill of idiots amassed around $600,000 then smelling money, of course the woman came back to him. Now though, he’s being accused of spending the $600,000 improperly…

Fortunately there were various contracts and other lawful documents written up to denote precisely how this man ought to have been spending his money thereby ensuring sensible financial allocation – oh wait, no there wasn’t.

…It was one of those silly online fundraising ventures that no one really understands but where people are compelled to donate because they believe it will benefit their karma allotment or some shit like that.

In this instance, more than ever, my general belief that people are idiots is greatly reinforced. Those online fundraising sites are based around nothing but goodwill; also known as naivety. There is never anything to suggest the person receiving your money will do with it as they say they will, yet you silly people insist on giving it to them anyway.

Almost hard to believe those people locked away in Mount Eden are the only ones we consider crooks.

Article by Tim Walker

Edited by Prez N Staff

Photography by Clark N Digger

The first rule of prison fight club: make sure someone’s getting it on camera.

According to video evidence inmates in Auckland’s Mount Eden prison have been engaging in their very own version of Fight Club.

Despite cellular telecommunications devices being prohibited items in jail, that’s precisely what these guys are using to capture the footage before uploading it to YouTube.

A criminologist has been heard calling it ‘Shocking, disgraceful, unforgivable…’ but as I see it, probably more shocking, disgraceful and unforgivable are the crimes these thugs committed to end up in New Zealand’s most well known prison.

Supposedly this fighting is taking place as a form of ‘gang initiation’ or related senseless ordeal but personally, the whole thing smacks of Correction Department corruption – the fact these inmates even have cell phones on which to record the brawling, the fact these inmates have an uninterrupted location in which to conduct the brawling; the fact these Mount Eden prison inmates are partaking in these kinds of liberal antics at all.

Chances are somebody’s making money from it. That’s how these things usually work. Reminiscent of idiot graffiti artists around the world who have found a way to cash in on their vandalism of freight trains by videoing the act then uploading it to the God-forsaken Internet, what they’re doing is really no better than extortion – these people are producing nothing of value, they’re benefitting nobody and it’s only people’s innate lack of willpower that forces them to view it in the first instance.

The Internet has provided the world with an infinite wealth of knowledge at our fingertips, yet we insist on clogging its channels with inane videos of pillocks being pillocks, and cats being cute.

Article by Tim Walker

Edited by Ton Turn Nett

Photography by Prison Hilton Ltd

If a car overtakes on a State Highway One passing lane and no one is around to see it does the line of traffic still speed up for the duration then slow down again afterwards, or is it just my imagination?

The reality is, through empirical channels I have sourced the answer to what might just be the greatest riddle of our modern age. During a recent journey from Hornby to Burnham, as I have done countless times before but never been compelled to document on account of what I perceived as ‘circumstantial behaviourisms’ – which is to say I always saw a possible factor of mitigation amid the aforementioned, ghastly motoring antics – I noted the behaviour of those cars around me.

This time the ignorant driving habits I witnessed were unequivocal and quite simply, incorrigible.

Cruising through Templeton a particularly slow vehicle held the 70 kph limit at a steady 60 but once we hit the 100, courtesy of a cleverly positioned passing lane, we all made it to somewhere around 95 kph. This speed didn’t bother me; I don’t ever expect to maintain 100 kph on this stretch as I am aware this is the way cars roll on SH1. The queue reached the next passing lane where I was the last of three vehicles to overtake…

It should be noted that as stated, ordinarily I wouldn’t have bothered trying to maintain a higher speed; this was strictly for research purposes.

…Pulling back in scarcely before the end of the double lanes my convoy of three powered up to 102 where I stopped accelerating; seemingly wanting to push 110 the preceding two drew slowly away until they had a number of kilometres on me.

Nevertheless, from 102 kph it wasn’t long before, once again, I could read the licence plate of the second convoy member. We presently dropped back to 95 then to 90 kph. There was another passing lane looming ahead. I felt it; I knew my convoy leaders were going to go for it. The double lines opened up. Two cars ahead of me pulled out from under each other’s rear bumpers and accelerated hard…

Someone needs to teach these people that the most effective way to overtake another car is in fact not starting from a few centimetres behind its rear bumper – especially when they’re both operating four cylinder Japanese cars with a decidedly low collective torque output.

…They needn’t have bothered. From my position at the rear of a three-car convoy I witness these cars pull away from me, but make little impression on the cars in front of them. It was the most awesome thing to watch: the entire line of around six cars in the left of the passing lane all sped up in unison, as if something had suddenly shunted them from 90 to 110. By the end of the double lines these two convoy leaders with their dilatory whiplash technique, fell back into line behind the very cars they had just been trying to overtake.

From 102 it only takes a minute for me to again read the licence plate of the preceding car; I look behind to see the nose of the truck my convoy passed in Templeton. As expected, we are all travelling at a steady 95 kph.

Article by Tim Walker

Edited by S H Wan

Photography by I M Parsing

It was while listening to the radio yesterday afternoon that I heard possibly the most horrific public error in speech on record.

For the record, it wasn’t even so much the erroneous speech pattern that bothered me but the person behind it; if Judy Bailey is the mother of the nation, this lady must surely be the drunken aunty.

Family relations aside Hilary Barry is the glue that holds together TV3’s evening news broadcast and as much respect as I have for this delightful woman, to hear an advertisement play out on The Rock radio for that evening’s show; to hear the mistake regarding proper usage of first-person pronouns – “…so join Mike and I tonight for Three News…” – was simply unforgivable.

To clarify, the correct grammar would have been, “So join Mike and me tonight for Three News”. It’s not even that difficult to work out: which sounds better – ‘Join me tonight’, or ‘Join I tonight’? There you go.

The thing is I am aware that when news reporters, readers and anchors write their content, or have it written for them as it may be, they have editors to go over the lines thereby ensuring correct etiquette, proper grammar and ultimately, so the person reading the story doesn’t come off like a dim-witted twat. I understand furthermore that in some applications it is favourable to use colloquial or more of a slang dialect but in this instance, ‘Join Mike and I tonight’, it just sounded laboured.

The worst thing, this is far from an isolated gaffe. Ashley Tulloch is a wonderful reporter with her attractive appearance and over-expressive features, but she has made some rippers. I understand her desire to refer to post-match sports teams as having given anywhere up to 150 percent; that’s hyperbole for effect and, much as it infuriates me, I realise it’s an accepted part of broadcasting. I think it’s when, bless her pretty heart, she becomes excited and perhaps forgets her exact lines so no, second thoughts, I’ll leave her out of this.

Then there’s Andrew Gourdie, TV3’s other sports reader. Try as he might to channel a sophisticated manner, this guy is to word mis-usage what the cast of the Simpsons is to quirky catchphrases: I can’t think how many times I’ve heard him use the word ‘careen’ – tilt a ship sideways – in place of ‘career’ – drive quickly or uncontrollably. A car cannot ‘careen out of control’. A car ‘careers out of control’.

I don’t know. There are people paid good salaries to ensure proper usage of the English language is being upheld and quite simply, they are not doing their jobs.

This is the shit that keeps me up at night.

Article by Tim Walker

Edited by Hilary Bailey

Photography by Mothers T Nation

All insurance companies across New Zealand provide a similar service and charge a similar rate, except, as they would have you believe, youi insurance.

Youi is cheaper than the rest, this much is fact. I submit however, that the only reason youi is cheaper is because it has made the management decision to accept a lower net profit margin; as in fact they all could stand to do. Sure, youi craps on about how its ‘asking more questions to find out more about the customer’ leads to its ‘cutting back on assumptions’ meaning they can ‘afford to charge less’ but let me assure you, most of this, is utter bollocks.

I undertook some research the other day for no other reason than to ensure the above statement was less ‘scurrilous conjecture’ and a whole lot more ‘damning fact’. I gave AA Insurance a call to capitalise on their ‘free quote’ service, also their apparent discount for AA members: I give the delightfully warm-spirited Polynesian girl, Mary, my particulars, I advise her that I’m only keen to go for third party cover as it’s my belief that anything more than that’s a gamble and you know me Mary, I say, I like to play it straight…

Following a good ten seconds of contagious giggling, here’s what she said: “Alright sir, I just need to ask you a few questions…”

Gosh, I thought, I thought youi were the only insurance company who asked questions; I thought the other ones just judged what kind of person you were from your voice, how good a driver you were from the abruptness of your speech patterns…

“…Do you drive your car to work, sir?” Mary inquired.

“I work from home, Mary.”

“Oh, OK then, so do you park your car on the road, or up your driveway?”

“I have a garage, Mary, and unlike every other resident on my street, I’ve put my washing machine back in the laundry so I can now use the garage to park my car.”

“Oh, OK,” she said, making more tapping sounds, presumably on a keyboard, “and have you made any insurance claims in the last ten years?”

“Ah, shit, um … No, that would’ve been twelve years ago … It was a third party claim, I rolled back into another car – smashed up their bumper pretty bad.”

“Oh, OK, but your car was fine..?”

“Yes it was, thanks – I have a tow bar fitted for that very reason, Mary.”

This conversation continued for some time and with each different inquiry I fielded, I was reminded of the youi commercial where that Todd Emerson guy strongly implies that other companies don’t ask questions about their customers.

What I learned from my ‘genuine’ inquiries regarding ‘Third party cover including fire, theft and vandalism’ for my car, was that every insurance company to whom I spoke in fact does ask questions; the peculiar thing I noticed was that they ask the very same questions that that youi advertisement claims they do not ask. It was all very odd.

For the record, between, AA Insurance, Tower, AMI, and my current vehicle insurer, Vero, there was around a $30 annual difference – which was composed primarily of AA’s discount. It was then that I gave youi a call. By now I’m profoundly bored with answering the same cluster of questions which I now realise, apparent keyboard tapping notwithstanding, don’t make a shit of difference anyway.

Ultimately each company is going to charge what it likes while remaining competitive and regardless of circumstance, providing you’ve proven yourself to be a responsible, reliable motorist, that flat rate is more or less what you’ll be charged.

Youi on the other hand claims to be able to charge less because it makes a greater effort to find out about its customers, thereby cutting down on life’s variables. That’s their reasoning. That’s perhaps how they could offer me a mildly cheaper rate than the AA.

In reality all insurance companies, perhaps perfunctorily, now ask their customers questions and if youi can still manage to provide the service cheaper than its competitors, it’s only because it’s accepting a lower profit margin – there is no way that youi pays out to its clients such a lower value as to warrant charging significantly lower premiums.

The conclusion, or theory, clearly, insurance companies charge far more for their services than they need to in order to make a profit. Obviously, they need to have more money coming in as premiums than is going out as payouts, and youi is seemingly satisfied with taking a little less of that cream. Of course youi can’t just tell New Zealanders that they’re being grossly overcharged, therefore, when it comes to the question of their charging less, the answer is based around questions.

Makes sense.

Article by Tim Walker

Edited by U E Ashired

Photography by Onshi Rance Cam

New Zealand’s favourite airline, Jet Star, have again surrounded themselves in controversy.

Reportedly customers have been falling afoul of their online ticket purchasing service, unwittingly paying extra for additionals such as insurance fees, baggage fees, credit card fees, booking and service fees etc. It seems these ‘hidden’ fees have the ability to turn a cost effective, $40 domestic flight into a sojourn of almost double that cost.

The thing is with Jet Star’s online ticketing options, similar to practically every other online form one might ever have to fill out, by default many of the ‘extras’ boxes come already checked; it is therefore up to the person filling out the form to carefully un-check them.

It’s a clear money-making strategy which most every company uses and in my opinion, given that any person filling out any form, online or otherwise, ought to have thoroughly read every word on that form, it’s a pretty clear case of caveat emptor – let the buyer beware. As a consumer, you should never assume that a service’s most stripped-back rate will come aligned with its most stripped-back package.

As a consumer, you should be aware also that these companies are not trying to be your friend; these companies are trying to screw as much money out of you as they legally can.

Article by Tim walker

Edited by Dee V Huss

Photography by Jett Starr

According to the Opposition zero-hour contracts ought to be abolished; according to Prime Minister John Key, they could do with some amendment.

Zero hour contracts, favoured by fast food outlets or similar corporations boasting high employee turnovers, are contracts where despite an employee’s requirement to make themselves available for work, the employer is not actually required to provide any hours for that worker.

According to the Opposition zero-hour contracts are unfair on young and inexperienced workers; according to New Zealand’s Government the standard of these contracts just need ameliorating somewhat.

The zero-hour standard has undergone amelioration. Now if small employers want to implement zero-hour contracts they must provide for their employees benefits, retainers, assurances; in fact all the liberties one would expect to receive from working such highly skilled positions…

I wrote a piece a while back entitled ‘Minimum’. It referred to ongoing complaints from minimum wage workers that their wage was insufficient. Of course I maintained that if a worker has no qualifications, no skills and is working a position that requires no training, chances are, that’s all they’re probably entitled to. I can’t help feeling that the same theory might apply here.

For someone who is new to the workforce and perhaps isn’t even willing/able to work fulltime I’m sure zero-hour contracts are fine; for someone trying to maintain a household probably not so much, so perhaps this latter group ought to be sourcing their employment elsewhere.

In order for small business in New Zealand – they may be part of a massive franchise but individually they’re still pretty small – to survive often the ability to employ workers on the cheap is a necessary evil.

Article by Tim Walker

Edited by Sarah Awa

Photography by Chip Whirr-Kerr

It was never my plan to turn 32 today, it just happened this way.

Nor do I recall exactly when I lost my zest for officially becoming one year older than I was the day before. Suffice to say I don’t recall my 31^st – not for the reasons one might expect – I just know it took place and am content to leave it at that. I recall my 30^th filling me with the rancour that most people synonymise with elderly incontinence. On my 29^th I recall just being sorrowful to leave behind 28; which incidentally I recall not even wanting to become because 27 was so damned awesome…

I am frequently corrected and often berated for referring to my current age as ‘middle aged’. I ponder this, asking myself if it’s fair that they’re having a go at me out of their frustration at not being able to do basic math.

0 – 29, in my opinion, ought to be considered ‘young’.

30 – 59, in my opinion, ought to be considered ‘middle aged’. (Whether or not you wish to hyphenate the aforementioned is up to you, I guess it’s a question of maturity.)

60 – 89, in my opinion, ought to be considered ‘old’.

To anyone who wants to go past that, well, I guess that’s your call. Just know that I never would and for the record, you are no longer simply old, you are now ‘ancient’ or as some might warrant/prefer, ‘decrepit’.

In saying that, Prince Philip is 94 years old. He doesn’t give a shit. He does what he likes and says what he thinks. I like him.

So here’s hoping.

Article by Tim Walker

Edited by Happy B Day

Photography by Te Mai

Interesting how a particular culture’s apparent ‘rites’ or ‘customs’ can result in liberties that would seem wrong or even illegal to the rest of us.

One instance that immediately pops into mind is the old favourite ‘All Blacks’ – who else but the national sports team of a nation which prides itself on all things equality could get away with proudly labelling itself with a title that, according to some groups around the world, would come perilously close to being labelled ‘racism’?

More recently though was the rugby match played between New Zealand and Samoa which was celebrated by both nations. Many in NZ took time off work to watch it in a pub or bar; many in Samoa did the same…

Sorry, they did almost the same. This is where the Samoan culture of ‘share and share alike’ doesn’t quite line up with the laws of the land.

…In an act that must be considered tantamount to purchasing a 24 pack of Coke from the Warehouse for $18 then selling the cans individually at a 150 percent mark-up, a large number of Samoan locals were said to be congregating around the same television to view live coverage of the game – through a Sky decoder paid for by one of the attendees.

In Sky Television’s opinion this is blatant theft. In the opinion of most other people around the globe this could be considered television piracy; the very same act that has been condemned by broadcasting corporations around the world.

In Samoa though it doesn’t matter so much; they’re just being friendly.

Article by Tim Walker

Edited by Osama Samoa

Photography by Skye Pire Rate