"I'm interested to know Dave Cull's stance on this issue."
He's a busy man, debbie_w60. Not long to the
election and the 10,000 extra jobs are somewhat behind
schedule. So the extra demand for meals to take to
hospital patients must be a welcome boost for local producers
both of fresh ingredients for those who cook food at home for
their loved inpatients, and the commercial producers of
quality palatable food. I'm sure Dunedin's mayor will express
an opinion sooner or later.
Meth users may also be leaving traces in leafy Remuera. The
drug is attractive across the social spectrum.
Users and cooks may not be actual dealers. Because P is Class
A, the maximum penalty for selling it is life imprisonment.
No judge has handed down this sentence.
"The food quality has definitely decreased, but it still has
a 75% approval rating."
No, it has a 75% not-complaining rating. Many people
just don't complain, or moan to family, friends and strangers
they meet at bus stops, everyone except the ones with power
to make a difference. I already wrote about a lady who
started losing weight, not complaining just pushing her meal
away and saying she wasn't hungry.
What's needed is a robust investigation into how many people
enjoyed the meals enough to eat up and keep their nutrition
levels up. In a letter to the print ODT today
Maurice Prendergast says he enjoyed the meals when he was
recently in hospital - a friend's husband says the same (she
said she wonders what that tells her about her own cooking,
maybe not as good as she thought!) so opinions definitely
vary. It may also depend on what people's home food is
like. Some home cooks could ruin 2-minute noodles.
And I wonder if there is a genetic factor about
flavours/smells, like the factor that makes coriander taste
delicious or like bugs, and asparagus "by-product" smell
strongly from some people but not others.
@thefly and rem: Okay food is not okay. Remember, to get
the contract and placate the public Compass assured us that
the meals would be equal to or better than what we had. As
Thefly noted "The food quality has definitely decreased" ,
thus Compass are not delivering on their assurances. The
decrease in quality certainly isn't justified by the meagre
savings projected, and those savings were based on every DHB
signing up so are likely to be far less.
As for 75% satisfied, is that really 75% satisfaction or is
it 75% that haven't put in a written complaint?
Dissatisfaction usually runs deeper than figures show, as
there are always the "I don't want to cause a fuss" or the
"didn't know how" etc people. Add to that the 50% of Meals on
Wheels clients that have cancelled, and the staff who are
prefering to eat at the more expensive commerical cafes
because the Compass food is so bad, and you have far less
than 75% satisfaction. Any other business who ran those sort
of numbers and losses upon taking over a contract would get
shown the door quick enough.
And in the end it really only comes down to one thing - "are
we the consumer actually getting the finished product that we
we assured of by the contactor when they were bidding for the
contract"? The answer is no. Therefore can the contract, as
you would any tradesman that was giving you an inferior
product for your money.
"What other organisation, business or otherwise would be
happy after employing a new manager and then losing 50%
(meals on wheels)" - hey Lynden, where's the problem?
No worries at all if the business is being paid according to
their nice long (15 years sewn up) contract whether the
product is used or not by the client who pays. That's
us as taxpayers ultimately, in case anyone has forgotten.
The flipside is the scenario of packing Granny off because
she's a bit fluey, or the alleged European belief that mental
illness or disability are grounds for euthanasia.
In the situations you mention, there are grounds for
termination, but surely the patient is the one who decides,
by advance directive.
It would be wrong to think all who oppose euthanasia are
Oh for gods sake! Another one bites the dust. This city is
stuck in a time warp. Nothing new is allowed to proceed. I
visited a Raeward Fresh near Christchurch airport last week.
It was wonderful! Boutique-style food store with emphasis on
fresh fruit with a great deli and attached cafe. Dunedin has
missed out on a great community store. Thanks bureaucrats and
Have I heard it before, this will bring jobs and prosperity
as an excuse for demanding ratepayer subsidies, or changes to
the District Plan, or trampling over the wishes of Dunedin
people? In this case it's Raeward touting "the benefits
of promoting new investment and employment opportunities to
South Dunedin" as a reason for ignoring the District Plan.
Personally I don't see the harm in having the store
where they want it. I do see harm in allowing the
District Plan to be compulsory for the average person but
optional for larger organisations and businesses.
And I do see something naiive, or arrogant, or over-entitled
about doing one's planning based on something that is not
permitted then bleating when the authorities say "No" - or in
this case are prepared to bend the rules but impose some
What if a group of students took their own cheap alcohol to a
bar instead of pre-loading? How much luck would they
have if they whined about how it was unfair, because
the bar already served alcohol so what's the problem?
And now the police have made us late for lectures,
boo-hoo. Isn't it an important "got the plot" signal
when people make their plans according to the rules that
apply, in the first place?
And anyway the "additional jobs" excuse has proven to be thin
most times. A business that sells almost identical
stock to existing businesses in the same area? So
people are going to buy more produce and alcohol? Or
are they going to buy the same as they do now, but spread the
spending around one more supermarket? More staff
employed, yes, the ones the old stores don't need because
they have lost a proportion of sales. How is that
enough of a benefit to Dunedin to justify breaking the