Friday, December 13, 2013

HOW MANY WAYS CAN YOU SPELL HYPOCRITE

Yesterday the Wellington City Council voted to introduce the so called 'living wage' for Council employees at an additional cost of $750,000 p.a. to the ratepayers.  

Among those voting for the motion was newbe Councillor and ex Labour MP (and self confessed alcoholic) Mark Peck.   

When challenged as to whether he would be paying his own staff the living wage (Peck owns/runs a restaurant) he said no, he couldn't afford to.

So, Ok with other peoples money, but not with your own.

Just how many ways can you spell Hypocrite?

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

I would spell hypocrite in this instance as "c*nt"

Charles

gravedodger said...

Sadly Peck cant align the fact, if his business needs to be profitable to remain in existence, the poor bloody ratepayers are in exactly the same predicament.
The difference being the WCC can extort the funds with statutary backing where as his restaurant must "attract" those funds from a compliant and willing populace.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Charles


cant
1 [kant] Show IPA
noun
1.
insincere, especially conventional expressions of enthusiasm for high ideals, goodness, or piety.

Watcher said...

"Among those voting for the motion was newbe Councillor and ex Labour MP (and self confessed alcoholic) Mark Peck."'

Yes and there was a majority vote for adoption of the policy.

Take Pecks vote out of the equation and there would remain a majority vote.

Oh hold it he's ex labour...oh now I see why you want to make an issue of something that wouldn't change anything.



The Veteran said...

Watcher ... if you can't see the hypocrisy of Peck voting for the living wage funded by others (ratepayers) but not prepared to entertain the same for his own employees because it would be coming out of his own pocket then I can't help you.

Of course the vote would have still passed.

And of course Peck remains a hypocrite.

And my understanding he is a paid up member of the Labour Party.

Guess that hurts.

Judge Holden said...

Why do you think the fact that he's a recovering alcoholic is relevant? Or are you just going for the smear as opposed to arguing the issue (which is a legitimate one for once)?

Anonymous said...

Vet I think JH has a point. I wouldn't be here today were it not for a recovering alky doctor taking decisive action to save my life. His struggle with the waipiro was the stuff of legend, but I'm grateful they still let him practice, and so are others.

George

The Veteran said...

Holden ... waiting for that. I would argue there is a certain correlation between out of control drinking and out of control spending of public monies and the total hypocrisy evidenced by Peck in voting for the move.

Watcher said...

"Of course the vote would have still passed."

Which makes you comments totally worthless...ie it doesn't change the outcome.


"And my understanding he is a paid up member of the Labour Party.

Guess that hurts."

No wounds here. I'm a apolitical.
Wouldn't trust a trough feeder or their supporters.

The Veteran said...

Watrher ... the Post was never about outcomes. It was all about hypocrisy.

And Peck is a Hypocrite of the first order.

Watcher said...

And the vote was never about a living wage for those not in the council employment.

The Veteran said...

Watcher .... and that somehow makes him less of a hypocrite ??????????

I mean even Holden thinks he is a prick and for Holden to turn against one of his own is a big call.

Watcher said...

Ahhh so he's a hypocrite because he didn't abstain.

Judge Holden said...

"I would argue there is a certain correlation between out of control drinking and out of control spending of public monies..."

Go on then. You'll need some evidence of this "certain correlation" of course, otherwise it's not an argument, it's a cheap smear.