Hairy Maclary and his friends were kitted out in knitted coats to keep them warm through winter by the Ninja Knits. Photo/George Novak
I am astounded at the lack of respect shown by the Ninja Knitters' bombing of the Hairy Maclary sculptures.
Clearly they have little understanding of intellectual property and the ramifications of interfering with public art.
They, like anyone else, have no right to make changes or additions to public art.
The characters, in this case, are prescribed and much loved by the community.
They do not need any embellishment. The Ninja Knitters might consider asking permission to 'bomb' in future.
That they didn't ask the artist, Brigitte Wuest, or Dame Lynley is beyond belief.
In addition, they assertively suggested people should not interfere with their work and yet this is exactly what they have done (News, July 17).
The council, which owns the sculptures, needs to take responsibility for caring and policing them. And Creative Bay of Plenty, who initiated the original project, could also take some responsibility for the well being of the sculptures.
That neither did this has put Dame Lynley in an awkward position.
If the Ninja Knitters 'bombed' Frank Szirmay's Tangaroa, at the harbour entrance, I think the public wouldn't consider it 'a bit of fun' but rather disrespectful.
Penelope Jackson
Tauranga
With due respects to the mana of Dame Lynley, I am thinking: how many people put her books down, got off their couches, jumped on a bus (well, maybe not so many) and headed downtown last weekend to enjoy the light festival?
Thousands of parents and kids have enjoyed the mirth of colour wrapping her sculptures all bringing our imaginations alive again in a dreary colourless winter.
I hope the kids will be bringing their books back to their parent's knees so all can enjoy the imagination of a world-famous author and now the world renowned Ninja Knitters. As they said: knitting and reading should be fun. What's the problem with that?
A G Stewart
Pyes Pa
You invite comment on your column by Katie Holland about mayors again requesting a tax on plastic bags.
It is not just the shoppers who need a push to use less plastic, it is also the shop workers who assume that it is part of the service to give out plastic bags.
It is all plastic that is a problem and a tax would be a great incentive to move to less wasteful habits.
There's an unnecessary problem though with targeting single-use plastic with the tax.
There is an incentive to replace it with thicker, more wasteful plastic that is defined as non-taxable multi use plastic; "reusable" shopping bags.
If there were simply a tax on manufacturing and importing all bags then single-use bags would cost you every time you use one and multi use bags only when you needed a new one. But 10c or 20c? Really Katie?
What does it cost to run each checkout?
My guess is about 60c a minute. So a shop set up to quickly fill cheap plastic needs an incentive to change the checkout for rapid filling of all bags, and an incentive to charge the customer for plastic.
There is no net cost to consumers of even a $1 bag tax. Our government gets the money rather than taxing something else.
Poor people get to save money by reusing; wasteful people pay a bigger share of taxes.
My guess is that with the right law we would soon get some truly bio-degradable packaging.
Alternatively, with an attempt at a single-use bag tax, we could see thicker plastic checkout bags and an expensive and unfair new tax administration.
Ian Douglas
Tauranga
I read that our number one tennis player Erina Erakovic was not permitted to take her encased tennis racquets in the cabin of the aircraft. This because they were classified as a weapon.
Accepting that she would need to stand up, open the overhead compartment, take the case out of the overhead, unzip the case, take out a weapon. All this before making room to swing at a fellow passenger thus causing mortal harm.
If this is the ruling, so be it.
Compare this with a personal experience when between 2006 and 2010, I flew around the world twice, flying through Singapore and Dubai and through several European airports. During this time I had in my shoulder bag with a "Stanley" type knife in a side pocket with me. I was never questioned about this.
Bear in mind that in the 9-11 atrocities, such a knife was used to commit murder with a flick of the wrist.
After the second trip, I sent photographs of the knife to the New Zealand authorities and was told that carrying such a knife was not against international regulations as the blade was required to be 4in (100mm) long before it became illegal.
In summary, then it is legal to arm yourself for murder but not to play tennis!
Does anyone else perceive an anomaly here or is it just me?
A.D. Kirby
Papamoa