Recent Posts...
Page 46 of 265
Archive
Encouraging | Jun 14, 2004 11:28
Proper rugby fans will understand that while the All Blacks scored almost all their points against England in a furious first half, it was the second half of Saturday's test match which provided the greater sense of reassurance.
For years now, the All Blacks have flattered to deceive; producing dazzling, open play, then inflicting a reality check on themselves and their followers. That reality check might not have arrived immediately - months passed between the record defeat of the Wallabies and that irksome World Cup semi-final loss - but when it did, it was accompanied by the sense that our team lacked a Plan B.
Saturday was a bit different: on the instructions of the coach, the All Blacks went out after half time to tighten up the game and defend a lead, which they did remarkably well. They only scored six points, but that was six more than England, constantly sent back to muddle about in their own half, could muster.
Although the All Blacks' three tries were all achieved with a width of play that the English couldn't match, the key to the victory was a radical improvement in the technical quality of the All Blacks' forward play. Yes, in the set pieces, but more than anything at the breakdown, where the likes of Keith Robinson spent the evening hurling English bodies out of the way.
There has been some muttering about Robinson turning up so frequently in the backline: I suspect he was there because (this being a Graham Henry side) he was told to be - not so he could take endless, predictable crash balls a la Jerry Collins last year, but so that there was a man who would brook no nonsense primed to arrive at the tackle. Robinson's early dispatch of Lawrence Dallaglio - he flung the lurking English captain away from a maul like a rag doll - was simply heartwarming. And anyone who would still prefer Reuben Thorne's ghosting around in cover to the athleticism and involvement of Jonno Gibbes is just plain in denial.
I'm inclined to reserve talk of a new dawn until at least this week's return match at Eden Park, but to say that the Henry All Blacks' first outing was encouraging is to put it mildly. Anyway, Tracey Nelson is back with her game stats - missing, unfortunately, her innovative first-three-to-the-breakdown counts. Perhaps if you ask her, she'll bring it back. Most interesting point: the ABs didn't concede a single penalty in their own 22. Nice one, Ben Cohen!
No points at all to the Star Times' Welsh wanker Stephen Jones, who, having hailed Northern hemisphere forward play as immutably superior to the Super 12-inflected rubbish served up by the Sanzar sides, could barely bring himself to acknowledge that England had been humiliated up front. And one, final question: how come England can bring 19 management staff on a three-match tour - but not one genuine openside flanker?
Anyway, a kicking for Tony Blair's Labour Party in the European elections has followed a kicking in the British local body elections - but it seems there's something more going on than a simple Iraq War backlash. After all, the ruling parties in France and Germany both got a towelling too. The big news in Britain today will likely be the unheralded success of an anti-Europe party (frankly, the Brits would be mad to withdraw from Europe) and the low turnout (which only just topped that reliable low-water mark for democratic participation, the US mid-term elections). Europe looks a bit messy.
Meanwhile, 26 former senior members of America's military and diplomatic elites - Republican and Democrat - will this week call for a vote to unseat George W. Bush from the White House.
On their minds will doubtless be the steadily unfolding story of what really happened at Abu Ghraib. The Washington Post is the latest to add to the tail, with a story showing that General Ricardo Sanchez, the senior US officer in Iraq, explicitly approved the use of torture techniques. The same paper noted that such "coercive interrogation methods" have been in the CIA handbook since Vietnam. Does anybody really believe this was all the work of a half dozen hick reservists? Alarmingly, this report of a speech by Sy Hersh suggests that the scandal will get far worse yet: "You haven't begun to see evil ... horrible things done to children of women prisoners, as the cameras run."
Christiaan Briggs notes filmmaker Michael Moore's establishment of a "war room" to combat any claims about the factual basis or ethical backdrop to his new film Fahrenheit 9/11. Actually, I think Moore might have learned his lesson this time: apart from the Saudi red herring, the cluster of Moore rebuttal sites appear to have come up with virtually nothing to say about the movie. On the other hand, most of them haven't seen it yet.
Congratulations to Rodney Hide, named Act's new leader after what appears to have been a rather tense few rounds of voting. Franks lost and Muriel Newman was named deputy in what appears to have been a naked bid for the space alien vote …
And, finally, belated fifth birthday wishes to Scoop.co.nz and all who sail with her. Alastair Thompson is a prince among men, and I'm very, very proud to have been involved in his remarkable effort in bringing our democracy online. Go Al.
The next one | Jun 11, 2004 12:12
So it's law and order next for National. The Sensible Sentencing Trust has Don Brash as guest speaker at its next meeting in Auckland on July 4, and it appears that he will deliver a policy speech intended to have as much impact as the one at Orewa.
So what will be in it? National's Justice spokesman Tony Ryall has been dropping hints all over the place - can't help himself, poor love - that parole laws will be in the gun, most recently in this morning's Herald, where he promised changes to bail and parole laws and the 2002 Sentencing Act. In a speech to National's Northern regional conference last month he said that under the new policy, parole violators would be denied bail and be subjected to "random and regular drug testing".
But I'm given to understand that the big pitch in Brash's speech will be "no parole for serious offences". If that's the correct wording, it seems remarkably vague - but that's probably the idea. Ryall has been keen to raise the sorry case of the RSA murderer William Bell, who stayed at large to commit his crime despite two breaches of his parole conditions - and on that score, he absolutely has a point. If we're to apply conditions to these people, they must be enforced. I doubt that anyone disagrees with that.
The probation service, understaffed and stretched by strike action, made a terrible mistake in its handling of Bell, and it and the present government has to wear that. A judge recently reserved his decision after a damages case against the Crown brought by the husband of one of the RSA victims.
But Bell was sentenced for his last-but-one crime - an armed robbery - under the conditions of a law that National had nine long years to change. Since then, Phil Goff's 2002 Sentencing Act has raised the minimum non-parole period for the worst crimes from 10 to 17 years, with judges free to impose longer terms. Once they become eligible, the "worst offenders" no longer have the right to annual parole hearings, only every three years.
The old category of "serious violent offenders" - who were formerly automatically released after they had served two third of their setence - was scrapped, and such offenders can now be denied parole altogether. The range of offences to which preventive detention can be applied was broadened, and the lower age limit at which it applies lowered from 21 to 18. Judges were given a very strong steer on imposing maximum or near-maximum penalties. A new, better-qualified parole board was established and ordered for the first time to make community safety its paramount concern in decisions. The scope for reparation for victims was greatly increased, and judges now have to explain why if they do not order reparation.
So it's a harder law than anything we've seen before - but by way of balance, and to allow a distinction between, say, a mercy killing and a murder-robbery, the Sentencing Act allows for parole eligibility in some cases after only one third of the sentence has been served (this is already the rule for most offences). That's why you hear news reports say that "in theory" a particular killer could be out in what sounds like way-too-soon a time.
In a situation not unlike the flap over the Crimes Amendment (No 2) Bill, this provision has been highlighted by political opponents to depict the new law as soft overall. The case since in which it has attracted criticism is that of Haden Brown, a horribly disturbed man who bashed his mother and nearly killed her - Justice Salmon complained that the law didn't allow him to set a higher non-parole term. The law was amended after complaints from the Sensible Sentencing Trust, but not to the satisfaction of Stephen Franks and others, who were unhappy that it still allowed only a two-thirds non-parole time in such cases.
Don't expect that sort of detail to feature strongly in the debate after Brash announces the policy. Indeed, National's new policy will sound just fine in talkback land. Like the Treaty stance, it's a bit of a no-brainer in political terms. You'll probably also hear people declaring that violent crime is burgeoning - it's actually been basically flat for the last 10 years, while the overall offence rate has fallen steadily over that time. No, none of it's acceptable. But it would be nice if people occasionally knew what they were talking about.
Oh, and before we depart the topic, my lawyer friend pointed out that it would be useful amid all this getting hard to look at why the concept of parole was introduced to the corrections system in the first place: not least that it encourages convicts to spend their jail time in a co-operative and productive way. Giving them nothing to lose might have unintended consequences.
Anybody else watch State of the Nation last night? It was basically depressing, but the format dictated it could hardly be otherwise. Getting together a bunch of ordinary folks with varying degrees of a handle on the facts and expecting them to create illumination on live TV was always going to be ambitious. It was a big call to bring Anita McNaught over from her lovely life in England and ask her to preside over some angry - and in some cases plain stupid - people, but she did her best, as did Kerre Woodham and Robert Rakete, with Rakete probably the surprise standout. I don't know if Maori-versus-Pakeha was ever going to be a useful format. Anyway, Greg Dixon thought it was mostly dull (I actually thought the room looked bloody cold), but the experts approved.
Several readers have pointed out that New Zealand does have its own online searchable Hansard, even if it lack some of the bells and whistles of the British version.
Holly Walker from Critic points to the magazines story on possible Maxim Institute plans for a conservative student magazine. The comments from Maxim's Scot McMurray about a lack of editorial balance and debate in the current student rags is pretty rich.
Human Rights Watch's report, The Road to Abu Ghraib, which presents evidence that the Pentagon and the Bush White House explored ways of making the US, literally, an international outlaw by circumventing the Geneva Conventions relating to torture.
Global military spending climbed 11 per cent to $US965 billion in 2003, with just short of half of it being made by the US. Next most angry was Japan, with five per cent of the total spend.
Minor editing changes department: the US State Department is making alterations to its Patterns of Global Terrorism report, which is now expected to say that the level of international terrorism is the highest in 20 years. Funny thing is, the original report claimed that in 2003 serious terrorism was at its lowest in 34 years, amid what appeared to be an implication that the war on terror was working nicely thanks. Cursor.org found the Google archive of the original.
And so, to the sport. Fleming and Richardson stood up to be counted, McMillan and Astle failed, and it'll probably all turn to custard eventually anyway. Yamis at Blogging It Real compiled an insightful look at how New Zealand batsmen's averages look if you remove their top three scores. He probably should get out more in Korea.
Then there's the rugby. I can't bring myself to pick England, even though the form of recent years suggest that would be the prudent call. Surprisingly, the bookies all seem to feel that way too. All I really know is that I'll be watching the game and then going to watch Dimmer play at the Safari Lounge. Shayne's doing it for the kids ...
Doing it for the kids ... | Jun 10, 2004 11:46
It was interesting too see last night's One News item on a potential youth radio network, even if it was largely given over to opposition to a plan that doesn't actually exist yet.
What happened yesterday was that Radio New Zealand CEO Peter Cavanagh spoke to Wellington staff and told them that he was amazed when he arrived to take up the job that RNZ didn't provide more of a service to young New Zealanders. The impression is that he'll press for funding for a YRN.
That will be easier than you might think - indeed, assuming money from the education vote is still on the table, the money's not really the problem. Nor are frequencies, which are already reserved. But when the YRN was last seriously discussed, the response from the RNZ board and management was effectively that if they were to play a role, it would be under sufferance.
It didn't look the most propitious of circumstances in which to establish the venture, and I was among those concerned that a lot of money which could have been put in making programmes could be sunk into building a new edifice. The new willingness at the top to deliver youth radio as a core business seems to change the equation.
It's hardly a done deal, though, as Steve Maharey was at pains to emphasise last night. As broadcasting minister, Maharey has made some impressive strides in getting commercial broadcasters onside - in part through hearing out and acting on their grievances, but also by not committing himself to a YRN.
The upshot has been that the commercial sector has made the voluntary local quota scheme (sorry, "broadcast targets") work well - to the extent that it appears to actually be enjoying the thing it once regarded with horror. It still amazes me that during the last-but-one New Zealand Music Month, More FM not only played Goldenhorse, but had Goldenhorse play live in its studio. That's quite a change of culture, and not one you'd want to lose through a tantrum on the part of commercial radio.
Another concern with a national YRN is that it might risk trampling the little players in the regions it reaches, and possibly student radio too. If it were up to me to establish a YRN, it would be a fairly open model: do plenty of external commissioning, be willing to break out programming for supply to community broadcasters, don't be the 600lb taxpayer-funded gorilla.
I'm also not sure about simply adopting the Triple J model from Australia. Established as a publicly-funded youth network, Triple J has had the rather embarrassing experience of seeing teenagers and young adults drain away while older listeners hang on - pushing the station into competing more directly with a new crop of commercial rivals, which (in contrast with the situation here) didn't exist when it started up. Our radio market is different to Australia's - more crowded, more varied, more niche - and in a lot of ways that's good.
I don't think a YRN, if it comes to pass, should try and command the local youth experience, or be too sexy - it should, as National Radio does, offer things that nobody else can or does. National Radio itself already makes excellent contemporary music features which would shift easily to a YRN. If there's to be education budget money, then it should make some effort to tie in with the curriculum during the daylight hours (baby boomers will remember those classroom broadcasts) - and perhaps even pick up some ideas from Andrew Dubber's KidsNet proposal.
Anyway, it's obviously not my call, but I think might be interesting to watch what happens …
Quantities unknown | Jun 09, 2004 10:09
I'm happy enough with the All Black side - if not entirely confident that Graham Henry actually has the time to train up a team to beat the relentlessly-drilled England side. The selection certainly indicates that the All Black trial mattered: only two of the Probables pack from last week will run onto the field at Carisbrook.
The Possibles front row - Meeuws, Mealamu, Hayman - basically picked themselves by shunting their opponents all over the pitch during the trial, and Henry said yesterday that Jonno Gibbes, picked as a blindside flanker a week after the coaches identified him as primarily a lock, had been the standout forward in that game. This will be Gibbes' first test match, only one fewer than Xavier Rush, but both of them are old heads: I don't expect them to freak out.
While we fret about our unknown quantities, the Poms are worried that their side harbours no secrets - especially given the recent British experience of the coaching team. According to the Guardian, "Rarely has any New Zealand coaching panel known so much about the opposition in advance and Sir Clive Woodward badly needs to produce a tactical curve-ball of some description." Interesting.
There's more pithy NZ sports comment - well, more pithy than you'll get in the mainstream press, anyway - in the rather good sports blog Blogging It Real.
The Greens want the government to introduce country-of-origin labelling on imported produce - pointing specifically at the cheap Chinese garlic that has landed by the tonne in our market, largely pushing out the local product. Actually, my local vege shop is advertising just that distinction at the moment - and I'm surprised that the rest of the market hasn't done more. By the time it lands here, the Chinese garlic is frankly terrible - dry, tasteless and sprouting - and I'm sure I'm not the only shopper who'd pay several times the price for locally-grown garlic. Price isn't everything, you know …
Tim Michie pointed that the Maxim Institute is running a tertiary student essay competition - six lucky winners will get to work for Maxim in the holidays. Six? These people have money. The suggested text for the essay topic is C.S. Lewis's The Abolition of Man, one of the sacred tomes of the whole hell-in-a-handbasket movement. (You can crib and buy an essay on that.) It's fairly obvious that an essay which does not accord with the Maxim worldview will not be a winning one, but if anyone wants to enter such an essay I'll be happy to consider it for publication here after the contest has closed. We might even be able to manage a prize of our own …
Michelle Elleray emailed from Canada with a further comment on the views on Maori and homosexuality advanced by Bishop Vercoe at the weekend:
Bishop Vercoe's opinion that homosexuality is a product of colonialism goes well beyond NZ shores - you can even find the sentiment in as astute a thinker as Frantz Fanon. But Ngahuia Te Awekotuku is the one to turn to here. In Mana Wahine Maori she argues that colonialism brought not homosexuality, but homophobia: "My challenge is this: we should reconstruct the tradition, reinterpret the oral history of this land, so skilfully manipulated by the crusading heterosexism of the missionary ethic" (Mana Wahine Maori, p.37).
Duane Griffin drew my attention to www.theyworkforyou.com, a new website from the people behind Fax Your MP and Public Whip in the UK:
It is really, really amazing. You can search Hansard through everything said in parliament since 2001. You can link to each speech within a debate, and add comments to them. You can see a profile of you local MP (by typing in your post-code) including how they voted on key votes, how often they vote against their party, and what their 'registered interests' are. You can get RSS feeds for individual MPs, and on search topics (i.e. you'll be notified whenever that topic is mentioned in parliament). There's more, much more. Now I'm wondering, how long before the NZ version is up & running?
Me wanna AirPort Express. Apple's new portable wi-fi base station doubles as a receiver for wirelessly streaming music from your computer to the stereo in the lounge - or anywhere else in the house. It's way cool.
Staying on the Mac tip, I popped along to a launch for Microsoft's Office Mac 2004 last night. I'm normally immune to Microsoft feature creep - just tell me it's faster and more stable, okay? - but I couldn't suppress a yelp of delight when I saw that MS has added a simple scrapbook utility to Office. I've been looking for a Scrapbook replacement ever since Apple unaccountably removed it from the MacOS. Mark Webster from MacGuide has been using the Office beta and he swears that it is faster and more stable. Jolly good then.
World Press Review rounds up international editorial reactions to the death of Ronald Reagan. And Billmon has an interesting look at his domestic and economic legacy, among other things.
I'm interviewing David Slack (yes, the same David Slack over to the left there) about his new book for Penguin - Bullshit, Backlash and Bleeding Hearts: A Confused Person's Guide to the Great race Row - at 1pm on The Wire on 95bfm today. You can connect via the website and listen online if you like. There's a big orange sticker on my manuscript, warning against "divulging its contents" before publication date: I take this as license to divulge its style: which is highly accessible. The book does show signs of having been written quickly, but David has the speechwriter's knack of writing prose that people can grasp at first pass. I think it's going to be quite an influential book. David wrote about how the book came to be, in the Sunday Star Times.
Liberal ironies | Jun 08, 2004 10:15
I called Paul on Saturday morning to make sure he was still on the face of the Earth. After all, with the Anglican Archbishop of New Zealand boldly looking forward to a world without gays, there was every chance it'd been shuffled up God's to-do list. Which would be a disaster - I had Warriors tickets, and going there on my own might be way too depressing.
Happily, Paul was fully in existence, and up for the long, strange trip that is Ericsson these days: "That'll work nicely - so long as I'm back in town in time for the Golden Stilettos." So he was good to go. I was less sure about Bishop Whakahuihui Vercoe, 75, the new head of the Anglican Church in New Zealand.
Bishop Vercoe, as the Weekend Herald noted in a front-page lead under the screaming headline A world without gays, and a more measured and interesting profile in its Review and World section, both by Catherine Masters, has been a key personality in the Anglican church's embrace of Treaty rights and Maori self-determination in recent years.
He also thinks we should "close the door" on immigration, would never ordain a Maori woman as a priest (even though the church itself allows the ordination of women), and believes homosexuality is unnatural and morally wrong - so much so that he looks forward to the day that society embraces a "new morality" and homosexuality consequently disappears. (You wouldn't fancy his chances, given that historically God has determinedly kept churning out homosexuals in the face of the most hideous persecutions.)
Bishop Vercoe's rather unlikely vision is backed up by his even more curious belief that homosexuality did not exist in pre-European Maori society - this, he implied last year, provided a justification for anti-gay prejudice among Maori. In fact, the evidence appears to be that before the church got at them, Maori were relatively relaxed about sexual orientation.
The irony here is that the church's lurch to the right at the top is the result of the most PC, Treaty-hugging motivations you could imagine. Bishop Vercoe's election a month ago at the church's General Synod was widely seen as a further step forward in the church's embrace for a bicultural partnership under the Treaty - indeed, as this sermon by the Rev Richard Randerson indicates, he was chosen specifically because he was Maori.
As the pakeha caucus pondered those issues last weekend, no clear answer was seen. The Maori caucus was also pondering the issues prior to our convening in General Synod, along with Polynesia. But the more we talked about it as a pakeha caucus, the more it seemed evident that if partnership was to mean anything in this Church then leadership should now pass to tikanga Maori. As pakeha we felt we should not name a candidate, and that we should take that path not in a patronising spirit (like not running a candidate in a by-election so someone else could have a chance), but rather so that the full mana and leadership authority of another tikanga might blossom and enrich us all.
Thus was the oldest primate in the entire Anglican Communion, a man in poor health, chosen.
But it's largely his own people he damages when he resorts to "culture" to fluff up his own prejudices. What is a gay Maori teenager to think when one of his leaders tells him that the person he finds himself to be is an "abomination" to the "dark races"? Bishop Vercoe trots out all the usual qualifiers about loving his gay relatives, but to say that and then "by the way, the world would be better off without you" is untenable.
I'm not especially comfortable with the headline treatment accorded to issues of sexuality in recent weeks - it risks hysteria - but the shock-horror story may yet have an ironic payoff for the church itself, which, while it nominally has 630,000 adherents in New Zealand, has endured a declining share of a diminishing market in churchgoers, while morally conservative, new-fangled Pentecostal churches have grown strongly.
Anyway, the Herald ran its backlash story yesterday, along with the news that one big gay Maori, Witi Ihimaera, was awarded the New Zealand Order of Merit. Readers' letters appear to have poured in.
I wonder if all the credit for winning/ending the Cold War being lavished on the late Ronald Reagan relies more on more perception than reality. Many tributes mention his 1987 speech in Berlin, urging Gorbacev to "tear down this wall" - the implication being that Reagan played a key role in what happened. But that speech was made nearly two and a half years before the Brandenburg Gate was opened.
What forced open the wall was not Reagan's urgings (realistically, Gorbacev's public advice to the embattled GDR leadership to embrace reform in October 1989 would seem to have been far more directly influential), but the courage and determination of East Germans themselves, who took to the streets in historic pro-democracy demonstrations - one of them more than a million strong.
What happened on the night of November 9, 1989, was that, after the general committee announced that applications for travel abroad would now be accepted, several hundred East Berliners went to the wall to demand their own immediate passage to the other side of their city. This was brave. They could have been shot. They weren't.
I was in Berlin a few weeks after that and people were still fizzing. Word had gone out that night that the wall was breached, and people grabbed their friends and some festive booze and went down to be part of history in the making. By the time I got there, the daily flow of Easties, in their crappy plastic shoes, spending the allowance the West German government gave them as they crossed over, was starting to become a little irksome to the West Berliners, so long used to always finding a park and never having to queue. Gorbacev was still much in the news - but I can't recall anyone talking about Reagan, who wasn't even president by that point.
I think we need to be careful too over the very frequent declaration that Reagan brought down communism by staging an arms race that bankrupted the USSR. I think Soviet communism had become internally unsustainable for any number of reasons; Gorbacev's reforms (which effectively set the scene for Reagan's 1987 speech) seemed more about domestic than foreign policy.
And, as we now know, certain other actions of the Reagan presidency - arming and training the mujahadeen so they could eject the Soviets from Afghanistan - had some unintended consequences. Where Reagan showed real courage and commitment was in sitting down with Gorbacev - against the urgings of many of his conservative backers - to negotiate the INF arms reduction treaty. As a Guardian editorial noted, at the time he left office the view that Reagan had either scared or spent the USSR into submission "was not widely shared … many believed he had delivered communism a hand-up rather than a knock-down."
So Reagan is surely a singular historical figure, but one subject to a mythology that grew mostly after he departed the stage. What isn't in doubt is that he allowed Americans to feel good about themselves, and that is at the core of his legend.
A number of readers have been unimpressed with the Maxim Institute's "snapshot" survey of parental attitudes. Mark Weatherhead and Rob O'Neill both questioned Maxim's willingness to pull quantative results out of its "qualitative" research, with Rob doing the numbers thus:
You can't accuse someone of not understanding qualitative research when the research is being presented as quantitative.
Qualitative research cannot be used to produce statistical analysis (that's why they call it qualitative) unless it meets quantitative criteria in the area of sample size, confidence intervals and confidence levels.
There is a handy tool that allows you to measure the margin of error of any survey. In this case you get something like a 95% level of confidence of a margin of error of + or minus 13 - way outside acceptable norms.
On the information I see, the only ones who don't understand quantitative research is Maxim. But this shouldn't be surprising as they are setting out to prove that "New Zealand has lost its way" - so they already have their hypothesis before they've even conducted any experiments!
Makes you wonder why they bother.
Kim Griggs pointed out that the writer of Maxim's press releases "was obviously unruly the day the teacher discussed apostrophes". John Langley of the Auckland College of Education had a measured and sensible response to the obtuse Herald editorial (as I noted, probably the work of Garth George) that both quoted the Maxim study and cheered on an Intermediate principal whose chief pride seemed to be in the number of children he had excluded from his school:
Stand-downs are not a disciplinary approach. They are a last resort used when other approaches have failed. It is also true that for many children they do not change the misbehaviour, or reach the parents who most need to be reached.
I am not condemning schools that stand down children. As a principal some years ago, I did so in extreme circumstances. Obviously, when a child is a danger to him or herself and others, or is abusive, it is likely such a measure will need to be taken.
But it is normally taken when a range of other measures have been tried and failed; when the school has run out of options and has nothing left to offer.
It is not taken as a regular course of action and certainly should not be crowed about in the manner that has occurred here.
The Weekend Herald, it should be noted, offered a more thoughtful story on school discipline that put the report in context.
There's a Transit of Venus webcast from Australia later today.
Finally, the Warriors won, the Black Caps got thrashed and - here's something we can all feel good about - Creed have broken up. Hallelujah.
Page 46 of 265
Archive