And as the chief coroner has pointed out, not reporting suicide in a realistic manner is NOT working.
The question of how to reduce the number of suicides is not a simple one. About 550 people committed suicide last year compared to a road toll of 350ish.
Back in the day there was a logically reasonable idea that publicising suicides would lead to "copy-cat" suicides. So laws were put in place to severely restrict how suicides can be reported especially around the method. The theory was that by restricting that information fewer people would be tempted to commit suicide. As a theory it was reasonable. But we've done the experiment and it has NOT worked.
Now in my profession when the experiment shows the theory was wrong we step back and try something new.
It is time to try something new with suicide in New Zealand because while we have worked really hard to stop people dying on our roads they are dying in greater numbers in their bedrooms and garages. Dying alone and depressed and with no hope for the future.
I understand the need to protect the families from a media that have shown they have the sensitivity of a brick but silence over suicide has not worked and laws that were put in place with the very best of intentions are not working.
Suicides leave me sad. Particularly one such as this where a long battle with depression precedes the death. Without ever knowing her I'm left convinced that "if only I could have ..." as completely irrational as that thought may be. I can only imagine how much worse that "if only" is for those who were her friends.
What makes me even sadder is the way the media has both wallowed in sympathy for her (now that she is dead) and reveled in the "news story". On the one hand accusing twitter of contributing to her death and on the other hand using her once again as a commodity, never considering that by treating her as a commodity while she was alive they may have made her life less enjoyable.
But it is good to know that she had good friends and good to read about her as a real human, Thank you David.
So at what point does the biased reporting by The New Zealand Herald constitute harassment?
Obviously it wouldn't be smart on LB's part to actually complain but surely there is a point where The Herald steps outside the boundaries of what is legal?
once addressing their arguments
Let me help. Like about a third of kiwis, Brown had an extra marital affair, this involved him telling some lies to some people. Unlike his opponents and The Herald I do not believe this constitutes a reason depose a democratically elected mayor. Nor do I believe accepting room upgrades at a hotel constitutes corruption.
The tens of thousands of people protesting in the streets setting fire to cars and throwing Molotov cocktails at police and dying for their cause clearly indicate my view is a minority one ... oh wait.
Seriously New Zealand Herald, WTF?
Between this obsession with trying to be a political party themselves and the constant cheerleading of the real estate market I can't figure out what the hell The Herald thinks is the role of a newspaper in society.
It must be a strange place to work for those folks who actually wanted to be journalists.
Maybe when they ring me up next time asking if I want their paper for free they might think to ask why I don't want it filling up my recycling bin?
What pissed me off about Smellie's article was not the detail but rather the whole premise that the only people objecting were the ones who didn't really know what grown ups actually did when they went to work and he was going to kindly reassure us to stop worrying and go play with our toys again because the nice men in suits would all look after us.
Yes that was all meant to be said with one breath.
mutter mutter arrogant git mutter mutter
With respect to Pharmac.
This National government is the only government to have use political pressure to overturn a pharmac decision. Motivated almost solely by lobbying from a pressure group that went door knocking to get votes and donations for National.
This is also the government that has several times made statements that they do not philosophically agree with interference in the free market by pharmac nor do they agree that ACC is better for NZ than a US style health insurance system.
I have no doubt that given an excuse like the TPP that National would disband pharmac in second.
And as someone who has lived in the US and seen just what their medical system is like for the middle class let alone the poor I can say with confidence that NZ would be worse off - even if Mr Smellie and his cronies might gain from the deal.
how much this side has grown
Absolutely. I love the fact that we've gone from the "one-trick pony" of bash the ball and hope, to having a range of batsmen with different styles. You almost feel now like if one person fails then the next will fill the gap and play a solid innings.
The exception are the openers. Somehow we need to find some players who believe in leaving the ball for the first hour and who know where their stumps actually are.
The bowling team I still am nervous about. Corey Anderson does not look like he is robust enough to bowl the way he does for his entire career. Wagner is all energy and anger which is great but limited. And too often I've watched Southee and Boult appear to be stuck for ideas when the ball isn't swinging and the batsmen are playing sensible test cricket (waiting for the inevitable loose ball).
All of the above said in the full knowledge that the Blackcaps are much better players than I could ever be, while still not being as good as I want them to be.
To compare, here are the prices for the MCG boxing day Test – cheapest on the gate is $45 from what I can see.
Until you can get 90000 to come to a blackcaps test match reliably such a comparison is meaningless.
Priority Ticketing made your $40 ODI or Test day pass became $20 if you booked it three weeks out, or $30 right up until first ball of each match or Test match day’s play
Which is great except cricket is weather dependent. Unless you figure out some compensation for rain or light then that discount is a pure gamble and for those living in Auckland our experience with weather suggests it is a gamble somewhat akin to Lotto.
All that said I agree you have been trying to sort out pricing a bit better. I would prefer if the cheaper prices on the afternoons of later days were just policy so I could plan my work day around the possibility of getting everything done in the morning and taking advantage of a cheaper ticket in the afternoon.
The waiting until the last minute to decide if you are going reduce prices just smacks of someone trying to profit if the match is interesting and discounting if it is boring ... that really doesn't feel like cricket.
And really, what is the issue with having a $5 day on day two and trying to actually fill Eden Park with test match fans? I'm sure the accountants would go all pale at the thought but surely it is about the game some of the time?
The 500+ innings from NZ. The “weak” reply from India. The stomach churning collapse of NZ, the debilitating damn near pulling it off by India along with the final bowling acts by NZ.
You forgot the umpiring mistakes that could have so easily been fixed if the DRS was in use. Drama.