Of course the context is Auckland's overall and unrelenting growth in general. If you are (roughly) increasing by the size of a mid-sized provincial town each year, there will be inevitable pressures, localised demographic trends notwithstanding. A lot of the rest of NZ doesn't like it, but basically Auckland needs a fairer slice of the national infrastructure and social spend. Not holding my breath.

Agree with our learned friend - the reform would have been better as a simple removal of the defence of "reasonable force" in clear abuse cases. The moment it became about social improvement it descended into a talkback swamp of prejudice and mutual contempt.

Hear hear. The ex Listener sub-squad is legion, too - Simon Wilson at Metro, Mark Cubey at RNZ, Rachel Scott at Otago Uni Press, to name a few. Interestingly, it was Tom McWilliams - my vote for the greatest sub of all - who pointed out to me that the word "interestingly" in journalism should be redundant, since what we wrote should by definition be interesting. I never use it any more,

Good point about W & JT's complete and fatal lack of journalistic instinct. But what is Plunkett's excuse? If you market a station on its news cred, surely he was in breach of his own contract?

Sadly, a lot of the pressure on other kids to fall in line seems to be coming from young women. It’s troubling.

Which is what I observed near the beginning of this thread. It strikes me as something that is missing from a lot of the discussion. It helps explain this sick little scene in general and will not be an isolated case.

My teenager showed me around the facebook mileu of which these creeps are an integral part. It was pretty sad, though maybe not surprising, that young women were complicit in some of it, at least in terms of tacitly accepting and condoning it. Now imagine how that perverse kind of peer pressure works on the minds of the victims. All in all, hideous.

Consult most teenagers about how they see it.

The ones I know watch a tiny bit of event TV, often ironically, but mostly don't watch at all. They are incredibly creative and communal, too. I believe they are what is known as "the future".

I know, I know ... But you really can also read a book., There is an unspoken assumption in all this that TV is still the cultural fulcrum it (arguably) once was. There is incredible art being made for TV, yes, nearly all of it for a subscription fee now. Like you have to pay for a novel or a record (you know what I mean). But as the great uniter, the great public service, the great village well, the great receptacle of collective experience ... it's over. The public service argument is compelling, but it's too late. If you don't want to pay for the good stuff you will increasingly be sifting through thinner and thinner pickings.

Indeed. I've long thought that free-to-air TV has been finding its natural (i.e.commercial) equilibrium by maximising viewers for the lowest possible cost. Reality event TV is the best model so far, and it will increase. But what it also means is that many viewers turn away, download, do other stuff - until the mainstream channels become the domain of a certain kind of culture that really represents nothing more than shallow consumerism. Genuine long-form current affairs has largely gone, news is headlines with pictures, drama will slowly collapse (witness the industry currrently) and we'll all have Netflix accounts. It's a kind of globalism I guess.

Has anyone posting here seen convincing proof that it was the "regime" that used chemical weapons? Why are you so keen to believe the usual suspects' affirmations? If fits the convenient morality tale version of the narrative, yes, but it might not be the truth.