Principal’s actions in bullying case were reprehensible

As a repeated victim of school bullying, I completely relate to your story.

There were several times when my mother had to intervene at the school gates to stop someone bullying me — thankfully not assaulting the bully, but in one instance grabbing them by the collar and marching them to their nearby parent (no more bullying). I think the judge was spot on — that the mother was wrong and has been punished by going to court.

I do not sympathise with the bully at all whom is now “afraid to go out . . .” like her victim was during the bully’s reign of terror. The mother’s actions have now brought out the inner coward in the bully. Hopefully, the bully will learn that “what comes around, goes around” and it has gone around. Though if the victim’s mother had told her daughter to “give the bully one hard one in return”, the bullying might have stopped the bullying!

Finally, the school principal’s actions are reprehensible “what happens out of the gate is not my problem” and actively condones bullying. My mother was hauled to the principal one time after I laid a police complaint about out-ofschool bullying (I did tell my mother after doing so, not before!). Needless to say, my mother gave the head short shrift! Andrew Parsons, Mission Bay

Bullying 2

I am at a loss to understand how a 17-yearold was not stopped from bullying another for two years. Punishment and accountability for her actions did not seem to happen. Yet when the mother of the victim steps in to help her daughter she is up for assault. And to top it off the bully is now in counselling. I support the mother and am appalled she had to go through a court case. Vicki Hill, Manukau

Bullying 3

So the teenager who repeatedly bullied Nicola-Jane’s daughter now “feels humiliated the assault occurred in front of her peers and needs counselling”.

It’s called karma . . . Reap what you sow . . . Repercussions for your bullying . . . Perhaps going forward you will now think twice before you act and try to be a better person. Debi Buxton, Taupo¯

A rail solution

With the heated debate over light rail and heavy rail to Auckland Airport, it is clear that a combination of both is needed.

Both could be built within the current proposed budget for light rail by building shorter stages of each where each mode is most needed.

Light rail is needed on the key arterials out of the central city along Queen St, Great North Rd, Symonds St and Dominion Rd to provide greater capacity than buses and cars, and would serve the proposed Government housing development in Mt Roskill. It could later be extended along the Northwestern Motorway to Westgate and Manukau Rd to Onehunga.

Heavy rail is needed to the airport to provide a fast service from not only the CBD, but from all stations on Auckland's existing suburban rail network, as well as providing a connection for new interregional trains and rail freight. This could be achieved in two stages, initially from the Manukau to the airport via Puhinui, with a later extension north to connect with the Onehunga line, which would serve the proposed Government housing development in Ma¯ ngere. R Anderson, Pukekohe

Cranes are an eyesore

Did Ports of Auckland get resource consent from Auckland Council to erect those three huge new cranes? Collectively they are visual monstrosities and should never have been allowed. Their bulk and height are completely out of character with the existing port infrastructure. Proposed extensions to the existing wharves pale in visual significance.

The normally very vocal Auckland architectural fraternity have been strangely quiet about the height and scale of the cranes now located on our prime waterfront land. Would they have been a little more vocal if three hotels of similar height and bulk were erected on these highly visual sites? Bruce Tubb, Belmont