It's always nice to get comments from readers. Traditionally these have come in the form of letters and calls to the newsdesk, but recently we've seen a huge increase in the number of users adding their thoughts to stories online. It's great to see this level of reader participation, and long may it continue.
A story which recently prompted a few comments was reporter Kate Forrester's piece about a Facebook site which poked fun at Flintshire - read the story - and the reaction - here: http://www.eveningleader.co.uk/news/Anger-at-antiFlintshire-group-on.3958128.jp.

We'll leave aside the charming personal abuse from Drummer BIG T for a moment, but the reaction does raise some interesting questions about the way the media works, and what makes a story. For the record, Kate, in between her busy schedule, was asked to chase up the story by me. I noticed the group on Facebook and thought it was interesting that people have been moved to set up something like that. Obviously, I wouldn't like to question Drummer BIG T's intelligence (that would be rude), but I think he or she may have misunderstood what was intended in reporting the story. We didn't necessarily take the group seriously - it was clearly tongue-in-cheek to a certain extent. But does the fact that something is a joke invalidate it as a news item? We cover lots of events which may have consequences which were not necessarily intended by the people involved, and this to me seems no different. It was interesting to see the level of anger the site created among councillors, and reporting this faithfully is absolutely our job, and indeed our duty, as a news organisation. It's always good to hear how people view the internet - is it the publishing equivalent of a sandbox, where people can experiment and upload whatever they like, or should it be treated like any other medium? Had someone written a book, or published leaflets, or spoken on the radio, about Flintshire in the terms used on the Facebook group, I doubt people would have found the "it's just a joke" argument quite so compelling. The question of the internet's legal status is a tough one to wrestle with for media professionals, and the rules are constantly changing as we go along. That's what makes it so exciting as a medium, but also presents challenges and generates inevitable criticism.

I've been taken aback by the number of compliments which have been coming in. Since my last blog they've been arriving thick and fast, a testament to the hard work of our reporters and photographers.

Chester reporter Hayley Maguire was thanked by James Hill of Discover Nature for a piece on the group's work. Hayley was also praised by a PR man working on developments at the former Odeon cinema in the city. He emailed to say the balance in the piece was appreciated.

Steve Gould emailed Wrexham chief reporter Laura Hughes to thank her for a piece on Christmas shopping in Mold. Laura was also praised by Tony Mitchell, who said her article on out-of-hours social work was "good and reasoned".

Food development worker Debbie Neale thanked Flintshire reporter Petra Barnby for a story we ran on food co-ops.

Some praise for myself, and the newsdesk team, came from Pennaf Housing Group's Judith Gavin, who thanked us for our article on a new housing scheme for the elderly in Shotton.

One of the most emotive human interest stories of the last month was that of Tomas Palfi, of Drury, who overcame testicular cancer and now plans to conquer Everest. He thanked reporter Kate Forrester for her coverage of his quest, which he said was exactly how he wanted the article to be.

Jindabyne is not a film many people are likely to see. From Australian director Ray Lawrence, it's a low-key production
whose main stars, Gabriel Byrne and Laura Linney, are fine actors but hardly names who guarantee a film a strong box office
showing.
Released, perversely, in the midst of the summer blockbusters, Jindabyne is likely to find a small, but no doubt appreciative
audience.
It's a reflective piece, based on a Raymond Carver short story. Four men on a fishing trip in the Australian mountains
find the body of an Aboriginal woman. Unable to contact the outside world, they choose not to cut short their trip, and fish on,
reasoning that she is already beyond their help.

The plot works as a framework on which Lawrence hangs his central themes. Jindabyne explores underlying racial prejudice, still more
prevalent in Australia than it may appear on the surface. But it also tackles the less expansive theme of familial loyalty and trust.
The men's lives are all affected by what they did and their community's reaction, which sees them become tainted with blame and
accusations, although they have committed no greater crime than to show gross insensitivity.

Linney and Byrne give powerful performances as an imperfect couple whose fragile relationship is threatened by the incident, and
are backed up by a fine cast of largely little-known actors. For the second time this year, I was hugely impressed by a performance
from a child - in fact, from two. Both Sean Rees-Wemyss and Eva Lazzaro are breathtakingly good for such young actors, and
make stunning contributions to a film which deserves to gain attention than a clutch of positive reviews and one or two award
nominations.

From my forum post, these are links that didn't quite come out right:

Peggy Jones's sit-in protest: http://www.eveningleader.co.uk/ViewArticle.aspx?SectionID=5263&articleid=2893123

Our interview with the council's Andrew Figiel: http://www.eveningleader.co.uk/news?articleid=2929074

Firstly, apologies for the lack of posts. It's slightly ironic that when things worth blogging about (elections, Wrexham's League survival battle) come along, they take up so much time there's actually none left to blog in. I'll try harder in future!


CHILD actors down the years have been something of a mixed bag. For every David Bradley, who lit up the screen on his acting debut in Kes, there's a Jake Lloyd, who avoided being the worst thing in Star Wars: The Phantom Menace purely because that film contained so much else that was utter, utter rubbish. Thomas Turgoose belongs firmly in the former category.

Turgoose stars in This is England, the new film from Shane Meadows. I've not always been a fan of Meadows's work, but with this picture he's really hit the mark. Set in 1983, the plot traces the story of Shaun, a flare-wearing 12-year-old still coming to terms with the loss of his dad. Bullied at school and misunderstood by his well-meaning mum, a chance meeting with a group of skinheads leads Shaun into becoming part of their world.

Initially, that world is a friendly, multicultural one. They all love ska and reggae music, and are looking for little more than a good time. But soon they are infiltrated by the National Front, and everything turns sour. The poisonous racism introduced into the group splits apart the former friends, and has shocking and violent consequences.

This is England is at times breathtakingly well-made. Shot in a style which evokes the early-80s while still seeming fresh, and with plenty of pop-cultural references (Roland Rat, Thatcher, BMX bikes) and a great soundtrack, it captures a sense of a particular place and time better than any film I've seen this year. The acting throughout is exemplary, mixing kitchen-sink naturalism with a dramatic sense that conveys the film's strong message without ever abandoning its essential subtlety.

But despite everything good about it, the film is surely destined to remembered primarily for Turgoose's performance. And rightly so. Managing to look much younger than his character's age, the youngster displays an incredible range as Shaun journeys from youthful naivety to being seduced by, and ultimately rejecting, violent racism. His command of expressions and language mark him out as a real star of the future. Actually no, that sounds patronising - he's a star of the present, and one who elevates This is England from a very good film to a real contender for film of the year.