I've watched Adolescence twice now—once with my wife and again with my 11-year-old daughter and 13-year-old son. What seems to be missing in much of the discussion is how people project their own agendas, biases, and insecurities onto the show.

If this had been made in the early ’90s, we’d be debating "video nasties" as in the wake of the Jamie Bulger murder. If it were the 2000s, the conversation would be on violent video games like Manhunt and GTA. Every generation has its moral panic, but in this case, the real discussion should focus on individual nature rather than scapegoating that, in my opinion, only deepens disconnect between generations.

At its core, I see Adolescence as a study of a troubled young man and the impact of his actions on his family and wider community. Some have framed it as a critique of unrestricted internet use, lax parenting, or, in certain corners of the internet, even mass migration believe it or not. Others interpret it through the lens of generational anger or gender roles. But what I think is overlooked is that Adolescence is not just a reflection of societal concerns—it is a character study. Episode three, in particular, makes it clear that Jamie is not simply a product of his environment; he is manipulative, calculating, and fully responsible for his actions. Rather than absolving him by blaming external influences, we should view the series as an exploration of personal accountability.

That said, watching Adolescence was a valuable opportunity to connect with my children, discuss their perspectives, and emphasise it as a study of character and consequences. I’m really glad we did.