So much seems to have been going on lately - personally, professionally and in society in general - that its kind of hard to know where to begin!
Personally, I think we're finally settled in to UK life, and are starting to tentatively find our "social" footing as well. So much time is spent each week just moving backwards and forwards to work, that there really isn't all that much time left over! Having said that, the rugby world cup has led to a number of opportunities to get out and go watch a game, that we've been out with friends nearly every weekend. At the same time, we've FINALLY managed to get our Internet sorted out at home, and can now be in more regular contact with friends and family back home, which is definitely a good thing!
Professionally, well, things were just rumbling along for a while there. The job I found not long after we first arrived (which was supposed to be a temp - perm role) turned into an ongoing temp role (of the "stay however long you like" variety) - which is great in terms of money coming in, but rather poor in terms of job security, holidays etc etc. So, the last couple of weeks has seen me jump strongly back on the job-hunting bandwagon, and it looks like it may finally have paid off! I've got so very many things to say about some members of the recruitment industry, and their attitudes - but I've also been lucky enough to find a couple of really good, pleasant, clued-in recruiters as well. Hopefully my permanent job search is now over, and I should be all set to start my new role Monday week.
There has been so much going on in the world that it's hard to know where to start. From the Monks protesting in Burma, to political campaigns in Australia, Britain & the US, the world seems to be picking and choosing so many of the social battles based on the $. I kept waiting for there to be more outrage, more uproar, over the situation in Burma - but then I guess there's any number of people who have been waiting for that for a seemingly incredibly long time. The only reason I can come up with for why the Western world has left this nation to suffer at the hands of the junta for so long is simply that the nation does not possess any natural resources that big business wants to get its hands on. I just can't buy the idea that the people of Burma are any less repressed that the people of Iraq were - and yet the Western powers were awfully quick to find a pretext to invade Iraq when their oil interests were threatened, weren't they?
Politically, the various elections (or, proposed elections that are yet to materialise as actual elections, as is the case in the UK) are also fascinating - not only for what they are talking about, but also for what they aren't. As an Australian living overseas, I know that despite reading a number of the Aussie papers each day, I'm still missing being bombarded each day with the political backstabbing that appears to have become the norm - there seems to be very little positive campaigning going on! The big issues seem to be shaping up as health care (as always), IR reform (again, always going to be an issue when your two major political party's are labour an liberal!) and what I'm going to dub "its time for a change - ism". There seems to be a big swing along the lines of "Howard's been in for so long, its just time for a change" - but not much about what a change would really mean. I'm not sure who should win - I'm not yet convinced that either party has successfully outlined how they are going to address the social, economic or global issues that are going to continue to develop in the next four years. I guess (as always!) its a case of wait and see!
The US elections are shaping up to be historic. With Hilary Clinton leading one race to get the nomination, and the other race still appearing wide open, it's shaping up to be a very interesting campaign. Many US political commentators had never expected HC to get this far ahead in the polls, primarily because it was expected that she would always be in her husbands presidency's shadow. With Barak Obama running a strong second, it will be very interesting to see who ultimately ends up with the two party nominations.
Anyways - time for me to get a move on!
Hopefully, more soon!
Dee xxx
Sunday, 21 October 2007
Wednesday, 12 September 2007
"Sorry" - is it really such a hard word to say?
Had a rather interesting situation develop at work today, which led me to ponder why people seem to find a genuine, heart-felt apology so difficult.
A colleague has spent the past week running around trying to get some urgent documentation finalised, and yesterday, finally, was able to arrange a courier to take them away so that we could meet a deadline of this morning for returning them. Despite having checked the address herself, it was queried by the person booking the courier with someone else (i.e. not the person who'd asked them to have it couriered) and was told by that person that it could wait till tomorrow (i.e. today) to be sent. Throughout all this, my colleague was at her desk, and could have answered the question simply. Instead, she's had to make several highly apologetic phone calls, spend half her morning on the phone trying to work out how to get the documents to where they need to be today for less than $1k and has ended up having to jump on a train (round trip - nearly 7 hours) and take them herself.
Not ONCE have any of the people responsible for the decision not to send them (all of whom knew she was dealing with the matter) apologised. Not for the stress, inconvenience - nothing. Neither has anyone considered apologising to the person who had to have the documents today, or risk seeing their project collapse. My colleagues and I are all slightly dumbfounded - surely it's not too much to expect that if you stuff up (and stuff up badly) you might offer an apology??
These events lead me to thinking (you knew there would be a point, didn't you??) - in today's world, where so often we use "sorry" instead of "excuse me", have we forgotten that sometimes the best way to "fix" something is to offer an apology? By all means, do the other, tangible things as well - but sometimes the best you can offer is a genuine apology.
A colleague has spent the past week running around trying to get some urgent documentation finalised, and yesterday, finally, was able to arrange a courier to take them away so that we could meet a deadline of this morning for returning them. Despite having checked the address herself, it was queried by the person booking the courier with someone else (i.e. not the person who'd asked them to have it couriered) and was told by that person that it could wait till tomorrow (i.e. today) to be sent. Throughout all this, my colleague was at her desk, and could have answered the question simply. Instead, she's had to make several highly apologetic phone calls, spend half her morning on the phone trying to work out how to get the documents to where they need to be today for less than $1k and has ended up having to jump on a train (round trip - nearly 7 hours) and take them herself.
Not ONCE have any of the people responsible for the decision not to send them (all of whom knew she was dealing with the matter) apologised. Not for the stress, inconvenience - nothing. Neither has anyone considered apologising to the person who had to have the documents today, or risk seeing their project collapse. My colleagues and I are all slightly dumbfounded - surely it's not too much to expect that if you stuff up (and stuff up badly) you might offer an apology??
These events lead me to thinking (you knew there would be a point, didn't you??) - in today's world, where so often we use "sorry" instead of "excuse me", have we forgotten that sometimes the best way to "fix" something is to offer an apology? By all means, do the other, tangible things as well - but sometimes the best you can offer is a genuine apology.
Tuesday, 24 July 2007
Ohhhh - and BTW
I forgot to mention why I'd been "off-air" for so long!
After much deliberation (alright, much talking, little action!) - I abandoned Sydney at the end of March and landed up in London in early April (short detour via WA). We've been spending the last few months setting up home, finding work, negotiating finances etc etc.
My new home is just outside the centre of London - probably the same distance (as the crow flies) that Homebush Bay is from the Sydney CBD in all reality.
I'll write more soon about some of the other events of the past few months .... never the less - stay tuned for more updates ....
PS: At some stage we have a vague intention of starting a travel blog - I'll keep you posted if and when this occurs!
After much deliberation (alright, much talking, little action!) - I abandoned Sydney at the end of March and landed up in London in early April (short detour via WA). We've been spending the last few months setting up home, finding work, negotiating finances etc etc.
My new home is just outside the centre of London - probably the same distance (as the crow flies) that Homebush Bay is from the Sydney CBD in all reality.
I'll write more soon about some of the other events of the past few months .... never the less - stay tuned for more updates ....
PS: At some stage we have a vague intention of starting a travel blog - I'll keep you posted if and when this occurs!
Education and Smarts ....
I wrote the following mini-rant in an off-the-cuff response to an article I found one morning in the SMH (http://www.smh.com.au) ... those of you who have been listening to me rant rave and otherwise comment on education in Australia for the last little while will realise that this is one of my pet hat boxes. I would like to say that I resisted the urge to attack the newspaper's clear political leanings in posting the original article - it IS an election year after all!!
So - here's my 2p worth ...
"In response to the article noted above:
Provocative title piece - but no, I'd be willing to bet that as a nation our GNIQ (gross national intelligence quotient) has either stayed steady or increased over the past 20 years.
It's easy in an election year to play the blame game, but how about the fact that the current education model is outdated? The needs of students aren't being met whatever sector they are lucky enough (or otherwise) to be being educated in - you're never going to convince me that every single year 12 student should still be at school! Why are they still there? Because unfortunately somewhere along the line it became a prerequisite for most higher paying jobs (that is, jobs above the national minimum) that a candidate hold a degree. Naturally the number of degree places on offer hasn't increased in proportion to the number of jobs.
Call me radical, but address the REAL needs of employers through the education system, couple that with a vocational system that works (and give vocational studies students the same access to HECS and PELS - or whatever you're calling it this week! - as their university degree bound peers), and you'll decrease the number of students who are staying on to yr 12, decrease the pressure on teachers and actually increase the number of highly skilled workers.
By sheer dumb luck, you might also make people happier, because they might not feel like a "failure" for not getting a uni place, do a job they are actually suited for (how many uni graduates end up working in areas related to their first degree 10 years after finishing) and then, believe it or not, they might not see education as a complete waste of time."
So - here's my 2p worth ...
"In response to the article noted above:
Provocative title piece - but no, I'd be willing to bet that as a nation our GNIQ (gross national intelligence quotient) has either stayed steady or increased over the past 20 years.
It's easy in an election year to play the blame game, but how about the fact that the current education model is outdated? The needs of students aren't being met whatever sector they are lucky enough (or otherwise) to be being educated in - you're never going to convince me that every single year 12 student should still be at school! Why are they still there? Because unfortunately somewhere along the line it became a prerequisite for most higher paying jobs (that is, jobs above the national minimum) that a candidate hold a degree. Naturally the number of degree places on offer hasn't increased in proportion to the number of jobs.
Call me radical, but address the REAL needs of employers through the education system, couple that with a vocational system that works (and give vocational studies students the same access to HECS and PELS - or whatever you're calling it this week! - as their university degree bound peers), and you'll decrease the number of students who are staying on to yr 12, decrease the pressure on teachers and actually increase the number of highly skilled workers.
By sheer dumb luck, you might also make people happier, because they might not feel like a "failure" for not getting a uni place, do a job they are actually suited for (how many uni graduates end up working in areas related to their first degree 10 years after finishing) and then, believe it or not, they might not see education as a complete waste of time."
Thursday, 22 February 2007
Some thoughts on Stupidity
Those of you who have known me for a while are sure to have heard from me on more than one occasion about the dangers of stupidity.
Talking with a work colleague earlier in the week who is currently undertaking some studies in HR, I was struck again by the dumbing down of our society. More and more these days, I see tests, comments, educational materials, work documentation being aimed at the lowest common denominator. The theory seems to be that in order to ensure that no one is discriminated against, we should lower expectations.
I can't begin to describe how condescending, rude and pointless I find this exercise - but I'm going to try!
For a long time, I've believed that if you tell someone that they are stupid (rude, obnoxious, intelligent, worthless etc) often enough, eventually they will come to believe it - and not only that, they will come to behave in that manner all the time. So, the theory goes, if you constantly structure materials for the lowest common value, you will eventually get a larger cohort of people who believe that that level of understanding is the greatest they can hope for. Why not pitch it towards the upper end of the middle of the scale, and assist those who don't get it?
The idea extends to many other areas of life as well. I was out to dinner with a family very dear to me last night, and the youngest member of the family, Jack, has just celebrated his third birthday. Once again, I was struck by what a pleasant, charming, well mannered (but adorably cheeky), friendly child he is. It occurred to me that a big part of this was to do with his parents expectations - they expect that Jack will be well behaved, will remember his manners and will be a child (I had a delightful conversation with Jack last night about mozzies, flys, spiders and cockroaches - that showed me clearly that here was a child who takes a great delight in his environment!). And he responds to that. I'm sure that from time to time he can have the same meltdowns that any other child has. But the key is - the expectations for his behaviour are positive, age-appropriate and achievable.
Maybe that same theory could be implemented in the workplace. If we expect our colleagues to behave like intelligent, polite and respectful adults, I wonder if they would deliver. I suspect that if you make your expectations clear in regards to what you expect, they will eventually deliver. Of course, as long as you treat your colleagues as incapable, stupid, or show that you don't trust them in some way, my guess is that you're going to get work produce and results that reflect that.
Talking with a work colleague earlier in the week who is currently undertaking some studies in HR, I was struck again by the dumbing down of our society. More and more these days, I see tests, comments, educational materials, work documentation being aimed at the lowest common denominator. The theory seems to be that in order to ensure that no one is discriminated against, we should lower expectations.
I can't begin to describe how condescending, rude and pointless I find this exercise - but I'm going to try!
For a long time, I've believed that if you tell someone that they are stupid (rude, obnoxious, intelligent, worthless etc) often enough, eventually they will come to believe it - and not only that, they will come to behave in that manner all the time. So, the theory goes, if you constantly structure materials for the lowest common value, you will eventually get a larger cohort of people who believe that that level of understanding is the greatest they can hope for. Why not pitch it towards the upper end of the middle of the scale, and assist those who don't get it?
The idea extends to many other areas of life as well. I was out to dinner with a family very dear to me last night, and the youngest member of the family, Jack, has just celebrated his third birthday. Once again, I was struck by what a pleasant, charming, well mannered (but adorably cheeky), friendly child he is. It occurred to me that a big part of this was to do with his parents expectations - they expect that Jack will be well behaved, will remember his manners and will be a child (I had a delightful conversation with Jack last night about mozzies, flys, spiders and cockroaches - that showed me clearly that here was a child who takes a great delight in his environment!). And he responds to that. I'm sure that from time to time he can have the same meltdowns that any other child has. But the key is - the expectations for his behaviour are positive, age-appropriate and achievable.
Maybe that same theory could be implemented in the workplace. If we expect our colleagues to behave like intelligent, polite and respectful adults, I wonder if they would deliver. I suspect that if you make your expectations clear in regards to what you expect, they will eventually deliver. Of course, as long as you treat your colleagues as incapable, stupid, or show that you don't trust them in some way, my guess is that you're going to get work produce and results that reflect that.
Anyhoo, time to get on with it all!
Till later,
Dee xxx
Wednesday, 14 February 2007
Love Loss & Life
I’ve been reading a lot of late – of love, of loss, of life.
None of the books I’ve read are remotely alike – there’s Twelve Times Blessed (Jacquelyn Mitchard), Travelling Light (Katrina Kittle), Mad About the Boy (Maggie Alderson), Anne of Ingleside (LM Montgomery) to name but a few – all set in different spaces and times, yet strong with hope and passion.
It’s made me reflect on how these themes permeate our everyday’s lives. Many would say that to live means to love, and to suffer loss, and to a great extent I have to say I agree. From the time we are born, our lives are about the triumphs of love (mum or dad’s hug when baby’s hurt, the first kiss) and the pain of loss.
I read the paper today (The New York Times Online), and I see a refugee has gone on a shooting rampage in Utah (USA) – here was someone who escaped from the horrors of their homeland, who set out to murder people they had never met. We will probably never know why. Was something broken in this young man’s head after years of witnessing violence and despair in his homeland? There are now countless families in that community who must now come to terms with loss and fear – states that seem to be echoed in ever increasing frequency around the world in many homes and communities, and in greater numbers than ever before.
From the time we are born (often from an act of love), we spend our whole lives seeking love, and seeking to give love. What is it, then, that seems to be driving so many more people to violence and hatred? Can this be answered adequately by the (some may say) simplistic argument of the have nots seeking the power and privilege of the haves? I don’t buy it. Does the answer lie in the bigotry, the racial and religious intolerance that seems to seek into every facet of our lives? Perhaps.
I sometimes think that many people forget that the ‘religious wars’ of today (the ideological differences between east and west, the contrasts between Christianity and Islam, the capitalists and the communists) have been fought in differing permutations since the beginning of time. (I’m not going to enter into a discussion regarding when this was BTW – I’m not a scientist, or a creationist, and I’ll stay far far away from the whole ‘intelligent design’ debate thanks all the same!). Tash will no doubt correct my historical accuracy on this …. But … let’s think about a few ‘highlights’ of history: The Viking raids on England, The Crusades, The Cold War …. All about my god’s better than your god (or, my system of government is better than yours!).
There’s a lesson in there about how history repeats itself – but it’s getting away from my topic.
Love, loss and life.
Because we live – we love. Because we love, our losses can cut us to the bone. Because we live, love will help us heal from those losses, and will provide us with the love and support we need to live life to the full.
The books I mentioned back at the beginning show this cycle, with humour, with pathos, with gritty, hard hitting realism. They each explore the fears that today’s society helps instil in each of us (am I thin enough / pretty enough / rich enough), and explore the effect of bigotry on those we love. They do so by gently questioning our beliefs (why is it that an older man who marries a younger woman is “lucky”, where as she’s a gold-digging tramp?) and by challenging us to face the consequences of our fears. Could these books be considered high-brow literature? Nope. Does that diminish their message? Nope.
I’d love to hear what books you’ve been reading lately that have challenged you, or even about the books you have been rereading lately that have touched you or made you think.
I’ve been thinking about love, loss and life in the last few weeks. I’m about to embark on an adventure – I’m packing up my life, and my home, and moving to the other side of the world. And I’ve lost a friend – a powerful, beautiful, intelligent vital woman, lost to the world at the age of 39. I know Aveline will have redecorated her space in the afterlife (I’m sure there’s lots of pink involved, and maybe even a little black!), and will already be organising the all the other blessed souls to rise up and agitate for a better deal. And with the anniversary of another great friend’s death looming, I’m reminded again that though life goes on, it’s splendours tarnished by the holes left by those no longer with us, love keeps those who have gone before us close by.
Talk soon,
Dee
None of the books I’ve read are remotely alike – there’s Twelve Times Blessed (Jacquelyn Mitchard), Travelling Light (Katrina Kittle), Mad About the Boy (Maggie Alderson), Anne of Ingleside (LM Montgomery) to name but a few – all set in different spaces and times, yet strong with hope and passion.
It’s made me reflect on how these themes permeate our everyday’s lives. Many would say that to live means to love, and to suffer loss, and to a great extent I have to say I agree. From the time we are born, our lives are about the triumphs of love (mum or dad’s hug when baby’s hurt, the first kiss) and the pain of loss.
I read the paper today (The New York Times Online), and I see a refugee has gone on a shooting rampage in Utah (USA) – here was someone who escaped from the horrors of their homeland, who set out to murder people they had never met. We will probably never know why. Was something broken in this young man’s head after years of witnessing violence and despair in his homeland? There are now countless families in that community who must now come to terms with loss and fear – states that seem to be echoed in ever increasing frequency around the world in many homes and communities, and in greater numbers than ever before.
From the time we are born (often from an act of love), we spend our whole lives seeking love, and seeking to give love. What is it, then, that seems to be driving so many more people to violence and hatred? Can this be answered adequately by the (some may say) simplistic argument of the have nots seeking the power and privilege of the haves? I don’t buy it. Does the answer lie in the bigotry, the racial and religious intolerance that seems to seek into every facet of our lives? Perhaps.
I sometimes think that many people forget that the ‘religious wars’ of today (the ideological differences between east and west, the contrasts between Christianity and Islam, the capitalists and the communists) have been fought in differing permutations since the beginning of time. (I’m not going to enter into a discussion regarding when this was BTW – I’m not a scientist, or a creationist, and I’ll stay far far away from the whole ‘intelligent design’ debate thanks all the same!). Tash will no doubt correct my historical accuracy on this …. But … let’s think about a few ‘highlights’ of history: The Viking raids on England, The Crusades, The Cold War …. All about my god’s better than your god (or, my system of government is better than yours!).
There’s a lesson in there about how history repeats itself – but it’s getting away from my topic.
Love, loss and life.
Because we live – we love. Because we love, our losses can cut us to the bone. Because we live, love will help us heal from those losses, and will provide us with the love and support we need to live life to the full.
The books I mentioned back at the beginning show this cycle, with humour, with pathos, with gritty, hard hitting realism. They each explore the fears that today’s society helps instil in each of us (am I thin enough / pretty enough / rich enough), and explore the effect of bigotry on those we love. They do so by gently questioning our beliefs (why is it that an older man who marries a younger woman is “lucky”, where as she’s a gold-digging tramp?) and by challenging us to face the consequences of our fears. Could these books be considered high-brow literature? Nope. Does that diminish their message? Nope.
I’d love to hear what books you’ve been reading lately that have challenged you, or even about the books you have been rereading lately that have touched you or made you think.
I’ve been thinking about love, loss and life in the last few weeks. I’m about to embark on an adventure – I’m packing up my life, and my home, and moving to the other side of the world. And I’ve lost a friend – a powerful, beautiful, intelligent vital woman, lost to the world at the age of 39. I know Aveline will have redecorated her space in the afterlife (I’m sure there’s lots of pink involved, and maybe even a little black!), and will already be organising the all the other blessed souls to rise up and agitate for a better deal. And with the anniversary of another great friend’s death looming, I’m reminded again that though life goes on, it’s splendours tarnished by the holes left by those no longer with us, love keeps those who have gone before us close by.
Talk soon,
Dee
Monday, 15 January 2007
So the Holidays are over ......
Happy 2007!
I think by now just about everyone I know is back at work for 2007 - if you're not, I'm not sure I want to know! I hope you all had a good holiday season - and if you didn't get some time off, I hope you have some scheduled for the not to distant future!
Everyone I've spoken to seems to have survived the Christmas / New Year period - though among the 30-somethings there seems to have been the odd bout of parent-induced stress. Family can be a joy - but it can also provide us with some of the greatest stress in our lives, and it seems that this is most prevalent at times in our life when either we're redefining our identity's (think: being a teenager, leaving home for the first time, moving back home, getting married etc) or our family unit is trying to redefine itself (think: births, deaths and marriages).
Interestingly enough, there's been heaps written in recent times about how the 'empty-nest' syndrome has been delayed by children leaving home later and later. Going hand in hand with this concept has to be the idea that parents are finding it harder and harder to accept that their children are independent humans who have their own lives. I'll give my parents this - they don't seem to have that problem! But I've noticed that a number of parents seem to be willing to see their children move on shortly after uni ends, but struggle when their children return home from uni, overseas, at the end of relationship, etc to treat them as adults who are capable of managing their own time, relationships, washing and cooking .... I'm sure part of this is to do with wanting to do more to protect their children in a world where the dangers are unseen and with greater frequency are things that you just can't protect against without locking yourself in the house and never leaving.
Of course, the flip side of this is that whilst young people seem to be in a real hurry to grow up (who ever heard of 9 year olds wearing crop tops, deodorant, high heals, or having mobile phones 20 years ago?) they don't always seem to be grasping the responsibilities that go with being a grown up. What's that a symptom of? Over protection? Lack of accountability in our society? I'd be tempted to argue for both. How do you tell a child (or for that matter anyone?) that they have to take responsibility for their actions (i.e. if you take that anti-social action, there will be consequences) if you have never asked or required them to do so previously? Society teaches us that bad behaviour is "cool" - think any number of celebrities - and that if you do get caught doing something anti-social, the appropriate response is to call blame your behaviour on either alcohol, drugs, poverty, poor-family dynamics .... the list goes on. The only way to discourage bad behaviour is for there to be real consequences that apply to everyone.
I'm sure there are those of you who disagree - I'd love to hear why!
Take care - Dee xxx
PS: Congratulations to ex-PLC student Ellie and her husband Ryan on the birth of baby Ruthie .... I can't wait to meet this much wanted child :)
I think by now just about everyone I know is back at work for 2007 - if you're not, I'm not sure I want to know! I hope you all had a good holiday season - and if you didn't get some time off, I hope you have some scheduled for the not to distant future!
Everyone I've spoken to seems to have survived the Christmas / New Year period - though among the 30-somethings there seems to have been the odd bout of parent-induced stress. Family can be a joy - but it can also provide us with some of the greatest stress in our lives, and it seems that this is most prevalent at times in our life when either we're redefining our identity's (think: being a teenager, leaving home for the first time, moving back home, getting married etc) or our family unit is trying to redefine itself (think: births, deaths and marriages).
Interestingly enough, there's been heaps written in recent times about how the 'empty-nest' syndrome has been delayed by children leaving home later and later. Going hand in hand with this concept has to be the idea that parents are finding it harder and harder to accept that their children are independent humans who have their own lives. I'll give my parents this - they don't seem to have that problem! But I've noticed that a number of parents seem to be willing to see their children move on shortly after uni ends, but struggle when their children return home from uni, overseas, at the end of relationship, etc to treat them as adults who are capable of managing their own time, relationships, washing and cooking .... I'm sure part of this is to do with wanting to do more to protect their children in a world where the dangers are unseen and with greater frequency are things that you just can't protect against without locking yourself in the house and never leaving.
Of course, the flip side of this is that whilst young people seem to be in a real hurry to grow up (who ever heard of 9 year olds wearing crop tops, deodorant, high heals, or having mobile phones 20 years ago?) they don't always seem to be grasping the responsibilities that go with being a grown up. What's that a symptom of? Over protection? Lack of accountability in our society? I'd be tempted to argue for both. How do you tell a child (or for that matter anyone?) that they have to take responsibility for their actions (i.e. if you take that anti-social action, there will be consequences) if you have never asked or required them to do so previously? Society teaches us that bad behaviour is "cool" - think any number of celebrities - and that if you do get caught doing something anti-social, the appropriate response is to call blame your behaviour on either alcohol, drugs, poverty, poor-family dynamics .... the list goes on. The only way to discourage bad behaviour is for there to be real consequences that apply to everyone.
I'm sure there are those of you who disagree - I'd love to hear why!
Take care - Dee xxx
PS: Congratulations to ex-PLC student Ellie and her husband Ryan on the birth of baby Ruthie .... I can't wait to meet this much wanted child :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
