Did anyone watch BBC1’s Wounded documentary last night?
Well it seems to be a huge talking point today online with countless forums already inundated with comments on the bravery and inspiration that the two featured soldiers showed.
It was quite harrowing, but ultimately inspiring and centred on two young men who both suffered some of the worst injuries imaginable.
Tom had been the victim of an improvised explosive device (IED) that had blown off both his legs. Soon afterwards, his left arm was amputated. He was at Birmingham’s Selly Oak Hospital, where British soldiers from Afghanistan have been treated since 2001 and where he was recovering from 15 major operations.
Ranger Andy Allen, 19, of the Royal Irish Regiment was another victim of an IED. When he was flown back to Birmingham, the doctors were hoping to save his remaining leg, but couldn’t. He’d also been blinded in the attack.
What was inspirational was that both were so determined to get on and make the best of their lives. One wanted to walk within 7 months to collect his medal, the other wanted to walk and to see his baby boy. Both did it.
One forum post is from ‘Sue’ who wrote:
“100% AMAZING. I watched this programme through a mass of tears. As a 'Forces' wife and mother I felt very humbled that both my husband and son have returned safe and my heart goes out to all the families of guys like Andy and Tom. WELL DONE BBC for showing this and I hope that whoever watched it will now realise OUR FORCES ARE AMAZING PEOPLE and we should be proud to honour them”
All the reviews and posts I read seem to echo this sentiment and how brave these men are and the only negatives seem to be surrounding the politics of war itself which I won’t go into.
Whatever the circumstances; these two men are brave and undeniably inspirational. It seems that this documentary will be a talking point for a while to come.
Showing posts with label "vacancies scotland". Show all posts
Showing posts with label "vacancies scotland". Show all posts
Thursday, 24 September 2009
Friday, 4 September 2009
Teacher's Lose Out, Pupil's Lose out, Who are the Real Winner's?
The Herald reported that newly-qualified teachers across the country are increasingly finding it almost impossible to gain full-time permanent posts, nothing new but still frustrating all the same. The situation has been apparent for several years, as a series of surveys by the General Teaching Council of Scotland has shown.
The most recent of these, published in June, showed that two-thirds of new teachers had failed to gain full-time permanent work in Scottish schools almost a year after qualifying.
However, what is alarming about the most recent developments is that local authorities have been accused of intentionally preventing new teachers from securing permanent posts because they have fewer employment rights.
In the past few weeks, The Herald has been contacted by newly-qualified teachers from local authority areas, including Glasgow, Renfrewshire and South Lanarkshire, who claim their long-term supply contracts have not been renewed as they approach one year of continuous service.
Instead, the work is being given to teachers who have just completed their probationary year, which does not count towards employment history, or those who have already retired.
The timing is crucial, because working for a full year gives teachers the right to take a local authority to an employment tribunal or to receive a redundancy settlement.
In addition, under agreements between councils and teacher unions, staff who have been employed for more than one year acquire a right to seek a permanent contract of employment.
One teacher from Glasgow told The Herald: "There is a growing scrapheap of teachers who completed their probation two, three or even four years ago and are subject to this unethical policy of being passed-over for cheaper, inexperienced staff.
Glasgow also stands accused of failing to recognise teachers' rights to a permanent post once they have completed one year's continuous service, with the local branch of the Educational Institute of Scotland now seeking to take legal action against Glasgow City Council.
In a separate e-mail to The Herald, staff from South Lanarkshire raised similar concerns about the employment prospects of newly-qualified teachers.
"Teachers nearing the end of their continuous service had their contracts abruptly terminated two days before the end of term in June, therefore ending all employment rights," they said.
And in Renfrewshire, Wendy Alexander, Labour MSP for Paisley North, has taken the matter up on behalf of some of her constituents.
"Of more than 300 employees in our schools in the past two years, only four now have a full-time job teaching in Renfrewshire," said Ms Alexander.
The local authorities involved have all denied the fact that they are deliberately targeting newly-qualified teachers and have pointed to a number of other, unavoidable, factors for the trend, including the expected decline in teacher numbers due to many reaching retirement age has failed to materialise, with senior staff holding on for a few additional years of work because of the current economic climate.
In addition, Glasgow City Council pointed out that continued falling school rolls and school closures and mergers has led to a surplus of teachers and a reduction in the number of supply vacancies in the city.
Excuses or ‘reasons’ by local councils doesn’t really seem to help the issue in my opinion. I understand that there are too many teachers out there so why has the Government encouraged people into a profession or course of education that will ultimately leave people without financial security and work.
It’s also worrying to me as a parent to think that my daughter may be taught by several different ‘probationary year’ teachers when she starts school as students are all promised at least a year’s work when they graduate. So in order for this promise to be fulfilled are pupil’s really getting the best education they should be?
I am not suggesting that ‘probationary year’ teachers are not capable or competent but rather it seems to be an inefficient way to continually replace teacher’s especially when the one’s coming to the end of the first year are probably then ready and knowledgeable enough to continue and used to their class, then they are told they need to reapply for a job that statistics show they probably won’t get.
Instead because the work when you graduate guarantee, it seems that pupil’s and education are the one’s suffering, as well as the unemployed teacher’s – so in the end who’s benefiting? No one that I can think of.
Is it not better to have some kind of continuity in education? I remember at primary school in particular I only had two, maybe three teachers and it was better for parents who got to know their child’s class teacher and for young children who received minimum disruption and change.
I don’t know how the Government or maybe more appropriately the local council authorities can turn this around but I am sure on one thing – it’s a lose lose situation at the moment for many teacher’s and pupils alike.
The most recent of these, published in June, showed that two-thirds of new teachers had failed to gain full-time permanent work in Scottish schools almost a year after qualifying.
However, what is alarming about the most recent developments is that local authorities have been accused of intentionally preventing new teachers from securing permanent posts because they have fewer employment rights.
In the past few weeks, The Herald has been contacted by newly-qualified teachers from local authority areas, including Glasgow, Renfrewshire and South Lanarkshire, who claim their long-term supply contracts have not been renewed as they approach one year of continuous service.
Instead, the work is being given to teachers who have just completed their probationary year, which does not count towards employment history, or those who have already retired.
The timing is crucial, because working for a full year gives teachers the right to take a local authority to an employment tribunal or to receive a redundancy settlement.
In addition, under agreements between councils and teacher unions, staff who have been employed for more than one year acquire a right to seek a permanent contract of employment.
One teacher from Glasgow told The Herald: "There is a growing scrapheap of teachers who completed their probation two, three or even four years ago and are subject to this unethical policy of being passed-over for cheaper, inexperienced staff.
Glasgow also stands accused of failing to recognise teachers' rights to a permanent post once they have completed one year's continuous service, with the local branch of the Educational Institute of Scotland now seeking to take legal action against Glasgow City Council.
In a separate e-mail to The Herald, staff from South Lanarkshire raised similar concerns about the employment prospects of newly-qualified teachers.
"Teachers nearing the end of their continuous service had their contracts abruptly terminated two days before the end of term in June, therefore ending all employment rights," they said.
And in Renfrewshire, Wendy Alexander, Labour MSP for Paisley North, has taken the matter up on behalf of some of her constituents.
"Of more than 300 employees in our schools in the past two years, only four now have a full-time job teaching in Renfrewshire," said Ms Alexander.
The local authorities involved have all denied the fact that they are deliberately targeting newly-qualified teachers and have pointed to a number of other, unavoidable, factors for the trend, including the expected decline in teacher numbers due to many reaching retirement age has failed to materialise, with senior staff holding on for a few additional years of work because of the current economic climate.
In addition, Glasgow City Council pointed out that continued falling school rolls and school closures and mergers has led to a surplus of teachers and a reduction in the number of supply vacancies in the city.
Excuses or ‘reasons’ by local councils doesn’t really seem to help the issue in my opinion. I understand that there are too many teachers out there so why has the Government encouraged people into a profession or course of education that will ultimately leave people without financial security and work.
It’s also worrying to me as a parent to think that my daughter may be taught by several different ‘probationary year’ teachers when she starts school as students are all promised at least a year’s work when they graduate. So in order for this promise to be fulfilled are pupil’s really getting the best education they should be?
I am not suggesting that ‘probationary year’ teachers are not capable or competent but rather it seems to be an inefficient way to continually replace teacher’s especially when the one’s coming to the end of the first year are probably then ready and knowledgeable enough to continue and used to their class, then they are told they need to reapply for a job that statistics show they probably won’t get.
Instead because the work when you graduate guarantee, it seems that pupil’s and education are the one’s suffering, as well as the unemployed teacher’s – so in the end who’s benefiting? No one that I can think of.
Is it not better to have some kind of continuity in education? I remember at primary school in particular I only had two, maybe three teachers and it was better for parents who got to know their child’s class teacher and for young children who received minimum disruption and change.
I don’t know how the Government or maybe more appropriately the local council authorities can turn this around but I am sure on one thing – it’s a lose lose situation at the moment for many teacher’s and pupils alike.
Wednesday, 2 September 2009
Celebrity Fronted Social Worker Recruitment Drive for 5000 Jobs
A TV campaign is being launched to try to recruit more than 5,000 social workers, amid fears the ‘Baby P’ case has turned people off the profession, the BBC reported.
Launching the appeal, actress Samantha Morton spoke of the "wonderful" social workers who supported her as a child. Fashion designer Sadie Frost, former Eastenders star Michelle Ryan and musician Goldie are also among those appearing in the adverts.
Children's Secretary Ed Balls said social workers "transform lives".
"Thousands of children and families desperately need the help and support social workers give in difficult and sometimes dangerous situations. It is a job that makes a difference in ways that most of us can only begin to imagine," he said, adding that its success stories were "rarely heard".
‘The Help Give Them A Voice’ campaign aims to attract back social workers who may have left the profession and people looking for a career change, as well as people making initial career choices.
Emilia Fox, another actress supporting the campaign, said: "I think we have got to a really critical situation so this is really to encourage people into a profession with responsibility."
In May, a survey for the Local Government Association (LGA) suggested the criticism of the profession following the ‘Baby P’ case had had a "highly damaging effect" on the ability of local councils in England to recruit social workers.
It found 60% of the 56 councils taking part in the study had experienced problems hiring children's social workers and 40% reported difficulties in retaining experienced staff.
Although this story appears positive and will probably prove to be a successful ‘recruitment drive’, is it really the right way to recruit staff that I’m sure everyone will agree play a pivotal role in society today for many people? It is a job with great responsibility and requires a certain type of person – caring and trustworthy are just two of the vital requirements of someone who would be successful in this career.
Am I being too analytical and pernickety to suggest that this is a waste of time and may attract the wrong type of people? I view this type of profession as one that people are born with the character to do or not, a vocation that no matter what training and skills can be provided to people, they may not be able to cope or do the job competently as it’s a lot more than a nine till five.
The same as a priest or nurse may feel that their profession was their calling; it’s a job that requires a similar nature and commitment to a cause. A lot of amazing social workers exist out there and as reported many have left due to the work conditions and treatment they received. Does it not make sense then to improve on these conditions instead of attracting masses of people, many of whom may be wholly unsuitable?
I understand there is a shortage of staff and they need to take action to ensure these positions are filled but does a celebrity endorsed recruitment drive really reflect the seriousness of the job? Is it really appropriate, no matter what the experiences of these celebrities have been? It is the ordinary ‘Joe Public’ that these people need to help and I just don’t think it’s a great way to recruit these important people. I feel a more targeted campaign if any and internal improvements to the departments makes a lot more sense.
I could be wrong, what are your thoughts?
Launching the appeal, actress Samantha Morton spoke of the "wonderful" social workers who supported her as a child. Fashion designer Sadie Frost, former Eastenders star Michelle Ryan and musician Goldie are also among those appearing in the adverts.
Children's Secretary Ed Balls said social workers "transform lives".
"Thousands of children and families desperately need the help and support social workers give in difficult and sometimes dangerous situations. It is a job that makes a difference in ways that most of us can only begin to imagine," he said, adding that its success stories were "rarely heard".
‘The Help Give Them A Voice’ campaign aims to attract back social workers who may have left the profession and people looking for a career change, as well as people making initial career choices.
Emilia Fox, another actress supporting the campaign, said: "I think we have got to a really critical situation so this is really to encourage people into a profession with responsibility."
In May, a survey for the Local Government Association (LGA) suggested the criticism of the profession following the ‘Baby P’ case had had a "highly damaging effect" on the ability of local councils in England to recruit social workers.
It found 60% of the 56 councils taking part in the study had experienced problems hiring children's social workers and 40% reported difficulties in retaining experienced staff.
Although this story appears positive and will probably prove to be a successful ‘recruitment drive’, is it really the right way to recruit staff that I’m sure everyone will agree play a pivotal role in society today for many people? It is a job with great responsibility and requires a certain type of person – caring and trustworthy are just two of the vital requirements of someone who would be successful in this career.
Am I being too analytical and pernickety to suggest that this is a waste of time and may attract the wrong type of people? I view this type of profession as one that people are born with the character to do or not, a vocation that no matter what training and skills can be provided to people, they may not be able to cope or do the job competently as it’s a lot more than a nine till five.
The same as a priest or nurse may feel that their profession was their calling; it’s a job that requires a similar nature and commitment to a cause. A lot of amazing social workers exist out there and as reported many have left due to the work conditions and treatment they received. Does it not make sense then to improve on these conditions instead of attracting masses of people, many of whom may be wholly unsuitable?
I understand there is a shortage of staff and they need to take action to ensure these positions are filled but does a celebrity endorsed recruitment drive really reflect the seriousness of the job? Is it really appropriate, no matter what the experiences of these celebrities have been? It is the ordinary ‘Joe Public’ that these people need to help and I just don’t think it’s a great way to recruit these important people. I feel a more targeted campaign if any and internal improvements to the departments makes a lot more sense.
I could be wrong, what are your thoughts?
Friday, 28 August 2009
BIG BROTHER’S BEEN BAD?
The media online and offline has been reporting of the decision for next year’s Big Brother to be the last. Davina herself has even mentioned it on her Twitter site and George Lamb on the spin-off show Big Brother’s Little Brother made an official statement that Channel 4 would review its decision after next year’s show.
There has been a lot of hype and speculation for the last couple of years and it seems a little exaggerated in my opinion – with comments like the ratings have suffered, the show isn’t as good as it used to be and hearsay about voting fixes, but does it all really matter? Whether true or not, all good shows come to an end and have a shelf life so it’s nothing new.
I like Big Brother and remember watching the first series religiously but now as BB10 is coming to an end I do think it’s getting less about the viewers’ opinions and more about Channel Four’s own agenda. BB10 Lisa is a prime example of this, she’s been sneaky, bitchy and a complete pain throughout and the only week that viewer’s had a chance to vote her out, Big Brother changed the way to evict, to voting on who you want to stay – perfectly engineered to get the ‘quiet one’ Hira out who seemed to have more going for her than anyone else in there.
Poor Halfwit/Freddie was also a victim of this year’s show as manipulative Bea played with his feelings which led to his downfall – if the public had the chance to get her out sooner then possibly Halfwit’s stay could have been a little longer.
All that aside there have been great shows and lots to talk about over the last ten series and I think it’s the right time to end it before it gets remembered for the rebellious behaviour of it’s participants and the unauthoritative nature of BB that has unfolded gradually and peaked this year.
If it is all coming to an end next year then I hope Big Brother does what many shows have before and make the final season one to remember.
There has been a lot of hype and speculation for the last couple of years and it seems a little exaggerated in my opinion – with comments like the ratings have suffered, the show isn’t as good as it used to be and hearsay about voting fixes, but does it all really matter? Whether true or not, all good shows come to an end and have a shelf life so it’s nothing new.
I like Big Brother and remember watching the first series religiously but now as BB10 is coming to an end I do think it’s getting less about the viewers’ opinions and more about Channel Four’s own agenda. BB10 Lisa is a prime example of this, she’s been sneaky, bitchy and a complete pain throughout and the only week that viewer’s had a chance to vote her out, Big Brother changed the way to evict, to voting on who you want to stay – perfectly engineered to get the ‘quiet one’ Hira out who seemed to have more going for her than anyone else in there.
Poor Halfwit/Freddie was also a victim of this year’s show as manipulative Bea played with his feelings which led to his downfall – if the public had the chance to get her out sooner then possibly Halfwit’s stay could have been a little longer.
All that aside there have been great shows and lots to talk about over the last ten series and I think it’s the right time to end it before it gets remembered for the rebellious behaviour of it’s participants and the unauthoritative nature of BB that has unfolded gradually and peaked this year.
If it is all coming to an end next year then I hope Big Brother does what many shows have before and make the final season one to remember.
Thursday, 23 July 2009
Education spending to be cut despite Gordon Brown's promises
“Despite Gordon Brown pledging to safeguard spending on schools and universities, government documents show that the total education budget will fall by £100 million after the next election”, the Telegraph reports today.
Without having to write much more, I am angry that an education system that already seems to be falling behind compared to many European countries is going to suffer from cut backs. The Prime Minister insisted only a couple of days ago that key public services would be safeguarded – does education not fall under that category?
In addition to this, The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform will have to reduce its entire budget by almost a quarter - what effect is this going to have then on the Government’s ability to help safeguard businesses through the recession?
I don’t have the answers but could make a prediction that it’s not going to be a positive one. I am getting really fed up with the constant controversy and downfalls of the Government, which I know is obviously nothing new. I just hope that this latest decision is the final straw and this country can finally break away from dishonest, gluttonous leaders.
Wishful thinking - I know.
Without having to write much more, I am angry that an education system that already seems to be falling behind compared to many European countries is going to suffer from cut backs. The Prime Minister insisted only a couple of days ago that key public services would be safeguarded – does education not fall under that category?
In addition to this, The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform will have to reduce its entire budget by almost a quarter - what effect is this going to have then on the Government’s ability to help safeguard businesses through the recession?
I don’t have the answers but could make a prediction that it’s not going to be a positive one. I am getting really fed up with the constant controversy and downfalls of the Government, which I know is obviously nothing new. I just hope that this latest decision is the final straw and this country can finally break away from dishonest, gluttonous leaders.
Wishful thinking - I know.
Wednesday, 22 July 2009
Do you hate Debbie or Steve in your workplace?
According to an article in the Daily Record last week, managers called Steve and Debbie have been named as Britain's bosses from hell. A poll of 4000 people put John and Catherine in second and Alan and Anne in third place. Staff said they were the most challenging people to work for.
In short, the worst male boss names were: 1.Steve 2.John 3.Alan 4.Paul 5.Chris 6.David 7.Mike 8.Simon 9.Barry 10.Andy.
And the worst women's names were: 1. Debbie 2. Catherine 3. Anne 4. Linda 5. Jane 6. Liz 7. Fiona 8. Andrea 9. Pam 10. Michelle.
Although it’s obviously not set in stone that people blessed with these names would be a nightmare to work with, it’s a bit of fun and provokes some interesting stories when discussed in a group. I personally don’t have any experience of bad boss’s with those names. We have a Jane in the office here and she’s great to work with – we love you Jane. If you have any stories feel free to share, although there would be little point trying to omit the name of your boss for anonymity – share anyway.
The article also told of researcher’s who exposed horror stories of employees being asked to carry out tasks that were definitely not noted in their job spec when they joined. Among them was a female boss who insisted her toenails were cut while she made an important conference call. Another spoke of their David Brent-like boss who threatened disciplinary action if staff didn't turn up to monthly karaoke nights.
I know that I wouldn’t complain about the latter if it was a paid outing but on a more serious note it’s worrying that there are many people suffering in their jobs and they don’t have an outlet for their woes except anonymous surveys. I’m sure there are many technically illegal tasks and treatment people endure in the workplace that goes unreported, especially with the economic downturn and people’s fears of redundancy and job loss.
No one wants to challenge or question unfair treatment generally as it can lead to bad feeling and in some cases a more serious personal vendetta from employers. I think it is an issue that needs to be given more time – it’s all well and good having legislation and laws surrounding health and safety and working time regulations, etc but are these truly implemented in all businesses today and are there ways that the unfairly treated can really change things without the risk of unemployment or being branded a ‘snitch’? I’m open to opinions…
In short, the worst male boss names were: 1.Steve 2.John 3.Alan 4.Paul 5.Chris 6.David 7.Mike 8.Simon 9.Barry 10.Andy.
And the worst women's names were: 1. Debbie 2. Catherine 3. Anne 4. Linda 5. Jane 6. Liz 7. Fiona 8. Andrea 9. Pam 10. Michelle.
Although it’s obviously not set in stone that people blessed with these names would be a nightmare to work with, it’s a bit of fun and provokes some interesting stories when discussed in a group. I personally don’t have any experience of bad boss’s with those names. We have a Jane in the office here and she’s great to work with – we love you Jane. If you have any stories feel free to share, although there would be little point trying to omit the name of your boss for anonymity – share anyway.
The article also told of researcher’s who exposed horror stories of employees being asked to carry out tasks that were definitely not noted in their job spec when they joined. Among them was a female boss who insisted her toenails were cut while she made an important conference call. Another spoke of their David Brent-like boss who threatened disciplinary action if staff didn't turn up to monthly karaoke nights.
I know that I wouldn’t complain about the latter if it was a paid outing but on a more serious note it’s worrying that there are many people suffering in their jobs and they don’t have an outlet for their woes except anonymous surveys. I’m sure there are many technically illegal tasks and treatment people endure in the workplace that goes unreported, especially with the economic downturn and people’s fears of redundancy and job loss.
No one wants to challenge or question unfair treatment generally as it can lead to bad feeling and in some cases a more serious personal vendetta from employers. I think it is an issue that needs to be given more time – it’s all well and good having legislation and laws surrounding health and safety and working time regulations, etc but are these truly implemented in all businesses today and are there ways that the unfairly treated can really change things without the risk of unemployment or being branded a ‘snitch’? I’m open to opinions…
Thursday, 16 July 2009
Dragon's Den - Has it lost its spark?
I sat down to watch the new series of Dragon's Den last night and was a little disappointed with it, was anyone else?
It just seemed to be less about business and entrepreneurship and more about belittling the people who in the first place had shown a lot of courage going in there to pitch their ideas to highly successful and knowledgeable business people. Fair enough these people I’m sure have watched the show so know it’s not going to be an easy ride and they have put themselves in that position but I’m sure it would make more sense to give them constructive criticism rather than mocking them.
It’s a difficult enough task with the current economic climate to come up with a viable business model but to actually spend time and money to try to make this work is very courageous and the Dragon’s comments and discouragement could easily stifle the creativity of many of the inventors and entrepreneurs if they continue to treat it as a way of making ‘good TV’.
I could be wrong and it could be in the editing of the show that made it come across as more pantomime than business meeting but I hope that as the series progresses it becomes more about the pitch and business than entertainment value.
There seems to be a mentality on TV now that if it involves mocking someone or putting someone down then it is entertaining and it will be a ratings booster but I personally enjoy more learning about people’s success and am baffled by why TV now has such an emphasis on this type of show.
On this subject, the radio is currently on in the background and there is an advert for the “REGGAE REGGAE SUB” from Subway, a success story from Dragon’s Den – it shows that programmes like this can make a difference but for every success if there are ten demeaned individuals then is it really worth it?
I know that people may be thinking when reading this that it may sound like I’m saying that people should be encouraged and helped even if their idea is not feasible but that’s not what I mean. Obviously if someone has deluded ideas then they should be discouraged from pursuing it but all I mean is there surely must be a way of communicating this that doesn’t involve mocking or humiliating people?
It just seemed to be less about business and entrepreneurship and more about belittling the people who in the first place had shown a lot of courage going in there to pitch their ideas to highly successful and knowledgeable business people. Fair enough these people I’m sure have watched the show so know it’s not going to be an easy ride and they have put themselves in that position but I’m sure it would make more sense to give them constructive criticism rather than mocking them.
It’s a difficult enough task with the current economic climate to come up with a viable business model but to actually spend time and money to try to make this work is very courageous and the Dragon’s comments and discouragement could easily stifle the creativity of many of the inventors and entrepreneurs if they continue to treat it as a way of making ‘good TV’.
I could be wrong and it could be in the editing of the show that made it come across as more pantomime than business meeting but I hope that as the series progresses it becomes more about the pitch and business than entertainment value.
There seems to be a mentality on TV now that if it involves mocking someone or putting someone down then it is entertaining and it will be a ratings booster but I personally enjoy more learning about people’s success and am baffled by why TV now has such an emphasis on this type of show.
On this subject, the radio is currently on in the background and there is an advert for the “REGGAE REGGAE SUB” from Subway, a success story from Dragon’s Den – it shows that programmes like this can make a difference but for every success if there are ten demeaned individuals then is it really worth it?
I know that people may be thinking when reading this that it may sound like I’m saying that people should be encouraged and helped even if their idea is not feasible but that’s not what I mean. Obviously if someone has deluded ideas then they should be discouraged from pursuing it but all I mean is there surely must be a way of communicating this that doesn’t involve mocking or humiliating people?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
