Category Archives: Politics

I used to listen to Parliament Question Time on the radio when I was a kid. Politics is in my blood and I wouldn’t be true to myself if I didn’t sprout on about it in one form or another.

Hands off our super? But no one is putting their hands on our super.

February 10, 2013

ETA: Below I mention that interest is paid. To clarify, the ATO pays the account holder interest when an unclaimed amount is claimed.

This week I received an email from a family member asking me to sign a petition about superannuation. It isn’t a subject matter that I would normally be asked to look at but I thought that if they were convinced there was an issues that I should look into it. I’m not one to go and randomly sign petitions so I thought I should at least go and look into this a bit further.

The petition I was asked to sign is on a website called “Hands off my super!” I haven’t linked the site because I don’t want them to get any sort of ‘Google-fu’ from me linking to them.

One issue raised is regarding superannuation amounts held by temporary foreign workers who have worked in Australia. From their website:

Two years ago the federal government made a small change to the superannuation rules. It ordered the Australian Taxation Office to seize the balances of all funds from temporary foreign workers who had left Australia.

The Australian Financial Review reported it this way at the time:

Budget to grab $800m from super funds…After the initial payment in June, super funds will be required to hand over their obligations from temporary residents twice a year, in April and October.

This gave the government an $800 million free money windfall — with more coming twice a year, every year.

Of course what the AFR didn’t mention is that this superannuation can be claimed AT ANY TIME by the worker by contacting the Australian Tax Office and putting in a request to receive their unpaid super. You can read it for yourself at the ATO website.They are taxed on this money, but it certainly isn’t gobbled up by the government to be kept forever.

The website then tries to link the first issue with the government taking away unclaimed superannuation amounts and claiming it for themselves. Because if it happens to foreign workers, then of course “ordinary hard-working Australians” are going to suffer at the hands of the government too. Again from the website:

You might think this doesn’t have much to do with you, but it does.

You see in the latest mid-year financial review on October 22nd 2012, Australian Federal Treasurer Wayne Swan revealed another change to the rules governing ‘lost super’.

The old rule was that super was only considered ‘lost’ if the super fund hadn’t been able to contact the member for five years and if the balance was less than $200.

But the new definition of ‘lost super’ is if the fund can’t contact the member for one year, and it now covers balances up to $2,000.

According to the proposed rule change, if an account balance falls under this new definition, the super fund will take possession of this money, and forward it to the government.

So as you can see, the government are just trying to rake in money left, right and center. Or are they? Well the facts are actually a little different to what is presented on the website.

It is true that the government has changed the rules for forwarding of unclaimed superannuation amounts to them. Unclaimed superannuation will be forwarded to them sooner and for smaller amounts. But what the website doesn’t tell you is that anyone with lost super can claim it AT ANY TIME. Don’t believe me? Read it for yourself. It also doesn’t mention that from 1 July 2013 interest will be paid on the amounts held by the government. It also doesn’t mention that by having the amounts transferred to the ATO, the superannuation fund can no longer charge fees on that super.

So the outcome is that the super is retained by the government, managed by the ATO, interest is paid when it is claimed by the taxpayer and no fees or charges are payable. What exactly is the issue with this?

The email then went on to talk about the changes to the concessional cap for super contributions and taxing superannuation returns for those on incomes above $300,000 a year. I looked at the website for “Hands off my Super” and there is nothing there about this. But I’ll look at this too, but just in brief.

In 2008/2009 the concessional cap for super contributions was lowered from $50,000 to $25,000. It normally goes up with indexation but it was frozen until 2014/2015. If you or your employer contribute to your super, you are taxed on that. For all amounts under $25,000 you are taxed a concessional tax rate of 15%. Put more than $25,000 into your super and that part gets taxed at a higher rate, currently 31.5%. This is still far less than the marginal tax rate of 45%, and therefore to me (the untrained person off the street) superannuation still seems like a good investment.

The idea of taxing super returns for those on incomes above $300,000 a year is also based on the same principle as the current taxation system for earnings. If you earn more, you pay more tax. It isn’t even a solid policy yet, but the article mentioned in the email mentions a possibility of taxing them 30% instead of 15%. Still way below the marginal tax rate.

So no, I won’t be signing the petition. Firstly, the facts surrounding the petition are wrong. The other issues raised are a) not part of the petition and b) seem like a fair and reasonable way of deciding who pays for what in the 21st Century. I don’t like paying taxes and I will pay as little as I have to. On the other hand, taxes allow the government (no matter which party they are from) to run the country and provide services to people. Governments will never be profit making enterprises; this is why governments perform those services and not corporations.


People shouldn’t have to die to get here

June 22, 2012

I’m feeling a little conflicted. I firstly want to state that I’m not an expert on the question of refugees, asylum seekers or ‘boat people’. If I get something wrong, please point it out to me.

I hate the fact that people risk their lives to travel in boats that are rarely seaworthy, are overcrowded, with little food or water and a shambles of a crew to come to Australia to apply for asylum or refugee status. More often than not, people die trying to get here.

The thing about our country that is different to so many is that we don’t have any land borders, so people can’t just walk up to the gate and ask to come in to be protected from persecution. A lot of our neighbours in the Asia-Pacific region are either not signatories to the appropriate charters or do not treat refugees and asylum seekers very well, so you can understand why they want to come here.

So how do we get to these people before they get on the boats and put themselves at risk (for very good reasons)?

I don’t know. I don’t have answers. It’s just a question that’s rummaging around in my head and I needed to put it out there.

Australia is a large nation and we can very well afford to assist those who need it. As an aside, I have to wonder how it can be considered cost effective to keep people in mandatory detention when they could be released into the community to work and live until their claims are fully assessed once any issues of security are answered.

I do agree with the concept of ‘stopping the boats’ but only in the sense that we should provide another way for these people to have their claims heard. They shouldn’t have to risk their lives to get the chance to be listened to, assessed and then come to Australia as refugees/asylum seekers (or not if assessed otherwise).

I really want the boats to stop. The people on them should have better options made available to them so that they don’t have to take that massive risk of death just to get to safety. If there were better options, I’m sure they would take them.

This is probably an overly simplistic view. I don’t often speak or write about this issue because it is something that I haven’t had a lot of exposure to. I just hate the stories of people drowning to get to safety. It shouldn’t happen. They should have better options. And as a signatory to the charter of human rights and refugees, we should be providing those better options now. Not tomorrow. Not next year. Now.


Fat people face supersized bigotry in “obesity” fight

May 15, 2012

I would like make a suggestion to local councils right around Australia. If the science is to be believed, using a sunbeds and visiting a tanning salon increases your chances of developing skin cancer. It damages the skin and can cause eye damage. I therefore recommend that they increase the rates for properties where sunbeds and tanning salons operate. This money can be funnelled into public health initiatives.

I would also point out that alcoholics buy their alchohol from pubs, clubs, liquor stores and (in some states of Australia) supermarkets. Alcohol can lead to increased violence, can cause health issues such as liver damage or damage to a person’s brain. Therefore pubs, clubs, liquor stores and supermarkets that sell alcoholic beverages (take home or for on-site consumption) should pay higher rates to local councils. This money can be funnelled into public health initiatives.

Smoking is well known to increase the likelihood that someone will die from cancer, lung disease or a myriad of other health complications. There are even big pictures and warnings on the packets to show that this is the case. Therefore local councils should increase the rates for properties where tobacco products are sold. This would include corner stores, bars, supermarkets, specialist tobacconists, pub and clubs that have cigarette machines and many other outlets.

I’m not sure what the correct solution is if a place sells both alcohol and cigarettes. Perhaps they should have a larger increase.

By now you probably think I’ve fallen off my perch or that I’ve lost the plot. No one would ever suggest that slugging businesses with extra local council rates because of what they sell is a great idea. Well if you believe that, then you haven’t seen today’s Sun-Herald.

Darebin Council from Melbourne is looking a proposal from one of its councillors to charge McDonalds, KFC and other major fast food chains up to 400% more in rates. Apparently this is to “discourage” and “penalise” them and has been supported by the Obesity Policy Coalition and dietitian Rosemary Stanton.

Straight from the report on the Sun-Herald’s website:

Darebin councillor Gaetano Greco said council was investigating a rate slug to discourage and penalise major food outlets.

“Councils have the responsibility of looking after the health and wellbeing of their community,” he said yesterday.

“Here we are, looking at an extra tool that council can use to limit or control the spread of fast-food chain outlets,” Mr Greco said.

Councillors voted to explore the option as part of a wider campaign against Type 2 diabetes after they were told that using planning controls against the outlets would not work, the Preston Leader reports.

I call bullshit.

This is purely and simply a cash grab. Councils struggle to increase rates because they are scared of voter backlash. They can’t target businesses for no reason as it would be unfair and wouldn’t be allowed. But by claiming to want to safe the fatties by making themselves more cash, they can win public support for the idea. By targeting only the major fast food chains, they know the public won’t mind because the major fast food chains are seen as the evil scourge of society. Plus they can probably afford it, right?

This isn’t about fat people. This is about wanting to make money from the global fast food chains. If this was about fat people then a whole metric buttload of businesses would be in the firing line. Fish and chip shops, local take away shops, Chinese resturants, local burger joints, and so on. This is about money and money alone.

Secondly, fat people don’t need to be saved. We are not some sort of helpless group that can’t control themselves when they see the goldern arches or a bucket of fried chicken rotating around on a sign. This is about using the stigma that fat people experience every day and using it to whip up public support for the proposal. The idea that the bigotry I deal with as a fat person is being used to make people support a proposal makes me sick with rage.

There is so much wrong with this whole thing that I don’t even know where to begin. To be honest I don’t have the spoons to go through every detail and explain just how wrong this is, so I guess I’ll have to leave that to others to do. I wish I could say that I can’t believe that this is happening, but I can.

Also, Obesity Policy Coalition? What the fuck? I’ll have to do a second post on that later tonight…


Hung like a parliament

September 4, 2010

Two weeks after the election and we still don’t know who will be the next Prime Minister of Australia. We’ve had the Green’s Adam Bandt and independent Andrew Wilkie side with Labor, giving them a 74-73 lead in the race for power. However there are three independents left to make up their minds. So what happens if they split and we end up with 75-75?

I can see a few things that could happen. The first thing that happens in a new parliament is that the speaker is elected. The independents would have agreed to vote with the government on supply and confidence votes, but they could still go against them when voting for the speaker. If a speaker is elected, then the side where the speaker comes from will be down one person, as the speaker only votes in the case of a tie. If there is a tie when voting for the speaker, there is no casting vote so they would have to try another candidate. This is the point that we may find that no speaker can be elected, and therefore parliament is borked and new elections required.

Now lets say that one of the independents get voted in as speaker. This would mean that their vote is now gone, since at the first sitting their would be all 150 members. Whoever that independent member was going to side with no longer has their vote in confidence or supply matters, so the other side would be able to form government. Not very stable government though, but it would be something.

So what happens if we get past that point? Well the government of the day would have to make sure that every member of their party was there. No one could go on leave or on trips during sitting days, as that one vote will make a difference. This is basically untenable for anything other than short periods, as at the first opportunity the opposition will force a vote of no confidence. The independents might see this as political gamesmanship and side with the government to block it, even if they didn’t initially side with that party. Then again, they could raise the no confidence motion if they feel that they aren’t being given a fair shake of the sauce bottle.

Interesting times ahead I would say. I think we have to hope that there is a 77-73 final result and that the three independents all go with Labor. It’s the only way we will get some stable government. Bob Katter is looking likely to go with the Coalition though, so we could be in for a rough ride yet.


Election 2010: Be Informed – know how preferences work

August 20, 2010

I am so sick and tired of hearing stuff like “If you vote for <insert party here> they are giving their preferences to <insert major party here>. So that’s a vote for <prime ministerial candidate here>!” I’m not sure if I can make this any clearer, but:

NO IT’S NOT

Let’s cover voting basics. In the House of Representatives, you number each box from 1 to n, where n is the number of candidates on the ballot.

House of Representatives Ballot Paper example

So whoever you number 1 is your first preference, number 2 is your second preference and so on. The person who you voted as preference 1 does not decide what happens to your preferences. You do!

In the Senate, you have two options. Option one is that you can put a number 1 above the line.

Senate Ballot Paper example - above the line voting

This means that you will vote for their senate ticket(s). Before every election, each party which has a box above the line tells the Australian Electoral Commission how to distribute their votes. So if you vote above the line, you vote will be determined by the party you voted for. This is the only way in which a party or group can do what they want with your votes.

Option two is to vote below the line. This is where you number each box from 1 to n, where n is the number of senate candidates in your state.

Senate Ballot Paper example - below the line voting

In works much the same way as in the House of Representatives. You decide who gets your first preference, second preference and so on. The person you put as number 1 does not decide what happens with your preferences.

I believe that it’s important to be informed, not scared by faceless people telling you that a vote for someone is a vote for someone else. Decide for yourself who will receive your preferences and number below the line. Or at least research the senate group tickets first. I recommend Antony Green’s guide over on ABC Elections. He also has good information on all this preference stuff and how it works.

Be informed. Don’t be fooled.

ETA: Viv pointed me to this brilliant site called Vote Below The Line! It can help you with deciding how to direct your preferences when voting below the line. It asks who you want to vote for, shows you the preferences that they have and then helps you to change them to suit the way you want to vote. Thanks Viv!


Stand up for your rights on Polling Day

August 20, 2010

It’s one day before the Federal Election here in Australia. I’d forgotten what that means until I saw a tweet just a second ago.

Dear P&C members, If you’re not organising a sausage sizzle at your school’s polling booth on Sat you’re un-Australian. Tweet by @ben_hr

Tweet by @ben_hr

Whilst most politicians have been spending the last five weeks worrying about hitting a snag throughout the campaign, it’s Saturday when the focus is really on the snags. And the onions and tomato sauce. Don’t forget the lamingtons, other baked treats and even perhaps some jams or drinks. Polling day is a big money spinner for school Parents and Citizens (P&C) Associations across this big land of ours.

Whilst the nation is worrying about which party to vote for, a team of parents, grandparents and other helpers are preparing to make cakes, biscuits and other treats to sell at the traditional polling booth fundraiser. I’ve seen some great things over the elections that I’ve voted in, including crochet tea cosies and doilies, dolls, handmade clothes, jams, pickles, cakes, drinks and don’t forget the sanga and sauce.

I’m a big sausage man. I love a sausage on a bit of bread, some BBQ sauce and some nice fried onions to go on top. It’s cheap as, hits the spot and seems to have been a part of my voting tradition ever since my first election. So I agree that it is totally un-Australian for schools around this great land to not be organising a sausage sizzle.

Perhaps I need to organise a crack squad of BBQ aficionados to set up sausage sizzles in schools right around Australia where the P&C Association has failed in their responsibility to the voting public of Australia. I have no idea how someone can be expected to turn up to a polling booth and vote, all the while knowing that there is no sausage and bread waiting for them at the finish line.

So with just one day to go, I make this plea to all schools across Australia. Generations before us fought for this country. The very rights and freedoms that they fought for are being trampled on if your school cannot organise a sausage sizzle on polling day. Think about the hundreds of people who are going to come and vote and expect to be able to get a cheap feed. What sort of society are we creating where access to a sausage on a piece of bread is hard to get?


Who will be Deputy PM if Tony Abbott wins?

August 18, 2010

Sometimes all you need is a quick shot of adrenaline to get you through the day. In the same way, sometimes you just need a quick shot of information to inform you. This is the first of probably many quick shot posts.

I have seen some friends questioning who will be the Deputy Prime Minister should Tony Abbott become prime minister after this weekend’s Federal election. This tweet got the conversation rolling.

Is it true that if Abbott is elected Barnaby Joyce will be the Deputy PM? - tweet from @TheDiscourse

No, it is not. It’s easy with the Labor Party as we know that Julia Gillard would be Prime Minister and Wayne Swan the Deputy Prime Minister. Because the Liberals and Nationals are on coalition, it works a bit differently.

The Liberal Party and the National Party each have a leader and a deputy. For the Liberals, Tony Abbott is leader and therefore if also the Leader of the Opposition. Julie Bishop is the deputy Liberal leader and Deputy Leader of the Opposition. They get the honour of getting those titles because they are the largest opposition party. Warren Truss is the Leader of the Nationals and Senator Nigel Scullion is his deputy.

Now if the coalition come into power on Saturday, it all changes a bit. Tony Abbot becomes Prime Minister, but Warren Truss becomes Deputy Prime Minister. This is because as part of the coalition agreement it is agreed that the leader of the party with the most seats (always the Liberals) will be Prime Minister and the other leader will be Deputy Prime Minister. Julie Bishop will remain the deputy leader of the Liberal Party and Senator Scullion will remain the deputy leader of the National Party. Now if both Abbott and Truss were unavailable, Julie Bishop would be acting Prime Minister and if all three were unavailable, Senator Scullion would become acting Prime Minster. But that is rare (but did happen to Peter Costello at one stage I believe).

That was clear and concise, wasn’t it?


Marriage – why do I have the right, but not gay people?

August 15, 2010

There was an equal love/gay marriage march held in Brisbane today. Sadly I didn’t make it due to other plans, but from what I understand it received an excellent turnout. I’m not going to talk about the march, since I wasn’t there. However I do want to cover the topic of gay marriage.

The Marriage Act in Australia specifies that marriage is between a man and a woman. This clarification was added to the act by the Howard Government, which isn’t surprising really. I think it was in their last term in office as well. When the Rudd Labor Government came to power, much was done to bring many rights for gay people into line with those for straight people. This includes recognising gay couples as being the same as ‘de facto’ couples and therefore receiving basically the same rights as any heterosexual couple. The right to get married was not included in this though.

Sadly this is a political ‘hot potato’ here in Australia. None of the major parties want to touch it. The Australian Greens, which have now become the third major party in Australian politics, has a policy of legalising gay marriage. Without the support of one of the major parties they have no chance though. There are many other minor parties that support gay marriage, but there are just as many who are against gay marriage. You would have seen in my blog post this week the thoughts of one the One Nation state president of Victoria on gay people, so I can’t imagine his thoughts on gay marriage are any better.

This is an assumption, but I think that for most parts there are a couple of different camps regarding gay marriage. I also think that the way they think either comes down to their previous interactions with gay people, the fact that they have been told by their religious leaders that gay marriage is against their deity’s wishes, or they just don’t understand or have never met a gay person. I think those who agree with gay marriage are either gay themselves, have regular contact/friends/family who are gay or are those who can understand the arguments put forward and see that there is nothing to be feared from gay marriage.

Four gay couples being illegally married in Brisbane - August 2009

Illegal Gay Marriages - Brisbane Rights March in August 2009 (by DJackmanson)

Fear is such a big motivator in people. When I am scared I will do whatever I can to feel safe again. Those who believe that marriage is set down by their deity as being between a man and a woman are probably scared that if this changes, other parts of what their deity say will be challenged too. Homophobic people are perhaps scared that homosexual people will gain the upper hand when they get equal rights to heterosexual people. Those who don’t understand the issue, or don’t have much to do with gay people, are perhaps scared of the unknown or the untruths they have read elsewhere. And I’m sure there is a group who are just scared of change in general.

I think that those who are for gay marriage know that it won’t change the meaning of what a marriage is. A marriage should be a bond between two people no matter what sex they identify themselves as and what sexual orientation they identify with. As a married man, I think it is heartbreaking that gay people don’t get to have the same rights that I took advantage of when I married Natalie. I also think that they understand that the best thing in the world is knowing that other people get the same rights and privileges as they do.

Why do I care? Because I am a human being. As a human being, I have empathy for others. I also have my own fight for equality when it comes to being accepted for being a fat people, although I don’t know whether a comparison between the two issues is fair to either group. I just don’t get why there is this need to discriminate against people for whatever reason, and I want to stand up against that.

A conscious vote would be nice to see, allowing all members of the House of Representatives and Senate to vote on their conscious rather than some faceless party line. Unlikely though. I think that when it becomes time to vote, this issue is going to be one of many that plays on my mind. I think I know who I am going to vote for, but I am going to make damn sure that I know what the policies of the parties that are going to get my higher preferences, particularly in the Senate race.


Flashback: National Broadband Network – a quick summary

August 10, 2010

In the first of a number of ‘flashbacks’ to my old blog, here is something that is quite topical. Back in April 2009, I wrote on the Federal Government’s plans for a National Broadband network. Quite relevant given the current debate over the Opposition’s plans being announced today.

The Federal Government has announced the winner of the National Broadband Network tender process. Nobody wins! Yay! I’m sure you’re thinking WTF? right about now, so lets get into some of the details.

The current tender process has been ended and the Government will create a new private-public owned company to spend $43 billion on fibre to the premises. That’s significantly better than fibre to the node. Kevin Rudd calls it “Nation building”. I call it bloody awesome.

The company structure will be such that the Government is majority shareholder and the company will provide wholesale services only. No more monopoly held by Telstra – that surely has to be a good thing. Well worth $43 billion I’d say.

90% of premises in Australia are to receive this new fibre to the premises service, which offers speeds of up to 100Mbps. That is just amazing to think about, considering most of us can get 1Mbps at the most with current infrastructure. The other 10% of Australia receives broadband through “next generation” wireless and satelite services. Speeds will only be 12 Mbps. Only.

It stinks of Nationalism. I don’t care though. Years of neglect of the country’s broadband networks by the current big players means that I’ll happily have the Government own the new network. They intend to sell down their stake-holding in the company within five years (market conditions may vary this) so I’m not to concerned at all. Just give me good Internet.

The low point of the announcement was having Senator Stephen Conroy drone on about the benefits of the package. It seems Kevin Rudd has sidelined him yet again so that he can take the glory. We didn’t need him here now and we don’t need him to filter the Internet.

I wonder whether this will be a way the Government gets their filter into our homes. If they are the wholesaler, they can say “Hey, we decide what you can access. So here, have our filtered feed. Guaranteed to be free of smut and free speech.” That is one worry, but hopefully they will work out the filter isn’t going to work anyway.

The Government also announced immediate funding to get fibre optic backbones developed into major regional centres, such as Darwin, Broken Hill, Mount Gambier and Mount Isa. This is to be done as soon as possible, so hopefully these regional centres will get some competitive broadband services soon.

Perhaps Senator Conroy could use a fibre optic backbone. Might make backflipping easier for him when it comes time to back down from the filter plan.


The future of the Internet in Australia

August 10, 2010

Today we have finally seen the plan of the Liberal/National Coalition for Australia’s future when it comes to Internet connectivity. Today we have seen what the Liberal and National Party plan to do in order to take Australia into the Internet future. That is, move back into the past.

The Coalition has announced that Australians will have access to at least wireless with a peak speed of 12mbps. They also propose that the current Hybrid fibre-coaxial (HFC) network will bring 100mbps speeds to the major centres of Australia. They will also spend money to upgrade exchanges to provide more people with access to ADSL 2+ speaks.

Money will be provided in order to build backbones right across Australia and then grants will be provided to commercial companies to implement their network.

The problem I see is that the Coalition’s plan relies on the private sector to roll out the system. Grants might bring better services to communities, but not to those that are not commercially viable.

Internals of a broadband router

Photo: jepoirrier

Core infrastructure must not be subject to the concept of commercial viability. We don’t build water grids, electricity grids and roads based on commercial viability. Broadband access is not an optional extra but is core infrastructure for the 21st Century.

I can’t imagine that concept of being on a 56kbps Internet connection. There are people in the bush who are on speeds that are slower than this. The technologies and systems being proposed now, such as the e-Health system, requires high speed broadband with both high download and uploads. HFC is not the solution as while download speeds are high, upload speeds are low.

That is just what is being proposed now. Imagine the possibilities for the future if we can have even faster broadband connectivity. If they get it wrong now, the implications for Australia are massive and will be long term.

Edit: ErinAree asked in a comment what the difference was between the Coalition’s plan and the Government’s plan. Since I felt that this was really important, and since I admit I should have covered it in this post, I have included my answer here as well.

The way I see it, there would be some improvement. Just not enough for the future.

Currently in the major cities you can at least get ADSL 2+ high speed broadband. Some people can get HFC which is faster for downloads, but uploads aren’t as fast. But there are many areas that can’t get either of these. HFC is only in limited areas and some new developments were built using phone technology that doesn’t allow ADSL, let alone ADSL 2+.

That leaves wireless for those people. Wireless is expensive and you have to pay for uploads and downloads, which is unlike dial-up, ADSL and HFC. As a main Internet connection it is really the option of last resort.

The Coalition plan to upgrade exchanges to allow more people to access ADSL 2+. They then propose to provide companies with money to extend wireless services to areas that can’t be serviced by other technologies.

Remote communities will be serviced mainly by satellite by both the Government and the Coalition plan.

The biggest difference is that the Government is proposing fibre to the home. This is high speed (both up and down) and will be provided to 97% of all Australians. The Coalition is proposing to provide at least wireless to 97%. So really, the only people who get ‘proper’ high speed broadband are those in the major cities. Which is much like it is now.


Recent Comments

Polls

Have you ever been bullied?

  • Yes, as a child (50%, 4 Votes)
  • Yes, as both a child and an adult (38%, 3 Votes)
  • No (13%, 1 Votes)
  • Yes, as an adult (0%, 0 Votes)
  • I was/am a bully (0%, 0 Votes)

Total Voters: 8

Loading ... Loading ...
Join our RSS feed Twitter