useful website to share with you all guys regarding our interview....
check it out...:)
http://www.bullyingnoway.com.au/
About Me
Monday, May 10, 2010
Should the Sale of Junk Food in School Canteens be banned?
Junk food is the term that used to describe the food that is to be unhealthy and have low nutritional value. It is being blamed for the increase in childhood obesity (Smith 2005). Based on the statistics from the Health Foundation, (2005) it shows that most of the snack foods such as chips, soft drinks, hamburgers, instant noodles, confectionery and cookies are categorized under foods that have low nutritional values. So, I strongly believed that the sale of junk food in school canteens should be banned as it brings more disadvantages rather than the advantages. Some of the reasons to support the banned in selling the junk foods are as it leads to health problems, contributes to behavioural problems and causes litter problems.
Firstly, the junk food is the contributor to the health problems for children in most of the countries. The ingredients in the junk foods mainly consist of chemical additives which may lead to various problems such as hyperactivity and poor concentration in their study (Smith 2005). In addition, junk foods also cause the weight gain disorder. According to Lin Tran (2005), the consumption of chocolate bars and instant noodles raised the kilo joule intake and hence lead to the weight gain. So, the sale of junk food should be banned as it brings more healthy problems.
Secondly, the selling of junk food is the major cause of litter problems in the country. The litter’s problems are bad for our communities’ image and its need a high cost to cleaning it up. According to the Smith (2005), the school’s canteens that have reduced the sale of junk foods have also reduced their litter problems. Hence the schools can spend the money for other maintenance projects that benefit the school rather that spend for the cleaning purposes (The Food Show 2005). From this, again, I strongly believe that the sale of junk food should be banned.
Lastly, one way to improve the students behaviour is by prevent them from having junk food. To do this, the sale of junk food needs to be stopped. From the article of The Food Channel (2005), the Child Psychologist, Caputo said that reducing unhealthy foods in children’s diet can improve their behaviour. The chemical addictives in the junk foods is the factor which generates the behavioural problems. The teacher of Hill Primary School, Green, said that the students became calmer after lunch after the selling of junk food and soft drinks is removed from the school’s canteens. In order to take care of student’s behaviour, the sale of junk food in the school’ canteens should be banned.
The sale of junk food in the school canteens should be banned as it is unhealthy food for health and a major contributor to the litter problems. Not only that, the banning of the selling of the junk food also believable to improve the student’s behaviour. Therefore, the sale of junk food in school canteens should be banned for the sake of all parties especially students.
Firstly, the junk food is the contributor to the health problems for children in most of the countries. The ingredients in the junk foods mainly consist of chemical additives which may lead to various problems such as hyperactivity and poor concentration in their study (Smith 2005). In addition, junk foods also cause the weight gain disorder. According to Lin Tran (2005), the consumption of chocolate bars and instant noodles raised the kilo joule intake and hence lead to the weight gain. So, the sale of junk food should be banned as it brings more healthy problems.
Secondly, the selling of junk food is the major cause of litter problems in the country. The litter’s problems are bad for our communities’ image and its need a high cost to cleaning it up. According to the Smith (2005), the school’s canteens that have reduced the sale of junk foods have also reduced their litter problems. Hence the schools can spend the money for other maintenance projects that benefit the school rather that spend for the cleaning purposes (The Food Show 2005). From this, again, I strongly believe that the sale of junk food should be banned.
Lastly, one way to improve the students behaviour is by prevent them from having junk food. To do this, the sale of junk food needs to be stopped. From the article of The Food Channel (2005), the Child Psychologist, Caputo said that reducing unhealthy foods in children’s diet can improve their behaviour. The chemical addictives in the junk foods is the factor which generates the behavioural problems. The teacher of Hill Primary School, Green, said that the students became calmer after lunch after the selling of junk food and soft drinks is removed from the school’s canteens. In order to take care of student’s behaviour, the sale of junk food in the school’ canteens should be banned.
The sale of junk food in the school canteens should be banned as it is unhealthy food for health and a major contributor to the litter problems. Not only that, the banning of the selling of the junk food also believable to improve the student’s behaviour. Therefore, the sale of junk food in school canteens should be banned for the sake of all parties especially students.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Should the Sale of Junk Food in School Canteens be banned?
Junk food is the term that used to describe the food that is to be unhealthy and have low nutritional value. It is being blamed for the increase in childhood obesity (Smith 2005). Based on the statistics from the Health Foundation, (2005) it shows that most of the snack foods such as chips, soft drinks, hamburgers, instant noodles, confectionery and cookies are categorized under foods that have low nutritional values. So, I strongly believed that the sale of junk food in school canteens should be banned as it brings more disadvantages rather than the advantages itself. Some of the reasons to support the banned in selling the junk foods are as it is unhealthy food to be eat, causes major contributor to litter problems and also cause the student’s behaviour problems.
Firstly, the junk foods are the contributor to the healthy and behaviour problems in children in the most country. The ingredients in the junk foods mainly consist of chemical additives which may lead to various problems such as hyperactivity and poor concentration in their study (Smith 2005). In addition, junk foods also cause the weight gain disorder. According to Lin Tran (2005), the consumption of chocolate bars and instant noodles raised the kilo joule intake and hence lead to the weight gain. So, the sale of junk food should be banned as it brings more healthy problems.
Secondly, the selling of junk food is the major cause of litter problems in the country. The litter’s problems are bad for our communities’ image and its need a high cost to cleaning it up. According to the Smith (2005), the school’s canteens that have reduced the sale of junk foods have also reduced their litter problems. Hence the schools can spend the money for other maintenance projects that benefit the school rather that spend for the cleaning purposes (The Food Show 2005). From this, again, I strongly believe that the sale of junk food should be banned.
Lastly, one way to improve the students behaviour is by prevent them from having junk food. To do this, the sale of junk food needs to be stopped. From the article of The Food Channel (2005), the Child Psychologist, Caputo said that reducing unhealthy foods in children’s diet can improve their behaviour. The chemical addictives in the junk foods is the factor which generates the behavioural problems. The teacher of Hill Primary School, Green, said that the students became calmer after lunch after the selling of junk food and soft drinks is removed from the school’s canteens. In order to take care of student’s behaviour, the sale of junk food in the school’ canteens should be banned.
The sale of junk food in the school canteens should be banned as it is unhealthy food for health and a major contributor to the litter problems. Not only that, the banning of the selling of the junk food also believable to improve the student’s behaviour. Therefore, the sale of junk food in school canteens should be banned for the sake of all parties especially students.
Firstly, the junk foods are the contributor to the healthy and behaviour problems in children in the most country. The ingredients in the junk foods mainly consist of chemical additives which may lead to various problems such as hyperactivity and poor concentration in their study (Smith 2005). In addition, junk foods also cause the weight gain disorder. According to Lin Tran (2005), the consumption of chocolate bars and instant noodles raised the kilo joule intake and hence lead to the weight gain. So, the sale of junk food should be banned as it brings more healthy problems.
Secondly, the selling of junk food is the major cause of litter problems in the country. The litter’s problems are bad for our communities’ image and its need a high cost to cleaning it up. According to the Smith (2005), the school’s canteens that have reduced the sale of junk foods have also reduced their litter problems. Hence the schools can spend the money for other maintenance projects that benefit the school rather that spend for the cleaning purposes (The Food Show 2005). From this, again, I strongly believe that the sale of junk food should be banned.
Lastly, one way to improve the students behaviour is by prevent them from having junk food. To do this, the sale of junk food needs to be stopped. From the article of The Food Channel (2005), the Child Psychologist, Caputo said that reducing unhealthy foods in children’s diet can improve their behaviour. The chemical addictives in the junk foods is the factor which generates the behavioural problems. The teacher of Hill Primary School, Green, said that the students became calmer after lunch after the selling of junk food and soft drinks is removed from the school’s canteens. In order to take care of student’s behaviour, the sale of junk food in the school’ canteens should be banned.
The sale of junk food in the school canteens should be banned as it is unhealthy food for health and a major contributor to the litter problems. Not only that, the banning of the selling of the junk food also believable to improve the student’s behaviour. Therefore, the sale of junk food in school canteens should be banned for the sake of all parties especially students.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Should the Sale of Junk Food in School Canteens be banned?
Junk food is the term that used to describe the food that is to be unhealthy and have low nutritional value. It is being blamed for the increase in childhood obesity (Smith 2005). Based on the statistics from the Health Foundation, (2005) it shows that most of the snack foods such as chips, soft drinks, hamburgers, instant noodles, confectionery and cookies are categorized under foods that have low nutritional values. So, I strongly believed that the sale of junk food in school canteens should be banned as it brings more disadvantages rather than the advantages itself. Some of the reasons to support the banned in selling the junk foods are as it is unhealthy food to be eat, causes major contributor to litter problems and also to help in improving the students behavior.
Firstly, the junk foods are the contributor to the healthy and behaviour problems in children in the most country. The ingredients in the junk foods mainly consist of chemical additives which may lead to various problems such as hyperactivity and poor concentration in their study (Smith 2005). In addition, junk foods also cause the weight gain disorder. According to Lin Tran (2005), the consumption of chocolate bars and instant noodles raised the kilo joule intake and hence lead to the weight gain. So, the sale of junk food should be banned as it brings more healthy problems.
Secondly, the selling of junk food is the major cause of litter problems in the country. The litter’s problems are bad for our communities’ image and its need a high cost to cleaning it up. The school’s canteens that have reduced the sale of junk foods have also reduced their litter problems (Smith 2005). Reducing the selling of junk foods will decreases the litter problems hence the schools can spend the money for other maintenance projects that benefit the school (The Food Show 2005). From this, again, I strongly believe that the sale of junk food should be banned.
Lastly, one way to improve the students behaviour is by prevent them from having junk food. To do this, the sale of junk food needs to be stopped. From the article of The Food Channel (2005), the Child Psychologist, Caputo said that reducing unhealthy foods in children’s diet can improve their behaviour. The chemical addictives in the junk foods are the factors which generate the behavioural problems. The teacher of Hill Primary School, Green, said that the students became calmer after lunch after the selling of junk food and soft drinks is removed from the school’s canteens. In order to take care of student’s behaviour, the sale of junk food in the school’ canteens should be banned.
The sale of junk food in the school canteens should be banned as it is unhealthy food for health and a major contributor to the litter problems. Not only that, the banning of the selling of the junk food also believable to improve the student’s behaviour. Therefore, the sale of junk food in school canteens should be banned for the sake of all parties especially students.
Firstly, the junk foods are the contributor to the healthy and behaviour problems in children in the most country. The ingredients in the junk foods mainly consist of chemical additives which may lead to various problems such as hyperactivity and poor concentration in their study (Smith 2005). In addition, junk foods also cause the weight gain disorder. According to Lin Tran (2005), the consumption of chocolate bars and instant noodles raised the kilo joule intake and hence lead to the weight gain. So, the sale of junk food should be banned as it brings more healthy problems.
Secondly, the selling of junk food is the major cause of litter problems in the country. The litter’s problems are bad for our communities’ image and its need a high cost to cleaning it up. The school’s canteens that have reduced the sale of junk foods have also reduced their litter problems (Smith 2005). Reducing the selling of junk foods will decreases the litter problems hence the schools can spend the money for other maintenance projects that benefit the school (The Food Show 2005). From this, again, I strongly believe that the sale of junk food should be banned.
Lastly, one way to improve the students behaviour is by prevent them from having junk food. To do this, the sale of junk food needs to be stopped. From the article of The Food Channel (2005), the Child Psychologist, Caputo said that reducing unhealthy foods in children’s diet can improve their behaviour. The chemical addictives in the junk foods are the factors which generate the behavioural problems. The teacher of Hill Primary School, Green, said that the students became calmer after lunch after the selling of junk food and soft drinks is removed from the school’s canteens. In order to take care of student’s behaviour, the sale of junk food in the school’ canteens should be banned.
The sale of junk food in the school canteens should be banned as it is unhealthy food for health and a major contributor to the litter problems. Not only that, the banning of the selling of the junk food also believable to improve the student’s behaviour. Therefore, the sale of junk food in school canteens should be banned for the sake of all parties especially students.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Woman fired for Facebook threat...
AN ADELAIDE supermarket supervisor has been sacked after she posted on social networking site Facebook a "heat-of-the-moment" comment about an unnamed co-worker.
Even though her employer was not mentioned in the comment, Caz Marshall, 22, of Hackham, was dismissed last month by Coles from her checkout job at its Edwardstown supermarket.
"Had I wrote it on the staff room wall or on the (Facebook) walls of everybody who works in that store to single this person out, yes, that would be different," said Ms Marshall, who worked for Coles and Bi-Lo since 2005.
"But the fact it was a private conversation between me and another girl from work . . . it wasn't even intended for the person I was writing about to read it."
Ms Marshall said she removed the comment - which was posted on another person's "wall" and was visible to other visitors to that page - the following day but it had already been shown to store management. They said she had breached company policy.
Ms Marshall said she was called to a meeting and shown "six months' worth" of older Facebook posts she had written and was sacked - a move she thought was extreme.
"I just feel like I could have been given another chance, I don't feel like I necessarily had to be fired," she told the Sunday Mail.
A Coles spokesman confirmed Mss Marshall was "dismissed for a serious breach of our code of conduct", which stated "team members must not make any disparaging or untruthful remarks about other team members".
He said an internal reminder sent to all staff in August had warned "publishing inappropriate or disparaging material on online forums about fellow team members or customers also constitutes a breach of our code of conduct".
Responding to a comment written by a friend and colleague, Ms Marshall said she became angry and posted a degrading comment on Facebook about the co-worker and suggested she "will get what's coming to her".
However she said after being called to a meeting with her Coles management, she now realised her reference to "karma" could also be interpreted as threatening.
Ms Marshall said she regretted posting the comments when her emotions were raised. "It was anger, it was frustration, this girl - she was my friend and she was hurting," she said.
"You're sticking up for someone, you want to make them feel better, to let her know that she wasn't alone.
"It wasn't something that I would normally do. It was done in the heat of the moment and the threat was not something I would carry out - it's not in my character."
Industrial relations experts and social media commentators agree the law is murky on such workplace issues and legislation, as well as society in general, saying it needed to "catch up" with the responsibilities of the online social networking phenomenon.
Adelaide University workplace relations specialist and law professor Andrew Stewart said the impact of online behaviour on workplaces was a growing area and provoked more and more disputes as conversations once kept in pubs, cafes or barbecues were moving online, thrusting the usually private into the public domain.
"In broad terms, the view that the courts and industrial tribunals generally take is that an employer is entitled to take an interest in what happens outside the workplace where there is a clear impact either on the employer's business or on relations in the workplace itself," Prof Stewart said.
He said there had been cases in which employees were dismissed fairly after events that occurred "well away from work, where the incident has the potential to create friction or difficulties within the workplace between people who need to work together".
Prof Stewart also warned people could leave themselves open to civil and criminal defamation claims with potentially severe consequences because of comments published online.
Last year, in an Australian first, an Adelaide man was convicted of criminal defamation after posting false and malicious material about a police officer on Facebook.
Christopher James Cross, of Salisbury, then 19, pleaded guilty in the Kadina Magistrates Court and was placed on a two-year, $500 good behaviour bond.
Social network strategist Laurel Papworth said she considered Facebook to be a private arena or "gated community" where privacy settings allowed users to confirm who could become their online "friends" and have access to their information.
But she said this also raised issues about trust and users should be aware of the differences between their personal and professional voices when they made comments online.
"Australians are now learning that they're a `band of one' and I think what's happening is that they are not realising that they're liable for things they do on weekends and holidays. It has to do with the fact we are broadcasting and publishing, people don't realise they're publishing," she said.
Civil liberties expert Professor George Williams, a strong supporter of free speech, believed people should be entitled to express an opinion without facing dismissal - unless there was a clear-cut case of breaching conditions, such as posting company secrets online. But he also said social networkers needed to be aware of the ramifications of their comments.
"They are in the public domain but people do often express private thoughts and I don't think the law or society has caught up with that," he said. "I think this is an area where there is a need for urgent action by law-makers to make sure that the law is in a satisfactory state."
Ms Marshall said she had learned a lesson and now planned to use Facebook only for positive comments and to stay in touch with friends.
She warned others to stay offline when angry: "Don't go near the computer, don't go near facebook."
Even though her employer was not mentioned in the comment, Caz Marshall, 22, of Hackham, was dismissed last month by Coles from her checkout job at its Edwardstown supermarket.
"Had I wrote it on the staff room wall or on the (Facebook) walls of everybody who works in that store to single this person out, yes, that would be different," said Ms Marshall, who worked for Coles and Bi-Lo since 2005.
"But the fact it was a private conversation between me and another girl from work . . . it wasn't even intended for the person I was writing about to read it."
Ms Marshall said she removed the comment - which was posted on another person's "wall" and was visible to other visitors to that page - the following day but it had already been shown to store management. They said she had breached company policy.
Ms Marshall said she was called to a meeting and shown "six months' worth" of older Facebook posts she had written and was sacked - a move she thought was extreme.
"I just feel like I could have been given another chance, I don't feel like I necessarily had to be fired," she told the Sunday Mail.
A Coles spokesman confirmed Mss Marshall was "dismissed for a serious breach of our code of conduct", which stated "team members must not make any disparaging or untruthful remarks about other team members".
He said an internal reminder sent to all staff in August had warned "publishing inappropriate or disparaging material on online forums about fellow team members or customers also constitutes a breach of our code of conduct".
Responding to a comment written by a friend and colleague, Ms Marshall said she became angry and posted a degrading comment on Facebook about the co-worker and suggested she "will get what's coming to her".
However she said after being called to a meeting with her Coles management, she now realised her reference to "karma" could also be interpreted as threatening.
Ms Marshall said she regretted posting the comments when her emotions were raised. "It was anger, it was frustration, this girl - she was my friend and she was hurting," she said.
"You're sticking up for someone, you want to make them feel better, to let her know that she wasn't alone.
"It wasn't something that I would normally do. It was done in the heat of the moment and the threat was not something I would carry out - it's not in my character."
Industrial relations experts and social media commentators agree the law is murky on such workplace issues and legislation, as well as society in general, saying it needed to "catch up" with the responsibilities of the online social networking phenomenon.
Adelaide University workplace relations specialist and law professor Andrew Stewart said the impact of online behaviour on workplaces was a growing area and provoked more and more disputes as conversations once kept in pubs, cafes or barbecues were moving online, thrusting the usually private into the public domain.
"In broad terms, the view that the courts and industrial tribunals generally take is that an employer is entitled to take an interest in what happens outside the workplace where there is a clear impact either on the employer's business or on relations in the workplace itself," Prof Stewart said.
He said there had been cases in which employees were dismissed fairly after events that occurred "well away from work, where the incident has the potential to create friction or difficulties within the workplace between people who need to work together".
Prof Stewart also warned people could leave themselves open to civil and criminal defamation claims with potentially severe consequences because of comments published online.
Last year, in an Australian first, an Adelaide man was convicted of criminal defamation after posting false and malicious material about a police officer on Facebook.
Christopher James Cross, of Salisbury, then 19, pleaded guilty in the Kadina Magistrates Court and was placed on a two-year, $500 good behaviour bond.
Social network strategist Laurel Papworth said she considered Facebook to be a private arena or "gated community" where privacy settings allowed users to confirm who could become their online "friends" and have access to their information.
But she said this also raised issues about trust and users should be aware of the differences between their personal and professional voices when they made comments online.
"Australians are now learning that they're a `band of one' and I think what's happening is that they are not realising that they're liable for things they do on weekends and holidays. It has to do with the fact we are broadcasting and publishing, people don't realise they're publishing," she said.
Civil liberties expert Professor George Williams, a strong supporter of free speech, believed people should be entitled to express an opinion without facing dismissal - unless there was a clear-cut case of breaching conditions, such as posting company secrets online. But he also said social networkers needed to be aware of the ramifications of their comments.
"They are in the public domain but people do often express private thoughts and I don't think the law or society has caught up with that," he said. "I think this is an area where there is a need for urgent action by law-makers to make sure that the law is in a satisfactory state."
Ms Marshall said she had learned a lesson and now planned to use Facebook only for positive comments and to stay in touch with friends.
She warned others to stay offline when angry: "Don't go near the computer, don't go near facebook."
Fiona McWhirter, Maria Cabrera
From: Sunday Mail (SA)
From: Sunday Mail (SA)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)