We also seek to make the consequences fair and related to the disruptive, inappropriate or wrong behaviour, this is not an easy thing to do. When we are developing consequences as emm, when we are developing consequences as a start, when we are developing consequences we use the three r’s test. And we ask ourselves, is the consequence related, the actual consequence itself, is it related to the behaviour for which we are connecting the consequence to? So is it related? For example, the one other occasion I rang my daughter’s school in Australia, our daughter’s school, was when she was given detention for talking in class, which did not bother me, she was talking in class, she admitted it, not that that’s a crime, but it was a young teacher and he felt he was, it was a bit too much talking but he had said that she had to pick up litter for twenty minutes and my concern was it was totally unrelated. I mean how does that bear any relationship to talking in class, so is it related, is it reasonable? In other words, do we have a degree of seriousness, where bullying, harassment and bullying looks like that in consequential moral weight and litter looks like, sorry talking in class looks like that, uniform looks like that, lateness, unless it’s arrogant lateness looks like that. We have a degree of seriousness, for example if your consequence is a detention, you and I don’t give out detentions easily, I mean detention is a fairly, emm, ahh, serious consequence. Not traumatically but it’s fairly serious on a continuum of consequences. I see teachers giving out detentions for the widest range of behaviours and you just wonder, where in the hell is currency on that detention process, and I, at high school in particular, which is where I do most of the mentoring, we have had to re-visit our detention policy and ask ourselves do we have a genuine degree of seriousness, so the kids can see, as much as they can see, a reasonableness in the consequence of supply.