[038.18] F1 history…

Ferrari and Monza. That’s one of those moments when no one else could write a script better than it happened.

The most historic team, in their home race (just a few miles from their headquarters in Maranello) and the most historic race track (“the temple of speed”) in Formula 1…

The surprise was the name, but I’m so glad that this surprise happened.

Hamilton goes faster than ever, a couple of seconds after, Vettel does even better, and the Tifosi go mad with a Ferrari in the pole. But Kimi is just a few meters behind and goes even faster… He gets pole in the 2018 GP and it was a front-row lock-out for the “Scuderia”.

Besides that, it was just the fastest lap EVER in Formula 1, at an average of 163.785 mph (263.587 km/h). Yes… average…

And this could only end with a Kimi-style celebration 🙂

[037.18] 80…

What makes a man a hero?
I’ve often thought this through.
It’s someone who is macho?
It’s someone who is true?

No, that is not a hero.
He’s just a simple man.
Always there when things go wrong
and who does the best he can.

He lends a strong shoulder
To ease the flow of tears
He holds high the lantern
To drive away your fears.

His smile was just enough
To give encouragement.
His frown more than adequate
To make one soon relent.

When some had need of guidance
His ears he’d freely lend
Advice came in abundance
You chose, not him could you offend.

He had no need of medals
Or glory this is true.
That’s why, grandpa
Our hero has to be you.

[© Julie Mills]

[036.18] 2 questions about #brexit…

Almost everyday I hear/listen in the news the debate about a no deal versus a bad deal… and arguments in favour and against each one of them. The major one, as everyone is aware, is that a no deal between UK and EU is better than a bad deal.

But there are two simple things that no one seems able to answer…

1. What is a bad deal? How can someone classify a deal as bad or good without any specific measures?

2. How bad (and how to measure this) needs to be the deal to be worse than a no deal?

[035.18] Is it ever acceptable for social workers to ignore their clients?

This is a discussion that is taking place in the US following a post in a New York blog, where it is described as a social worker pretend to not know a client that ran into her (and family) in the street. Later on, in their next meeting, the social worker started to say that she didn’t see him, but then justified with the fact that she was in her “private space”.

Several opinions and thoughts have been expressed, some against the social worker’s behaviour and some others trying to explain why she did what she did. These arguments go from she being heartless to the fact that she might be just protecting the client’s privacy.

This doesn’t seem to be an easy and straightforward situation as it involves professionals aspects as confidentiality and professional boundaries, but we can’t also forget that social work is (or must be!!) based in the creation and development of relationships and this is the most important tool we have in our day-to-day practice.and an attitude like this one may truly jeopardize the support and progress being made with the client.

Having said this, and having in consideration that different clients will have different thoughts about this, it is my belief that we can’t ignore clients, we shouldn’t ignore clients at any point or moment, with one single exception…

…when the client wants this to happen.

[034.18] let’s just do the maths…

… and we’ll all see that this doesn’t make any sense.

And sometimes, politics just requires a bit of good sense…

Spending by English councils on children’s services has dropped by at least 9% since 2010, over a period when numbers of children “in need” rose by 5% and thousands more youngsters were taken into care or made subject to a child protection plan [The Guardian].