ANZ Blockade and Backlash

It has taken me a while to gather my thoughts about the ANZ blockades in Dunedin on Thursday. There has been a lot to process. Some of you may have seen the media sh** storm that followed- but let’s start at the beginning.

What did we do? At 8am on Thursday morning, a large group of us gathered in the Octagon for a briefing. At 8:40 we made our way down the road to two ANZ branches on opposite corners of the street. One hundred and thirty of us lined the pavement with banners and sat in rows against the doors to blockade the banks.

ANZ pic 1

Why? Because ANZ have 13.5 billion dollars invested in fossil fuels. That money is helping to fund exploration and extraction of oil, gas and coal. Let’s be clear- the climate is in crisis. Deserts are growing, with droughts, floods, fires and storms becoming more common. The climate is changing faster than expected. All fossil fuels we burn increase the speed and intensity of these changes. A changing climate is the biggest threat to human life. Therefore, any decision to fund climate-polluting activities is violent. No two ways around it. ANZ bank is profiting from funding projects like the Carmichael coal mine in Queensland, Australia. The mine is a direct assault on the ancestral land of indigenous peoples. The emissions from this proposed mine would wreak havoc on the climate, thus endangering human lives.

Our blockade of ANZ didn’t come out of the blue- it came after 2 years of lobbying the bank to divest from fossil fuels. Letters, meetings, public engagement, the lot. ANZ refused to pull their support from the fossil fuel industry. They carried on with business as usual. So we’re left with the decision- allow them to continue funding hazardous activities, or act? We chose to act. If business as usual is harmful, then we had to interrupt their business as usual. We had a moral obligation to shut them down.

carmichael coal mine
Carmichael coal mine, photo obtained here


In Christchurch, Hamilton and Wellington, 350 protesters had succeeded in getting bank branches to close for the day. After these successes, we felt it was time to step it up. When we saw the sheer volume of people lining up outside the two banks, we boldly decided to take a group back up the road to blockade the doors of a third ANZ branch. This is what civil disobedience is about. Using the human resources you have to disrupt as much harmful activity as you can. So we got another group seated outside the doors of the third bank, arms linked, in peaceful protest. We were trespassing on ANZ’s property, obstructing their doors, and everyone was aware that we could be removed or arrested by police. At that point, we could never have anticipated how the day would unfold.

We thought of three scenarios: the banks would close (as they had in other cities), the police would arrest us, or move us aside. None of those things happened. The banks kept their doors open, and when customers approached the blockade, police encouraged them to use ‘reasonable force’ to get through us. It is one of those surreal situations where you have no idea what is happening, even when it is happening in front of you. Once getting the go ahead from police, many customers waded over the top of people sitting on the ground. Suddenly people were getting trodden on, and catching heels to their faces. We were shocked. We had not anticipated that the bank would remain open and actively encourage people to climb through us. We had not expected to be pitted against the public. The police had every cause to move us out of the way, but they didn’t.

Photo: Sam Fraser-Baxter

Some customers calmed down once we explained to them that they weren’t our target- that we were holding ANZ accountable for their immoral investments. If anything, we had the customers’ interests at heart- their money should not be used to fund operations that harm people. Many were annoyed, but ultimately understood and left without pushing through. Our singing and smiles diffused many encounters with ANZ customers, and we kept up a huge amount of energy and enthusiasm- reminding ourselves why we were there, and why it was important. But a disturbing number of customers began to launch themselves through our lines of people before I could even explain our position. People were getting kicked and trodden on, all with reassurances from the police that it was acceptable to do so. It was the active encouragement from police that gave customers the confidence to walk over my group. It is quite scary to see how ready people are to act forcefully and violently when people in positions of power encourage them. We were caught off-guard by this strategy- police were not actively moving us, but encouraging the public to confront us. I was often brushed aside by police as I tried to explain the situation to customers. A couple of students in the back row of our blockade had tears running down their faces- just from the sheer shock of being physically hurt by members of the public.

Photo: Sam Fraser-Baxter

Committing to civil disobedience is quite a big step. Once you have made the choice to create a blockade, there is a strong moral obligation to stay put until you are removed, or until you achieve your objective. We expected to be moved out of the way. We were caught out by the tactics of ANZ- by keeping the bank open and encouraging customers to push through us they put us into conflict with their customers- making the action vs the public. Our target was ANZ, not their customers, but the bank successfully victimised themselves by instructing police to leave us be, while staff comforted customers that managed to make it into the bank. This was cunning, and it worked.

At long last the media showed up. Just in time to see an 85 year old woman being escorted by police over the lines of peaceful protesters. They had their story. Young activists block an elderly woman from her monthly trip to the bank. A tangible, visible victim that all New Zealanders can sympathise with. We can all agree- that situation should never have occurred. That woman should never have been escorted over the top of people. She should have been taken to the back entrance where the door was not blockaded. Staff let her out of this door, but made her wade in through our blockade. Alternatively, the four police officers could have moved us out of the way in a matter of seconds, and cleared a safe path for customers to enter the bank. The police are there to ensure public safety and they failed to do so. Their first priority should have been to keep the public (which includes us) safe. They had an obligation to ensure that nobody was put at risk, and that nobody came to physical harm. They did neither of these things.

Screen Shot 2016-05-16 at 7.03.15 PM
Image obtained from Stuff video

In the media coverage, the burden of responsibility for that woman’s distress was placed solely with us. The coverage successfully removed responsibility from ANZ and the police, who worked together to create that scenario. Now don’t get me wrong- as a group we need to take responsibility for the collateral damage of our actions. When we’re going against powerful institutions we will inconvenience people, people will take it personally, and we will hurt people’s feelings. That is the unfortunate reality of direct action, and it does upset us. But the damage being done by the prevailing status quo is far more immense, far more devastating and far more invisible. From 2030 to 2050 climate change is expected to kill an additional 250,000 people per year. Malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress will take an increasing number of lives. ANZ is funding this crisis, and profiting from operations that will cause humans immeasurable suffering. If there were any questions about the moral implications of Thursday’s action they should have been directed at ANZ. How can they justify investments in climate polluting projects, which will mean that hundreds and thousands of women and men will miss out on the opportunity to grow old at all? That level of injustice is so completely unimaginable that we block it out, and focus instead on the immediate and localized impacts of direct actions.

If I were able to make an apology to the elderly woman who had to cross over our lines, it would be this:

“I am sorry that we live in a world where powerful institutions spend your money on climate pollution. I’m sorry that ANZ, the media and the police used your discomfort for their own agenda- to delegitimise an urgent and valid cause. I’m sorry that you were pushed over us instead of being escorted to a back door. And most of all, I am sorry that you thought we were against you, when we actually care deeply about every human being on the planet.”


It has been incredibly painful and interesting to watch the media fallout from this action. We were painted very clearly as aggressors, out to prevent the public from going about their business. What’s interesting is that people who are pushing for social change will always be held to a much higher moral standard than any other group. The media vilified us for inconveniencing members of the public- and yes, we did inconvenience many people on Thursday. But ANZ’s funding of oil, gas, and coal extraction will literally kill people. Untold numbers of people. The moral consequences of our action are completely incomparable to the moral consequences of ANZ’s investments- yet we were the ones hung out to dry by the media. Unfortunately, people tend to scrutinize the behavior of protesters and pounce on the negative consequences of our actions as a way of avoiding uncomfortable truths- the institutions that we trust and support with our money are violent. We’re not ready to accept that our daily lives hold up violent systems, that the institutions we trust with our money are using it to endanger future generations. They invest in harmful industries, and we enable them to do it. Banks like ANZ try to evade responsibility for the effects of their investments, and are able to maintain a calm and reassuring façade. When we interrupted their business, they worked with the police to ensure that we were pitted against other members of the public, while they appeared passive and largely invisible. The media spin took the focus away from ANZ completely, and therefore did not hold them accountable for the deeply immoral nature of their investments.


Throughout the day we had a lot of positive experiences as well. It was incredibly exciting and invigorating to see our people being so staunch, and so brave. We had a lot of good responses from passers by, bus drivers, and customers that clocked on to the importance of our action. I was so impressed by everyone’s commitment- to blockade three banks from 9 till 4:30 in the face of verbal and physical abuse is an astonishing feat. I saw people pushing their boundaries and challenging themselves, realizing that they’re a lot braver than they’d thought. The songs and rhymes we came up with helped keep our focus on the bigger reasons for our action: business as usual is harmful- we were out there preventing business from being conducted as usual in the defense of the climate. At 4:30 we cheered and packed up after a long and emotionally draining day.

I witnessed many things on Thursday that disturbed me a lot. After getting together with our group to debrief afterwards, we started to piece together what happened, and the realisations that came from it.

The first is that many people are literally prepared to stand on top of other human beings to get to their money. The eagerness of some people to breach the obstacle of a human blockade was unnerving, and it shows just how fragile people feel when their daily routines are interrupted. I saw a businessman being encouraged to ‘take the path of least resistance’ over the top of the youngest and smallest member of my group. If we stop and think about that situation for a minute, it illuminates so much of what is wrong about our society.


Secondly, many of us recalled how quickly violence became normalized. After a few customers had been encouraged by police to walk roughly over my group, I came to expect that behaviour. Since the action, I have been confronted with my own complicity when watching violence being done to others, and I am appalled that I was not firmer with customers and the police, that I didn’t do more to stop people from being hurt. My group started expecting to be walked over. Police told them it was their decision to remain put, and therefore their fault if they were trodden on. My group members said that they began to internalize that victim blaming, and started thinking “well, yes, I did put myself here- it’s my choice to be walked upon.” It’s only on reflection that we realized this was utter bullshit. Every human being deserves to be treated with respect. People essentially asked the police for permission to stand on people and hurt them. Once that permission was granted, customers absolved themselves of responsibility for their own actions. It’s ok to stand on these protesters because the policeman said so. Power works in insidious ways, and all groups attempt to deny that they were responsible for violence because they find another to blame for the behavior. We put our trust in the police to protect us (as is their responsibility) and that trust was broken. We put trust in customers to recognize what we were doing, and to treat us as people- and in many cases that trust was broken.

Many people who were walked on are surprised at the level of emotional impact it has had. Many reported feeling both empowered and dehumanized. They knew that they were part of something really powerful, and really admirable. To act non-violently is incredibly brave, because you are putting trust in others that they will not hurt you- and that trust is not always rewarded. When someone is violent towards you it can shake your trust in humanity. Many of the group felt like they were treated as objects- obstacles to climb on. As a group we’re all really aware of the toll these actions can take, and we’re getting really good at supporting and looking after each other. We have to. Because social change is not going to come easily.

This action has impacted the participants quite deeply. Not only because of the emotional intensity, but because we got an insight into the ways that powerful institutions like the banks, the media, and the police work together to maintain the status quo and delegitimize direct actions. ANZ, the media and the police succeeded in turning public opinion against our action, and distracting everyone from what’s going on globally. It’s one thing to have a really rough time of it on the front lines; it’s another to be completely misrepresented by the media. The public backlash has been quite shocking. Comments range from being ‘disgusted’ with our behavior to suggesting that we get stomped on. Rest assured, young troll, we did.


The media orchestrated their story flawlessly, they took the one angle that would be sure to derail the conversation, cover up the real issue, and keep the real victims invisible. By ‘real victims’ I am not talking about us. I am talking about the billions of people that will suffer the effects of climate change. I’m talking about masses of lives that will face disease, displacement, conflict, and extreme weather events. Because these are the lives we should be talking about when we do actions like blockading a bank. It’s not about us, it’s not about our actions, it’s not about customers, the general public, or the police. It’s about the people who are suffering at the hands of powerful institutions. It’s about the future generations that have to deal with the fallout of the climate catastrophe.

You can read the spin here.

The media successfully constructed a story that would keep climate victims invisible. They told a story that focused on the shortcomings of our action instead of the monumental level of harm caused by the industries ANZ is supporting. The media distracted most people, even supporters, from the most pertinent moral questions raised by our protest. By letting the media dictate our conversations about climate change and systemic violence, we give them power to maintain the status quo. This system does not want to change. Institutions like the media and ANZ will do everything in their power to frame us as a threat to the public’s peace of mind. They will do everything in their power to keep the public from realizing just how harmful and insidious their agendas are. If I could ask readers anything, it would be to publicly question and criticize the role of our banks in upholding climate violence. Don’t let them dictate the terms of the conversation, we have to make those with power accountable for the effects of their actions.

As far as our group is concerned, don’t worry about us. We’re taking care of each other. If Thursday taught me anything it’s how incredibly lucky I am to be part of such an amazing passionate group of people. We’ve all been shaken, many of our illusions have been shattered, but we’ve proven to ourselves just how brave and ambitious we are. We’ve built a trustworthy, supportive community. We’re getting stronger, we’re getting smarter, and we’re a force to be reckoned with.


As for ANZ- all I can say is that you should have trespassed all 130 of us when you had the chance. We’ve seen through your strategy, and we’ll be seeing you again very soon.


Kia kaha everyone,


Siana Fitzjohn



27 thoughts on “ANZ Blockade and Backlash

  1. awesome thoughts on an emotional issue siana, well done to you and all the dunedin activists for staying at it and espousing NVDA, xx


  2. well done Police…. & why should people be made to the side door when they can go through the front, have your protest but don’t stop others from going about their day because you don’t like fossil fuel,


  3. A good explanation like this is all that was ever needed. An explanation of whats happening behind the scenes with ANZ filtered through some experienced public relations volunteer and printed into leaflets.
    Leaflets that friendly volunteers could have handed out at every anz, engauging with the community, making friends, gaining followers and supporters.
    The branches and the people who use them are not the enemy, the are not the ones making coalface decisions yet they have a say in numbers because they are the employees and the customers of ANZ. So work should have been done to win them over. But because you wanted to send a strong message they were victimised.
    This type of protest is designed to gain media attention, and thats what it did. But it wasnt the type of attention that you hoped for and now you are in damage control mode.
    I think using a blockage in this instance was wrong, people frown upon our movement as it is and when they only have small time to do banking and they get blocked all that will happen is they get angry.
    Yet on the other hand they may have been interested in taking a flyer from a friendly volunteer in a fleeting encounter.
    Blockading has its place where it is critical to shut down an operation which is destroying ecosystems in real time. Stop the destruction! But when it comes to blocking public services, together we stand, divided we fall.
    Your action and type of action dictates wether public will endorse or reject the movement. And same goes with media. We want good media attention for climate action, not bad.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Thanks for the comment! Some food for thought. I think in this case we should have been more reactive and moved into the bank when people started getting hurt. This would have forced police to act and taken us out of direct physical contact with customers. The blockade was meant to close the bank, not to prevent customers from entering an open bank. I agree, in this case it backfired. I think after 2 years of campaigning and public education etc we were forced to take direct action. The objective was to start causing a serious disruption to the banks, the action wasn’t targeted at educating their customers (although we did our best to engage them/leaflet them on the day). In a way I think the bad press shows that we were having a serious impact. As for using blockades only when the ecological destruction is in ‘real time’ I think we have to start remembering that it is happening in real time, all the time, just not close to us. We aren’t close to the coal mines that ANZ are funding, but we are closed to ANZ. The urgency of the climate crisis is pushing us to take more drastic action, and we are going to have to get used to bad press. What needs to improve is how we communicate with each other directly, about what’s going on. Thanks for your feedback!


      1. If the blockade was meant to close the banks, why did the demonstrators continued with the particular method of civil disobedience, despite knowing their blockading efforts were not meeting its objectives? Additionally, the demonstrators were not automatons but had complete discretion as to the intensity of these blockade. If the objective of closing down banks were clearly unattainable; and I understand then, that they intend to cause a serious disruption to the banks instead, why then did they continue with the same intensity of blockade, especially in the presence of the media? Is it necessary that the demonstrators receive direct verbal or physical instructions from the authorities before they could make way for an elderly woman? In the absence of these instructions, should they have blindly continued with public disruption which then consequently provided the media with resources they could use to defame the cause? Neither the media, police nor the bank staffs had instructed the participants to remain in position despite the inefficiency of the demonstration; but instead, they had chosen to remain tenacious in the blockade therefore the consequences of their actions should be absorb by the participants and in this case however, will include the deprecation of climate actions by the general public. There were just too many alternatives available to the participants to gain equal and beneficial press coverage that would provide long term support for climate actions but because of a careless act, slandering and propagandizing materials were made available for the media which will further demean the already unpopular nature of climate action. Yes, this particular case may draw the public’s attention to ANZ’s insidious act, but not to the degree that it could have been if the participants were more autonomous and discretionary in their blockade. While the purpose of civil disobedience is to disrupt and possibly upset, I find it difficult to empathize to the degree of this particular disruption, and the presence of better alternatives made it seem even more unwarranted in this case. When conducting civil disobedience, it is a form of disruption on the mainstream culture and it should be expected that the authorities will support those who are disrupted and because of the illegality of breaching the NZBORA in physically removing peaceful demonstrators, there were no way that they could remove the participants from the site unless told to by the owner of the land. I am afraid of the long term effect caused by this particular event on the efficiency of climate actions in the future.


      2. Thanks for your feedback, I have asked myself some of the same questions. Things are a lot clearer for the group in hindsight than they were on the day- the scenario was quite stressful and that tends to complicate decision making. I agree that we could have been more reactive to the situation when the banks decided to remain open and actively encouraged customers to confront and trample through us. The situation played out very differently in Dunedin to how it had in other cities, and we weren’t prepared enough for that. The problematic media footage was captured near the start of the day, before teams had really anticipated what they could do in that scenario, as I mentioned- we didn’t police to encourage customers to walk over us. In defending our position I am not suggesting that we made the right decisions, I am saying that we are consistently held up to a higher moral standard than powerful institutions. The collateral damage that we caused (and no doubt, there is collateral damage) is incomparable to the human impacts of ANZ’s fossil fuel investments. I understand the importance of keeping public opinion positive; however our daily behaviour in this status quo is so harmful that we are running out of time to win the public over slowly and gently. Interrupting peoples’ daily routines is stressful to those people- I understand that. But if we are going to create a safer world for future generations then we are going to have to make some drastic changes to the system that we live in. The climate crisis is going to see peoples’ routines and behaviour altered in unimaginable ways- so I don’t think we should dwell for too long on our being a problematic inconvenience to bank customers. I am also worried about the media’s ability to delegitimise our cause and impact the effect of future actions, so I think networking and communicating well through other channels might hopefully keep the conversation moving in the right direction. Thanks again for your thoughtful reply.


  4. Thanks for writing this, the media spin on the Dunedin event needed to be called out and I for one am looking forward to further events. There are progressive organisations banking with the ANZ I think we should be caling them out too.


  5. Thank you Siana for sharing this important and moving description of the events. I look forward to seeing how 350 creatively responds to the inhumane corporate powers and police who conspire to destroy anyone who stands in the way of their profiting from the destruction of this planet.

    It is profoundly sad that so many are ignorant, arrogant or so immoral that they fall into support of our death culture.


    1. Thanks for the reply! The more we can communicate with each other the less the media have the power to manipulate our discussions and understanding.


  6. Well done, and thanks for all your efforts. As for the media, well they are a corporate entity aren’t they? This pearl-clutching routine where they attempt to vilify you is nothing new – these are some of the rhetoric and logical fallacies the establishment has long used against progressive social movements. One thing they will take pains to avoid is actually discussing why you were there in the first place.If they do that they’re knackered, and they know that.

    I wonder too if your placards could be more specific. Climate chaos? What does that mean to someone who knows nothing about climate science? Very little I suspect. Perhaps placards such as “Sea level rise from fossil fuel emissions has already drowned Pacific Islands” “Fossil fuel emissions are acidifying our oceans” etc might have more impact. Make sure the claims are scientifically correct though. No need to exaggerate because very bad things are already coming our way. You don’t have to rely upon the reader having at least some background knowledge with such placards. And every time the media takes a photo or video without editing it out the message is beamed straight into reader’s brain.

    Keep up the great work!


    1. Thanks for the comment and feedback! You’re definitely right about the messaging- less abstract more concrete would be better, and making sure we use every photo opportunity. I guess the bad press means we’re actually having an impact? Fingers crossed!


  7. I understand the point to protesting, but sometimes there is a line where civil disobedience, and unlawful activity really don’t help the cause. If we were to spin this around, say a police officer preventing you from entering a place you know you’re entitled to enter into this would cause outrage.

    the media do spin alot of things, but they have to have something news worthy. Hopefully your next protest has a response plan, proactive planning rather than reactive blogging to offset the media image protrayed.
    Good luck in the future guys 🙂


    1. And this would be the same ‘news’ that considers that garbage ‘Bachelor’ programme headline-worthy?

      As for unlawful activity, don’t be ridiculous. The civil rights movement in the US interrupted a whole bunch of grannies going about their daily routines in order to draw attention to a great wrong, and to initiate change. So what if it is unlawful? Laws are just a bunch of rules made by humans. In recent times it’s the rich humans that get a say in what is unlawful – as we saw with National making on-water blockades/protests against deep-sea oil drilling illegal. Why? Because we have become an oligarchy.

      The laws we have to worry about are the physical laws of nature because they cannot be changed. Now I understand that you and the vast bulk of humanity are probably ignorant about the changes that are afoot in the climate, but the science paints a very bleak future for us all. For instance; over half of the coral on the Great Barrier Reef has died in the last 30 years and last summer 93% of all reefs there experienced coral bleaching – a consequence of too-warm summer sea surface temperatures. In the pristine northern-most reefs mortality is expected to exceed 50%, indeed one expert thinks that we may have lost up to 25% of the remaining coral in this one bleaching event. And recent climate modelling indicates that the seawater temperatures that instigated this bleaching event will be the average summer temperature within 18 years. So the Great Barrier Reef is essentially stuffed.

      The global coral bleaching event still underway, only the 3rd ever recorded, is very likely to prove the worst on record, and is just another signpost of the ongoing functional extinction of reef-building coral. Given that over 25% of all fish in the ocean depend on coral reefs for survival and that over a hundred million people depend on coral reefs for food, it’s going to be a global catastrophe when they are gone. And that’s only a couple of decades away. Just imagine the mass migration of people.

      The corporate media may not deem this newsworthy, and it’s only one of a dreadful cocktail of calamities coming our way, but that won’t stop it from happening. Neither we, or the corporate media, will be able to escape the fall out. And that’s why protests such as these are necessary. Grannies be damned!


  8. Lovely to hear your side of the story. Very hard to get obvious results from this sort of action, but you do draw attention to an issue and you do mobilise others. So there is an impact and many of us appreciate your effort – thank you for that. No surprise at the media/police response. They are part of a system that is heavily invested in (i wanted to say ‘powered by’) fossil fuel and extractive economies and yet to see the need for change and investment in future fitness. Keep up the good work.


    1. Thanks so much for your comment! It’s good to get some supportive feedback- we’ve all been pretty devastated about the aftermath.


      1. You’ll just have to develop a thicker skin. You want the media attention and the media is a corporate entity. Of course it’s going to paint you in a bad light. They did the same thing with the suffragettes, and the civil rights and anti-apartheid movements too. The last thing those in positions of power want is to lose their position of power.

        At least you now have some personal insight into the rhetorical games that are played. If one could turn back the clock, how could you have done things better?


      2. If we could turn back the clock I think we should have been reactive to ANZ’s strategy when they didn’t close down. I think we should have moved into the bank, sat down with our banners and signs and kept up with our singing/explaining. It would have allowed us to disrupt their business as usual while taking us out of direct confrontation with customers.


  9. The best thing about this was the fact that Patrick Osborne was there! What a legend!

    But in all seriousness, nothing surprises me about the NZ police anymore. It could be just a few rotten apples, but encouraging people to walk over others is really poor form.


  10. I suppose you never drive a car or use gas at home, and of course you donate money to those struggling?
    While I appreciate you are trying to make the world a better place, this could be directed at more relevant companies.

    Also, I absolutely disagree that it was everyone else’s fault you got stood on. If your plan was to be victimized by being arrested, I don’t think you can blame anyone else for failing to cater to that.

    I’m definitely not educated enough about this, feel free to enlighten me, but I do think you need a bit more intelligence behind your actions to get the masses to follow you.


  11. Poor little leftards getting stepped on as they prevented citizens from going about their lawful business. Boo hoo hoo. Lucky y’all didn’t get a whack over the ear with a PR42, then one where the sun don’t shine, and into the paddywagon, do not pass go do not collect $200.


  12. A country where you are not allowed to protest is called a dictatorship, a land where people are encouraged by the powers that be to use violence is the next step to creating terrorists. Not long ago we insisted to remember Anzac Day. The fallen were so called fighting for our freedom. They did not succeed so you young people are the real heroes of the day for standing up for real democracy. Thank you from the bottom of my heart, what you experienced was unfair, undemocratic and basically government condoned violence.


  13. Really well said Siana. The bank’s action doesn’t surprise me, but from the police it’s either a cunning and disappointing response, or one for which the consequences and implications were poorly thought through. You all did so well, really proud of you!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s