<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" ?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="feed_layout.xsl"?><rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Relationships Foundation</title>
<description>Weblogs for the Relationships Foundation site</description>
<link>http://www.relationshipsfoundation.org</link>
<copyright>Relationships Foundation 2008</copyright>

				<item>
				<title>Rocky Relationships</title>
				<link>http://www.relationshipsfoundation.org/resources/weblog.php?id=357</link>
				<guid>http://www.relationshipsfoundation.org/resources/weblog.php?id=357</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[In this month's Rethink email bulletin guest contributor David McIlroy argues that a relational deficit is at the heart of the current credit crunch.If you haven't read it yet, read it here, or better still, sign up to get it delivered fresh to your inbox each month. ]]></description>
				<pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:21:42 +0100</pubDate>
				</item> 

							<item>
				<title>Homelessness</title>
				<link>http://www.relationshipsfoundation.org/resources/weblog.php?id=356</link>
				<guid>http://www.relationshipsfoundation.org/resources/weblog.php?id=356</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[There are around 100,000 homeless people in the UK, around 20,000 in London alone. There are also estimated to be 46,000 people under 25 homeless in Australia. Given that the breakdown of a personal relationship is often the trigger for homelessness, what is the appropriate balance of responsibility between individual and the state in addressing the issue? In a recent article in the Sydney Morning Herald Paul Shepanski, from our associated organisation Relationships Forum Australia explores the balance of individual and state responsibility. You can read the article here. Paul comments that "Individual responsibility in building and maintaining strong relationships cannot be avoided or denied. At the same time, we must recognise that government policies have far-reaching social effects through their impact on relationships, whether or not that is their intention." He goes on to show how an integrated approach to public policy, one which takes into consideration social as well as economic consequences, must be part of any strategy to address the issue of homelessness. ]]></description>
				<pubDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:34:01 +0100</pubDate>
				</item> 

							<item>
				<title>Absolutely Fabulous</title>
				<link>http://www.relationshipsfoundation.org/resources/weblog.php?id=353</link>
				<guid>http://www.relationshipsfoundation.org/resources/weblog.php?id=353</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[In this month's Rethink email bulletin  I put forward the idea of Family Association Banks or FABs. I'd like to know what you think so do post your comments below.If you haven't read it yet, read it here, or better still, sign up to get it delivered fresh to your inbox each month. ]]></description>
				<pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:14:28 +0100</pubDate>
				</item> 

							<item>
				<title>How would you spend it?</title>
				<link>http://www.relationshipsfoundation.org/resources/weblog.php?id=351</link>
				<guid>http://www.relationshipsfoundation.org/resources/weblog.php?id=351</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[This time last year not many of us would have heard of Lewis Hamilton, but after the most amazing season as a rookie F1 driver he is now one of  England's most famous sportsmen. His deal with McLaren is worth around £70 million over five years so you may be interested to know how has he prioritised spending this new found wealth.Well, according to this article  in the Times yesterday, Hamilton is bucking the celebrity trend and instead of indulging in private jets, fancy cars and a millionaire's mansion, he wants to ensure his family are financially secure and save for the future. "I want to be able to take care of my mum" he says.  The remainder of the article confirms that for Hamilton, relationships are more important than money. I'm not sure whether his former team mate would agree, but it does make a refreshing change from the endless stories of decadence that appear in the celebrity columns. Perhaps he would consider being one of our patrons.  ]]></description>
				<pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2008 16:37:50 +0000</pubDate>
				</item> 

							<item>
				<title>Make space for place</title>
				<link>http://www.relationshipsfoundation.org/resources/weblog.php?id=350</link>
				<guid>http://www.relationshipsfoundation.org/resources/weblog.php?id=350</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[In this month's Rethink email bulletin  I reflect on the significance of place in relationships. I'd like to know what you think so do post your comments below.If you haven't read it yet, read it here, or better still, sign up to get it delivered fresh to your inbox each month.]]></description>
				<pubDate>Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:58:07 +0000</pubDate>
				</item> 

							<item>
				<title>Things might be better if we pulled together</title>
				<link>http://www.relationshipsfoundation.org/resources/weblog.php?id=349</link>
				<guid>http://www.relationshipsfoundation.org/resources/weblog.php?id=349</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[It may not have been headline-grabbing, but this year's Oakeshott lecture by leading Conservative Party thinker David Willetts was certainly interesting reading for those with an interest in the how the political landscape has evolved over the last 20 years and what sociological and philosophical ideas might influence the politics of tomorrow.You can access the transcript and recording of the lecture on the London School of Economics website, here.While the left has been working out how to combine some free market economics into a socialist framework, the right has been realising that free market economics without values can be dangerous, which has led to a rediscovery of the importance of community and compassion.Willetts draws on game theory and evolutionary biology to point out that while we are hard wired to defend our self-interest, we can be better off cooperating, by valuing and being loyal to our relationships with others in our families and communities. Using the analogy of a dry stone wall, he suggests that in an ideal society each person is supported and held in place by their neighbours and is in turn holding their neighbours in place. The role of government is to create an environment where these reciprocal relationships can flourish. This chimes with our own work on relationships and well-being, as outlined in our recent report Thriving Lives. Here we argue that relationships are vital to well-being. Personal and social relationships have a direct effect, but well-being is also affected indirectly by other people's relationships. A wide range of different relationships are important for well-being, such as extended family, peer and friendship, neighbours and community, between groups, in the workplace and within and between public service providers.The responsibility for well-being lies across all levels of society, both with individuals in the conduct of their relationships and with those, such as employers and policy makers, whose actions affect the environment in which relationships are conducted. We suggest that the role of public policy is to encourage the motivation for relationships; ensuring the opportunity for relationships; and enabling support in relationships for those who need it.]]></description>
				<pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2008 10:46:23 +0000</pubDate>
				</item> 

							<item>
				<title>More than words?</title>
				<link>http://www.relationshipsfoundation.org/resources/weblog.php?id=346</link>
				<guid>http://www.relationshipsfoundation.org/resources/weblog.php?id=346</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[The very first act of newly elected Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's new parliament was to officially say sorry to the so-called 'Stolen Generations' - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander's children who, under a national public policy of assimilation which lasted into the 1960's, were forcefully taken from their parents.In many ways Kevin Rudd's apology, backed unanimously by MPs, does not change anything. But at a relational level these words are much more than a symbolic gesture, they change everything. By publicly acknowledging that tens of thousands of people were wronged, and by taking responsibility for this, the government's apology marks a clear break from the past and can enable the Aboriginal people to take a greater pride in their heritage. By expressing corporate pain and regret these words have the potential to bring a greater unity in Australian society. Instead of looking back at open wounds, Australians can look forward to what else is needed for healing.Ultimately though, however powerful the apology, words alone will not be enough. Although the policy of assimilation was stopped nearly forty years ago, the consequences continue to this day with many imbalances between communities in Australian society. No doubt many will call for financial compensation, but cash payments may not be the most effective way to correct these imbalances. It would appear from this article in the Sydney Morning Herald that Rudd recognises this and plans to walk his talk and establish a cross party group to look at what can be done in terms of housing, education and constitutional recognition.In itself the apology is indeed powerful, much more than symbolic, but if today's words are really to mark the 'dawn of a new era' as many newspapers are heralding, then the new government will need to follow up their words with prompt and meaningful action.]]></description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:26:32 +0000</pubDate>
				</item> 

							<item>
				<title>When choices conflict</title>
				<link>http://www.relationshipsfoundation.org/resources/weblog.php?id=345</link>
				<guid>http://www.relationshipsfoundation.org/resources/weblog.php?id=345</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[In this month's email bulletin we note the way our choices impact on other peoples' ability to choose, and refelct on how to make mature choices in this context.Let us know your thoughts below. If you haven't read it yet, read it here, or better still, sign up to get it delivered fresh to your inbox each month. ]]></description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:41:47 +0000</pubDate>
				</item> 

							<item>
				<title>Is bigger better, or is small beautiful?</title>
				<link>http://www.relationshipsfoundation.org/resources/weblog.php?id=344</link>
				<guid>http://www.relationshipsfoundation.org/resources/weblog.php?id=344</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[Last week saw a successful awareness raising campaign by the National Association for Small Schools, who claimed that between 100 and 300 small schools across the country could soon be forced to close. Today this campaign has resulted in the School's minister John Knight writing to local authorities to remind them of the importance of local schools and of the intention of recent laws that small schools should remain open.A good summary of the issue can be found in this Press Association release earlier today. In pure financial terms, there are many cases when small schools, small post offices, small shops will appear less efficient or profitable than their bigger counterparts. But if we were able to better quantify the social benefits of these local institutions perhaps it would be easier to argue the case for keeping them. Not only are there teaching and learning benefits for children in smaller schools, the village school is one of the few remaining places where parents form new contacts and friendships and where communities can come together for other activties and events. In his work examining the breakdown of social networks, Professor Robert Putnam talks about the atomising of our society, the ways in which we are increasingly individual. This can be linked to negative outcomes in terms of crime and anti-social behaviour. We need to look for ways to counter this breakdown and rebuild what Putnam calls 'social capital' and I think that looking beyond the merely financial concerns and supporting local schools to take an even more central role in their communities is one way of doing this.]]></description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:47:31 +0000</pubDate>
				</item> 

							<item>
				<title>Relationships and roles in the home</title>
				<link>http://www.relationshipsfoundation.org/resources/weblog.php?id=343</link>
				<guid>http://www.relationshipsfoundation.org/resources/weblog.php?id=343</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[Today NatCen (National Centre for Social Research) publishes it's latest report on British social attitudes. This latest report focuses on a number of themes which are of interest to our work on family and community relationships including: relationships and parenting; cohabitation; gender roles; national identity; prejudice; and poverty.You can read a summary of the report here . I think that the statistics on how people perceive marriage were most surprising. A number of recent reports demonstrate that children do best when they are raised by their married parents. Of course there are married parents who don't give their children adequate time and struggle with parenting. Equally there are cohabiting or single parents who do a fantastic job raising their children. But the general thrust of a number of recent studies is that, when you look across society as a whole, the committed marriage relationship has economic and social benefits to parents and children. At first glance it is therefore surprising that the NatCen research says that "Only 28% of people think married couples make better parents than unmarried ones." I say at first glance because the way the statement is worded suggests that respondents were asked a question which asked them to make a judgement on the parents as people, rather than a general comment on the positive benefits of marriage. ]]></description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:59:26 +0000</pubDate>
				</item> 

							<item>
				<title>Ties that bind us</title>
				<link>http://www.relationshipsfoundation.org/resources/weblog.php?id=341</link>
				<guid>http://www.relationshipsfoundation.org/resources/weblog.php?id=341</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[In December, our Rethink email bulletin looked at ways in which we might encourage stronger extended family relationships. Today we publish a more detailed report on the extended family.Written by Michael Clark, Chief Executive of our Keep time for children initiative,  'The ties that bind us: Strengthening the extended family in 21st century Britain' looks at a variety of practical strategies which might help to strengthen extended family relationships and suggests further avenues of enquiry. You can download the report here, and, as always, your comments are welcome!]]></description>
				<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:31:16 +0000</pubDate>
				</item> 

							<item>
				<title>Happy New Year! ...and a bit on climate change</title>
				<link>http://www.relationshipsfoundation.org/resources/weblog.php?id=340</link>
				<guid>http://www.relationshipsfoundation.org/resources/weblog.php?id=340</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[Last week a group of us from Relationships Foundation were involved in a conference on climate change issues, which is why these New Year greetings are a bit delayed. The conference was being hosted by the Jubilee Centre, but Relationships Foundation had the chance to give significant input.How does our relational thinking input to a discussion on climate change? The Stern report (2006) on the economics of climate change included projected costs for the impact of climate change to future generations and to those in other parts of the world, especially the poor in parts of Africa and in low lying countries like Bangladesh. If we accept that human activity is driving or accelerating climate change, then we should be dramatically changing our behaviour in order to reduce the impact on these people who will be much more seriously affected by climate change than we will. However, given that our sense of relationship with them is so remote, it is difficult to persuade ourselves that we really should do something.This morning we had someone visiting us from the new Australian prime minister's office, and it was interesting to hear how, in the context of drought and water shortages in many major Australian cities, the Labor party's desire to take environmental issues more seriously was a significant vote winner. The American public has also shifted in it's view on climate change issues has also shifted since hurricane Katrina in 2005. Once our sense of relationship to the people affected is stronger, we are much more likely to change our behaviour.]]></description>
				<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:49:48 +0000</pubDate>
				</item> 

							<item>
				<title>Not just for Christmas</title>
				<link>http://www.relationshipsfoundation.org/resources/weblog.php?id=339</link>
				<guid>http://www.relationshipsfoundation.org/resources/weblog.php?id=339</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[In this month's Rethink email bulletin we explore some practical ideas which might strengthen the extended family. Let us know your thoughts below. If you haven't read it yet, read it here, or better still, sign up to get it delivered fresh to your inbox each month. ]]></description>
				<pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:13:16 +0000</pubDate>
				</item> 

							<item>
				<title>Automatic checkouts: a challenge to relationships?</title>
				<link>http://www.relationshipsfoundation.org/resources/weblog.php?id=337</link>
				<guid>http://www.relationshipsfoundation.org/resources/weblog.php?id=337</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[My local corner shop is a rather large supermarket, which has recently put in a number of automatic checkouts. You scan your own purchases through, and pay for it all by yourself. At least that’s the theory. As a first time user I did need a little assistance to complete my purchase. As I strolled out, chuffed at my success, I wondered how compatible my actions were with compatible my actions were with my employment by a relational think tank! Had I just blindly accepted the removal of another set of relationships from society, or is this simply a move to keep prices low and improve efficiency allowing me to spend more money and time on my family? I consoled myself that I hadn’t resorted to online shopping yet – surely that would be worse? However, friends who use it argue that it allows them more time for other things. And besides, what relationship do you really have with someone on the checkout at a supermarket anyway? My shopping experience was at the back of my mind today as I tried to write a concise summary of what we as an organisation think about relationships for a project in work. We work with a model that identifies five factors that are critical for a good relationship: Directness – A good relationship relies on both parties connecting with each other Continuity – the amount of shared time over time. A relationship that has a past and expects a future is inevitably deeper than a 30 second encounter at the checkout Multiplexity – the breadth of knowledge of a person’s personal, family and work situations. A good relationship means knowing each other well.Parity – the use and abuse of power. A good relationship is one where both parties value each other Commonality – working with similarity and difference. A good relationship shares common ground. Thinking relationally is about choosing to value relationships. I don’t think there is a right or wrong answer when it comes to automatic checkouts. I don’t mind shopping, and often listen to a lecture or talk on my I-pod. If the queue is shorter I am happy to use the automatic checkout to get home quicker. If I use a staffed checkout I do try to strike up conversation. The point is to think about the relational impact of our actions. Relationships can be undermined and damaged simply because we do not value them properly.]]></description>
				<pubDate>Thu, 06 Dec 2007 11:59:12 +0000</pubDate>
				</item> 

							<item>
				<title>Call for better relationships education in schools</title>
				<link>http://www.relationshipsfoundation.org/resources/weblog.php?id=336</link>
				<guid>http://www.relationshipsfoundation.org/resources/weblog.php?id=336</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[A letter in today's Times, signed by an impressive group of parliamentarians, children's charity executives, journalists and celebrities calls for better sex and relationships education in schools. You can read the letter here. Whilst I wholeheartedly agree with its contents, I worry that the coverage that has resulted from it focuses much more on the sex education than on the relationships education - for example the front page headline on the Times was 'Backlash over sex education failings'. Our popular culture is saturated with sex, and in this context parents and teachers have a responsibility to ensure that teenagers have accurate factual information about its joys and dangers. But long before they will be experimenting sexually we have an equally important responsibility to ensure that children have a healthy foundation of personal and emotional maturity and strong understanding of the joys and challenges of relationships - friendships and team relationships as well as romantic relationships. It is vital that by the time children are sexually active they know that their value and identity is in who they are and does not depend on their sexual experience. This recent article by Camilla Cavendish gives even more reasons why this is important.]]></description>
				<pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2007 16:34:04 +0000</pubDate>
				</item> 

							<item>
				<title>No motto please, we're British</title>
				<link>http://www.relationshipsfoundation.org/resources/weblog.php?id=333</link>
				<guid>http://www.relationshipsfoundation.org/resources/weblog.php?id=333</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[In this month's Rethink email bulletin we discuss the benefits and challenges of diversity, with particular reference to national identity. Let us know your thoughts below.If you haven't read it yet, read it here, or better still, sign up to get it delivered fresh to your inbox each month. ]]></description>
				<pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:08:08 +0000</pubDate>
				</item> 

							<item>
				<title>Rudd gets result</title>
				<link>http://www.relationshipsfoundation.org/resources/weblog.php?id=331</link>
				<guid>http://www.relationshipsfoundation.org/resources/weblog.php?id=331</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[Although we are not party political - our staff, supporters, and associates represent a broad spectrum of political viewpoints - we do have good reason to send our congratulations to Kevin Rudd and his team in the Australian Labor Party who secured a resounding victory in Australia's general election on Saturday.Over a number of years some key leaders in the Australian Labor Party have engaged with concepts of relational thinking, and it will be exciting to see how they put some of these ideas into practise. Lindsay Tanner, who is expected to be confirmed as Finance Minister when the full government team is announced on Friday, has even written a book, Crowded Lives, which argues that the missing ingredient in Australian politics is a concern for family and community relationships. You can read a review and summary of Lindsay's book here. To see how the Australian newspapers are reporting the election why not read the Sydney Morning  Herald's coverage. ]]></description>
				<pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2007 12:21:06 +0000</pubDate>
				</item> 

							<item>
				<title>Watching thier language</title>
				<link>http://www.relationshipsfoundation.org/resources/weblog.php?id=330</link>
				<guid>http://www.relationshipsfoundation.org/resources/weblog.php?id=330</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[Belgium held federal elections way back in June, but, 167 days later, a new government is yet to be formed. Yves Leterme, the Flemish-speaking Prime Minster in waiting, won his votes with rhetoric of protecting Flemish speaking areas from the ever expanding city of Brussels, which, although officially bi-lingual, is in reality mainly a French-speaking area. The specific problem is the Flemish district of Halle-Vilvoorde on the outskirts of Brussels, where French-speaking people want to maintain the right to vote for French-speaking political parties, although the court has ruled that this is against the constitution.You can read more about the issues by looking at articles in the Economist or in today's Financial Times.Relationships Foundation's model of analysing understanding relationships cites five dimensions of relational proximity: Commonality, which could be understood as connectedness or common purpose; Continuity - a shared story over time; Parity - a fair distribution of power; Multiplexity - having broad range of knowledge or information; and Directness - how honest and direct the relationship is.Although French- and Flemish-speaking Belgians are united in their support for their sports stars and their love of good food, in almost every other respect the two main language districts live completely separately. They read different newspapers, watch different television channels, listen to different radio stations, and vote for different political parties. So, while the relationship between the two main language groups in Belgium is generally very amicable and friendly, against our measures of relational proximity it scores pretty low. If the country manages to survive this current political crisis then maybe the new government would be advised to look at how they can strengthen the relationship between the two main language groups, celebrating what the country has achieved and further developing a common national identity which all language groups can enjoy.]]></description>
				<pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2007 15:54:35 +0000</pubDate>
				</item> 

							<item>
				<title>Extending flexible working will strengthen families</title>
				<link>http://www.relationshipsfoundation.org/resources/weblog.php?id=323</link>
				<guid>http://www.relationshipsfoundation.org/resources/weblog.php?id=323</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[We welcome yesterday's promise by the UK Government to extend parent's right to ask for flexible working arrangements. This has been a key goal of our 'Keep time for children' campaign for the last 3 years.You can read more about the Government's plans here. As the article says, opposition leader David Cameron backed this as a policy last October, and recently it was reported that 93% of flexible working requests under the existing law, which covers parents of children up to age 6, have been responded to positively by their employers.However, before deciding on whether this right will be extended to parents of secondary school children there will be a review.  Why such caution? Surely the public benefit of allowing parents to organise their lives to spend more time with their children considerably outweighs the logistical problems of businesses adapting to this new way of working?At a time when there is unprecedented concern about, for instance, antisocial behaviour among young people, growth in child mental health problems and educational standards which stubbornly refuse to improve, unequivocal commitment to this kind of preventative measure looks like a no-brainer.We hope that Imelda Walsh and the government review group will not only conclude the review quickly, but will also ensure that parents of teenagers are also covered.  The benefits of having a parent at hand at critical stages in adolescence and the school career are incalculable.]]></description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2007 18:47:13 +0000</pubDate>
				</item> 

							<item>
				<title>No swansong for me</title>
				<link>http://www.relationshipsfoundation.org/resources/weblog.php?id=320</link>
				<guid>http://www.relationshipsfoundation.org/resources/weblog.php?id=320</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[This maybe my last day as a paid employee of the Relationships Foundation in Cambridge, but it won't be the last day I write, read or think about the significance of healthy, happy relationships to society.Sadly, this is my last day.  My family and I are returning to Melbourne, but not with heavy hearts. There are signs of encouragement all around, particularly when I reflect on the good work that is coming out of this office.  Earlier this year, we looked at well-being asking what exactly is it and how can it be realised?  Thriving lives which way for well-being? found that it was those who enjoyed regular interaction with a number of different people through family, the community, work or social gatherings, generally experienced high levels of well-being.  Work is now beginning on stage two, publication Spring 2008, which focuses on how we use our money and how money is used influences relationships that are important for well-being.  Research Director John Ashcroft is head to the grind on the Relational Lens (working title).  This is an exploration of why we need to think relationally about society - about the way we organise things and why it's not easy to get relationships right. Michael Clark's work on the role of the extended family is coming together we hope this report will be completed by Christmas - available neatly on the web for you to enjoy over the festive season. The report aims to encourage Government to see the value of the key role of extended families.  A connected side note, but nevertheless interesting read, is the creation of multi-generational homes see here. Is this a case of developers seeing financial potential ahead of the marketplace or responding to demand?  The Relationship Forum incredible success with An Unexpected Tragedy in Sydney earlier this year, led us to consider a UK version. This report asks questions and will reveal the strong research linkage between long and unsocial hours working and dysfunctional family outcomes. We are planning for a Summer 2008 publication.So lots to look think about and look forward to.Please keep your comments coming and I'll see you in cyberspace.    ]]></description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:17:02 +0000</pubDate>
				</item> 

							<item>
				<title>Monthly email bulletin: policy priorities</title>
				<link>http://www.relationshipsfoundation.org/resources/weblog.php?id=318</link>
				<guid>http://www.relationshipsfoundation.org/resources/weblog.php?id=318</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[Our October email bulletin highlights the need for public policy that looks beyond the economic dimension and takes more account of the environmental and social impact.You can read it here, or subscribe to get it delivered to you by email each month.Let us know your thoughts using the comment box below.]]></description>
				<pubDate>Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:13:19 +0100</pubDate>
				</item> 

							<item>
				<title>Children under stress</title>
				<link>http://www.relationshipsfoundation.org/resources/weblog.php?id=317</link>
				<guid>http://www.relationshipsfoundation.org/resources/weblog.php?id=317</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[Stress and anxiety is no longer just felt by adults but by our children, according to a new report, 'Community Soundings' released today from Cambridge University and the Esmee Fairbairn charitiable foundation.For a copy of the press release and link to the full report, please see here.You can watch to BBC News player here for an interview with the report's author Sheila Dainton and listen to BBC Radio 4 Today programme with guests Sue Palmer, author of Toxic Childhood and Prof Hugh Cunningham author of the Invention of Childhood for a discussion of the research.The report was based on discussions with children, teachers and parents and community groups.The researchers found that primary school children are worried about their school tests - SATs tests, describing them as 'scary' - they worry about pollution, the environment, their own safety and they don't trust their friends.Sue Palmer in her comments on Radio 4 said that children are being sold the idea that happiness is stuff - it's what you possess - they are not being taught the value of relationships.  Telling is her reference to the Unicef report that 48% of children said that they didn't trust their peers. Ms Palmer also spoke of the decline of free play for children very possibly as a result of electronics and the fear their parents have about them playing in their local neighbourhood.  Talking to people, trusting people, learning how to get along with other people. All essential skills for adulthood.  What will we say to our children when they come to us and say why didn't you teach me?   Your thoughts?This report is the first of a series of studies that will be published by the Primary Review in a lead-up to a final document next year.]]></description>
				<pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:12:58 +0100</pubDate>
				</item> 

							<item>
				<title>Strong relationships good for your health</title>
				<link>http://www.relationshipsfoundation.org/resources/weblog.php?id=316</link>
				<guid>http://www.relationshipsfoundation.org/resources/weblog.php?id=316</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[A report released today by the Office of National Statistics shows that the stronger your relationships the better your health is likely to be.  You can read the press release or the report on the Office of National Statistics website here. Amongst a number of interesting findings the report notes an increase in the number of co-habiting couples, especially among young people. But it also shows that children are healthier and more likely to continue in education if they are living with both their natural parents. The press release comments: "Partnership continues to be the healthiest state in general. There are health benefits associated with partnership, especially marriage..." This is something we are particularly interested in at the moment. We are working with other agencies to present a convincing case to the government for investing more money in relationship education for couples, with the hope of resourcing tomorrow's parents with essential relationship skills. The goal is to give couples a better chance of building a lasting relationship within which to raise children.The report is not such good news if you are married to a grumpy old man. It states that "older single women have better health than married women on many indicators of health status."]]></description>
				<pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:50:53 +0100</pubDate>
				</item> 

				
</channel>
</rss>
