Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
IN A FEW short weeks Facebook looks set to make history for the umpteenth time in its brief history.
The social network behemoth is not even ten years old but later this month it will float on the stock market for the first time – and speculation is high that it will become one of the most valuable companies in the world.
Over 337 million shares will be up for grabs when Facebook makes its initial public offering (IPO – the first time a private company sells stock to the public), in what the Financial Times has called ‘the most hotly anticipated share sale since Google’ in 2004.
Other internet companies have done well when they went public – most notably Google and LinkedIn – but Facebook is being seen as a test case for social media sites. There has been speculation simmering lately of another tech bubble, fuelled in part by Facebook buying Instagram for $1 billion last month, and the reaction to Facebook on the stock market is seen as an indicator of whether the market sees social networking sites as worth investing in.
The figures involved in the floation are huge. Last week Facebook estimated that the company could be valued at between $77 billion and $95 billion (€58 billion and €72 billion). In comparison, when Google floated in 2004 it had a valuation of $23 billion.
To put this slightly into perspective: Facebook is very likely to be worth more than the €85 billion bailout that Ireland received from the troika in 2010.
Facebook has put together this video featuring an unblinking Mark Zuckerberg which will be shown to potential investor firms this week. Much of the information is already known, but it also includes some key facts and figures about how big the social network is. Currently it has:
“It’s likely to be the biggest technology IPO ever,” says Gareth McCluskey, a portfolio manager at Davy. “It’s the first of the social media companies to float so there’s huge publicity around it and it will do well initially”.
Facebook, which will be listed on the Nasdaq, is expected to have a market value close to that of Amazon or Cisco Systems.
(AP Photo/Paul Sakuma)
All the signs are that there will be a huge take-up of shares in the company. Anticipation is high, and the Financial Times has suggested that Facebook will ‘pop’ on its first day – that the price will surge as people who don’t often buy shares rush to get a part of it (a bit like with Eircom in the 1990s but probably without the disastrous fallout afterwards).
There is precedent for that: Google led the way in major internet companies floating on the stock market in 2004 and has done increasingly well since then. LinkedIn has also done surprisingly well since floating last year; its starting share price was $45 per share in May 2011. By the end of its first day, the share price had risen by 109 per cent to $94.25, and it is currently trading at $106 a share (around €80).
There have been some warning signs with internet companies on the stock market, however. Deals website Groupon’s share price closed at a record low last Friday, at just $9.97 a share, down from a high of $26 per share, amid uncertainty over its financial model.
“There’s a lot of social media companies looking to float but it will depend on how Facebook goes,” says Gareth McCluskey of Davy. “This is going to be a real benchmark”.
(Photo: AP Photo/Richard Drew)
Short answer: yes.
Buying shares is relatively straightforward. “It’s very similar to opening a bank account,” says Gareth McCluskey.
For anyone who has never bought shares before, it requires setting up an account with a stockbroker. Usually this will involve giving your name, address, and other details, providing proof of ID and also proof of address. Some stockbrokers may charge to set up an account and the whole process can take a day or two.
Shares in Facebook are expected to cost between $28 and $35 per share (around €21 to €26). Technically you could buy just one share, but with commission and other costs involved it wouldn’t exactly be worth your while.
The good news: Facebook is going to be floated on the Nasdaq, which means the share price will be listed in dollars. Given the current exchange rate, this is good news for anyone buying shares from this side of the Atlantic.
The slightly less good news: A lot of the shares are going to be offered to the biggest clients of the giant Wall Street banks that oversee the stock sale – in other words, big investment firms will be prioritised over people who dabble in the stock market as Facebook aims to sell shares by the millions, rather than by the hundreds or thousands.
The New York Times has sounded a note of caution, noting:
The frenzy surrounding the Facebook public offering is reminiscent of the dot-com boom of the late 1990s, when investors clamored to get a piece of the next hot Internet company.
The exact date for when Facebook’s IPO will happen hasn’t been announced yet but the Wall Street Journal has reported that it is likely to be 18 May. Mark your calendars – it looks set to be a major day for the world’s biggest social network.
Note: The information in this article is intended as a guideline and should not be used as an authoritative source on any financial decision.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
A better question is why do both parents need to go out to work when in the past a family could get by on only one income?
@Charles Quinn: we live in a more complicated world with more choice in a nutshell.
@Charles Quinn: They don’t but some families chose for both parents to go out to work and that pushed house prices up as those families were able to spend more on houses. House prices are a simple function of people’s abilities to pay …if overall we earned less then houses would be cheaper, just look at house prices in countries with lower salaries. So since women have been able to go out to work since the advent of microwaves and automatic washing machines etc., all it has done is increase household income which gets spent. So if all women (or men) quit work house prices would fall but standards of living would not.
@John Horan: You think house prices are the way they are because mothers are going back to work? You might wanna sit this one out buddy.
@John Horan: I am afraid you have a very simplistic view of housing problems and women’s ability to work
@Charles Quinn: because it was the past! You didn’t fork out for TV subscriptions, internet, mobile phone data etc. There is a reason it was called the past! It is gone! You can of course live in it should you wish!
@John Horan: seriously? you reckon that if we stopped women working, then things might be cheaper? maybe you should have a proper look at countries where housing is cheaper. you will most likely find that in those countries you still need two incomes to make ends meet and maybe have a little left over. it’s easy to say, that in this country or that country childcare is cheaper, or electricity, or housing. you are forgetting to also take wages and other expenses into consideration.
@John Horan: find for me any time in modern history that house prices in the Capital decreased! If you wan’t to live in a capital city you will pay a premium! That is why places like Swords (formerly County Dublin), Rush, Lusk , Skerries, Balbrigan, Stamullen are full of Dubs. They had to move out to afford the prices they could maintain. And they eventually adjusted their living to their new place. If you are waiting fir Dublin prices to come down or the Government to build social housing just where you would like it you are deluded.
@Charles Quinn: First of all, we are talking about mothers working part-time while kids are at school. A lot of professional women do this so they keep a toe in the door, and are hoping to go back full time when kids are in secondary. At least that is how it is for women with careers, not just working to scrape a living.
@Charles Quinn: why shouldn’t both work if they have put years into their careers, not to mention education? Any activity post school whether it be organised or kids club will benefit kids hugely I would have thought.
@iohanx: you’ve hit the kernel of the issue there
@Charles Quinn: because wage increases stopping matching cost of living sometime in the mid 70s basically.
@Shane McGettrick: some argue it’s because alot of women entered the jobs market, saturated the choice for employers which decreased competition for employers to recruit and in turn damaged people’s prospects of gaining wage increases. This is a rough summary of the theory that was put out there a few years back.
@Charles Quinn: maybe.. just maybe people might want a life outside the house and their children? Maybe both parents want to contribute and have independence? Families struggled in the past too, but women had to give up their jobs after they got married.
@Charles Quinn: weren’t you aware we’re in the midst of a housing crisis, with extortionate housing prices and exponential rents? Both parents need to work nowadays in order to maintain a stable lifestyle for their children. In this day and age it’s not a choice.
I think the problem is people are having to many kids and having them too late in life I don’t think it’s anything to do with school hrs.The women want children but also want to work.So to lessen the burden,why have so many kids it’s the way of the modern world we can’t have loads of kids and expect to work it’s not possible unless your wealthy.Someday when they invent a male contraceptive pill the women are going to get all the work they want because it will be us guys who will decide when we want kids.until then though we’re fooked lol.
I’m a single dad and I’m annoyed at that stupid headline I do 50/50 co parenting.women don’t do anymore then what men do these days..
@Charles Quinn: because they want too!
@Robert Phelan: you aren’t a single dad if there is another parent on the scene. A single parent is a very different situation to shared custody
@Charles Quinn: Another question is why is this a female issue in 2019. Middle Ireland does not reflect all Ireland,such choices are not relevant for poorer families. Presumptions that females with children have not faced these obstacles for decades is a clearly cosseted view. If the gender pay gap was addressed, this conversation would be less sexist.
After school clubs are the solution, not longer school days. Ireland and the UK are the loners in Europe having four year olds in the classroom to begin with. Most countries have kids learning through play up until the age of six/seven, rather than sitting at a desk. Finland, Europe’s best education system, has a school day that ends at 1pm even for older kids. After school club fills the gap.
I teach in Sweden, and children up to 11/12 (depending on area) can go to ASC for a relatively small fee, with ASC staff, not teachers. It costs just a hair above children’s allowance. They get to stay until about 5:30pm meaning both parents can work full time if they wish.
Besides, any basic knowledge of the child’s brain/attention span would tell you they cannot sustain longer school days anyway.
@Donncha: here here
@Donncha: Why do you think Finland has Europe’s best education system?
@Donncha: well said , our education system too focused on academic studies , play based learning would be more beneficial. If after schools bridged the gap here it should be funded better
@Donncha: I agree with everything you said, except for the fact that after school clubs can be expensive. If someone has three children and they need them to spend an extra hour in school it’s usually €5 per child or more, amounting to €15 per day, five days a week, totalling to €85 a week. This is quite a sizeable chunk of the average weekly income and is for a lot of people not affordable.
@Donncha: the facility is already there the school , have a homework club for doing the homework and physical education and sports after that for a pick up between 5 and 6 , and have to government subsidize it wallah
@Anna: but if this allowed you to work for an extra 3-4 hours your salary would more than cover that no?
@Paddy Dunne: “have the government subsidise it”? That’s code word for let’s tax the middle earners some more.
@Tim Pot: if it would only just about cover it then what would be the point, financially?
@Donncha: Spot on!
I made the mistake of assuming that after school clubs existed here in Ireland, but the article is apparently succeeding in its attempt to prove me wrong.
@Anna:
lets assume you get to work for 3 hours more at 10e/hr. Thats 30e/day or 150e/week. That leaves you over 50e better off every week after you have paid for child care.
Lets also assume that you are somewhat career orientated, those extra hours worked would likely increase your chances of a pay rise or promotion.
Purely financially there is a very good point to it.
Why should we be “encouraging” women to go back to work in the first place? If mothers wish to that is fine, but how families arrange their work/family life should their business alone not government policy. In fact the only government policy should be to support families in the decisions they make.
@MaeVic: in many cases it’s still the women that look after the kids, meaning they spend years in the home and will find it difficult to return to the workforce. it’s also worth bearing in mind that it’s likely that families with one income only are probably going to require income support or social housing. would it not be better to support those that want to work?
@sue: Well for your first point, So what?
Secondly, my last sentence stated that the government should “support” families in the decisions they make. Support being the operative word. However what the government should NOT be doing is encouraging, incentivising, or favouring or in any way families to take a particular course of action as a matter of policy.
@sue:I think woman need to focus more on equal pay and have less children.if women had equal pay it gives the option to men if they want to stay home doesn’t it Sue.
@Robert Phelan: Women must do exactly as they “choose” and not have a man telling hem what to do!
Surely we should be encouraging women to stay at home and look after their own children instead of telling them to go out to work to pay someone else to raise their children for them. Remember no one will have as much interest in your childrens wellbeing as you.
@Rachel O’ Meara: 100% agree
@Rachel O’ Meara: or fathers
@Rachel O’ Meara: what about the dads? what about single parents? discuss…
@iohanx: I said mothers because statistically speaking they are usually the primary care giver, that goes for single parents as well however if the father is the primary care giver by all means they should also be allowed to stay at home and raise their children instead of paying other people to do it for them.
@Rachel O’ Meara: if thats what women want… not everyone wants the same thing.. having the choice for one parent to stay at home would great…mothers or fathers equally.
Good luck with that if you think there is any possibility of getting teachers to change.
@Henry Porter: teachers are on sight for the full day anyway.
@Beulah Donohoe: in sight but not on site on the phone farming or nice ring
@Henry Porter: What’s it got to do with teachers? The school day is the same length for all teachers regardless of what class they teach and the length of the day is determined by the Dept. Of Education.
@patkplc: nixering
@patkplc: like Piano lessons at €20 per half hour using school equipment, lighting and heating tax free, I know one teacher first lesson starts at 3.30, last one at 6.30, 3 times a week!! €520 a week top up tax free during term time.
@Henry Porter: can you imagine the uproar! Just yesterday, I saw a teacher ask on Facebook that if her maternity leave starts in June, does she get 2 extra months at the end since she’ll be off work for those months anyway! It’s always just about money and days off with them.
@D: generalise much?
@D: just in case…she doesn’t
@G Manning: and rightly so! I just couldn’t believe she even asked.
@Tony Gordon: How do you know it’s tax free?
@D: what’s wrong with asking that? If this is her first kid, she might just be lacking the information and wanting to know, so that she is able to prepare to be back at work when her maternity leave is up.
Better she ask now, and have the next number of months to get prepared for going back to work, than making an incorrect assumption and finding out a week before she is due back at work, that she’s due back, surely? Or should she just know everything automatically, without ever needing to ask questions?
@Mirabelle Stonegate: it isn’t her first child, just the first one she wasn’t able to plan to be due in sept to get the 1.5 years off that all teachers seems to aim for. All she wanted was extra paid time off on behalf of the tax payer.
@D: *1.2 sorry
I’ve always liked the idea of being a stay at home dad. Then I spend an hour with them on my own and realise Id need alot of prescription medicine to get through the week. Thank god for mammys.
@Robbie Clancy: which is why there must be childcare options for the women wanting to work, too. Not all mums are cut out to be stay-at-homes either.
Mums? Yeh mean Mams surely
@JohnnyMc: Irish mammys are the best
It’s not just Mum’s that do school runs. I’ve been doing the school runs for the last 5 years as I can’t work for medical reasons and my wife has to waor full time. I thing the headline is extremely sexist and derogatory that a woman’s place is in the home. I for one am the person that stays at home and does all the house work, school runs, meals etc. So I think an apology should be issued for all the fathers that have to stay at home while their partner works instead.
In this day and age I thought we were past this issue that a woman’s place is in home. Obviously I’m wrong.
@Fearghal O Regan: I’m a single father and am pretty annoyed by the headline
Schools are not a babysitter service.
Ehh …. have you ever tried to teach a junior infant anything after 1.30 in the day???? Schools are not crèches.
@Susie Diskin: at junior infants level yes they are. Don’t kid yourself
@D: nice pun
@Susie Diskin: My daughter went to JI in Wales, (Foundation they call it) she was in from 9 am to 3 pm every day, no issues.
maybe scrape the porridge off the bowls at 9.00 am?
That extra hour is too much for children in junior and senior infants. The only difference I’d make is increase by 30 minutes in senior infants so first class is not so much of a shock to the system
@dec dunne: Indeed. It’s my understanding that younger children have a shorter day not for their parents benefit but for their benefit. If they were to start later and finish later in the day the same problem would occur and this lady would be back complaining, the only difference would be that it would be a different time of the day.
The fact is this shorter day is for the benefit of her children, it’s just one of the small, everyday sacrifices every parent makes makes – usually gladly, she’s proposing her children’s benefit should suffer in order that it make life easier for her. And this is supposed to benefit them, really?
Get rid of child allowance and provide free childcare/after-school care where needed. Allow families to make the choices they want about work and raring their kids.
@Bilbo Baggins: If you get rid of Child Benefit and use it fund Child care, that benefits working parents only, to the detriment of single income families, especially where the money fromCB is the difference between both working and allowing one to stay home.
@MaeVic: we should be encouraging working women not mammies out of the workforce for years
@Darren Bates: No we should not.
@MaeVic: Not necasarily, parents can still avail of free childcare whether working or not. Single income families are more often driven to be single income by costs of childcare than they are the choice of staying home.the likelihood of child benefit being the difference to affording to work or not, is extremely slim I would imagine. Free childcare at the cost of child benefit I believe would have much more positive impacts on society as a whole, and going some of the way to eliminating any pay gap between parents and single people.
@Bilbo Baggins: Why would anyone wish to send their children to be looked after by strangers, when they are able to look after them themselves? And where is your evidence that single income families, are single income because of lack of child care, and not choice? And also I have no doubt that increasing numbers of children raised by “professionals” instead of their parents, cannot have a negative impact of children’s development, and therefore society as a whole.
@MaeVic: Because lots of people want to further themselves in other ways that solely dedicate 100% of their time to their children. why do you believe so strongly otherwise? And how can you ask me for evidence on my opinion and in the following sentence make a comment of “having no doubt” without any evidence? Outcomes of children from stay at home parents don’t outperform those who are sent to care to any viable statistical degree (you can Google the studies). The biggest advantage for children’s outcomes is undoubtedly social demographics and income. That’s unfortunate and not preferred. But available professional childcare in the form like we see in Sweden and Finland for example can at least begin to balance out those outcomes for every child.
@Bilbo Baggins: Because Parents love their children. And parents, good parents that is, put their children before themselves, sacrifice their desires and needs for their children.
And Amarach poll, in 2017 showed that if money were no object 49% of parents would choose to look after their children at home, 29% would wish a family member to look after their children and only 17% would choose day care. So it is not the case that single income families are only single income because of lack of access to childcare.
As for outcomes for children, Ireland has a tragic history of industrial child care the consequences of which are only being realised now.
@MaeVic: Exactly Parents make sacrifices for their children, that’s my point. If childcare is supported it helps ease those sacrifices, wanting/not wanting to work is a dubious question to ask at best, and that’s ignoring the question was asked by the Iona institute, much closer to that tragic history of industrialised childcare you mention, Back when no women worked outside the home. Families or moreso children should be supported, if the free childcare extended to subsidising stay @home child care childcare that would be even better, my problem is Cash for babies, with no guarantee it reaches the child, and €1,200 a month after tax bill for the parents who make the sacrifice to go out and work to hopefully elevate the position possible for their child in life. The child they love.
@Bilbo Baggins: But if you are “furthering yourself” you are not sacrificing for your children, you are focussed on yourself. If “childcare” is supported, then the only ones making sacrifices, are the children who are sacrificing parental care. And again, why would any full time mother want to farm out her children to industrial care? It seems you wish for them to be forced to do so, by having their CB taken off them in order to fund industrial child care. As it is single income couples are penalised through tax individualisation.
If “cash for babies” is your problem, how about going back to the old system of tax free allowance for children. In that way, the take home income is increased, and parents can spend it any way they like.
@MaeVic: if you are furthering yourself you are not sacrificing for your children? Do you really think that? Why do you want to be paid cash to stay home with your children why don’t you actually make the sacrifices you keep mentioning? If you think there is nothing beyond a mother spending 100% of her time with her child there’s little I can do to help you think differently. I thought you were a woman originally and was interested in your view point but the further down this conversation we get I think you’re actually a man, which does change the dimension of your argument entirely. I assume you also keep your children away from industrialised education and aim for them in the future to have goals of having more children in the same cyclical manner.
@Bilbo Baggins: Why do you want strangers to be paid cash for minding children the expense of mothers minding their own.? Why? I am a woman, a mother of 7 actually. All i want is fairness.
And it seems you are in favour of forcing mothers out of the home and away from their children. I , on the other hand, am in favour of choice, and a government policy that supports families in the choices they make rather than government policy that endorses one choice over another. You are anti choice.
@MaeVic: Interesting choice of words, you are actually anti choice in the more common sense of the term aren’t you? Providing childcare is not forcing anyone to do anything, supporting children and society is the goal here. Which you seem against, you seem to believe your way is the only way and any other vision is one trying to force you to do something. Using words like antichoice, strangers, industrialisation and pointing out one sides ‘love’ and sacrifice for their children while omitting it for the others is a very familiar tactic, we’ve seen in Ireland recently. With 7 children even if you wanted too (I know you don’t) you have no choice you are forced to stay at home and mind them you simply couldn’t afford to have it any other way. Ironic I guess.
@Bilbo Baggins: Providing child care would not “force” me out of the home, that is true. Removing child benefit would, which is what you want, as you stated in your first comment. How best to support children is the prerogative of parents, not strangers.
Which gets back to my original point. How families wish to arrange their family /work life is to supported by the State. What the State should not do, is incentivise one choice over another.
How about a tax free allowance for those that don’t have any children! After all they aren’t claiming in the State for anything!
@GerryCummins: yes but those children will end up paying for the childless peoples pensions at some stage.
@GerryCummins: So you were a child in a different country? The only way you haven’t been supported by the state in Ireland is if you didn’t grow up here or never set foot here.
@GerryCummins: that’s incentivising people to not have children which is the direct opposite of what we should be doing. You can live your 80 year snippet of life but as a nation we should be thinking about the future of our nation.
Em… have you ever tried to teach a class of junior infants anything after 1.30 in the day?? Schools are not daycare centers- that’s what after-school clubs are for.
Ok you change hours so mums can work part time and be there to collect their children but what about when they get sick or all the school holidays, how do manage working those days?
@Niamh Brady: well the school holidays are a separate issue that needs to change and I guarantee it will soon. It comes up every year. It makes no sense having them so long and so frequent anymore. It’s not fair on working parents and it’s totally disruptive of the kids schedules. Plus teachers complain the workload is too much so longer term means it can be spread out more.
Put them to work, making handbags or wrapping supermarket 2 for 1 specials. Give them a few quid tell them its great craic. They can have some pocket money, dont burden the folks and contribute to the mortgage. Make money for the school. Teachers can get the money they want. All self-sustaining and everybodys happy.
I made that choice Rachel.Im out the other side now, I spent 22 years at home had a family of 5, wasnt always easy financially but I do not have a minutes regret, then when they were older I looked after my mum, Im back at work for the last 5 years!! Not everyones Idea and I respect that but Im glad I did it and dont regret a minute!
Em… have you ever tried to teach a class of junior infants anything after 1.30 in the day?? Schools are not daycare centres- that’s what afterschool clubs are for.
Thanks for the sexist opinion Mary, what about fathers?
@5hbeZh0I: read it in full !! The choice to have a mother or father stay at home…
@Mary Elizabeth Whittle: it’s all about the headline MF
@5hbeZh0I: sorry Hugh… thought you were referring to my comment.
@5hbeZh0I: sorry Hugh… thought you were referring to my comment.
Breakfast and after school/homework clubs are the best way to solve this problem, unfortunately there are not enough places in some areas to meet demand, for parents who want to work, work part time or single parents & others who have no choice but to work.
The most ridiculous times I have come across are summer & midterm camps, some start as late as 930 – 1030am, finishing at 2pm, how is any parent expected to drop and collect, get to and from work, despite paying €150-200 a week for a place aarrgh
Not enough left after childcare (and that’s just for 2 children) to cover a weekly food shop. Why isn’t that being addressed?
Brilliant idea Mary. Some parents have 3 pick up times – one from Montessori, one from Infant’s class and one from older child’s class. This could be up to 2 hours or more of a wait. For the extra hour the children could do some playtime, sports and extra curricular activities which they would love. I believe the teachers have to stay on anyway. Marion
@Marion Dunne: The teachers are staying on to work as teachers, not babysitters!
About 5 in our class were in school from 9-3 in infants to wait for lifts. The last hour was just dossing under the supervision of our teacher. Could they get one teacher to take all the stragglers and alternate supervision? Even if infants apparently aren’t able to do classes the whole day, a nap or something low key would help.
@dearg doom: Should teachers be expected to babysit infants up to 3pm?
@Sorcha Ní Shúilleabháin: 3pm which is 2 hours shorter than the normal working day??dont teachers always claim they don’t leave school until then anyway so what different would it make? Have the kids drawing or reading and the teachers can do all this work they supposedly do
@D: Teachers are working as teachers up to the end of the school day..if you want a childminder then look elsewhere. As for leaving at 3pm..yeah right! The few that do are going home to do their unpaid hours at home.
@dearg doom: I did this for most of juniors and all of seniors, despite being an only child with a stay at home mum. A group of us would stay the extra hour to get the school bus home. We could play, or do homework. The teacher did her own work, and we were to only disturb her if there was a problem. She kept an eye on us for that hour, but was usually able to dedicate it to her own work without interruption.
@Sorcha Ní Shúilleabháin: In Wales, my daughter was 4 and the school day was 9-3 as standard.
Why isn’t there a Thumbs Down button
But unemployment is currently 5.4%. Pretty much everyone who wants a job has one. There are very few women not working at the moment.
When my kids were going to primary school, they all came home at the same time, on the bus at 3pm.
The first few days of junior infants I brought them home at 2, when they were finished.
Didn’t do them one bit of harm to stay the extra hour. Most did go home but a few stayed on for the bus. They were put into a spare room with coloring books.
I live in a rural area, where school runs from 9 to 3.
The school my kids go too have an after school programme for junior and senior infants. You pay €10 a week and they’ll keep your child for the hour so you only have 1 pick up. For that hour the kids get to play and colour. My youngest loved doing it and wouldn’t be a bit tired. Every school should offer the choice.
Schools are for education, not to babysit your child. If you have a child, then deal with the consequences of ensuring at least one parent is at home to bring your children to and from school.
here here. that 1 hour gap between picking up kids made me think women wern’t respected, like as if they had nothing else to be doing but going in and out to school three times a day! Having to cart the younger ones back out the door to collect the older ones. what about the ones who don’t have transport. very annoying altogether and so inconsiderate.
Ah shite, read all the comments and now ive forgotten what the question is.. Too stubborn to scroll back up.. Anyway.. I agree..
Why isn’t there a Thumbs Down button
Why isn’t there a Thumbs Down button
have your say