Pepsi Co bid for quaker oats Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Pepsi Co bid for quaker oats - Case Study Example The quick ratio of Pepsi in 2000 was 0.89. Quaker had a quick ratio of 0.87 in fiscal year 2000. Gross margin is a financial metric that measures the broad profitability of a company. Pepsi had a gross margin in 2000 of $8,595 million. Its gross margin percentage was 61.27%. Quaker in 2000 had a gross margin of $2,240 million with a gross margin percentage of 55.37%. Pepsi’s gross margin percentage is better than Quaker by 5.89% which implies that its broad profitability is superior. During 2000 Pepsi had a net income of $1,572 million, while Quaker had a net income of $309 million. The net margin measures the absolute profitability of a firm. The formula to calculate net margin is net income divided by sales. Pepsi’s net margin in fiscal year 2000 was 11.21%. Its net margin is better than Quaker’s 7.64% result. Return on assets (ROA) measures how well management has employed its assets (Garrison & Noreen, 2003). Pepsi’s return on assets of 8.90% is inferior to Quaker’s metric of 12.30%. The ratio analysis performed on these two companies’ shows mixed results. The short term liquidity of these two companies is similar with Pepsi holding a minor edge of 0.01 and 0.02 in the current and quick ratio. The broad profitability of Pepsi is better, but the absolute profitability of Quaker is superior. The return on assets of Quaker is much better than Pepsi. Overall based on the ratio analysis Quaker had a better financial performance than Pepsi. The acquisition of Quaker by Pepsi makes sense from a financial standpoint. Buying Quaker will not impose any constraint in the liquidity position of the firm since both companies had similar current asset and quick ratio results. The profitability of Pepsi will be enhanced by the acquisition due to the fact that Quaker’s net margin and return on assets was superior to Pepsi. From a marketing

Ethics in Free Market Economy Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Ethics in Free Market Economy - Research Paper Example Social justice issues related to the costs of group membership can come up in any size of a group. Benefits of group membership are also allocated through social justice mechanisms. There are certain distributive principles of social justice out of which Neo-liberal or Libertarian view will be discussed (Barusch, 2009). (Somerville & Sprigings, 2005) The distributive principle of libertarian concept says: From each according to his choice; to each according to his product (Barusch, 2009). Allocation of resources according to a product is central under the libertarian view of distribution. Libertarians believe in liberty over equality. They are of the opinion that inequality is acceptable and fosters social being and welfare in a society. Equal treatment in distribution ultimately leads to unequal distribution of resources. This is the price for freedom and government need not interfere (Barusch, 2009). Libertarians focus on the benefits of a free market over a system controlled by th e government. The reason being a free market society enjoys greater productivity among its workers and greater incentive to generate capital (Barusch, 2009). Free Market Economy Supporters of the free market economy claim that individuals should be allowed to make contracts with others regarding wages and prices and profits. People should be free to compete with each other to gain maximum benefit. They believe that if markets are set free, the outcome will be just and fair distribution of gains and responsibilities in society. People who support a free market economy will never support unregulated markets (Finifter, 2009). Free markets ensure the efficient distribution of goods to those who grab the opportunities to obtain their desired products and services. Free markets operate on people’s demands. They produce only those products which are demanded by the consumers. Consumers set their desired price. Free markets work for people, for the betterment and welfare of the socie ty (Boyes & Melvin, 2009). In free markets, prices are determined by both buyers and sellers in the market.

University-industry research relationships Essay Example for Free

University-industry research relationships Essay The growth of university-industry research relationships in biotechnology has raised questions concerning their effects, both positive and negative, on universities. A survey of over 1200 faculty members at 40 major universities in the United States reveals that biotechnology researchers with industrial support publish at higher rates, patent more frequently, participate in more administrative and professional activities and earn more than colleagues without such support. At the same time, faculty with industry funds are much more likely than other biotechnology faculty to report that their research has resulted in trade secrets and that commercial considerations have influenced their choice of research projects. Although the data do not establish a causal connection between industrial support and these faculty behaviors, our findings strongly suggest that university-industry research relationships have both benefits and risks for academic institutions. The challenge for universities is to find ways to manage these relationships that will preserve the benefits while minimizing the risks. Industrial support of university research in biotechnology A 1984 study of biotechnology companies reveals that nearly one-half of all such firms fund research in universities. Industry may support as much as one-quarter of all biotechnology research in institutions of higher education. These investments seem to be yielding substantial benefits to involved firms. Per dollar invested, university research is generating more patent applications than is other company research. Research relationships do pose some risks to traditional university values such as openness of communication among scholars. These risks may be greater in relationships involving small firms. The data also reveal that government is now, and seems likely to remain, the principal source of support for university research in biotechnology.

The Government’s Respect Agenda

The Government’s Respect Agenda The current position The â€Å"respect agenda† emerged as a broad idea during the 2005 general election campaign. Tony Blair coined it as being about: â€Å"†¦putting the law-abiding majority back in charge of their local communities†¦.[how we] bring back a proper sense of respect in our schools, in our communities, in our towns and in our villages.†[1] A culmination of what has now been deemed as being â€Å"anti social behaviour† such as binge drinking, an increase in prostitution and vandalism as well as a rapid increase in low-level crime, the respect agenda was aimed at community spirit. Backing the proposals with an increase in police and local authority power to deal with families who â€Å"blight† communities with unacceptable behaviour emphasised one of its key principles as the importance of rebalancing the criminal justice system to benefit victims Supporters of the scheme have claimed that it focuses on low-level aggravation and so enables the community to maintain the traditional â€Å"neighbourhood watchdog† element that has almost disappeared from the streets of Britain. Complementing the respect agenda are other proposals such as a â€Å"Face the People† scheme where community meetings will be held to allow residents to hold officials exponible for community safety issues and to voice their concerns on community matters. The idea of respect within the anti-social behaviour agenda has also meant that the net has been able to be cast wider with further goals including the creation of a â€Å"task force† to clamp down on school discipline. Teachers and schools will be able to apply for parenting orders where a child’s behaviour requires it and local authorities being able to do designate housing or community safety officers to do the same.[2] Criticisms and legislative proposals As a whole the scheme has received criticism for, at best, being vague and at worst for being a clever PR slogan with nothing behind it.[3] Opposing the scheme some have said that it will not work unless the amount of police officers patrolling the streets increases in order to enforce the scheme’s proposals. Procedurally, Anti-Social Behaviour Orders and Football Banning Orders have been criticised as being are two key examples of ‘Hybrid Law’, imposed as a response to criminal conduct, supported by criminal law sanctions, but operating under a civil law procedure providing fewer protections for defendants. These hybrid orders have the power to severely restrict the freedom of individuals, who have not been found guilty of any criminal offence. [4] Encouraging its use and claiming that local authorities do not use them sufficiently frequently[5] the ASBO was introduced by s 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act, 1998, generated heated debate at its inception and this intensified since its subsequent development.[6] Criticisms have also been levelled by a wide variety of organisations, but particularly by those involved with children, concerned over the increased powers schools will have in obtaining â€Å"parenting orders† as well as expressing concern over the way the homeless will now be treated. The Government has not only sought to rebut these criticisms, but has encouraged and facilitated the use of anti-social behaviour measures, as an active part of the respect agenda. Will the agenda make a difference? Contrary to this, huge support has been heard as the matters involved in the respect agenda mean that responsibility of penalising the â€Å"culprits† is at a community level rather than at an institutional one at the courts. This would ease the workload on the courts and also make way for more serious crimes rather than seeing that the low-level offences make their way through the criminal justice system swiftly. As the backbone of the proposal is a reform in granting certain powers and with that is the advancement of the use of the notorious ASBO. But with the intension of serving more ASBOs means that more of them are likely to be breached with statistics showing that currently one in four ASBOs are breached.[7]. This has meant that those who work in the criminal justice system have their doubts as to the performance of the scheme; saying that jailing people solely for breaching an ASBO seems extreme, especially if the reasons for the breach have not, in themselves, been ad dressed such as a drug, alcohol addiction or prostitution.[8] Although there has been speculation as to whether the attempted â€Å"control† of behaviour through the use of ASBOs is still hotly debated; a good indication of the working of such a scheme can be noted in society’s changing attitude toward anti-social behaviour as a whole. Drink driving was once common place but is now regarded as unacceptable by most people. This change in outlook can be said to lead back to the massive publicity campaign coupled with sanctions.[9] But once again evidence serves to the contrary using the examples of the increased use of cannabis as well as the increase in sexually transmitted diseases. Which both, despite long-standing advertising campaigns, have become increasingly widespread, with the likes of certain STIs on the increase and increased cannabis use saw the government reclassify cannabis to make its use and possession a less serious offence. The Human Rights issue Some writers, especially lawyers, have concentrated on the procedural aspects of on the main elements of the proposals and the manner in which â€Å"unruly behaviour† will be dealt with – via the use of ASBOs, criticising by considering whether the government strategy is consistent with its own human rights legislation.[10] Most controversially, the scheme has also proposed to go beyond the ambit of crime and is offering what has been coined as a â€Å"shut and seal† power. A new house closure order which would lead to people deemed guilty of causing serious nuisance to others being excluded from their own homes for three months, even if they own the properties. JUSTICE,[11] has expressed its concerns over the manner in which an ASBOs may be obtained and how procedural issues in dong so are likely to encroached on human rights. Using the case of McCann[12] where the House of Lords accepted that proceedings to obtain an ASBO in accordance with section 1 of the Crime and Disorders Act, 1998 the classification of ASBO proceedings as being civil would mean that hearsay evidence would be used in all cases, even where there is no indication of witness intimidation. Expressing it’s understating of the Government’s motivation was a perception that victims of anti-social behaviour have in the past been too fearful to come forward and give evidence. But still raised concern over its unnecessary restriction the right to a fair trial; adding to their argument that this is particularly so, now that the Criminal Justice Act, 2003 has relaxed the hearsay rule to allow courts to accept such evidence in individual cases where there is a demonst rated problem of witness fear or intimidation. Jeopardising civil liberties Police powers, under the agenda, have meant that greater powers have been granted to them concerning the dispersal of groups, even when there has been no bad behaviour. This unnecessary restriction on civil liberties will potentially result in a loss of respect for the police, and the law generally, amongst the groups singled out for attention (including blanket curfew imposed on people less than 16 years of age). This should be narrowed, in that only those groups where there is evidence of actual anti-social behaviour should there then be power for the police to order that people leave the area. So if the police believe that a certain area is especially affected then they can award themselves extra powers to deal with that location in particular. Not only are these extra powers likely to create unfounded discrimination against certain groups in society but will also confuse the police as to their powers and the public as to their rights. Further criticism of the use of the ASBO in preventing anti-social behaviour is that they contain prohibitions that are too wide in scope and infringe the rights of the recipient, making breach of orders very likely.[13] Parent power – Knowing what’s best? With regards to parenting orders and increased powers allocated to school when dealing with unruly pupills, literature has critisisied this for removing young people’s right to automotny.[14] Yet at a time when the government is emphasising parents duty to produce good moral citizens, a degree of confusion about the limits of parents power is perhaps understandable. Conflicting social norms prevent parents from controlling their childrens lives, while at the same time requiring them to take responsibility for their childrens moral education and to be accountable for their childrens actions and decisions. Parents may well wonder at societys expectations of them in seeking to find the balance.[15] Impact of the interest group and supporting organisations Defining â€Å"anti-social behaviour† The meaning of the term â€Å"anti social behaviour† is wide and so problematic in its definition. As different people associate different behaviour as constituted anti-social behaviour there are certain groups at more risk than others to be unjustly swept into its categorisation. So, the wide definition of anti-social behaviour has the potential to discriminate against those from ethnic minority populations, travellers and those who simply choose an alternative lifestyle. Another main concern is that the older members of society who believe that young people are predominately anti-social means that community ties may be jeopardised as well as community relations. The risk of unnecessary over policing of young people and perhaps the unnecessary criminalisation of (what to some may be perceived as being anti-social) activities may also be prejudicial to young people’s perception of the police and be detrimental to future associations between the two groups. With the majo rity of ASBO applications being made against persons under the age of 21[16] is seems that the creation of this tension would be extremely likely. How long is the punishment? JUSTICE has expressed concern over the duration of which an ASBO can be granted. ASBOs can be served against children as young as 10. The only criteria that the magistrate must use in deciding to impose the order is that the individual has behaved in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. Breaching the conditions of an ASBO is a criminal offence, punishable by up to five years in prison. This means that individuals are being sent to prison for committing acts which are not in themselves illegal.As has already been discussed the conditions impose through an ASBO may be wide so warranting a likelihood of breach yet the punishment may not necessarily constitute the level of the breach committed. An ASBO may only be imposed for the minimum of two years, and an application to discharge an ASBO lasting more than this duration may only be made after the first two years of it have passed. The granting of an ASBO is intended to prevent future anti-social behaviour. But a two year period in a young person or adolescent’s life is a long period of time, in which as a teenager much can change.[17] JUSTICE argues that a duration as long as this is unnecessary and in part may be detrimental in the development of children into adults. Curbing what some would see as â€Å"anti-social behaviour† which may have only lasted a short period of time if allowed to â€Å"run its course† may now be drawn out over a longer period of time as part of the young person rebellion. The example given by JUSTICE is that if a young person of 15 is given an ASBO including the ban on entering a town centre, 18 months on, the now mature 17 year old may miss out on offers of employment if s till unable to entering the town centre.[18] Controversially, it has been suggested that this matter will affect children much younger than those suggested by JUSTICE in that the respect agenda is leading to a generation of children being demonised because too many are being given anti-social behaviour orders. Prof Rod Morgan, the chairman of the Youth Justice Board, says some children as young as 10 are being labelled with the mark of Cain on their foreheads because of a misplaced hysteria over teenage crime.[19] The wide spread of restrictions such as ASBOS in an attempt to â€Å"clamp down† on anti-social behaviour means that perfectly lawful activities can become criminalised through the use of an ASBO, such as children playing on the street. The fact that anti social behaviour must cause or â€Å"be likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress† should be better defined and narrowed to incorporate an objective element and a need for actual harassment.[20] Ignoring the root of the problem Whilst the civil liberties organisation Liberty[21] is concerned that children and vulnerable people who need help and support are being served with ASBOs fearing that this will create greater problems for those individuals and their roles in society. Liberty argues that if individuals are committing crimes of intimidation or harassment, then the criminal law should be used to tackle their behaviour. Concluding A suggestion for the way in which anti social behaviour may be prevented by non criminal justice means has been initiated in the respect agenda. The agenda proposes to rekindle a sense of solidarity in the community building bridges between neighbours and creating community relations. Due to this there is great scope for the use of alternative dispute resolution techniques, neighbourhood mediation and restorative justice responses. This would directly involve the communities that may have once been, or are risk of being affected by anti-social behaviour be it by young people or not. These methods would also avoid the need for a corrective criminal justice response. It would also aid in preventing the behaviour before it escalates; solving the problem rather than punishing people or removing them from their homes. At present the ASBO does not appear to be working as an efficient mechanism in the fight against anti-social behaviour. Be this because the restrictive conditions of ASBOs are frequently breached, and this can lead too easily to the further criminalisation of children and young people and (in many cases) to incarceration[22] or the more controversial fact that the frequency to which ASBOs are granted the stigma behind them has disappeared, with many young people penalised by one considering it to be a â€Å"badge† of their disorderly behaviour. At a national level, criticisms relating to the lack of fairness in the use of ASBOs need to be addressed and urgently if the ASBO is to retain any weight in society.[23] Charities have suggested that more funds should be granted to voluntary organisations and youth groups in order for young people to channel their abilities into productive activities.[24] A strong argument for this suggestion is that youth groups, activity organisations and extra-curricular centres where children and young people could attend on a voluntary basis be created. The organisations could work hand in hand with schools and maintain feedback as to the progression of the young person’s development, enabling the young person to be proactive and productive and so prevent anti-social behaviour in the long term and boredom (which may result in this) in the short term. This would also prevent the need for schools to initiate the need for parenting orders if they felt that a child’s behaviour was likely to benefit from these types of activities. Obviously, statistics are not needed to understand that anti-social behaviour and low-level crime are affecting communities at both ends of the UK and rapidly seems to have become a mounting problem. But this combined with the fact that parenting skills are being blamed and children and young people are having their freedom of association as well as their civil liberties encroached upon is all but likely to break down community ties and encourage bad behaviour further. But by creating a parallel civil system of justice where the definition of anti-social behaviour is extremely broad means that non-criminal activity, is in effect, being made criminal by the imposition of an order as a result of non-criminal proceedings. In a country that respects the rule of law – is it necessary for an order to cater for the crimination of behaviour?[25] What is obvious is that the ASBO appears to be a bandage over a gaping wound. The matters behind the granting of an ASBO and other remedial p roposals set out in the respect agenda such as lack of parenting skills and discipline, teenage binge drinking, drug and alcohol addiction, unruly pupils and lack of adequate discipline in schools and prostitution are not even marginally being addressed. Aggravating this with an increase in powers for authorities such as councils, schools and police and lack of community ties and neighbourhood schemes those who are in need of help are more likely to be punished before the true problem is addressed. Reference list Bright, S. Eviction for Anti-Social Behaviour. 2006. Conv. 2006, JAN/FEB, 85-91 Burney, E. Talking Tough, Acting Coy: What Happened to the Anti-Social Behaviour Order? Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, Volume 41,Number 5, December 2002, pp. 469-484(16) Collins, D.M. Tenant Liability for Nuisance Children. J. P. L. 2007, May, 669 – 674 Guthrie, T. Anti Social Behaviour Legislation. 2006. S.L.T. 2006, 16, 103 Hall, A. Children’s Rights, Parent’s Wishes and the State: Medical Treatment of Children. Fam Law 36 (317) 2006 Hopkins Burke, R Morrill, Anti-Social Behaviour Orders: an Infringement of the Human Rights Act 1998? R. (2002) 11 Nottingham L.J. Koffman, L. The Use of Anti-social Behaviour Orders: An Empirical Study of a New Deal for Communities Area. 2006. Crim. L.R. 2006, JUL, 593-613 Matthews, R. Policing Prostitution: Ten Years on. November 2005. 45 Brit. J. Criminology 877 Robins, J. Focus Police: Serve and Protect. (2006) LS Gaz, 9 Mar, 20 Robson, G. Community Justice Centres Part 1: A Political Agenda with Possibilities? (2006) 170 JPN 584 5 August 2006 Thomas, D.A. Sentencing: Anti-Social behaviour orders on conviction. 2006. Crim. L.R. 2006, JUN, 569-572 Case Comment: Anti-Social Behaviour. Knowsley Housing Trust v McMullen [2006] EWCA Civ 539; [2006] H.L.R. 43 (CA (Civ Div)) L. T. Review 2006, 10(4), D61-62 [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4597378.stm (Wednesday, 11 January 2006, 08:53 GMT) [2] Op cit [3] I bid 1 [4] R. Hopkins Burke and R. Morrill, Anti-Social Behaviour Orders: an Infringement of the Human Rights Act 1998? (2002) 11 Nottingham L.J. [5] Burney, E. Talking Tough, Acting Coy: What Happened to the Anti-Social Behaviour Order? [6] Hopkins Burke, R Morrill, Anti-Social Behaviour Orders: an Infringement of the Human Rights Act 1998? [7] Koffman, L. The Use of Anti-social Behaviour Orders: An Empirical Study of a New Deal for Communities Area [8] http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/public/article697842.ece [9] I bid 1 [10] I bid 6 [11] As per report via http://www.justice.org.uk/ [12] R. (on the application of McCann v Manchester Crown Court. [2002] UKHL 39 [13] I bid 6 [14] Hall, A. Children’s Rights, Parent’s Wishes and the State: Medical Treatment of Children. [15] Op cit [16] As per statistics included in Koffman, L. The Use of Anti-social Behaviour Orders: An Empirical Study of a New Deal for Communities Area as sourced from S. Campbell, A Review of Anti-social Behaviour Orders, Home Office Research Study 236 (Home Office, 2002), at p.8. [17] As per Memorandum submitted by JUSTICE: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmhaff/80ii/80we24.htm [18] Op cit at para 10 [19] Daily Telegraph, 24 April 2006, [20] I bid 17 at para 16 [21] http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/ [22] In accordance with the proposals set out by the respect agenda: referring to the campaigns use of refer to this campaigns use of simple, populist language, justifying tough enforcement. [23] I bid 7 [24] I bid 20 [25] I bid 17 at para 19

Position Paper On Heroes -- Argumentative Persuasive Hero

Position Paper on Heroes On September 11th 2001, New York City, Washington D.C., and Somerset County, Pennsylvania all came face to face with an unthinkable tragedy. When the emergency response teams were sent out to the sites, they had no idea what they were going to experience. They helped others to safety and then turned right back around to help someone else. These are America’s real heroes. As The United States changes because of these tragic events, the focus of our heroes should be placed on everyday people and not sports and movie stars.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   â€Å"A hero should be someone who unselfishly does something for someone else, regardless of danger.† Marylyn Schwartz wrote this in the Houston Chronicle on Monday, October 8, 2001. Do sports stars face much danger to make a touchdown, goal, homerun, etc.? Not really. They may face the danger of breaking bones or getting some pretty nasty bruises, but that’s about it. All too often these are the people that children look to as a heroic figure. Little boys think Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, and Barry Bonds are some of the greatest people ever born. Granted that they all performed an amazing feat, but that makes them no more qualified to obtain the status of heroic. Little girls are looking to Britney Spears, Jennifer Lopez, and Christina Alguilera as role models and sources of encouragement. They should be looking at the women who put their life on the line as police officers and peacekeepers. A local hero died early Saturday ...

Richard Scrushy and HealthSouth Essay -- Business Analysis

Introduction HealthSouth is one of the nation’s largest healthcare providers specializing in rehabilitation. HealthSouth was founded by Richard M. Scrushy in 1984 and went public in 1986. Scrushy served as its Chairman of the Board from 1994 to 2002. The company was incorporated in January 1984 as Amcare Inc. before its name was changed to HealthSouth Rehabilitation Corporation in May 1985. In January of 2003, Mr. Scrushy reassumed the position of CEO. HealthSouth grew rapidly during the 1980’s and 1990’s. This growth was largely due to acquisitions. HealthSouth owned more than 330 hospitals worldwide. It was also during this time that Scrushy became known as one of the highest paid CEOs in the United States. The HealthSouth business model stresses four basic steps from diagnosis to rehabilitation and this model served as its mark of distinction among other healthcare providers (Jennings, 2012, p. 183). From 1987 through 1997 HealthSouth’s stock rose 31 percent per year and Mr. Scrushy told analysts that HealthSouth had matched or exceeded earnings for forty-seven quarters in a row (Jennings, 2012, p. 183-184). Problems at HealthSouth were being uncovered in 2002. In early 2002, Scrushy sold over $75 million dollars worth of stock and an additional $25 million back to HealthSouth. It was also disclosed in August of 2002 that a new Medicare payment policy would greatly lower reimbursements and consequently the stock would lose more than half of its value. Shareholder lawsuits were filed alleging that Scrushy acted on insider information when selling his shares of stock earlier in the year. Most of Scrushy’s alleged misconduct occurred prior to the enactment of Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX). To sum... ....proquest.com/docview/216236868?accountid=28180 Lublin, J. S., & Carrns, A. (2003, April 11). Directors had lucrative links at HealthSouth. Wall Street Journal. p. B1. Retrieved from: http://search.proquest.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/docview/398944990?accountid=28180 Mokhiber, R. (2003). Ill feelings at HealthSouth. Multinational Monitor, 24(11), 7-8. Retrieved from: http://search.proquest.com/docview/208878914?accountid=28180 Solieri, S., Felo, A. & Hodowanitz, J. (2008). Richard Scrushy - The rise and fall of the king of healthcare. p. 337-353. Retrieved from: http://www.soliericpas.com/attachments/2008MarRichardScrushy-TheRise&FalloftheKingofHealthcare.pdf Weld, L. G., Bergevin, P. M., & Magrath, L. (2004). Anatomy of a financial fraud. The CPA Journal, 74(10), 44-49. Retrieved from: http://search.proquest.com/docview/212312866?accountid=28180

Supporting Children and Young People’s positive behaviour

These are the limits within which behaviour is acceptable or what may, and may not be done. Boundaries are there to guide children and young people’s behaviour in the setting and it is very important for all staffs to consistently apply these boundaries fairly. Behaviour is learnt from what we see others do or say, so, it is very important for the staff to watch children closely and make sure that they apply the boundaries at all times.The importance of staffs applying the rules and boundaries are: It helps children and people to know what is right from wrong. For example, when a child knows what is right from wrong, or what is acceptable and what is not, then they will be able to do the right thing most of the time. If they know jumping is not allowed in the setting then they are going to behave accordingly. If all staff applies the boundaries and rules of their settings, then children will not feel they are being misled. For example, one staff says they can bring snacks to s chool and another staff says they are not allowed to bring snacks. If this happens, a child will get confused and feel misled by one of the staff. It enables all the staff to be consistent in their approach in dealing with behaviour issues.For example, if there is no consistency in staff applying the boundaries and rules then there will be chaos in the setting, and this will not help positive behaviour in children. But if there is consistency then every child in the setting will know that no matter whom they go to in the setting, they will always get one answer. The importance of all staff being fair, and consistent are:It helps children to develop a sense of responsibility for their own actions and encourages them to think about the consequences of their behaviour. For example, the rule says no running in the corridor and staff keep reminding children about it all the time then, when a child runs in the corridor the others will tell him or her no running, and he or she will know th at if they run, they will fall and when they fall, they will hurt themselves.So, they  know what will happen when they disobey. It ensures that the school rules are enforced and children behave in a responsible manner. For instance, when staffs are consistent in applying the rules then there will be order in the settings and the promotion of good behaviour. Children will also know what the rules and boundaries are and therefore behave accordingly. It ensures that all children are treated fairly by staff applying the equal opportunity procedures. For example, when two children behave inappropriately, they both must receive the same sanction, one should not be favoured over the other.When two children fight, you have to listen to both sides and be fair in your judgement. Some children behave inappropriately all the time but they must not be victimized in situations but rather listened to and treated fairly as other children. It helps children with unwanted behaviour to improve and b ehave positively. For instance, if a child likes to pinch other children and all the staffs apply the rules consistently, that child is bound to change from that unwanted behaviour to positive behaviour. How to set fair rules and boundaries:Setting realistic rules for the setting; For example, ensuring the set rules are appropriate for age and stage of development. For instance, setting a rule for one to two years that says, â€Å"No crying for toys or You must share,† that is not realistic based on their age and level of understanding. By involving the children in setting the rules and boundaries. If the children are involved in the rule setting then they will apply it because they will always remember and obey it. If everybody agrees on the set rules and boundaries. This means they understand what they are agreeing to so therefore, they can live by it and when others are behaving inappropriately, they will let them know it is unacceptable behaviour.