The horrific child abuse

case currently in the headlines has thrown up something which has long puzzled and worried me.

The present case involves a young man currently charged with more than seventy offences. There is also a need for over one thousand two hundred young children to be tested for STDs. 

Yes, this man worked in "child care". He had passed a "working with children check".  These things raise questions which need to be answered.

Many years ago my mother was the headmistress of what was known as an "infants"  - now "junior primary" - school. She was posted to several such schools in her career and at one of these she was told by the Education Department they would be appointing a young man to the staff. (The Education Departments decides such things here rather than the school.) 

Up until that time only women were on the staff in the infants school. Now, or so they were told, men had to come in too. Children needed "male" figures. My mother and many others were prepared to cooperate, indeed had no real choice, but they were concerned. The parents were informed of the arrival of the new teacher in the school newsletter in the usual way.  That was on a Friday.

On the Monday my mother had a small "delegation" of parents who informed her that they knew the new teacher. He had been the "leader" of a church based youth group and been asked to leave. No action had ever been taken because there was no "proof" but there were good reasons to believe his behaviour was, at best, "questionable". He had disappeared from the church and they had lost sight of him. They were unaware he had chosen to train as a teacher of very young children. 

My mother had the unenviable job of reporting this to the head office. There were no "working with children checks" back then but even one of those would not have thrown up any issues. There would not have been any police records to suggest there might be a problem. The concerns had never been reported to the police. The church people thought they had solved the problem when he left. There was no "mandatory" reporting that might have led to an inquiry. 

I thought about this some time ago when I had to get a working with children certificate. All the volunteers at our state's main agricultural show had to get one even if we had no actual contact with children. It seemed a bit "over the top" but my first thought was, "Well at least anyone who knows they have a record won't try to come back." My second thought was, "But if they are that way inclined and they don't have a record then nothing is going to show up. They will still get a certificate."

There is of course no absolute answer to this problem. It means that the rest of us need to be constantly vigilant, especially when we are around vulnerable people.  And, for all we might want to believe in "equality" or the need for "male role models" there might be places where males should not work except under extremely close supervision. There will be people who will argue with me over this but I think of that young man who claimed to "love children". Some years later he was fronting court because of that "love". 

  

Car parking spaces are

supposed to be for the residents. This is what I was led to believe when I moved in here. It seems that this is not the case with respect to me.

I do not own a car. I have never owned a car. I cannot drive a car. There is a space labelled with the number of the unit I live in but it seems I do not own that space.

This is not what I was told when I moved in. I was told that the space labelled with my number was my space. I was even told there was council approval to put a roof over the space - at my expense. No, I have not bothered to find the very large sum to do that. I park my trike on the tiny front "porch" instead.

Now it seems that the space can be used by everyone else except me. Even if I wanted to park my trike there I would be expected to move it to make way for any number of "commercial" vehicles doing "maintenance" and for other residents who have overnight visitors or just people coming in to visit.  

A friend came to visit recently. She has difficulty walking more than ten metres. I wanted what I thought was my space to be vacant for her to use. No. It wasn't. There was a van there. Two men were sitting in it eating their lunch. I explained the situation.  No, they would not move.  They had to "carry stuff" and "you can only use it if it is your car". Really? 

Someone else parks there on a regular basis. The car is often there when I have left to do something in the morning. I have tried leaving polite notes saying someone is coming and that the space is needed. They are ignored. 

Yesterday the man who "mows" the lawns used it - and blocked in the girl next door as well. Fortunately he had gone before she went off to her shift at the hospital.  I only know this because she came several days ago and apologised for using "my" space when someone else had parked in hers. After the lawn mower man had gone another van turned up and used the space. The van was there until lunch time and then it left. Another van moved into the space.

I heard the argument when the first van driver returned and found the second van there. They were "working" there! 

This morning I looked out and yes, someone is parked there yet again. 

"Get used to it. You haven't got a car. That means anyone else can use it," the car owner told me as he climbed in and drove off - presumably he was going to work. 

I have a very elderly friend coming to lunch. I hope she arrives and finds the space vacant and that she can park there. I hope the "maintenance" vans arrive and find they cannot park there.

Would I say "yes" if they came and asked? I probably would if they did it nicely and I was not expecting someone with a mobility issue to visit. Is it my car parking space though? I am beginning to wonder if I have given up the right because I do not have a car.  

LGBTQ people have rights

to be themselves. They should not be discriminated against because of who they are. I will repeat that. LGBTQ people have rights to be themselves. They should not be discriminated against because of who they are. 

That does not give them the right to flaunt their sexuality or demand that they be given additional rights because of it. Notice please I have said "additional" rights.  

My only first cousin is "gay" and married to his partner. They have been together since university days. His partner is one of the nicest people I know and he is very definitely part of our family. I know other people in same sex relationships and consider them to be good friends. None of them expect "special" treatment. They do not attend "gay pride" marches or fly "pride flags". They feel no need to do these things. 

Other people obviously do feel that need. I do not know why. Perhaps they do not feel as secure as my cousin, his partner or my other friends. 

What does bother me however is the radical cohort who dress and behave in a much more extreme way and expect not just acceptance but to have the right to indoctrinate others, particularly the young.  I don't know if I am wrong, perhaps I am, but it seems at very least to be unnecessary.  This is a very small minority of people who are demanding a great deal of time and attention and "acceptance". How genuine are they? It's a question I cannot answer but it causes me concern. I do not believe that further confusing very young children about sexuality is right any more than I believe that, apart from very very rare instances, prescribing "puberty blockers" is right.

Someone in England has just been sentenced to thirty years in prison for sexual abuse of minors.  Prior to being charged he was a leader in "gay pride rights" and he advocated for puberty blockers to be readily available. Now questions are being asked about how many other sexual deviants are hiding in among the "rights" movement.  They are questions which need to be asked. 

I have always thought of sexuality as a private thing, or at least one which should not be flaunted but quietly accepted. It surely should not be about which bathroom you can use or how you dress or which prison you should go to if you break the law. Those things should not define you as a person. 

I know there are people who will read this and disagree strongly but when I see "pride" marches with the participants carrying not just "pride" flags but Palestinian and Iranian flags and demanding "freedom" for Palestinians and Iranians as well then I wonder. Do they realise that if they did these things in Palestine or Iran they would be condemned for their sexuality?   

Adults can be bullied too

and there is more of it now. 

There is an article in this morning's paper from the Chairman of something called the "anti-defamation commission". In it he is suggesting that access to social media is a major factor in bullying. This is the justification for denying those under the age of fourteen to access to all manner of social media. Take it away, or so the argument goes, and bullying will decrease. It will go back to manageable levels and do less harm. 

The jury is out on that one. I am wondering however if the problem goes back further than the advent of social media. 

Most people would look on radio as a wonderful thing. It brought entertainment into the homes of ordinary people. At first you needed to purchase a licence but technology overcame the possibility of controlling that.  "Trannies" were the big thing of my youth. It meant we could take a radio with us anywhere there was a strong enough signal and listen to all manner of things. There were households where the radio would be on all day and well into the night. The number of broadcasting stations increased. The variety increased. Commercial radio came into being with all the advertising jingles and more. 

And there was no longer any need to go outside your own home in order to be "entertained". You could simply sit and listen in comfort (or otherwise) "at home".  This did not happen immediately of course. It happened over time. Access to radio had to become widespread. The variety had to be there. "Talk back" radio was still a while away so there was no interaction with other people. Here most people still went to church on Sunday mornings and often went visiting on Sunday afternoons. There was sport and there were other clubs and interest groups. Young people had Scouts, Guides, church "youth groups" and the like. They went to the pictures on Saturday nights in groups. 

Television came in and there was a decline in these activities too. There was even more reason, or so people thought, to stay at home and be entertained. Social interactions were still there but not quite as common as the pre-television days. It happened without people even being aware of it. You might not be talking and interacting with the radio or the television set but you were being entertained. 

Bring in the widespread use of the internet and then social media and you suddenly had a way of "communicating" with each other without actually having to mix with them at all. There was no need to leave your own home to have "social contact" with other people. 

We have been led to believe that this is good. Some people have hundreds of friends on Facebook. They spend hours on Snapchat and more hours looking at video clips on Tik Tok. They "research" issues on Wikipedia and more. Social life is centred around the mobile phone, the big television screen and similar items. You can do the "self-serve" thing in the supermarket or keep your eyes on your phone screen so you do not need to chat to the checkout person. 

And people do just that. Some of them "work from home" and have almost no interaction with other people at all. Is it any wonder we have a rise in mental health issues? When we do see other people we no longer know how to act easily and naturally. We worry that we might have said the politically incorrect thing. Things are said "in fun" because we are nervous and anxious. It develops from there and the "teasing" turns into "bullying" instead.

There is more to it than that of course but the adults demanding an end to social media access for young people perhaps first need to look at what might just be a bigger problem - we no longer communicate with each other as easily as we once did. 

Taxi vouchers only help if

you can afford to pay the fare and the taxi turns up in time to get you to your destination. This may explain why I have only used my own "taxi card" three times in two years.

Let me explain. Taxi vouchers are available for people with a range of disabilities who have sufficiently serious mobility issues and cannot use all forms of public transport. 

I had no intentions of getting a card. I can, with some difficulty, still get the trike on a train. I can go anywhere the trains go and then pedal still further.  I cannot use a bus because trikes are not allowed on buses. Buses go to many more destinations than trains of course but... 

Of course it was Middle Cat and our doctor who put their heads together and decided that I was eligible for taxi vouchers. These days the "vouchers" are actually a card you present to the driver but the cards still tend to be referred to as "vouchers". If you have one then you are eligible for one or other of two things. There are half-price fares for people who can use regular taxis and ten per cent fares for people who are dependent on "access" cabs - the vehicles which take the person still in their wheelchair.  Both these things still cost more than going by public transport. As a "senior" the train costs me nothing as long as I can get the trike on and off the train without the wheelchair ramp. (I have yet to challenge that.)

Yes, it costs something but it is still a much better scheme than no scheme at all. This is perhaps why, at our library knitting group yesterday, someone queried why J... was not there again.

J... has not been there for the past three meetings. I am not sure if she will come again. She should not be driving but I suspect she still is and that the doctor has, as they often do, given in to her demand to keep her licence - if she has renewed it. Does she have taxi vouchers? "Somewhere". She does not want to use them. Recently she had to attend a clinic at a hospital. She is perfectly capable of ringing the taxi company and ordering a cab but the nearby aged care home organised it instead. When the taxi did not turn up someone rushed around and took her to the appointment. Yes, sometimes taxis do not appear when requested. It is a constant problem here. The other problem is that drivers resent doing "short" trips. They only want to do extended journeys. The access cab drivers are better at short trips but that is perhaps the nature of their work. Regular drivers do not like doing short trips or half-price journeys. (It does not cost them in the end but it does at the time and they know the tips will not be as high.) 

That J... was not there did not surprise me. If it was simply a matter of getting in the car and driving there she might have come but there are multiple issues with doing that now.

As we discussed this I could not help yet again thinking that transport issues do cause isolation.  Not everyone can rely on others to pick them up and transport them where they need to go. Taxis may not always arrive and the cost is often too much. It can leave people with no social life at all. This is especially so when people no longer even know their neighbours. 

I do not know what the answer is - apart from taxis and access cabs for the same price as public transport. That is very unlikely. 

I need to ring J... and at least be sure she has someone to talk to for a short time.     

Teaching the "5Cs" is now

more important than teaching the "3Rs". These are more important than giving students the skills they need to pass the examinations which will give them university entry. This is what we are being led to believe if reports about teaching "critical and creative thinking, character, citizenship, communication and collaboration" are correct. No, you don't teach these things from the time your child is born or from when they enter the education system. This is a special course which is taught over two fifty minute periods each week. Along with something called THRIVE it is intended to turn students into better citizens. It is also intended to make them better students.

I doubt it works. The students at the school where the value of this has been questioned think the course is a joke, rubbish, a waste of time and more. The teachers resent time spent on it. They do not like having to grade students on these skills, sometimes grade students they have never actually taught. All class interaction is supposed to be considered in assessing these things.

It is a long time since I went into a classroom with students in their final year of school. I see enough of the students outside the classroom. I see them in the library. I see them supporting each other there. Sometimes I will exchange a few words or read an essay or give them a little help in the form of asking them a question so they can try and see another way of seeing a problem. It is always a bit of a balancing act.

If you don't have the "5Cs" under control by the time you reach the last year of your schooling then you never will have them. Two fifty minute lessons a week is not going to help. It is more likely to hinder your progress still further. The idea that you can in any way quantify these skills is also ridiculous. Not all students are creative geniuses who participate in class at every opportunity. Some students will work well in groups. Others will be better working alone. Still others will be happier following directions. It does not mean they lack character. What of the very quiet student who simply gets on with the work involved and then, even more quietly, helps another student? Such students do exist. Are they to be penalised for not speaking up? 

It seems to me that this is not about "balance" or "character building" or "turning out good citizens". No, I suspect it is about something else altogether. The program came out of a university which has a compulsory "indigenous studies" course for all students. You are required to do this course no matter what you are studying.  It is a course considered by many to be not about education but about indoctrination. The information and the ideas there cannot be questioned.  The same apparently applies to the 5Cs. 

Learning to be a good citizen should start at home. It can be reinforced at school as and when necessary. It is not something we should be "teaching" students in their final year...because we can't. We should also be allowing them to question...because they will.  

Who has the "right" to public housing?

In one of those odd coincidences there is an article in this morning's paper about someone in public housing. He is an older blind man with a prosthetic leg whose "best friend" is his guide dog. Despite his eyesight and mobility issues he gets around and cares for himself.

The small unit of accommodation next door is currently vacant. The resident is currently the probably unwilling resident in other accommodation. That unit was firebombed and his neighbour only just managed to get out in time before extreme harm was done to him and his dog. It was almost certainly related to drug dealing on the premises - the reason for the absence of the usual resident. 

The purpose of the article was of course to question why, when we have a housing crisis, was the accommodation being held vacant for someone who had broken the law. The answer was along the lines of "well he needs to go somewhere when he gets out". That a person who is homeless through no fault of their own might need accommodation too is apparently not of interest to those responsible for public housing. There is a long list. Put your name on the list. In ten or more years from now you might be lucky.

All this is something I have been thinking about recently as those of us who shop on a regular basis in our local shopping centre are being harassed by a woman who keeps begging for money. Yes, she is in public housing too but should she be there? This woman is painfully thin and unkempt. The staff in one of the local supermarkets know her well. She buys cigarettes there and tries to steal the cheap day old bread. There seems to be a policy to let her get away with that because she can turn violent. It is apparently for the same reason that when she destroys the furniture in her accommodation more appears and someone from the council clears away the accumulated rubbish.

She frequently tries to get money from me. I have never given her any. Most people I know have never given her any but several days ago she had a very elderly and very frail woman bailed up. The older woman looked frightened and tried to move around her but her trolley was grabbed and more demands were made. She tried giving her a little and was apparently told it was not enough. People were simply walking past. They did not want to get involved. I admit I was thankful I was in the middle of a complex transaction in the Post Office and was not in a position to get involved. I am not sure what I would have done anyway. I am a coward I suppose.

The situation sorted itself out when someone who must have known the older woman came along and the younger one moved off shouting. By the time I was out of the Post Office they had all gone. 

I wonder though what should be done about this woman. She is obviously mentally unstable but not so far "out of it" that she does not know what she is doing is wrong. I have seen the police reprimand her but that is all they seem able to do. One of them walked off after she had let out a stream of abuse at him one day. 

And yes, this woman has what should be comfortable accommodation. It is public housing accommodation. It is not simply a single room but an entire "unit" of accommodation. She is not caring for it. Others seem to come and deal with it when the situation gets too bad. So should she be there when there is a "housing crisis" and mothers with young children are sleeping in cars to escape domestic violence? Who is the "more worthy" - if such an idea is even possible?

I know there are no easy answers to any of this but we added to the problem when we closed residential institutions. It might help to have this woman under closer supervision in other accommodation and have a mother and children in the unit perhaps.