"Who is paying for that?"

Is a question we should probably all ask more often. 

The water supply in this group of units is "communal". In other words we all pay an equal amount per unit. It does not matter if there are one, two or more people living in the individual unit.

I am water conscious anyway and I can take very short showers. I can wash my hair under the shower faster than most people take a regular shower. I can do it because I have spent much of my life living in places where there has been very little water available.

There is no garden to speak of here. One or two people have pot plants and one person has a patch of "lawn" as opposed to the grass the rest of us deal with. No, she does not pay any extra for the extra water she uses to water her patch of lawn. I have not spoken to her about this and I doubt I ever will. 

Why? It probably is cowardice and a belief that it is better to get on with your neighbours, especially if you barely know them. I recognise her in context but would I recognise her in a crowd? It is unlikely. 

But what about our politicians and their expenses? Those expenses are in the news right now. Yes, I know we have a big land mass and that our federal government is a long distance from this state. It is considered "tough" on politicians to be away from their families when parliament is sitting. There are "perks" relating to their roles which allow them to see family at times other than when parliament is not sitting. These are seen as important, especially if they have young families. Yes, it is a complex issue.

But I do not believe that taking your family on holiday at taxpayer expense or flying your partner in for a sports match at taxpayer expense is right. Nor do I believe that "first class" everything is necessary on all trips. Even if it is essential for you is it also essential for your family?

I have been "wined and dined" so to speak by people who might be considered "VIPs". It is not something I have ever sought or wanted. The occasions have varied from lunch in the dining room of parliament house to a sandwich in a tiny private garden at the rear of a courthouse to a grand dinner at which we were all expected to dress in our best. I have had afternoon tea in a palace and breakfast in another one. 

All the occasions have produced useful results or useful contacts but the sandwich occasion was perhaps the most useful. What is more the sandwich did not go on any sort of expense account. I am sure it could have done but my host did not see that as necessary. We were simply there to do some work. 

There are undoubtedly occasions for "first class and fine dining" but I often wonder if there are times when a sandwich might produce more results.  

An extra three days of paid leave

can now be accessed by aboriginal staff at one of this country's major universities. It is to "help them cope with the perceived ongoing impacts of colonisation". The university introduced the new "colonial load" leave days to "recognise the 'unique' contributions of Indigenous staff" and said these staff members carry "an often invisible workload that is deeply impactful".

Aboriginal staff at that university already get an additional five days of paid leave not available to others. They can also take an additional ten days unpaid "ceremonial" leave without penalty so they can prepare for and attend cultural events. 

In order to do this staff only need to state they are "indigenous". There is no proof required.  

Apparently there are additional workplace pressures placed on indigenous staff and this helps to overcome those pressures. If that really is the case then perhaps the university in question is to be commended for the response.

There seems to be a belief that everything the university now does in all departments has to be done with "indigenous culture and heritage" in mind.  This is how "systemic change" is achieved "with recognition, respect and action".

But where does this stop? This is the same university which demands all students, no matter what they are studying, complete a unit which covers indigenous issues. That may also sound like a good thing but is it really?  Surely it depends on what that unit covers? Is it fair and balanced? 

The university is in a state which has just signed a "treaty" between indigenous people and the government on behalf of the other residents of the state. I watched some of the "indigenous" people being interviewed and heard their claims and their hopes for the future. Yet again I was left worried that I am "racist" because I could not see that everyone involved was "indigenous". I could not see how they could be so disadvantaged by events that may or may not have happened more than two hundred years ago. Their own ancestors on both sides of the issue must have been involved but it seems I am being asked to disregard this.

Is there something wrong with me or is there a whiff of a benefit in being some sort of "victim" here? 

 

Indigenous deaths in custody

 were a news item on our SBS news service last night. For those of you who do not live in Downunder I need to explain that SBS is a slightly different news service. It has a greater focus on international, multicultural and indigenous affairs. It partners with NITV - the National Indigenous Television network - and such news items are quite frequent.

This particular news item however bothered me. Any news item about deaths in custody bother me but I sensed something wrong with this one. I was right.

The item gave the very strong impression that indigenous deaths in custody far exceeded the rate of other deaths in custody.  There were the usual interviews with people who told us how wrong this was and how there needed to be more support services, especially mental health services, for indigenous people in custody. How the laws needed to be changed to prevent incarceration was also mentioned.

What was not mentioned was the fact that indigenous people are actually less likely to die in custody than non-indigenous people. Yes, the rate of death is too high because any preventable death in custody is too high. The rate of indigenous people in custody is too high too. 

I spoke to my friend M... He dealt with indigenous offending for most of his working life. Although now retired he keeps himself informed. Yes, he had heard the news item and, like me, did not like the impression it conveyed. He had also seen the latest statistics from the Institute of Criminology and sent them over to me.

Indigenous people make up almost forty percent of the prison population. They make up about thirty percent of deaths in custody. There were one hundred and thirteen deaths in custody last financial year. Of those thirty-three were indigenous deaths in custody. 

The number of people who identify as "indigenous" has been rising quite rapidly. Yes, there are advantages to identifying as indigenous. Yes, there are people who are abusing that. People who identify as indigenous or "aboriginal" or "islander" make up around four percent of the population. They should make up about that proportion of the prison population too but they are heavily over represented in it. The reason they are heavily over represented is because of the rate of offending. The rate of incarceration is high despite the fact that, by identifying as indigenous, people have access to special legal representation. There are different guidelines involved in their sentencing. There is even their own court system for many offences where "cultural" and other issues can be taken into account.  

With all that the rates of offending and incarceration are still higher. Activists keep telling us this is a "national crisis"  because of our colonial past and a lack of support services, including mental health services.  That an increasing number of repeat offenders are now being held on domestic violence and other violent crimes is, we are told, due to external failures and not a result of the actions of those in custody. We are being told they are victims too.

The news item gave this impression. It gave the impression that there are many more indigenous deaths in custody and that all these deaths might have been preventable. It again suggested there was a need for special consideration of this group of offenders and that more funding was needed to deal with the issues. 

Nowhere was it suggested that the behaviour of some of these offenders might be the issue. Nobody mentioned the harm some of them have done, harm not against the "white" community they claim is responsible but the harm done to their own community particularly their partners. 

All this makes it so much harder for indigenous youth who are trying to be law abiding and make something of themselves. I know one young indigenous man who has spent the past year working very hard. He will shortly get his Year 12 results and I hope he does well. He is not "brilliant" but he is intelligent. It has been a tough year for him. He has had to live away from his family to finish school. There has been a lot of pressure on him to "succeed". His immediate family are law abiding citizens but he knows this will not bring about personal success. 

We talked about the offending issues earlier this year. He was troubled by them and acknowledged some of the issues but he also told me, "It is up to us though. It doesn't have to be like that."  

 

I have done nothing about Christmas

apart from make Christmas cake. That was actually done a few weeks ago.

Yesterday my cousin shamed me by handing over a lovely Christmas card. (It was a winter one with a robin on it.) Cards? I will need to send electronic cards and an electronic letter. Sigh!

The time I had set aside for all these things has been taken up with things like sending the "bikies" off to Aceh with their updated communication board and spending a day at the Youth Court with the little idiot who lost his temper and did so much damage. Now I need to spend some time cleaning. (My little abode does not look too bad but I will feel more comfortable knowing I have cleaned it properly.) 

I am also awaiting more parcels. "Cat, you are mostly at home. Can I get the parcel delivered to you so the kids don't know?" Yes of course they "may" and I dutifully agree to be in so this can be done. I know how important Christmas surprises can be for small children.

I saw a former neighbour's eldest child in the shopping centre several days ago. She starts secondary school next year. "Cat! It's holidays next week!" was all she was interested in as she told me how they were heading off to the beach shack they have rented for most of the summer. I was reminded of how we looked forward to days at the beach as much as we looked forward to Christmas. Now I will be lucky to get to the beach at all. It is not just the algal bloom along the coast but finding a free day to get there.

If Middle Cat and I can go off to the hardware store before Christmas it will solve most problems. It is just a matter of both of us being free at the same time.  

Brother Cat is having ankle surgery today. While not looking forward to that he informed me, "At least it gets me out of all the Christmas fuss. I can get some reading done." He might. I hope he does. His "to be read" pile is not as high as mine but it is still in danger of falling over. Still, it does seem a rather drastic way of finding time to read. 

  

"Dot art" from the

desert is not "traditional" indigenous art. 

I had the difficult job of explaining this to someone yesterday. He very proudly showed me something he claimed was "aboriginal and done before white settlement". He paid a great deal of money for it. He has also been nicely conned.

"Aboriginal dot paintings" are now so widely believed to be traditional indigenous art it is unlikely most people will ever believe anything else. It is sold to tourists as being traditional. People are led to believe it has been tradition for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. They are also led to believe that the patterns created are of special significance, that stories are being told and much more.

None of this is true. It is not true but people are still paying thousands of dollars for the paintings in the belief that these things are true. They are paying in the belief they are getting something more than an original art work.

Yes, some of those pieces are beautiful in their own way. It takes considerable skill and patience to do them. Those things need to be recognised. It also needs to be recognised that this is not a tradition which goes back thousands of years. There are no mysterious beliefs and stories attached to these works.

Their origin goes back to 1971 when a young teacher named Geoffrey Bardon went to work in Papunya, a small indigenous community in the desert. It is about three hours by road from Alice Springs. 

Bardon was interested in the way the elders told stories. They were drawing designs in the sand with their fingers and then wiping it over again. The designs were simple but Bardon realised they were illustrating the story. He set about getting the children at the school to paint a mural on the walls of the school. It was a success and he went on encouraging the children to draw in the same simple way. The elders began to do the same but they quickly realised the more permanent nature of these things meant they could not include some information, There were things those outside their own tribal group simply should not be told. Bardon was aware of that and he  encouraged them to put dots in the picture instead. 

This is where the "art" started. Pictures which consist entirely of dots, like the one I saw yesterday, are not "traditional". They do not tell a story and, even if they did, it would not be told to a "whitey". Many of the stories now told are not traditional either. They may sound as if they are and they may have their roots in traditional stories but the traditional stories are not there for the ears of those outside the group. 

What the person showing me the picture has bought is about a hundred years old.  If you like that sort of thing then it is a fine example of it. It is not however some hundreds of years old and, at almost $10,000 he has paid too much for it.  

The Most Travelled Government Funded

Frequent Flyer Award is apparently likely to go to the Ambassador for First Nations People. He is paid $400,000 a year for what seems to be a role which has, in two and a half years, required no less than forty-six overseas trips. In that time has been absent from the country for two hundred and sixty one days. The trips are funded in addition to that very handsome salary. That has come in at around $340,000. The Ambassador also has a staff of ten at a cost of $13m over four years. They also need to do some travelling. That has cost another $750,000 to date.

All this is apparently necessary to "progress Indigenous rights globally and help grow First Nations trade and investment". An Advanced Diploma of Business Management is apparently what qualifies the Ambassador to do this work.

There is also another fund he can dip into for others to attend meetings to "lift the participation of First Nations people in international meetings". That is a mere $1.25m. 

The article in this morning's paper was written by someone who is clearly not impressed by all this. The writer then goes on to talk about the expense sheets of the Energy Minister and the Communications Minister. We apparently do not need to be told about the Prime Minister or the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Their taxpayer funded absences are frequently mentioned in the media.

Then there is the "creative" mob - those who are supposed to provide grants to "artists, creatives and organisations, including large investments like the Creative Futures Fund (Development & Delivery streams), music-focused grants (Record Label Dev, Marketing & Mfg), international travel/market funds, and specific streams for First Nations artists". While you are at it toss in a tiny amount of support for deaf and disability projects.

I suppose all this has come about because there are no longer "lords of the manor" who fund the arts and see to it that those starting out in business gets some help when they first need it - to later be paid back via their taxes.  

The writer of the article then asks about Zoom meetings and more. I know a thing or two about Zoom meetings. No, they are not the same as face to face meetings but you can get a lot of work done - often at odd hours of the day. Even so there is a lot to be said for Zoom meetings. They are much cheaper to run - and there is no need to catch a plane. 

  

There was such a simple solution

to implementing the law banning under 16s from social media. All it would have taken was a ban on owning a phone which could access it. 

Yes, there are phones which allow you to do no more than make and receive calls, make and receive text messages and even get alerts or alert others for reasons of safety. Just as the government has provided many young people with other devices on which to do their schoolwork they could have seen to this. 

What if they had provided young people with bright yellow, lime green, orange or pink phones that could do only these things? It would have been easy to see if a young person was using a phone that only had the capacity for these things. 

Yes, there would be a cost involved but the cost of implementing the law would have been placed where it should have been placed. It would have been on parents and the government, on us as taxpayers. Those young people who already have phones could have been required to hand them until that magical sixteenth birthday and provided with the lesser device.

There is a growing belief that the new law is not simply about protecting young people from the harm of social media but about something more sinister than that. I have talked at length with two politicians who admit that the idea of being able to monitor everyone all the time would be very valuable if you want to remain in government. It would provide an excellent control mechanism if news could be filtered out or in on all electronic devices.

We already have a compliant media, indeed the major news sources are claiming credit for having the ban brought in. They are saying it is about "safety", as if lack of access to social media will prevent bullying. It won't of course. It may even cause greater harm to be done to some. It won't stop predators either. They will find other ways to ply their vile trade - as they have done for centuries.

The size of the fines if the "big tech" companies do not comply is perhaps the clearest indication that the law is about more than the safety of young people. This is about the government trying to wrest back control, about them being able to view everything we do. 

I have no time for the likes of Elon Musk but the fine the EU has imposed should be ringing alarm bells...particularly when they went ahead and tried to use the very system they were complaining about to their own advantage.   

A "Christmas Tree Festival"

as a fundraiser for the hills community fire service and other charities has proven to be a success again.

It was held yesterday and is on again today.  I caught the train up into the hills behind me so I could give the friend running it some support. J... is one of the most hardworking and community minded people I know. She also gets very little recognition for her efforts. 

The little festival consists of about fifty trees decorated by community groups. Santa Claus is there - with the reindeer made from environmentally sound logs of fallen timber. There are some trees for sale as well as some plants. There are activities for children (and I saw some lovely "hats" made by them). When you are exhausted by all this there are inevitable tea, coffee and scones. 

I am not really into the business of decorating my own establishment with trees and lights. It is just me. Why bother? But.... another friend and I put our heads together and thought we might be able to contribute something. We have done it twice before. Each time we have tried to think of something different.

This time several people in the knitting and crochet group at the library contributed crochet circles. I made about thirty of these, all about 12cms across.  G...embroidered them and turned them into "smiley" faces. They have been hung on a tree. The circles I made were all in brilliant neon colours. I knew the room would be dim (to give the illusion of night) and I wanted the circles to show up. They looked good. I am glad we did it because I watched children's faces light up as they saw the "smiles". G...had made a few with the extra addition of ears so that they could be bears (or koala bears or mice)  and the youngest children really seemed to like those best. On being given one of the bears one fractious toddler clung tightly to it and fell asleep!

There should be more of this sort of thing. The tree decorated with tiny houses made from scraps of timber and another decorated with paper people made by a junior primary class showed there is still plenty of skill and imagination out there. We need more of that sort of thing.      

"I need to go to Aceh"

the voice at the other end of the phone told me.

I suppose I should not have been surprised - except that the caller is now closer to eighty than sixty. He has been up there three times now. The first was just after the 2004 tsunami. 

I don't think I will ever forget my first contact with the small group of men who went off to help rebuild a shattered community in a remote Indonesian area. They were about the most unlikely volunteers possible. 

I thought they were being utterly irresponsible. I sat down to talk to them to try and dissuade them from going. At the end of the conversation I was ready to help. They had thought things through. They were taking everything they needed, not just tools but food and shelter. They were strong and healthy. They had the skills to do what they planned to do. They had a specific goal they wanted to achieve - and then they were getting out again. 

These men did the job they planned to do and then they left. They have been back since and done similar work. They have always gone and returned quietly. The last thing they want is publicity and I will respect their wishes except to say, "I wish there were more like you." 

All of them looked like members of the toughest sort of motorcycle gang. Those who remain still look rather like that. I saw two of them yesterday and got some rather odd looks from passers by as we sat in a cafe and talked about their plans. Yes, their communication boards need a bit of updating but there are people there now who speak some English and that will help. 

They are going up to help with the repair of an essential building that can be used as accommodation while other things are repaired.  It is a testament to their earlier work that this is one of the buildings which is still standing. They built it from debris in 2004. They will also show some of the young people there how to repair a footbridge over one of the many rivers. That was built on another visit. It will allow aid to get across much more quickly even if it has to be done by handcart. 

I ask about how long they plan to be there, about their other arrangements. This time I know they will have all these things organised. Their flights and other travel plans have already been arranged. Who is paying? They are - with some help from their families. This is their Christmas gift to each other and a community they have come to know. 

No, I cannot contribute anything else. I am, according to them, "doing (my) bit". Perhaps I am but it is nothing like their contribution.

The cafe owner brings my trike in from where he has put it safely "out back". It's a rather rough area of the city. They walk back to the station with me. Their handshakes are firm as they see me safely on to the train.    

Yes, some of the most unlikely looking men from rough backgrounds but I admire them.  

 

  

Holding water in a sieve

is not possible is it? You might catch a drop or two. The sieve might appear to be damp. That will be about it. 

The "age verification" process for removing under 16s from social media looks like being about as useful. It has more holes in it than a Swiss cheese - and Swiss cheese is a great deal more useful. 

The onus for removing young people from social media has been put on the "big tech" companies. They have been warned they will be hit with massive fines if they do not comply.

But is it possible to comply? Is it really possible to comply? The answer of course is that it is not possible. This morning's paper contains a story of a boy who went through the "age verification" process. His face was scanned. He is fourteen and the verification process tells us he is twenty-five. 

Last night there was a fifteen year old interviewed on the news. He was quite frank about the fact that he intends to lie about his age. It is likely he has already done so. 

He won't be the only one. I overheard a bunch of giggling girls telling each other how they have already bypassed the ban by using make up to "look older". I imagine it was very easy to do. 

Teenagers will not meekly give in to this ban. They will find ways around it and there is a major problem with that fact. If they are using social media then they will now be doing it in contravention of the law.  Bullying won't stop. Telling others about bullying is going to be more difficult if it also involves the illegal use of a device.

Rather than put the onus on the tech giants it should have been put on young people and their parents. It should have been made illegal for under 16s to own a phone which can do more than make and receive calls and text messages. 

Fake claims about being

"aboriginal" were raised yesterday. They came at the same time as I was watching a small girl running and rolling in the grass at the park next to the library. Her adopted grandmother stood there holding a bag of library books while her adopted grandfather pretended to chase her. It was a game and they were all enjoying it.

"She's having a wonderful time," I said to her grandmother who had given me the sort of smile which says,"This has to stop soon."

"It ends all too soon," she told me, "I wish they did not have to grow up and find out about the world."

I knew what she was talking about. The small girl is an inter-race placement. She is also disabled. There was an attempt to place her in an "aboriginal" family but it did not work. Nobody wanted to take on a child with two limbs missing. They did not want to deal with the many hospital appointments and other issues that will arise. 

This family has taken her on. She is starting school this coming year and is excited about it. I have often talked to her "mother" in the library. They are regular visitors there. 

"Time to go," her adopted grandfather said and there was a sigh but no argument. She eyed my bike seat longingly though. There have been several occasions on which she has been allowed to "ride" it - with me pushing her while she sits on the seat. If she learns to ride a bike it will be one she uses her arms to "pedal". 

After looking at me her adopted grandfather lifted her on to the seat and we set off to the car park. Then he took her off to put her in her child seat. 

"M...and A... have been told they could get some sort of bike for her to use but they don't want her to think she can have something for no effort. Not everyone agrees of course. They keep saying if she is aboriginal she should be able to get it. We keep being told "at least she looks aboriginal" but what is that really supposed to mean?"

"She just looks like a little girl to me," I said. It is true. She does. There is definitely some "aboriginal" heritage there and perhaps some Chinese too but she also has European ancestry. She is a very attractive child and, at present, a very happy one despite her problems. I doubt she is more than average intelligence but she loves stories and drawing and talking to dogs.  The idea that she should somehow be given something extra because of the colour of her skin seems wrong to them. If she needs a "bike" of some sort to keep up with her friends at school then that seems to be a more reasonable thing. It is an interesting point of view.   

A $2.4m payout made

as compensation to someone who would "never be able to work again" because she was allegedly raped has now dwindled to $50,000 after just three years.

Before anyone who know who I am talking about starts screaming at me "she was raped and she deserved every cent" let me say that, in law, it is still an allegation. It has not been "proven" in a court of law. It is unlikely it ever will be. 

There are two "standards of proof" here. One is "on the balance of probabilities" and the other is "beyond reasonable doubt". The first applies in civil cases and the second in criminal courses. It is much more difficult to reach the latter standard and rightly so. Once reached it can incarcerate people and could once have involved the death penalty. Get it wrong in the latter instance and you could end up putting an innocent person to death.

The criminal trial in this case was aborted twice. On one occasion it was because of juror misbehaviour but on the second it was said to be because of the distress it was causing the alleged victim. (Again I am using "alleged" because of lack of an outcome.) Then, quite suddenly, there was the huge payout in "compensation" for what had happened. It was paid because the alleged victim would no longer be able to work. She was said to be in a very fragile state. There were suggestions of suicidal thoughts and more.  We were told she did not get any support from her employer or one of her employer's staff. They were cast as uncaring and guilty of trying to cover it up. 

The saga has now dragged on for more than three years. It has been shown twice to be wrong but her employer is still being cast as the "bad guy". To do otherwise would bring into question that payout. It was made not by employer but by the present government. There has never been anything like it done before.  The payout was given with no strings attached and that alone should have rung alarm bells.

At very least the payout should have been put into a trust fund and spent very differently. It should have been conserved as far as possible until all matters had been resolved in the courts. When the alleged victim took up some employment then the funding should, at very least, have been reduced. She had shown herself capable of returning to work and returning in a very public role. She has married and done other things which suggest that her alleged fragile mental state has improved dramatically. 

On the other side people have been subject to serious defamation. They have had to fight their own battles with no financial support and, until now, no support in the media.There are still far too many people who are saying "serves her right" for allegedly failing to support the alleged victim. Even when the court has come down in their favour they are still being held responsible. 

They will go on being held responsible because the government of the day needs to be able to justify that payout. Some of those involved hold the highest positions in the land and to admit wrong doing could have extreme consequences.   

The whole episode stinks of corruption. There has been too much harm done. Whatever the consequences there needs to be an inquiry. We were the people who paid the compensation with our taxes. 

The "social media ban" for under 16s

is just over a week away. 

I have had my say about this here and elsewhere. There is a High Court challenge coming up. The case will argue the legislation trespasses on the constitutional implied right of freedom of political communication. It will be interesting to see what arguments are put.

There is also the issue of "digital ID". At the moment the onus is on the big tech companies to deal with the issue. It is unlikely the legislation would have passed if it had been any other way because that would have meant bringing in some form of identification for everyone in order to get the proposed ban in place. The failure to comply will bring about large financial penalties for the companies.

In reality this is the first step towards some form of universal means of identification. It is going to be even easier for the government of the day to effectively "spy" on all we do. 

Whenever I go into the largest supermarket in the shopping centre I am asked if I have a "loyalty" card. The answer is "no". At times I have been asked if I want one. The answer is "no". The same thing occurs in the bakery. 

"But you could get..." I am told. No, I could not. I am all too aware that even "paying by card" tells them what  my shopping pattern is. I do not need to be inundated with "offers" for items I do not want. If an under sixteen year old pays for something with a card or, more likely, a phone "app" then the business and the government already know what they are spending their money on.  They know a great deal more about them as well. 

I reluctantly opted out of a medical information site because I was not certain it was secure. There is nothing particularly wrong with my actual health and certainly nothing I am ashamed of. I may not be "sane" in the eyes of some people but I have never been sectioned or talked to a psychiatrist as a patient. (My experience with them socially has been more than enough.) All that said I have no particular desire to share the details of my medical history with the world and any site can be "hacked". 

I can see a situation where the information being demanded by tech companies in an effort to abide by the age-related legislation will be used for other purposes. Really? 

Some people will say that teens only have themselves to blame for the ban. If they had used social media in a responsible manner then this legislation would not have been necessary. Give me a break! We are talking about children and young people here. 

Perhaps we should be putting much more responsibility on parents?

Are one in twenty seven children "autistic"

or have they have been diagnosed as such in order to get funding for sometimes very real problems?

I am asking the question because apparently around $9bn of the $50bn or so spent NDIS programs went to supporting those with "autism". The number of those diagnosed with autism has apparently almost doubled in the last five years. The article in the paper is suggesting we are "getting better at diagnosing the problem, particularly in women and girls". Is that correct?

I watched a short video recently. It was taken by the mother of an autistic man. He is around twenty now and nobody could doubt he is very severely disabled. In a photograph it is possible you would not see anything wrong but the video tells a different story. He can do nothing for himself. He still puts everything in his mouth. He cannot go to the bathroom alone. He cannot dress himself. He has no speech. His "play" level is less than that of a two year old. At the same time he is a grown man with a beard. He gets violent. It is sometimes without apparent cause but often because he is frustrated. Living with him is a constant balancing act. It is exhausting. 

The NDIS is, quite rightly, intended to help people like him and his family. They need more help than they are getting but there is limited funding. When his mother can no longer cope he will probably end up in some form of "care", possibly drugged in order to keep his behaviour from being a danger to others.

What the NDIS is not there for is to provide assistance to children with mild behaviour issues or learning difficulties. All too often though this is the way it is being used. Children are being diagnosed as "autistic" in order to get help that should be available elsewhere. "Autistic" is seen as an acceptable label. It is more acceptable than "behaviour issues" or "learning issues".

I have no doubt at all that some of those "issues" are due to changes in the sort of world we now live in. They are also due to changes in the way we expect children to function in classrooms which are also very different. 

Not so long ago I had an unexpected conversation with someone who had worked under the Senior Cat's leadership. When the Senior Cat went to take over the headship of the school there was one of the then popular "classrooms" with four teachers in a large space. It was considered to be a good learning environment where children would learn to socialise and work together in teams. There were units like this all over the metropolitan area. The unit was the responsibility of the deputy headmaster. 

It was not working well. The teachers had volunteered to be there but they were struggling. Even the most able students were not coping well. Quite simply it was not a good learning environment. It was too noisy. There were too many distractions. The idea that children could be taught in large groups and then be divided into smaller groups to do the activities which followed was not working. Children were not listening. They were distracted by other things. The supposed "team work" and "socialisation" was not being achieved in the intended way.  There were more issues in the playground.

It was Education Department policy to have these units. There was the intention to eventually make all schools work to this model. Like many other educational experiments it was a policy which was eventually discarded at least in part.  There are still times where classes come together but it is not an all day and everyday policy. It is interesting that teachers now tell me some children do not cope well when they are in a larger group or when there is a big change in routine. They inevitably include the children who have been labelled as being "on the spectrum". 

There must be children who are falling behind early in their school lives because of the learning environment in which they find themselves at school and also at home. Being "distracted" or "fidgety" or "restless" or something else seen as unacceptable surely does not mean you are on that catch all autism spectrum. It might be that the learning environment in which you find yourself is not one which allows you to learn as easily, if at all. Would it help if we started looking at the problems from a different direction?  

Being polite costs nothing

- or so we are told.

I was in the bakery yesterday. The expectation in there is that you will be served in the order you enter the shop. People do not queue as such but you know who is ahead of you and who is behind you.

I am short but the shop assistant had seen me. I am a regular customer there as they sell the type of seed loaf I like. My turn to be served was about to come up when someone moved in front of me.

"There is someone else next..." the assistant started to say.

"I am next. I want..." came the belligerent response. Other customers looked. 

"Is there anything else?" the assistant asked when she had handed over the bread.

"No." 

None of us said anything and the rude individual got away with it. She was served. She did not say "thank you" simply tapped her card and left. 

The assistant started to apologise so I said, "No, she is the one who should apologise."

There were murmurs of agreement around me. Someone mentioned a shop in another country where someone had tried something similar. The problem was they tried it on the owner who then refused to serve them at all.  I doubt a mere shop assistant would get away with that here.

At this time of the year, at the time the Christmas decorations are up and the shop assistants are wearing their Christmas t-shirts instead of the usual shirts, I am even more conscious of the need to be polite. I will tell the younger ones wearing red t-shirts with kangaroos in Santa hats that it is a "fun t-shirt" or the older one that the elf-hat "really suits" them. It is done in fun. They know it and we can smile at each other. I am planning on slipping a tiny little box with a single chocolate inside it to the person who delivers the mail and giving the girl who works at the phone repair booth the same. They have gone out of their way to help this year. Yes, they are paid to do their job but I want to be sure they are thanked again. I want to be polite and it really does not cost anything. I have had more than that in return.

Perhaps the very rude person in the bakery was just having a bad day but I suspect it was more than that.  

So boys are "falling behind"?

Apparently boys are not doing as well as girls in the NAPLAN games. (For Upoverites NAPLAN involves a series of tests of academic achievement at various points through your school career.)

It does not surprise me in the slightest if boys are not doing as well as girls in things like spelling, mathematics, reasoning and the like. Why should they? Psychological theory would have us believe the results between them should be about equal - but different. Perhaps the powers-that-be need to look at the tests.

That said I also think we need to look more closely at what we expect of all students. It may be different Elsewhere but there are expectations here in Downunder. If challenged people will likely deny that these expectations are expectations but I believe they do exist. 

Boys, especially teenage boys, are expected to be keen on sport. They are expected to play sport. They are expected to ride mountain bikes and go surfing. In school they are expected to be much more interested in STEM subjects than the arts. They are expected to be "better at maths" and to have better coding skills. They are expected to enjoy science experiments. We might want to say all this is not true, that "not everyone is like that" but the not so subtle reality is different. We don't want boys to be more interested in English, other languages or other arts subjects. Heaven forbid that they might be interested in art or cookery!

I remember someone with whom I went to school. He was a problem in a very small country school. With four year grades in one room there was no time to provide him with a lot of extension work. After some discussion he "skipped" a year...and then another year. He was hopelessly disorganised about his everyday life but he could multiply three figures by three figures "in his head". He could remember the spelling for any word he had come across. There was not a lot of reading material around but he swapped everything he had for everything we had. He had also read the Bible from Genesis to the end and was working his way through a dictionary when we left. 

He later went on to university and became a solicitor but I wonder what would become of him now. He would almost certainly have been pushed, none too gently, into maths of some sort. Would he have been any happier there? I doubt it. My brother and I once spent a happy weekend with him as we tried to work out how to calculate the height of a tree. It was the sort of problem which interested all of us but only because it related to how much ladder we had to build to get to the branch that looked perfect for a tree house. Now, if we were even permitted to embark on such a project, we would probably be introduced to the necessary maths behind such a task. I have long since forgotten what I knew and I am sure he has too. Maths was simply not our "thing". Being able to calculate something does not mean you are necessarily interested in the entire field around it.

No, sport is more important to many. The other likely activity is that of playing computer games. Yes, I know computer games can vary greatly but they are not all chess, Scrabble or Minecraft. Many of them seem to be quite violent, certainly involving killing off your enemies on screen. I know some girls do play the "kill your enemy" type but it is much more likely to be the domain of boys. That they are highly addictive I do not doubt at all because they work on the classic reward theory. There are boys who spend hours each day playing such games. If that sounds unacceptably "sexist" I apologise but I suspect I am right.

If we want to stop boys "lagging behind" then perhaps we need to think a little less about organised sport (and more about physical activity) and severely limit the computer games. We need to provide them with the ability and time to read actual books. We need to show them that art and cookery are acceptable activities. 

I do not think this will happen. There will be a renewed push to "bring them up to standard" with more of the activities in which they are possibly simply not interested.  

 

Putting a church on top of a hill

probably seemed like a good idea when it was built. The faithful could look up to it. The heathen could see it looking down on them. It was there. It was an important part of the community it was built to serve but also separated from it in some indefinable sort of way. The early parishioners came to it by horse and buggy or shanks pony. They often attended twice on Sundays and perhaps early in the morning during the working week. It was a busy place.

If you need to go to it by tricycle it is not such a good idea. I thought of this as I pedalled up there yesterday. 

The need to go was all my own fault of course. If I had been well organised I could have given my donation to their Christmas hampers for the poor to someone who goes there on Sundays. Of course that would have meant doing something at least a week ago. I did not do anything.

The Senior Cat used to take an item of food to church each Sunday. I would hand over something as he left. There would be cereal or pasta or pasta sauce or the inevitable baked beans in packs of four for individual servings and packets of cup-a-soup. The items would go to a centre in the city which feeds the homeless and provides food for families in need. At Christmas time they try to provide something a bit extra and a little bit more interesting than the basics. It is why I continue to do what the Senior Cat would have wanted me to do and what I feel I must do.  

As children our own Christmas celebrations were not extravagant but we did get our new Sunday clothes for the next year and a book or toy from our parents and grandparents. We were expected to make things for them as soon as we could - even if our paternal grandmother gave up some "very secret" help. 

We also had a special meal. To have none of those things is not what Christmas, apart from the religious aspect, should be about for children. I suspect most children will have no religion in their Christmas at all. We most definitely did. There is no tradition of midnight mass in the Presbyterian church but there were very definitely Christmas carols. The sermon on Christmas Day was likely to be short and all the children would participate in the nativity scene, mostly dressed in our dressing gowns as the robes for the shepherds and the kings.

To have none of that seems wrong so I pedalled up the hill with my small contribution - or pedalled as far as I could. I should have gone the long way around...the route I worked out from the old house. It is much longer but the hill climb is not as steep. But, I thought I would be smart and go a shorter route from here...I walked the last hundred metres pushing the trike...but I got there. It probably took me just as long, if not longer. 

I went in the back way. (There are at least four ways to get into the church grounds and the one I chose goes around the back of the church. It is useful if you do not particularly want to be seen.) The church was open. It was quiet, very quiet. The priest's car was not there but I knew "the red bin" would be by the side door of the narthex.  It was all I needed. 

The priest arrived just as I was leaving. He waved. I waved back and was about to leave but he called out to me and I waited.

"I didn't need to see you D... " I told him, "I was just putting something in the red bin."

He nodded. We chatted for a moment and then he said, "It's all down hill on the way back."  Yes, I could coast all the way down to the shopping centre and thus the post office. There was no need to pedal at all... but I could not help wondering if the journey was something like life. It is much harder to get to a good place at the top than it is to coast down to the bottom.

  

"A Super Progressive Movie" has been banned

from a private showing at the cinema room in our national parliament building. Apparently some people might be offended by it. 

Yes, there are rules about not showing anything which might be offensive. Apparently it does not matter that this was intended to be a private function. Presumably the people who were going to see it would be supporters of the party whose members made the film.

There is a trailer up on the net if you wish to watch it - just type in "A Super Progressive Movie" and you will find it. You will find it along with a range of other "Please Explain" short pieces by the same mob.

I looked at it on the request of one of the neighbours. He wanted to know what I thought of it. My reaction was, "I would not want to see any more and I don't care for what I did see." 

That said...a lot of people are going to like it all. It pokes fun at a lot of woke ideas and some issues which are coming under more serious discussion. There is also a point at which one of the characters says someone has to be listened to "because he's one sixteenth aboriginal". That could be viewed as very racist but many will see it as having an uncomfortable grain of truth in it. There are other words spoken which are potentially equally damaging and harmful and hurtful and more. 

What little I saw, and that was too much, worried me. I did not care in the least for the slick, speedy, noisy presentation. It is not done in a way which would allow me to think about serious issues. 

Yes, there likely are some serious issues there. For all their burqa wearing red headed firebrand leader is seen as a loud mouthed trouble maker she is appealing to more and more people if the polls are right. The major parties need to look more closely at her, not just dismiss her and her party's policies as some sort of aberration which will go away if ignored.   

All that said I do think it was foolish to prevent the film being shown. It has given it a great deal of free publicity. Downunderites do not like being told by governments what they can watch and what they can think. It is a pity they are apparently all too ready to allow other groups and individuals to influence them. They are too fond of their sporting "heroes" and "radio personalities" and more. 

The problem will only get worse with the proposed social media ban for those under the age of sixteen. I note there is now a High Court challenge with respect to that legislation. It will be interesting to see if the court recognises where it is really leading us - and whether they will allow it.

  

So clumsy you "walk into walls"?

There is a case before our courts at present in which a mother is accused of both neglecting and harming her daughter. The daughter committed suicide. At her death she weighed a little over half of what a healthy child of that age would weigh.

Her mother claims that the bruising shown in the evidence being presented was due to her daughter being so clumsy she would walk into walls. She also claims that her daughter liked sleeping in the cold in the laundry and that she was a fussy eater. These claims are being made in order to cover the fact that the child was sleeping there and that the lunches she was taking to school were highly inadequate - if she took any at all. 

I have no idea how the case will end but, at a meeting yesterday, someone asked me, "Why didn't the girl tell someone what was happening?"

I think this person was genuinely puzzled but I do not find it hard to understand at all. I once taught a child whose father often hit him. He had bruises sometimes. I queried the bruises. The head of the school queried it. We spoke to his mother as well. What happened? Nothing. His mother was clearly frightened by the idea of anything being said. The boy in question did not want us to do anything. He was willing to put up with the abuse in order to go on staying at home. I can remember him telling me, "It's all right. My dad loves me really."

Looking back I believe he was terrified that something worse might happen to him. He almost certainly believed he would be taken away from his parents if he said anything. I also think he genuinely believed his father loved him. He needed to believe it. Believing it made his life "normal". The need for "love" was more important than the beatings. Perhaps his father also believed he loved his son. He was a policeman and well known in the district for his willingness to prosecute wrong doers. 

This is surely like women and, rarely, men putting up with an abusive relationship? To believe it is not their fault is just too difficult.  Children are even more vulnerable than adults when this sort of thing occurs. The girl who committed suicide must have seen this as the only way out. Others are going to be asking "Why didn't she say more than she did?" They will blame themselves.

If I had a child who was so clumsy they were bruising themselves by walking into walls I hope I would make an appointment with a doctor, an urgent appointment. If I was that child's teacher I hope I would insist on the same. When I taught that boy corporal punishment was still legal and often used. It is no longer the case. But is life really any different for a child now? They would still be afraid of losing more than they believe they would gain.  

I   

Ban the burqa?

One of the Senators pulled another stunt in the Senate yesterday. She was attempting to get a bill tabled which would ban the wearing of the burqa in public in this country. She tried to do it correctly first but, on failing, put on a burqa and returned to the chamber. There was an uproar. 

The Senator had made her point. It is not the first time an attempt has been made to introduce such legislation and it more than likely will not be the last.   She is not the only Senator to have tried to have a ban enforced.

Whether it is insulting to Islam not to wear, at very least, a hijab or insulting to women to be required to wear it will depend on your point of view.  I know quite a number of women who wear a hijab. Several do so out of the belief this is the right thing to do.  The others, the majority, do so because it is what is expected of them. 

Many years ago now a good friend was about to show me a photograph of a mutual friend and her new baby. Then she hesitated and said, "I don't think I can. She hasn't covered her hair." 

I am afraid I laughed and said, "J.... invited me home last week and the first thing she did when we got inside was pull of her hijab and toss it on a chair." 

The photograph was duly produced and baby duly admired. I think, indeed hope, attitudes have changed since then.  I have been in and out of student houses since and, as they are all female, there has been no wearing of hijabs inside the house even in front of me. Why should they? Some of them only cover their heads to go to the mosque. They will wear hijabs then but a burqa? To the best of my knowledge none of them own a burqa let alone wear one.

I am told there is no religious requirement for the burqa, the niqab or the hijab to be worn. Why should there be? I am sure if something was said about this in the Koran people could quote the passage. Even then it might be rather like the passage in the letter to the Corinthians where the Apostle Paul is demanding modesty and respect from the women by covering their heads. 

My mother would not have gone to church without wearing a hat. She would not have thought of wearing trousers. Her mother was the same as was my paternal grandmother. It was the way things were then. It is not the way things are now. I know a nun who wears jeans in church and has been known to go barefoot there. It does not make her any less devout now than when she started out in a full habit many years ago.

I may be wrong, very wrong, but I suspect that most women who wear a burqa here do so because they believe they must. They come from households where the males have dictated it and/or they see it as a necessity. The sky will not fall in if they do not wear one but they feel anxious and naked without it. That is perhaps what needs to change.

Most ten year old children cannot legally

get a tattoo. They cannot legally drink alcohol. They cannot legally smoke cigarettes. They are not supposed to access pornography or X-rated films. They have very little idea about how they (and everyone else) came into being or what it means to be a "parent".  Most of them do not even walk to school alone - if they even do work. Parents put them in "OSH care" (out of school hours) or send them to sport, drama, dance and more in an effort not to keep them occupied but because they want them to keep up the same level of supposedly desirable activities as their peers. The books they read are, for the most part, written by adults and chosen by them.  Children cannot vote and must attend school or be otherwise "educated". They cannot hitchhike around the world alone. In this country they will shortly not be able to access "social media" because they are considered to be "too young".

There are a great many things children cannot legally do. We see most of these things as sensible precautions because they are deemed to be "too immature". So why do they think it is okay to inject chemicals in to a child as young as ten to prevent puberty? 

Before you start telling me I am "anti-transgender" people or that "children know who they are at that age" or "this is the best time to start doing it" let me say this. I firmly believe there are people who genuinely believe they are "the wrong sex" and who are more comfortable "the other way".  I also believe that there are very, very few of these people and that they deserve all the support and understanding we can give them. Life must be very difficult for them and I get upset when they do not get the support and understanding they need and have every right to get. 

I do not believe there are large numbers of ten year old children, children who are deemed not mature enough to go to and from school independently, who are able to say, "I want to be "A" rather than "B" and I want to be that way for the rest of my life. I want to take drugs to stop nature taking its intended course." Ask these children what they think they would like to do as a job or career and they often have no clear idea. Three years ago at age ten a young friend of mine wanted to design wedding dresses and have her own shop. Now she is thirteen she wants to be a librarian but acknowledges she might change her mind about that too. 

Puberty blockers do not "save lives". Children can be asked to wait in the way they have to wait for other "adult" things. What will save lives, and save some from irreparable damage, is love and understanding and acceptance and patience and a range of other things. Yes, it might seem easier to prevent puberty but perhaps it is time to talk long and hard with people who are "detransitioning". What has gone wrong? Why did they feel that way earlier on? What can we learn from them?

I know my views will upset some people but I find it hard to believe that the current epidemic of demands for "transitioning" is really a reflection of the numbers who genuinely need it.  

 

Christmas Day 1974 is a date

indelibly etched into the minds of any Dowunderite old enough to remember it. It is the date on which a category four cyclone hit the top end of the country, almost destroyed a city, displaced many thousands and caused weeks of chaos and hardship.

Another, and equally powerful, cyclone is going through the area as I write this. There will be harm done but it will not be on anything like the same scale as before. Building regulations have changed and that will help a lot. Disaster planning has improved. Even more importantly communication has improved.  Even the most remote communities are likely to get some information. 

In the north there are still people who speak little or no English so the warnings will have been given in multiple local indigenous languages. The bigger problem will be to get people to heed the warnings and go to local shelters if their own homes are at particular risk. 

Christmas Day 1974 was my first close-distant encounter with a natural disaster that required a response. I had absolutely no idea what to expect. My parents, also called on to help, had no idea either. They were old enough to remember the war but did not see active service. Any other natural disaster had passed them by but this one was different. It was in our country. Yes, it was thousands of kilometres away and the communications coming through were patchy at first but it did not take long for organisations like the Red Cross, Anglicare and the Salvation Army to set to work. 

The Senior Cat was sent off to help organise accommodation. Mum was helping with food and clothing and other basic supplies. I was given a table as a desk and more paper work than I had ever seen before. Looking back I can only think that someone had made a mistake. I was in no way qualified to do what I did. I was taking down often intimate details about people and their families so they could get the assistance they urgently needed. I can still hear the scream of the woman wearing nothing but shorts and a sleeveless top that this was all she had in the world. She had no ID of any sort and no idea if the rest of her family had survived. To this day I am thankful I was not the person who had to help her. 

Late yesterday afternoon someone who has family up in that area asked me, "Is that what started you on your job?" I had to say that no, it was not. The first communication board for that purpose came some years later - but perhaps the earlier experience prepared me just a little? I do not know.

What I do know is that I am fortunate to live in a country where things can happen quickly if there is a need for it. I also know it is when people do not heed warnings that they are more likely to find themselves in trouble. Now I am hoping people in the cyclone area have heeded the warnings they were given.   

Nobody wants to start WWIII

which is perhaps why President Putin still believes he can get away with snatching territory. 

Yes, he might have had to "fight" for it but he clearly believes he is big enough and strong enough to get away with it. He simply does not care if a few people get hurt on the way. It doesn't matter if it costs him a little. The prize is too big for that.

I have met someone who has spent some hours in the company of President Putin. This person has met many, many world leaders over the years. It is part of their job to do just that. This is what they had to say, "He is the most frightening person I have ever met. There is no warmth to him at all even when he appears to be smiling. He is completely cold, vicious and brutal."

This came from someone who has met Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin and Robert Mugabe, the Kims in North Korea and others. They were "not nice people" but Putin is worse.

Why then is President Trump suggesting that Ukraine should simply surrender to President Putin's demands? The answer is not a desire for an end to the war of course. It is about power, oil and trade. It is about Trump's own business interests in Russia itself.

Putin wants the old USSR back. Moving into Ukraine is just a step in that direction. Denying them NATO membership is essential if that is to occur. He won't move immediately but he will make it impossible for Ukraine to survive. There will be a "referendum" of some sort to suggest that the people of Ukraine have willingly rejoined the union and then there will be other moves. It is a long term plan but Putin believes he has time and right on his side. He really believes he can simply take over again.

It is why he must not be allowed to succeed this time and it is why Europe must not allow him to succeed. Ukraine has really been fighting alone - and that has to stop.   

It is a COP out for us

apparently. There are wails and gnashing of teeth and claims of "it's not fair". We lost the "right" to host the next big climate talk-fest.

I am so upset - not. It is something we should not even have considered bidding for, let alone spent almost $4m on with no result. I am never ceased to be alarmed and concerned by the apparent inability of the "leaders" of this country to recognise that we are very small fish in a very large pond.

Why on earth did anyone even believe that we might be able to host the next "climate" conference in this country. Yes, it is a large land mass. Yes, it is the biggest island or the smallest continent but perhaps its claims to fame should end there. For the most part it is so sparsely inhabited it is really scarcely inhabited at all. I can remember when the last tribe of people who had no contact with white civilisation finally came into view. Their isolation was partly due to distance but might also have had something to do with desire.

The population of this country is far less than the state of California. Our trade with the rest of the world is small. We are isolated in many ways. It is something which causes many problems even in an age where communication appears to be almost instantaneous.

Why anyone would believe we were able to host a conference of the likely size of COP31 in a city many people, even the proposed delegates, could not find on a map is beyond me. Would we be able to house them, feed them, transport them and find suitable conference facilities for them? We were told we could by those putting in the bid but I doubt it. Even getting people here could have proved a challenge. Put on extra flights - the very thing they are telling us we should cut back on? Allow the state's main airport to open outside curfew hours? 

The cost would have been huge. I am told it was all about "putting us on the map" and providing business, especially climate related business, with "opportunities". I am told it would end up "paying for itself". I do not believe that.

Now I am told that our Minister for Climate Change and Energy is to be in charge of a major part of the next COP in Turkey - the country to which we lost out. He is widely seen as inept, so inept they kept him in the background at the last election. Yes, he is a power player of some sort inside his own party. He must be in order to retain his position. Is he good at it? No. Is he the best they have? No. There are now some who hope he might be booted from his position on the grounds he has to concentrate on his new role. All I can say is that the next COP will go even further downhill than this one.

Please, could we just forget any sort of COP? We need action now.    

The job cuts at the CSIRO

are cause for alarm. For those of you in Upover and Elsewhere the CSIRO is the  Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation is a government agency here. It is responsible for scientific research with a focus on commercial and industrial applications. The CSIRO works with similar places around the world - or should do.

Some of the things they have successfully developed include things like the Hendra virus vaccine for horses and biological controls for pests like myxomatosis and calicivirus. They continue to work on things like reducing damage done by rust in wheat crops and increasing the nutritional content of barley. 

Their work on Wi-Fi technology, plastics (including the first successful polymer bank notes), ceramics for the space industry and much more have all had international benefit. In summer many people bless the insect repellent Aerogard developed by the CSIRO.

Like any big research organisation they have also had their failures and other research facilities have beaten them to solutions. Our geographical location has been a hindrance in the past and continues to be now, although to a lesser extent than before.  

 It is going to get more difficult as they cut another three hundred and fifty staff. That the cuts are coming from health, from biosecurity, from agriculture and food production and from environmental research is alarming. Add the aging buildings and sometimes equipment in many places and there is a problem.

We cannot expect the rest of the world to do the research for us and then simply use it. We need to be doing our own and sharing it. There is something very wrong with a government which can even consider going to the enormous expense of hosting a climate talk-fest here but not adequately funding the research needed. 

Defamation cases are notoriously

hard to win...and getting harder. Our ideas about what is defamatory change too. 

I came across a page on the New Zealand parliament's site recently. It talked about "unparliamentary" language and gave some examples of what has been considered offensive in the past. 

One of the first, in 1933, is "shrewd old bird". Many people would now take that as a compliment. 

They were finding "pipsqueak" offensive in 1936. It is likely the meaning was not quite the same at that time but is it offensive now?

In 1959 someone apparently found being called a "kookaburra" offensive. Well I suppose those birds do have a raucous "laugh".

In 1963 it was said of someone that he "sits on his behind". Lazy? I have heard it said often. 

There were more on that page but it was clear that the acceptable language in parliament has changed over the years. I was also aware that, in parliament, there is a lot of name calling. It is also possible to say things you cannot say outside parliament and be immune from prosecution for defamation. It is generally not wise to do this but it is done from time to time. 

Outside parliament it is a different story. Defamation is more common than many people realise. It does more harm than people realise too. We are all too ready to believe the worst of people, not the best. It is why the news media has a particular and special responsibility to be accurate. The problem is that accurate news might not sell as well. If you depend on advertising for the income which sells the "news" you want to present then you can be sure it will be "sensationalised" and often far from accurate. 

The problem with the BBC doing this however is that it is showing an unacceptable bias. It is even worse that our ABC mindlessly repeats it. Think of it as the BBC broadcasting stolen goods and the ABC receiving and broadcasting stolen goods. 

In the case of Mr Trump suing the BBC the stolen goods are the manipulated words they broadcast. It was a stupid thing to do but no doubt the journalists and editors involved thought it served a purpose. Trump is unlikely to get anywhere with his outrageous claims for compensation. He is out of time and out of jurisdiction.  That said however it should still tell the rest of us that the behaviour of the BBC was wrong too.

It can happen to other people as well - and all too frequently does. There will sometimes be the "apology" read out in the news services on the following day or appearing (usually not too obviously) in the paper.  All too often the media knows the damage they intended has been done. Even paying "compensation" is seen as part of it.

When it comes to the rest of us though it is much harder. It is all too easy to defame someone and cause permanent damage. The words we use do matter.