So the "ban" is not working?

Did anyone seriously believe that all that had to happen was for the government to say, "We are banning under 16s from social media" and it would actually happen.

Did the government seriously believe that the companies owning social media would suddenly be "responsible" and put in place to make sure measures would be taken to implement the ban?

Did anyone seriously believe that those same under 16s would willingly give up social media and suddenly become good, law abiding little citizens?

Hmm,...then why is it that it is thought that only about thirty percent of those who were on social media platforms are now no longer on them? I would be surprised if even thirty percent of them were no longer on social media. They are simply those who are reporting they no longer spend much time there. For some of them it was probably a relief to get away from the time spent scrolling away but they are not in the majority.

The only real difference I have noticed is that the teens I know no longer do it so openly. They are not gathering around in their usual "hang outs" and laughing over video clips. They are doing it more cautiously.

"Big tech" as many people call it will not take responsibility for implementing the ban. They can put measures in place but this not alcohol or tobacco or other illegal substances which have an actual tangible presence. Yes, you can make people responsible for supplying those. Trying to make social media platforms responsible for a ban on something which is much less tangible is unrealistic. 

I recently went through the process of getting a new passport. In order to do this I had to provide a certain amount of information. I had to appear at a post office and get my photograph taken. My identity was checked against my old passport records and verified by the staff member at the post office. If I had done it all on line my identity would still have been verified by someone else who had physically seen me and could verify they knew me. This is the government at work making sure I am the person I say I am. It is not someone who prints the passports or a travel company providing me with a ticket to travel.

We have set about this the wrong way if we want to stop teens using social media. It is not the role of the companies to do this. It is the role of those who are responsible for the under 16s, parents and teachers for the most part. 

Parents allowing a child access to social media have to be held responsible for harm done, so do teachers while a child is at school.  Yes, difficult but it does not make it the problem  or the responsibility of the social media giants.  

Apparently all the following are responsible

 for the economic woes, particularly inflation, we are experiencing in this country.

The first one is those "talking the economy down". Apparently mere mention of anything negative will do it. 

Then there is Vladimir Putin. Well yes, the war in Ukraine and his territorial ambitions there and elsewhere do have to be paid for by someone and apparently that is us. 

And his mate Donald Trump is apparently adding to our economic woes. There might be something in those tariffs I suppose but they are probably doing more harm elsewhere than here.

Follow that with a list of past Prime Ministers like Scott Morrison (who had Covid to deal with but let's not be too concerned about that) and Tony Abbott and John Howard and...now wait a moment Paul Keating? Yes, he is on the list. Was that for the "recession we had to have" and those double digit inflation rates? Of course the Coalition is to blame and let's throw the former RBA Governor into the mix. What did Philip Lowe do for the economy through the Covid crisis and more?

Then there is that nasty duopoly of supermarkets Coles and Woolworths and the corporations around them. Those four big banks are so naughty and the smaller ones are daring to go the same way... even when you said you wanted them to make some of those changes which disadvantage the rest of us but bring the money in. 

Oh now we get to the really big ones "climate change" is costing us so we have to go to the expense of "net zero" and that will cost us before the cost comes down - if it comes down at all. We do need to be prepared for the continued expenses there. Perhaps those greedy pensioners could help. They have worked all their lives but they should not be putting their hands out now. Like everyone else they spend too much, especially around Christmas time.

Let's not forget the cost of the nuclear power we do not have and the fossil fuels we get paid to send abroad. Perhaps we can make that red headed politician in the Senate responsible for those? The defence of the country is responsible for inflation too and private business is responsible for that along with what Treasury is doing and of course high speed rail and the "intergenerational inequity" which means the "next generation" does not own their own homes but perhaps you can blame the war veterans for insisting they need somewhere to live.

If  all that sounds absolutely ridiculous it is of course but it is a list of the reasons the present Federal Treasurer has given for the state of the economy in the past twelve months. Apparently the present government has absolutely nothing to do with the economic woes of the country. They have behaved in "fiscally responsible" manner at all times. 

If their behaviour is fiscally responsible then fiscally irresponsible behaviour is a never ending nightmare. I suggest they stop spending so much and bring in some measures that will allow us to bring in some much needed money. 

 

 

There is an election coming up!

Oh yes, we should be excited about this...or should we?

I was actually asked by a young neighbour about the state election which is due to take place on 21st March. She was holding a piece of election material in her hand and asked me,

"What is all this stuff we keep getting? Is it important?"

She looked genuinely confused so I told her and then said, "Go and look on line." More confusion appeared so I explained how to look for the policies of each party on line. 

Her response to that was, "But that's an awful lot of work."

Yes, it is. Democracy, even the most flimsy sort, requires work and most of us are too lazy to do anything about it. We just expect to be governed in a way we would like without working for it. This has been all too obvious lately. It appears there are a slew of young people who do not even recognise the current Premier, a man who is very capable at getting himself in front of a camera. I cannot help wondering what these young people, many about to vote for the first time in their lives, are interested in. It does not appear they have any interest in their futures.

One of the political diehards in the district is "very happy" with the current war in the Middle East. According to him it is diverting the bad news here away from the front pages. Yes, it probably is. The incumbents are predicted to be returned in a landslide, in a result that will not lead to the strong opposition they need.  It is no use pointing out to such diehards that it is the lack of an opposition in Iran that has permitted the "elders" to do so much harm. 

I probably have too much to say about politics in my witterings here but I often do it in an attempt to sort my own thoughts out. I try to be an "informed" voter but it can be difficult. Stated "policies" very often differ greatly from what is "possible" and putting "practice" into place can be even more difficult.

Perhaps I should just have told my young neighbour,"Just read those bits of paper. Which ideas do you like the most? Vote for that person." Is that enough?  

"Please don't drink in front of my child."

There are apparently a couple of short clips showing on line where Muslims who are fasting for Ramadan are asking other non-Muslims not to eat in front of them. There was apparently also a "tweet" asking what you would do if you were eating lunch on your lunch break and a Muslim asked you not to eat because they were fasting.

The answers were fairly predictable - and not always polite. 

I might have ignored it. I am well aware that "fasting" takes place between sunrise and sunset. After that Ramadan meals can be, and often are, quite elaborate. Very devout Muslims will not even take a sip of water before sunset but I know some who will drink water. I believe the idea is to focus your thoughts on others who are poor or simply less well off than yourself.

As an idea I really do not see much in it, not when elaborate meals can be had at other times of the day. I once lived in a university hall of residence where we self-catered. There were several Muslim students there and they observed the restrictions placed on them. Not to do so would have led to reports being made to others who could influence their eventual careers. When we had a group meal together we waited until sunset. I checked to see what I was providing was acceptable and asked one of the boys to get the required meat from the halal butcher they used. 

Yes, I will go that far. I do not want to deliberately make people feel uncomfortable in that sort of setting. I believe it is right to do that. It was a group event. If I wanted to participate then I abided by what was best for group cohesion. I did not have to believe, indeed informed them politely I did not.

It was, I believe, an entirely different set of circumstances from the incident at the railway station. It was a very hot day and I try to carry water with me when it is hot, particularly if I will be out for any length of time.  I was asked, quite politely I suppose, to move to the other end of the platform if I wanted to drink. I was asked this of a Muslim man who was there with his son, a boy of about ten or eleven. 

Children are not expected to fast but some boys do from about the age of that child. I don't know if he was fasting or whether his father simply did not want him to see someone who was not fasting. 

I suppose I was fortunate in that the boom gates started to lower as the request was made and the bells started to ring. I did not need to make a decision. It was a simple matter of put the water bottle in my bag and get ready to board the train.

What would I have done? I hope I would have said politely, "I am sorry if you find it offensive but I am not Muslim and I do not observe Ramadan. Most people in this country don't, nor are we required to do so. What is more I feel you should be those who move. I am a woman. I am older than you. I am also much less mobile. Women and those older are generally acknowledged and often still respected."

Right or wrong? I admit I wanted to lash out. I wanted to tell this man that he had absolutely no right to demand that of me. It is not like someone not to smoke a cigarette or drink alcohol in front of a child. 

I thought about "Lent" as the train moved off. There were a number of people in the carriage and I wondered if any of them were observing Lent. Were they "giving up chocolate" (it seems to be a favourite or "not eating meat" (as a friend who is a nun always does) or not having their usual glass of wine with an evening meal? Were they doing something else or nothing at all? Did they even go to church?  

We used to know nuns by their habit and priests by their "dog collars". Now most nuns I know (and I know a few) wear jeans and t-shirts. Unless officiating the priests I know (and again I know a few) wear untidier jeans and t-shirts. I can sometimes pick out a member of a particular religious sect here by the way they dress and I can guess at the Baptists and Seventh Day Adventists. None of them however demand that I behave as they behave.

You can't demand respect. 

Our Senate is supposed to act

as the "states' house" and as the safety valve on the pressure cooker which is parliament.

Its role as the states' house has long since given away to one divided by party politics. It seems now it is no longer acting as the safety valve either. Yesterday one fiery Senator walked out when censured for remarks about Muslims, another called the same Senator and those who support her party "the filth of this country" and a third gave what can only be described as a sermon about Ramadan.

These things should not be happening in the Senate, or indeed in the House of Representatives.  The fiery Senator is known for those sort of remarks. She has been making them since she entered politics. The fact she keeps being re-elected suggests that many of those in her home state agree with her views. Her party appears to be making inroads in other states as well. The upcoming election in this state will be a test of whether it can succeed in becoming a viable opposition rather than simply the holder of a handful of seats. If they do win more than one or two seats then the other major parties need to look at what it is people are saying they want and modifying those views so they become reasoned and workable policies. 

I am less concerned by that than the Senator who quit the party which helped elect her and has turned on it and everyone else. She is also being deliberately provocative and is much harder to touch, let alone censure. To do so would lead others open to accusations of "racism" because she makes much of her 3x great-grandmother being an indigenous person. Her family apparently feel differently but it is ground on which others tread very cautiously and, likely, with good cause. As an "independent" she may not get re-elected but 2028 is a long way off.

The other Senator is very conscious of being Muslim and makes sure others know it. She does not however wear the hijab in the chamber. Her views are also provocative in their own way. At every opportunity she will bring up issues relating to Muslims and the Islamic faith and the problems associated with, as she sees it, being Muslim in a country which does not follow Sharia law. Her speech in the Senate related to Ramadan and what it is claimed to mean and how it is observed. It was delivered as a sermon might be delivered in a church or a synagogue. Her intention was clear. She was intent on educating the Senate. That may be no bad thing in itself but if a Christian attempted to educate Senators about Lent or a Jew attempted to educate Senators about Pesach I am certain they would be censured. 

All this suggests the way our Senate is intended to function is being undermined. It is interesting that all three Senators participating in that yesterday are women...or should that be, identify as women? 

 

  

A bag of "smiles" can have

a remarkably calming effect on small children...and even bigger children.

Middle Cat and I spent yesterday helping a friend at a "fibre feast". It is an annual day run by our friend. It brings together people who make yarn, sell yarn, use yarn, play with yarn and need yarn related items. Local guilds and clubs can come along and advertise their groups and more. For the last few years it has been run in association with a "street fair" and there have been plenty of people going through.

This year we were worried because the street fair, held out of doors, was cancelled because of the weather. The fibre event was not so easily cancelled because some vendors come very long distances and had arranged their small businesses around the event. It went ahead and we think most people were very pleased by their sales.

Middle Cat and I were caring for the "information" stall. People can try out various sorts of knitting needles. Middle Cat talks to them about issues they might be having with their hands and shoulders and backs as crafters. I talk to them about other yarn related issues and problems and encourage them to try different needles and "ergonomic" hooks.  

As most people want to be there it is usually a very good day. There are children of course and I took along the remaining "smiley faces" we had made for the Christmas tree last year to hand out. They were a hit. 

The first one I gave away would have made the entire day worth the effort. The recipient was a tiny three year old who was more the size of a two year old. I had observed the hearing aids and the fact that her mother had signed something to her. She was very shy so I asked her mother if she thought her daughter might like to choose one.  Oh yes. she would undoubtedly like one. She was about to explain when I thought I could do it myself so I looked directly at the child and asked her, "Would you like one?" I signed "you" and "like" and "one" and her expression changed to one of disbelief. She looked at her mother for permission and then chose one and gave me a smile and the sign for "thank you" without being prompted. Her mother told me, "She has never done that with a stranger before." I was simply relieved to have been understood without intervention from her mother. 

After they had gone on a woman trying out a tiny circular needle looked at me and said,"That was huge for her wasn't it?"  Yes, perhaps it was but it should not be. More people need to know more signs. I really know very little, far too little. 

I also gave another smile face to a very obviously intellectually disabled adult. He was being coaxed around by his father as his mother chose some birthday gifts. "Knitting keeps my wife from going mad caring for him while I'm at work" I was told. His son could not choose one from the bag so we put out two, one in orange (his favourite colour) and another in purple. Told he could choose one produced a huge grin and when he indicated he wanted to wear it like a badge we found a safety pin and his father pinned it on. He went off with the same huge grin. 

Yes, the rest of the day was busy and we were very tired at the end of it but those two incidents made all the effort we put in worth it for me.    

Small schools are something

I do know something about. I started my schooling at one which had just four teachers. It was actually considered to be quite a large school in a rural area. 

I should not have been there at all really but Mum was anxious to have me out of the house. She had my two year old brother and my four month old sister at home. I was four and a quirk of the system which said you could begin school the year you turned five meant I was eligible to go. It did not matter in the least that I would not be five years of age for another eleven months. I could read. It was time to start school. 

I did not particularly like school. For the most part I was bored by it. My "daily diary sentence" would be written down for me but the teacher would get impatient when I wanted "big words" even if I could spell them. Words like "extendable" (in relation to a ladder) and "thermometer" were not supposed to be in a five year old child's school reading vocabulary.  I was allowed to use them only because I could spell them. Yes, I must have been a very "difficult" child.

I only had a year at that school before the Senior Cat was transferred back to the city. I was sent to a big city school and in the infants you went from "reception" to "lower one" to "upper one" and "lower two to upper two". I was put in "upper one" because of my age. I lasted the first of the three terms and was put into upper two where I probably continued to be a nuisance. 

It was not until I reached what was then known as "grade six" that the Senior Cat was "promoted" to be the teacher in charge of a two teacher school. Mum went back to work then and she taught the first three years of school in one room. My father had everyone else in the other room. It meant the older children had to work alone sometimes. He had four "grades" he was supposed to teach and then the supervision of the correspondence school lessons for the "year eight" students. It says a great deal for the strength and stability of their marriage and their ability to teach that this arrangement actually worked. All the same it was not an ideal situation. The Senior Cat was aware of that but knew we were better off than the school with just eight children in it about an hour a way. There was another one in yet another direction with eleven children. Ours was a "big" school with the forty-four or five enrolled in it. 

At the primary school level these small schools were managed. Get a good teacher or teachers and they could even be good schools. Get a bad teacher or a lazy one and children did not learn a great deal. It was often seen as not being of any particular concern. The boys would go back on to the farm as soon as they reached an age where they could legally leave school. Some of them did not even do correspondence work and our Correspondence School, along with the School of the Air, was very good indeed. The boys though would sometimes repeat year seven twice or three times. Each year, before school had ended, they would be at home helping with the harvest. It was expected that the girls would, with rare exceptions, get married. It was only the children of the "floating population", those who were there for only a couple of years before being moved on, who were thought to be interested in doing more. 

The Senior Cat tried to change that and did succeed in seeing a couple of more able children sent off to board with families in a more distant town. Boarding school was not an option, people could not afford it in the most remote areas. 

I look back on it now, after reading a description by someone of their school days, and realise it was not a good education. Even the best teachers could not give a bright child a good education. You could get "doubly promoted" or "skip a year" and that was about it. My brother and I were fortunate in that the Senior Cat organised our membership of the Country Children's Lending Service and the librarians there sent out the six books we were permitted to borrow (they came as parcel post on the twice weekly train service) more often than was really allowed. He also encouraged us to listen to "the Argonauts", a children's radio program. We were always thrilled when our letters to Mac were read on air. 

We missed out on a lot of the resources available to city schools, or even larger rural schools. At secondary level I was never able to study a modern language. The Senior Cat gave me Latin lessons when he had the time. I had the textbook and was really expected to teach myself.

But there were two things which did happen. The first was that I had to find out how to learn alone. I had to learn without adult supervision. I am not sure it taught "self-discipline" but I had plenty of curiosity about the things which interested me. Did that help? Yes and the Senior Cat encouraged me and my brother. We had books and we were encouraged to do things, make things, find out about things. 

The other thing that happened was that, like all other children in the school, we knew that older children were expected to watch out for younger children. It was not just that you might have a younger sibling in the same classroom (and certainly in the same school) but out in the playground there was always someone watching. We might not even have been conscious of watching but we did, especially the girls. Disagreements were broken up quickly. If a small child fell then an older child would deal with it unless they thought an injury deserved adult attention.

I don't think that happens now. In big city schools the adults dealt with things we thought of as our responsibility. In rural schools I am told teachers are too worried about liability issues to let it happen the way it once did. It was part of growing up back then and we might just have been better off because of it. 

"Please make an URGENT appointment

to see Dr....." was the text message. Yes, alarm bells were ringing - for the wrong person.

I had a panicky call from a very elderly friend yesterday. She had just received the message asking her to make the appointment. She had no idea who the doctor was and she has not seen her own doctor since early January. 

"He didn't say anything was wrong. He isn't even there right now. He's taking leave."

I wondered if her GP had made an error of some sort and a locum had picked it up. "We'll get it sorted," I told her. I took a copy of the message and went off. Her doctor is a member of medical practice with multiple doctors. It is busy but they know me as I have occasionally been in when other elderly people have needed prescriptions picked up or there have been other issues which don't breach privacy concerns.  This time I was less certain but I told the nurse at reception what the concern was and then I asked, "Could you please just check it is the right person. There is someone else with the same name..."

It has happened before. It is a very common surname and they both go by the same given name. Yes, that is what had happened. The nurse at reception took a deep breath, thanked me and apologised. "If I get a chance I will call her later and reassure her."

I doubt she did it. There would be no time for that but the incident worried me and it worried the nurse. Someone had blundered somewhere. Possibly it was not catastrophic but it was still alarming.

I suspected because I have had something like that happen to me. My GP had started talking to me one day and I had to stop her and say, "Are you looking at my case notes or someone else's?" She stopped and swore and apologised and started again. No doubt the mistake would have been discovered when a prescription was printed out in someone else's name but it happened. Ever since then I have been acutely aware of the potential problem. 

The son of friends of ours was nearly given a second dose of warfarin when he was in hospital. He was just alert enough to realise what was going to happen and managed to stop them. In that case he had been transferred from a high dependency area to a lower one and the message had not gone with him. 

Mistakes do get made so when there is a story about overworked staff at one of the biggest hospitals I am concerned. My elderly friend was just sitting at the table waiting for me to come back. Yes, I could have tried to sort it out over the phone for her but the clinic is literally just around the corner and I could make the time.  I am thankful she was alert to a problem, that she could ask me to help. She gave me a rather shaky smile and I left her to her rather late breakfast and the paper she still has delivered.   

$180 an hour for a shower?

Oh yes the government "changed the way it works" recently, "it" being the assistance package some elderly people get to remain in their own homes. Prices were supposed to be "fairer" under this. They have gone through the roof to the stratosphere.

The late Senior Cat had a "package" which entitled him to three showers a week. It was all the assistance we were able to get. Yes, we paid for it... when we could get it. We accepted it because we were told it was "safer" for a "trained person" to do the job of assisting him and it was one less thing I needed to do.

The reality was very different. For a start we never knew who would be coming, if they came at all. They might be male or female, old or young, experienced or inexperienced, capable or incapable. They might, if we were fortunate, speak English. On one occasion I actually had to hastily print off a communication board I had written for another purpose so I could try and explain that something could not get wet (or we would need to change the bandage). The very young lad who came that day took the piece of paper away with him and told me "asante" (thank you) over and over again. We never saw him again. He had no idea what to do and his English really was minimal. I don't think his Swahili was that great either as he really spoke a related language. 

We had a Chinese woman come for several months. She was lovely, had some medical training and her English was good but she had to bring her young daughter with her during school holidays - and expected me to watch her. 

The Senior Cat was able to explain, to tell people how to help. He was however growing hard of hearing and, add in some heavy accents, he had problems understanding people. It worried him that he would upset them.

In the end we simply gave up. Middle Cat and I took it in turns. We also made sure he had a shower every day in very hot summer weather. It worried the Senior Cat that we were doing it but Middle Cat knew how to do things and taught me how to do it safely. 

Yes, I suppose it also saved some money but we were not being charged anything like the equivalent of $180 when other people came to do it. We could do a more thorough job in about half an hour - undress, shower, dress. (He could still shave himself with an electric razor.) People said we were "lucky" we could do it. No, we were not lucky at all. It was hard work but we felt infinitely happier about doing it ourselves because we knew it would be done in a way that made the man we adored feel safe and comfortable. 

This is the problem with the "in home care" system. There is no chance to build relationships, to understand how someone's needs can be best met. Despite claims to the contrary those doing the job are not well trained, if they are trained at all. They might get as little as fifteen percent of that $180 and are unlikely to get more than twenty percent even if they have a certificate. It is poorly paid work. 

There is someone I know working in the administration office of an organisation which provides some of this "care". She tells me the boss has just bought a new car and she will be in charge while he has an overseas holiday.        

Are "queers for Palestine"

really unaware that being gay or lesbian in Gaza is not acceptable? Are they aware that it could lead to their deaths if they openly acknowledged their sexuality in an Islamic country? Do they believe it does not somehow apply to them?

When I was very young homosexuality was still regarded as a criminal offence. My family actually lived next door to a male couple for a while. My memory of them is as perfectly ordinary, perfectly pleasant people who just happened to live together.  As an adult I wonder what sort of strain they were living under.  My mother certainly did not approve of them. We children were told not to talk to them. We did of course, children do. My very definitely heterosexual father was a great deal more tolerant and would often talk gardening issues with the older of the two men. 

Perhaps the interesting thing is that apparently nobody ever gave these men away. They were much more willing to accept what the older man gave away from the garden. I suppose he must have been retired. He seemed very old to me. He did not seem to go to work. The younger man did. He would ride off each day on his pushbike with his kitbag strapped to the back.

Although I cannot remember that much about them I do believe they would not have supported any political group like "queers for Palestine". None of the gay men I know, and I know quite a few, would support such a group. They come from across the political spectrum but none of them have time for this sort of "activism".  

It was only yesterday that one of them voiced his concern to me about the group as we waited in the queue at the Post Office. He spoke to me very quietly to say that a young lad we both know had been fortunate not to be badly injured in an attack on him by a group of youths. I had not heard about the incident. The boy in question is not gay. (He is, quite simply, just quiet. He has medical issues which in no way relate to his sexuality but do tend to keep him from the mainstream.) Apparently the mere thought this boy might be gay was enough for him to be the subject of an attack.

I have no doubt this boy's attackers believe they were justified and, given the opportunity, they would do it again. They have been taught to believe this. Are they likely to change? I doubt it. It will be deeply ingrained in their psyche by now.  

So why do groups like "queers for Palestine" exist? It seems to be such a contradiction. Do they also support wife beating?  

 

  

Mind your own children while

you are "having coffee" with your friends!

I am still feeling a little shaken and, perhaps, stunned by how fast I managed to move yesterday. Yes, I know it is a pedestrian crossing too but the small one on it was entirely alone.

We have a pedestrian crossing outside our shopping centre. It is one with constantly flashing lights which requires drivers to slow down and then stop and give way to pedestrians who are crossing. 

I was coming up to it yesterday when I saw a very small figure coming in the opposite direction. There were also cars coming on either side - and, for once, nobody else around. Fortunately the cars were moving slowly and about to stop. They had seen me. They had not seen the small figure already about a metre into the roadway. He was not exactly visible from their angle. He was from mine.

Instead of taking my usual cautious approach I put on speed and I grabbed. He wailed. He struggled. He screamed. He tried to bite. Someone else came to my rescue at that point. The drivers went on with long blasts on their horns. I am not sure if they thought I was somehow responsible. 

"Yours?" asked the other person furiously.  

"No. I saw him..."

"Look I have to go...that's my bus..."

"Put him in my basket...come on you can have a nice ride..."

One small screaming, wriggling child was put in the large basket on the back of my little vehicle. Yes, it is a large basket but it was still only just large enough to fit a nappy wearing toddler. I kept firm hold of him as he screamed at me and wheeled into the coffee area of the shopping centre. 

Yes, there was his mother. She was sitting at a table with another woman. It was not until I was all the way down the little ramp past the ice cream place and I was visible to her that this woman actually noticed her child had wandered off. 

Her reaction is something I still find unbelievable. "Oh, he was playing with the train thing there. I thought he was all right."

I did not say a word. I did not say anything at all. I was too shaken and too angry. It was the other woman who asked me, "Where did you find him?"

"Out on the road," I told her.

There was silence apart from the sound of small child screaming. Right around me people looked shocked...everyone, except the mother. She just put him down on a chair and distracted him with a piece of biscuit. 

No, I was not thanked. I am not sure I wanted to be thanked. I would just have liked her to show some concern for her child's safety.   

Guilty until proven innocent

seems to be the way we now approach things.

The criminal law in this country is based, among other things, on an assumption that you are innocent until proven guilty. It is an assumption which is supposed to protect innocent people from being wrongly convicted. 

Yes of course it is not perfect but, at least for most of the time, it works that way. Recently something seems to have turned this around in the media. We have more than one story suggesting that someone is guilty of an offence even before the matter goes before the courts. 

There is absolute glee in the media when a former prince of the realm is allegedly guilty of a range of offences. Oooh he has been "arrested" and then "oh, but he hasn't been charged yet - never mind it is only a matter of time". That's the "big" story I suppose. Another peer of the realm has been arrested? Oh, more "good" news - for the media, for us to gloat over. 

What about some of the other stories going around. Someone in the sporting field is accused of rape. He's a popular figure. It can't be true can it? Oh, wait a moment...look, he's "someone's" son.

Little has been said however about some other very public figures who might also have been "guilty by association".  Apparently they are not newsworthy or cannot possibly be conveniently guilty of anything. Well, that's nice I suppose.  

Then there is the public servant who did their very best to sort out another alleged rape issue. They gave the alleged victim every possible assistance and the assistance was even acknowledged only to have it later thrown back in their face for the benefit of an opposing party in an upcoming election. (Yes, some of you will know to whom I am referring to but let's leave it there.)

Many years ago I met a man who had spent time in prison. He was innocent, indeed had simply been a passer by, but innocent people do sometimes get incarcerated. He was only released when a police officer was dying and admitted that he had lied in court. He had lied to cover up the wrongdoing of his sergeant. The sergeant himself had not given evidence. He had gone on up the ranks. The innocent man was released but the sergeant avoided any consequences for technical legal reasons. It was a long time ago now but the innocent man, a mere unfortunate bystander who had nothing whatsoever to do with the incident, was stained for life. Many people believed, still believe, he "must have been guilty of something".  It would not matter how often they were told he was innocent they would want to believe he was guilty of something. Human nature has a tendency to believe the worst rather than the best.

The same might be said of the "ISIS brides". I was told the story yesterday of one of them who, according to her once-friend, "was just doing what she was told to do". The story has come to me third hand. It is undoubtedly embellished but, if true, then is the once girl, now woman, guilty or innocent of supporting a terrorist group? How can we know? 

We have an election coming up in this state. Although the incumbent government is expected to be re-elected "in a landslide" there are all sorts of "nasties" flying around in the media. Accusations are being made. We are being told they are accusations and that they may not be true or even that they actually not true. They are however enough to do the damage. They are deliberately designed to do the damage. 

Guilty until proven innocent is not how it is intended to be but how useful it is if you want to do someone harm. 

 

Whether the "ISIS brides" should be

permitted to return to this country or whether they should be barred from ever returning is being hotly debated in the media right now. Most people who are commenting on it almost certainly have no knowledge of the law surrounding their right, or lack of right, to return.

Add to that the undeniable fact that the government has been assisting them in their attempts to return and the issues get even more complex. 

The question of whether they have the right to return to this country is actually easily answered. Yes, if they have valid passports, they have the right to return. You cannot stop people with valid passports entering their own country unless you take extraordinary measures. The government has not taken those measures and it does not appear they intend to do so. 

How did the women get those passports? They must have obtained them with the help of the government. 

Recently I had to renew my passport. It still had a time to run but you need a minimum of six months from your proposed date of return to enter some countries. I was not taking any risks. The complications of not having the correct documentation can be huge and very costly -financially and otherwise.  

In order to renew my passport I had to supply some information. I had to supply a new photograph in multiple copies. I had to sign the form and so on. This was just to renew a passport. 

Obtaining a new passport is even more complex. It can be done of course and people do it all the time. Doing it from anywhere abroad is more complex, much more complex. You need to be able to access original documents. You need to have others on the electoral roll and who hold certain positions to certify the person who is applying is who they say they are. Documents need to be signed and witnessed.

Why am I saying all of this? I am saying it because it would have been impossible for the women seeking to return to have obtained passports without the assistance of the present government. That assistance must have been taking place over many months. The claim that they have been giving these women no assistance is wrong. 

If they are returned, and they almost certainly will be, then they will likely be closely monitored for the rest of their lives. Their children will be monitored too. There will be restrictions placed on them. It will come at immense cost to the taxpayer and it is not just because these women will never be employed.

 Should they have given them assistance? Do these women have the right to return? Should we be concerned about their return? These are completely different questions. 

In all this we also need to remember there are children. It can be argued their mothers had a choice but the children had no choice. How we treat them is going to be a test of how we stand as a nation.  

 

An election sweetener for housing?

 Oh yes there is an election coming up next month. It has barely made a ripple so far. We are being told that the present government will be returned "in a landslide". We can do nothing about this. It is what is going to happen.

Yes, it almost certainly will happen so why is the government also offering a one off concession to try and get older people to "downsize"Why do they want them to move out of their large homes into smaller homes and "free up" housing stock? Yes, there is a serious housing shortage but will this solve the problems?

It's unlikely. The offer sounds good, too good to be true. It is when you look at the detail you realise that, like many election promises, it is not nearly as good or as likely as it sounds. There are conditions and most of those conditions cannot be met very easily, if at all. 

You have to be 60 plus. Fair enough and easily verifiable. Does that apply to just one of you or more than one if you have a partner? No doubt we will find out.

You have to be buying a smaller property. Well, that's the whole point isn't it? It should be easily verifiable. Does it apply to just the structure or the entire block? I guess we will find out.

You need to be actually selling your existing home, not passing it on to the children. Fair enough. Must it be sold on the open market or can you sell it to your child(ren)? Mmm...tricky one that.

And then the other crunch item, the one which will probably prevent more than a very few actually taking the offer up. You need to be buying a "new or off the plan" build. That is supposedly designed to stimulate the building trade. It doesn't actually need stimulating. It is failing because of the lack of qualified tradespeople and supplies, including land supplies. No amount of downsizing sweeteners will solve that problem.

Another issue, one which has not been raised, is where is this new housing? Do older people actually want to move to these locations? I might be wrong but older people who have lived in one area for years, sometimes a lifetime, often have no desire to move away. It is not just the comfort of familiarity but the convenience of the other services they have set up and require. It is their friendships, even just the casual ones. They can be particularly important in a world where children have moved interstate or even overseas. Or it might be that their children have remained close to home and they now need to be babysitters for grandchildren. In an increasingly on-line world however it might be that the actual world has become increasingly important to them.

Do people want to lose all that? Would they do it for a supposed tax break which might cause their pensions to drop anyway? I doubt it.  It is one of those "sounds good until you think about the consequences" sorts of policy that only come up at election time.  

I am not my brother's keeper

or am I? It is an interesting question I suppose. The absolute glee with which the downfall of a very public figure has been met suggests that the responsibility for other people's behaviour only exists when it can be used against us. At that point mere association of any negative sort is sufficient. Let me explain.

I was at a meeting a couple of days back. Prior to the meeting people were standing around and talking about the alleged misconduct of a former prince. I use the word "alleged" with reason. No misconduct has yet been proven.  

Ah, but it doesn't really matter does it? Here is a public figure who has "probably" done something he should not have done. That's enough isn't it? He's a public figure, a lazy man who has never "worked" in all his life, who lives a life of luxury. He "isn't very nice" and never has been. He deserves everything which is coming to him and, here's the big one, so does the rest of his family.

Really? Is that enough? 

I do not for one moment think I would like the man if I met him but if we really believe that "everyone is equal under the law" then is this how we should be behaving? What happened to "due process" and "admissible evidence" and "the law"? Why is "hearsay" suddenly acceptable?

And why are his brother and other members of the family suddenly also responsible for all this? No, the media is not saying they are directly responsible but they are responsible by association, simply because a family relationship exists. There are people who want to bring down what has been a highly effective and stable system of government and this seems like an ideal time to do it. They wilfully misunderstand that the only power a monarch has is because the monarch has no power at all and democracy works because of it. Yes, that sounds ridiculous but that is the way it works.

On another forum someone pointed out that there are many other people named in the files surrounding a convicted sex trafficker. Many of them are people who held very high positions, who still hold very high positions. Their appearance in those files is not being given the same attention. Why? The simple answer is that it would be politically inconvenient to do so (and could also lead to litigation.)

Not so long ago the nephew-by-marriage of a politician in this country was charged with an offence. It had absolutely nothing to do with the politician in question but this is how the media reported it. Unless they did it that way the item was not likely to have been of any interest at all.  You need to be "someone's" associate for the alleged offence to matter. The idea that "I am not my brother's keeper" only applies to those with whom you have no relationship. When it becomes convenient then the relationship applies.

At the meeting I did not participate in the "discussion". It made me feel uncomfortable. One other very quiet person also clearly felt uncomfortable. She eventually asked, "And what about the parents of those underage girls? What were they doing?"  Then she walked out of the room and came back when the meeting started. Her question was a good one. I have often wondered the same thing. 

More often than not we are guilty of misquoting the Bible when we say "I am not my brother's keeper" because, from memory, Cain actually asks God, "Am I my brother's keeper?" That's a question, not a statement.  

 

 

Another sporting event is

about to hit the streets of the city in which I live. Conveniently it has also been announced just before our state election.

This time it is a "motorbike" race. It will not be held at a dedicated location south of here but around the streets of the centre of the city, the CBD. It is going to be held around the same route as a car race was once held, a "Formula One" race. 

Like many other people who are not interested in motor "sport" I was relieved when the F1 was taken away. It was disruptive of the city for weeks before and after. 

The arguments for bringing in the new race are the usual ones. It is claimed it will put the state, and the city in particular, "on the map" and that there will be "great financial benefits", that it is "exciting" and "what people want". 

I say there are very good reasons not to bring it here. The event will cost taxpayers something. There is no real financial benefit. The hospitality industry may benefit but the rest of the community will not. The businesses around the circuit will actually suffer financially. They did in the past and there is no reason to believe it will be any different now. People cannot get to them when streets are closed off and barriers are erected. Even if they can access them the noise and other disruptions tend to send people elsewhere. 

I am also, and I believe reliably, informed that street circuits are not suitable for such races. They are actually considered to be "dangerous" by experienced riders. Perhaps that adds to the "fun" of the event but it is also sending messages I do not think should be sent to people who are already foolish enough to think anyone can ride a  powerful motorbike. 

As this event is also a "spectator" sport it is not encouraging people to actually do anything active. It is not asking them to engage in any other way than simply watch - and quite possibly eat and drink while watching. This to me is not "sport" as it should be. 

What is more it is a short lived event. It does not last a lifetime. It is not a year or even a month. It is a few days of "entertainment". 

This is being offered to us as some sort of great coup at a time when has the highest electricity prices in the country and no answer to that except "we need more renewables". Manufacturing is almost gone but we are getting "the submarines" - also conveniently announced just before the election. There is also my personal concern, shared by many I have talked with recently, that the amount being spent on libraries is being cut back. It is being cut back at the very time more should be spent because of the social media ban for young people.

The only good thing right now is that the nurses managed to get a pay rise - but of course they did right before an election. 

We don't need any more "sport" but it is apparently seen as "cake". I would prefer bread.    

Does our Treasurer know any economics?

It might be a good question to ask. Our Treasurer has a doctorate and likes to be called "doctor" because of it. It makes him sound...well, "knowledgable" perhaps.

The problem is that his doctorate has nothing to do with economics. (It was to do with a political identity.) This shows when he is attempting to explain anything to the rest of us. 

I admit I do not know anything much about economics myself, not those sort of economics. For me economics has been the age old questions of "how much money do we have in the bank?", "how much money do we need to pay the bills?" and "can we afford it?".  They are the questions I have had to ask myself ever since I was sent off to boarding school. My entire working life has been one of "be careful and remember you are not getting as much as everyone else...you are getting less". No, I am not complaining. There is no point in complaining. I am simply stating a fact. I have actually managed to save some money over time. I intend to spend some too.

But the Treasurer's job is different. He is responsible for the nation's money. When a former governor of the Reserve Bank tells him he is spending too much money then he should be listening. That former governor is still intellectually sharp and he knows a great deal more about economics than the Treasurer. Just quietly let it be known that the present governor of the same bank agrees with the former one - not the Treasurer.

I went to law school with someone who was a senator in our federal parliament. She was retiring from the senate and we were both present at a lecture being given by a member of the university staff. He was attempting to explain a policy in social security and a decision which had been made while the senator had been the minister in question. He referred to the legislation, a number of cases and more. It all sounded good until he said, "The Minister made the decision on these..." 

I could feel the Senator, who was sitting next to me, getting restive and then she spoke up, "The Minister is present and the Minister made the decision not on those issues at all. She made the decision on the basis she is also a wife and a mother. She runs a household and it is the decision any responsible wife and mother would make. It is what the women of this country would have wanted. It is what they were telling me." (The issue, relating to child support, had cross party support.)

The references to women might not be quite as acceptable now but they were then. The Senator was, rightly, making the point that decisions were not based on legislation and policy alone but on reference to the families she was responsible for. 

It is how the Treasurer should be handling the economy. He isn't.

"Should they be allowed to return?"

was the question under discussion yesterday. One of my neighbours had just seen the footage of the ISIS brides and their children trying to return to this country. They apparently have valid passports but they were facing some sort of "documentation" difficulties.

The government does not want the women back. It seems most other people do not want them back either. They do not want the children either. There are claims the women are, or are likely to have been, "radicalised" and that the same applies to the children.

That may or may not be true. I have no idea. There are some things which I do wonder about however and they have not been mentioned. The first of these is whether these women were in "arranged" marriages. Does that matter? Have they been brought up to be submissive? 

It is quite likely they were brought up in households where men make decisions. Their fathers would have expected obedience. Their marriage partners would have been decided for them. 

That brings us to another thing. Once married they would have been expected to obey their husbands. If their husbands chose to go and fight for a caliphate they would have been told that this was the right thing to do. It would also mean that going to join him would have been considered the right thing to do even if they did not want to do it. For all the warnings they may have received they may not have had a choice. Yes, they could try not to go but, like leaving a cult your family still belongs to, it could mean leaving everything and everyone. Is that really a choice?

And what about the children in all this? Children are limited in the decisions they can make at any time. In the really important issues such as where you will live, with whom you will live and how you will live children have no choice. It is decided for them,

Do we need to consider those things before we say, "No, you cannot return"? Do we allow them to return but only under strict conditions? What do we require of them on their return? It might also be that what is right for one woman and her children is not right for another.  How do we determine that?

The government has some difficult decisions ahead of it.  

"It's the ambulance"

was the response.

It is perhaps a good thing I was actually awake and heading for the shower when there was an insistent banging on the door this morning. I had ignored the first knock. It was not quite six-thirty and I thought the noise must be something else. Then there was a second knock and I had to hastily make myself "decent" and, as they knocked a third time, I managed to get to the door and ask, "What is it?"

"It's the ambulance," a voice said. I opened the door (cautiously) and looked out. Yes, there was an ambulance officer. The other one, the male, was standing some distance back.

I could guess immediately who they were looking for and said, "You don't want me. It's the unit down there."

"You're not C....?" 

"No. She lives in that unit there."

"But this is the right number?" she asked and I explained about the numbering system. My unit is the same number within the units as the street number for everyone. It is confusing.

I know it is confusing because, more than once, there have been attempts to deliver alcohol to me...and that "breakfast" from the fast food place. The resident of that unit is an alcoholic. There is no kind way to describe it. This morning's episode should not have surprised me because someone attempted to deliver alcohol to my door last night. 

I said this to the ambulance officer. Perhaps I should not have said anything but I felt she had the right to know what they were going to. "I doubt it is an emergency," I told her, "I hope it isn't."

She gave me a resigned nod and a "Thanks for the info."

After they had gone I wondered what would have happened if I had not answered the door. Would they have tried to break in? Would they have called the police? I imagine the first thing they would have attempted to do is try to rouse me again. 

I can remember a similar incident years ago. One of the very elderly people I was keeping an eye on was not answering the door when the ambulance arrived. I was on my way to answer another "help" call early in the morning when I saw them. I stopped and opened the door for them with the key I had. I went on to the next house and dealt with the issue (flipping the mains switch so the power came back on) and then returned. 

"Taking her to hospital. Can you pack a bag for her?" I was told. 

It was an uncomfortably intrusive sort of thing to do but I found what she needed under her instructions. Later I wondered what would have happened if I had not stopped. 

There would have been nobody to do that for C... this morning. I suspect the bottle in the brown paper bag being delivered last night was "the hard stuff", spirits of some sort. I also suspect that the bottle would be close to empty this morning. 

If the emergency services had damaged my abode by breaking in I would feel angry, not with them but with her. As it is I just feel annoyed - and concerned.   

Being paid to "protest"

  This was apparently posted to the Airtasker site. I cannot verify it but someone else who had something on Airtasker assures me she saw it there. It has since been posted on "X" as well.

Whether it was a genuine posting - that is the person was intending to pay others to protest because of their own inability to attend - is something I very much doubt. I am told it would be easy to get  young people along and then claim they did not do what was asked of them. I am also told this could be done for multiple groups of young people looking for a few easy dollars to spend on a night out. It quite possibly did not cost the person who posted the "task" anything other than whatever it costs to post on the site. Did that person use their real name? It is also unlikely.

There is money somewhere behind these "protests".  Our "security and intelligence organisation" will know something about it. I have no doubt at all they are keeping a very close watch on the protests and who attends them.  (Yes, they keep an eye on me too. I am not being "paranoid". It is for my own safety.) 

I suspect one of the reasons the so-called pro-Palestinian protests  have been allowed to continue as long as they have is because it is easier to keep a watch on some of what is going on. The crowds will have been scrutinised each week - for agitators and trouble makers.

One person they will be monitoring closely is Josh Lees. He is the leader of these and many other protests. He is a professional agitator. He makes his living out of protesting. Where his money is coming from I do not know. It is unlikely to be Centrelink. He spends too much time organising protests and more to be spending the required number of hours searching for work. It seems he was once employed as a tutor at a university. He has a degree of some sort or other. Lees has a "man bun" and often wears a keffiyeh. It marks him out. Standing on a platform above a crowd rallying people to protest louder and harder is the way he "works". He does not give interviews.

Yes, that is the interesting thing. He does not give interviews. Other leaders of other protests seem more than happy to give interviews. They will actually seek them out. Interviews and the media coverage these give them, whether positive or negative are generally more than welcome. 

Lees avoids interviews. Why? It's an interesting question. I have my own theories about the reasons for this. Is he a dangerous man? Yes. I believe he is. I also believe the people behind him may be even more dangerous. For now he is being allowed to continue apparently unchecked because, on balance, those who know more than the rest of us have decided it is safer that way. 

Did anyone receive that $100? I doubt it. 

 

How (not) to write a cookbook

or "was this really a good idea?"

Like most other readers I know I keep a watch on the new books coming into the library system. I am also guilty of suggesting books I think others might enjoy or find useful. I suppose it is something we all do at times.

I have never recommended a cookery book and I am unlikely to do so. I do occasionally borrow one if I need to know something or W... is coming for lunch and has mentioned something I know nothing about but she (at 89) is feeling nostalgic about. I rarely use a recipe for anything. When I do it is quite likely to get changed or something will be substituted. Most of the time I am just cooking for myself and that is rather dull. I fling things into a saucepan or beat an egg or two and hope for the best. I even more rarely bake. I really don't care much for cake or biscuits.

But there was a book I was told, "You need to look at it Cat. It's full of biscuit recipes where you can buy the biscuits and then do things with them." 

I sighed and agreed because I know this person does not give up. They also have a "sweet tooth". They claim to love cooking. (It shows.) I know the brand of biscuits. They are probably the best known brand in Downunder - and beyond. They make sweet biscuits and savoury biscuits, big biscuits and small biscuits. They make plain biscuits and biscuits covered in chocolate or filled with "cream" and more. Most of them have a health rating of less than two stars. They are not meant to be eaten everyday but I suspect most people do. The Senior Cat and I would get through a packet of the "Scotch shortbread" or "Shredded Wheatmeal" about once every three weeks.

I put my name on the reserve list and borrowed the recipe book, a book which uses the biscuits to make other sweet things. There are "brownies" and tarts and a cake studded with biscuits. There are desserts and the inevitable "vanilla slice" recipe.  I flipped through the book. No! You do not put biscuits into pavlova! That "parfait" does not need another too sweet biscuit as decoration. I might use the idea of putting a tiny bear to bed or to ride in a raft but only if I was caring for children who like that sort of thing.

I went back to the beginning and looked at the first recipe. It was for "brownies" and uses a biscuit base and a topping. There is something wrong here. It tells you to beat the biscuit base for twenty minutes. Of course it is a mistake but I know how some people slavishly follow recipes. They will believe they really have to do this.

There is a two week loan on the book. I borrowed it yesterday. I can return it tomorrow and I will because two weeks means someone else is waiting to read it. I do not need to read more. It was an interesting idea but it doesn't quite get there.  Perhaps I could write a better recipe book but I won't.   

 

  

Males working in nursery schools

is apparently under discussion in England right now. There was an email to me this morning asking for my views on the topic. In it the writer asked me, "Isn't there someone in Victoria who has just been taken into custody for a similar offence?"

The answer to that unfortunately is "yes". I have not gone hunting for the story. The media made much of it at the time. The perpetrator is not likely to be out of prison any time soon - if ever. 

There are a lot of hard core criminals in prisons. That will not surprise anyone who has even given the idea a moment's thought. What might surprise some people however is that sex offenders generally need to be isolated from the general prison population for their own safety. I really do not know much about this. I once spent a few hours visiting our main correctional facility for male prisoners. It was part of my teacher training course and a long time ago now but I remember being told that, even among prisoners, sexual abusers (especially of the very young) are not liked or admired. Why should they be?

The question of whether men should be permitted to work in nursery schools however is quite a different one. My late mother was asked to take a male teacher into the pre-school (three to five years) in this state. He was one of the first very few to be employed in the area under the new "equal opportunity" legislation. My mother really had no choice because teachers were sent to schools by head office, not chosen by principals and parent bodies. And no, she was not happy about it. When she met him she was even less happy to have him there. All sorts of "safety" arrangements were put in place, some known to him and others not.

 He was there for about eighteen months and was then transferred to another school. The following year he was arrested for sexual offences. For some time after that no male teachers were appointed to pre-schools but the past thirty years have seen that change. I am aware however of a constant concern, a concern which is more than it is for women in the profession.

Yes, there probably are men who want to work in very early childhood care and education. Some of them will want to do it for the right reasons. They will do well and genuinely care for the welfare of the children in their care but there will always be questions. What is a man doing there? 

Would I employ a man in that role? I was asked that question and I have to say, "I am not sure. Given two equally qualified people I suspect I would choose a woman." Is that right or is it wrong? 

What is a university for?

 There is a "discussion" going on at present between the classicist and academic Mary Beard and a Charlotte Gill about the way universities function. 

Dame Mary held a professorship in her own right at Newnham (Cambridge University). She spent many years teaching there. She was teaching in London (King's?) when I was a student in another part of the university. I managed to get to a lecture by her, a friend took me. I remember it well enough to think I would very much like to have been taught by her. She welcomed discussion.

I am not sure what Charlotte Gill's qualifications are. She is not the Canadian writer but she does write about what she calls "woke waste" - funding for woke projects. 

The "discussion" or argument seems to revolve around whether universities are involved in teaching and questioning ideas or whether they are places where you regurgitate the "correct" ideas.  The "what is a university for" argument. Trying to debate this at all on "X" let alone properly is almost impossible.

It is a topic I have commented on before and will no doubt comment on again. I had a discussion about it with the mature age student who lives across the dividing footpath where I now live. He has strong opinions about the way he is expected to abide by the ideas being put in front of him. He has been marked down for arguing against them. This is not "my lecturer/tutor doesn't like me and I am only getting a pass grade" but something he has been told he cannot afford to do. He is passing but he is not getting the grade he should be getting. He is getting distinctions but not high distinctions.  He is studying "counselling".  He refuses to accept there is only one correct answer to the questions he is being required to answer in assignments. His hopes of doing a masters have been cut to zero. There is no room for someone who does not follow the correct ideology in counselling. 

The late Senior Cat used to tell the story of how one of his lecturers slashed a line through an entire page of a student's work saying, "X (a critic) will not do. I won't have him mentioned."  How do you write a reasoned argument if you are not free to refer to and use all the resources you have at your disposal?

I have seen this happen more than once. I was a victim of it when I was doing my teacher training. There were "guidelines" and we were expected to follow them. There was only one way to write a lesson plan and we had to stick to that lesson plan. As a teacher if a child asked a good thoughtful question the rest of us would be off that plan and I would be getting them to argue the point being made. It meant we sometimes had to make up work to cover all that needed to be covered but the only complaints came from one or two lazy ones.

At tertiary level there should be room for argument. If a student raises an issue in a way which suggests they do not understand then they need one sort of help. If they raise an issue because they have done their "homework" and they are questioning something then they need to be encouraged. They don't need to be told "this is what you have to say even if if it not what you think".

My doctoral thesis turned an idea in psychology around another way. It was not what I set out to do. It just happened as I was searching for answers to the problem I had set myself. It came as a surprise to me, to my supervisor and everyone else. Even now I realise I was incredibly fortunate that I did not fail because the external examiner, a big name in the field, found his own work being questioned. It was one of those times when things could have gone either way. At my viva he really pushed me hard. The other two examiners barely asked a question. I know they were worried and I was very, very frightened. At the end of it though he told me, "I don't like it but I have to accept we need to change our thinking here." The data was there.  

The result might have been very different if my thesis had been in the area of "gender studies" or "indigenous studies" or one of the other current woke ideas. It will also take a brave student to argue against the meaning given to a particular word when studying one of the indigenous languages of this country, or suggesting that nuclear power might still be something that needs consideration. Try saying indigenous children should be taught in English from the start and you would lose any chance of a job working with them, perhaps of working with children at all.  The list of topics that may not be argued is long.

I suspect both Dame Mary and M/s Gill still have much to say to one another. I also believe it is both the university you attend and the course(s) you do there which will inform you of whether you are permitted to argue other ideas. Here they are not always welcome, particularly in woke areas or if their purpose is to train you for employment or both. 

Myself? I think universities are there, or should be there, for the exchange of ideas and the development of them. It won't happen if you have to agree in order to pass.