Academic freedom of speech

 I have the dubious pleasure of going to the dentist today and I will not have time to write my usual rubbish. Instead I am taking the opportunity to pass this on from the BBC website. The author is Branwen Jeffreys the Education Editor. BBC: https://bbc.com/news/articles/cp8pnwyy0zjo This is merely for information. I am not "commenting" apart to say that, in light of similar issues in Downunder, it is interesting.

The University of Sussex has won an appeal against a record £585,000 fine and ruling it had infringed on lawful freedom of speech.

Last year the Office for Students (OfS), the regulator of England's universities, handed down the fine and claimed the university had breached its trans and non-binary inclusion policy.

The OfS investigation came after Kathleen Stock left her job as professor of philosophy at Sussex, following protests from students over her view that gender was not more important than biological sex.

The vice-chancellor of Sussex said the new High Court ruling raised serious questions about the regulator, while the OfS described the outcome as "disappointing".

The High Court case did not consider what happened to Stock, but rather how the OfS reached its decision over the fine.

High Court judge Mrs Justice Lieven ruled on Wednesday on whether a proper process was followed in issuing the fine.

It was handed down to the university in March 2025 on the basis of Sussex's trans and non-binary policy, which included a requirement to "positively represent trans people" and warned against "transphobic propaganda".

In court, the University of Sussex had argued the trans and non-binary policy was not what is called a "governing document" and did not have the importance attached to it by regulator the OfS.

This concern was upheld by Wednesday's judgment, along with several other aspects of the process.

Perhaps most damaging for the regulator - meant to oversee freedom of speech - was that the accusation of bias in the process was also upheld.

Mrs Justice Lieven said the OfS had "closed its mind" to anything other than a finding that the university had failed to uphold freedom of speech.

The regulator was also found to have taken a flawed approach to deciding what was academic freedom.

The OfS told the BBC that it did not accept this and instead said it needed to improve how it recorded its decisions.

The regulator's chairman said he would consider over several weeks whether to appeal against the High Court ruling.

As part of the investigation that led to the fine, the OfS interviewed Stock, but the court had heard it did not meet anyone from the university in person despite requests from the institution to discuss concerns.

Last August, a new freedom of speech law covering England's universities came into force giving the regulator even stronger powers.

A complaints system will allow academics and visiting speakers to directly raise concerns with the OfS from this autumn.

From April 2027, universities could face fines of £500,000 or 2% of their income if they are found to have failed to protect free speech.

The vice-chancellor and president of the University of Sussex, Prof Sasha Roseneil, said: "I am delighted that Sussex's foundational commitments to academic freedom and freedom of speech have been recognised by the High Court."

She added: "It is a devastating indictment of the impartiality and competence of the OfS, implicating its operations, leadership, governance, and strategy. It raises important and urgent questions for the government as it plans to grant ever more powers to the regulator."

Josh Fleming, interim chief executive of the OfS, said it would "carefully consider the consequences of the judgment before deciding on next steps".

He said: "Our focus remains on students and the sector, and we are pleased that following our investigation a dozen institutions, including the University of Sussex, have amended policies which restricted freedom of speech.

"As a result, students and academics should feel greater confidence in their ability to engage in the free and frank exploration of thought that characterises English higher education."

Vivienne Stern, the chief executive of Universities UK, which represents over a hundred institutions, said universities wanted to "work closely with the Office for Students to reset relationships and rebuild trust".

A statement continued: "Effective regulation depends not just on enforcement, but on trust, clarity, and a shared understanding of respective roles."

Paying for the news?

Our Prime Minister has apparently just said that investment in journalism "is critical to healthy democracy".

Oh yes, it is a lovely thing to say if you can see money in it. Do not be fooled. The plan to try and make the tech giants pay for the news they "use" has nothing to do with a healthy democracy. This is about control. This is about money.

A 2.25% tax may not sound like much but the Prime Minister is saying the tech giants will have to pay the tax even if they pull the news from the likes of Google, TikTok and FB. He is very generously saying he will reduce it to 1.5% if the tech giants do deals directly with the bigger outlets and works with government on the smaller outlets. 

He is also saying "we believe it is only fair that these platforms contribute to the hard work of journalism that enriches their feeds and that drives their revenue".  According to the Prime Minister it is "not a tax". 

Of course this move has the support of the media giants like NewsCorp. 

Yes, I agree you should pay for something if you are using it but the reality here is that the tech giants have generally got agreements with groups like NewsCorp. There are mutual benefits here. If you doubt me then how often have you seen something you would like to know more about only to find it was behind a paywall? This is advertising. Want to know more? Then pay to read it.

What is really the giveaway here is that the proposed legislation includes our ABC, our national broadcaster which is paid for through our taxes. It includes the SBS, also taxpayer funded. The Guardian is there along with the usual commercial suspects but the inclusion of the ABC and SBS makes it clear that this is a tax. It is a money raising exercise.

I get my news from a wide variety of sources. I read more than one newspaper. I pay for some, have some paid for me and there are some I pay for indirectly. It's a fair mix.

Bring the tax in and the US government is threatening to raise tariffs. If that happens then this will spiral. We will lose news content. Some of it may not matter much. If it leads to less sport then I am not too concerned. If it wipes the likes or Orla Guerin and her colleagues from our screens and pages then I will be a great deal more concerned. 

It is not a simple "user pays" situation. "Who" pays, "how" and "why" matters when it comes to sources of information.     

Never caught a bus alone?

I had to help a sixteen year old catch a bus yesterday. She had never done it before. She had never been on a bus apart from a school excursion bus.

A school excursion bus is a completely different sort of experience of course. Someone at the school orders the bus.Your parents pay the excursion money. The teachers tell the driver where you are going and see to it that you all get off at the right place. You go back to school on the bus.

This girl had never been anywhere else without a parent or other adult. She had no idea how to catch a bus. That she felt embarrassed would be an understatement. 

Had she been on a train alone? No. On just one occasion she had been in a taxi on her own. Her mother takes her to school. Her grandfather picks her up from school. The problem? Her grandfather was not available. It is the only time in all these years he has not been available. 

Her mother had rung me in exasperation, "She's useless. Will you go down and tell her what to do. See she gets on the right bus. Tell the driver she gets off at the stop before the terminus. I hope to hell she can find her way from there."

I went. I went because I was furious with her mother. Yes, a sixteen year old should be able to catch a bus alone. There are sixteen year old girls who have sailed around the world alone. This sixteen year old has not, until now, ever been given the opportunity to do anything like that.

At the bus stop I discovered that she had not got on the bus she should have caught because "I didn't think it was the right one." It was the right one but I admit there is a rule about picking up and setting down which is confusing. That particular stop is a layover though and it does not apply. I explained. We waited for the next bus and I gave her some tips for her English assignment. The bus came in and I watched her get on, use her card to pay the fare. I interfered enough to say to the driver, "She isn't sure about this route but she needs to get off at the stop before the terminus."

"Not a problem," I was told. 

But it is a problem. A sixteen year old can get a licence to learn to learn to drive and this sixteen year old cannot catch a bus.   

What do we want children to read?

 This was Susie O'Brien in the state newspaper this morning. I am, with permission, repeating it in full here. This is what we are up against. 

Roald Dahl’s iconic book The Twits has been described as outdated,

abusive, violent, cruel and discriminatory towards men with facial hair.

The 1981 global favourite is on the primary school curriculum for English

classes in this state and is widely used as a classroom text in several

other states.

But a new analysis by Dr Mellie Green from the Faculty of Education at

Southern Cross University has found the book’s continued use in schools

“raises a professional dilemma for contemporary teachers and teacher

educators”.

Much-loved humorous moments such as of the “hairy-faced men” who

don’t wash their faces, the “boy pie”, “ugly” Mrs Twit and upside-down

monkeys are singled out as “problematic” and “outdated”.

Dr Green argued the book, which has sold over 16 million copies and been

translated into 41 languages, showed a “lack of inclusion, reliance on

ridicule, stereotyping, and the “normalisation of cruelty as humour”.

In particular, she said the book contains “derogatory stereotyping” of men

with beards.

“While framed as humour, (it) constructs facial hair as suspicious,

unhygienic, and morally suspect, inviting readers to participate in the

ridicule of an entire group,” Dr Green said in an article in The Australian

Journal of Language and Literacy.

Mr Twit’s beer drinking is also highlighted as problematic; Dr Green noted

alcohol was “an established risk factor for domestic and family violence”.

Dr Green also described the book as being “about abuse, coercive power,

and fear framed as humour” as well as domestic violence.

“In The Twits, Mrs Twit’s appearance is repeatedly and viciously attacked

by her husband; ‘Have you ever seen a woman with an uglier face than

that? I doubt it’.”

Dr Green also said “threats of violence towards children are also

repeatedly framed as comic moments” such as when boys are glued to a

tree and when Mr Twit threatens to cook them into a “boy pie”.

The Advertiser https://todayspaper.adelaidenow.com.au/html5/reader/production/defau...

1 of 2 4/27/2026, 7:50 AM

“The Twits fails to offer the kind of literary richness that allows for

discussion of complex characters, multiple interpretations, or nuanced

social themes,” she said.

Dr Green did not say the book should be removed from school reading lists

but argued it should be more critically assessed.

She accused it of “normalising offensive portrayals” and said there was a

need for “greater professional discernment in text selection”.

Colleen Harkin, director of education programs and research fellow at the

Institute of Public Affairs, said critics of The Twits such as Dr Green

“misunderstand both Dahl’s work and young readers themselves”.

“Young recognise the absurdity, exaggeration, matter-of-fact egregious

and gleeful nonsense in Dahl’s work,” she told The Advertiser.

“It’s what makes many young readers roll on the floor in hysterics …

critics underestimate children’s intelligence,” she added. 

My niece and nephews adored Dahl. Their children still do. All of them have watched Charlie and the Chocolate Factory multiple times. Every other child I have ever known who has had contact with Dahl's books for children have also enjoyed them. They have laughed and laughed. They have repeated things from them, told me enthusiastically about them. Their parents have groaned and protested at being pestered to read the books "again".

Dahl's books are not great literature but they are still great books. They are ridiculous. They are permission to make fun of things we are not normally permitted to deal with in that way. They are funny.

Apparently this is not acceptable to people like Dr Green. I was reminded of something in a book published in the mid-sixties. In "Pauline" by Margaret Storey there is a point where orphaned Pauline hears her seven year old cousin singing in the bath. Betty is singing about "fifteen men on a dead man's chest" but Betty stops singing when her father explains what it means. All the magic of the moment has gone. Dr Green and others apparently do not see this as important. It is more important for the child to be educated into the correct way thinking. 

It is like that moment in the library when the young girl looked up at me and said, "I'm sick of AIDS and death and divorce. I just want a good adventure story." That was so many years ago now but the situation has, if anything, become worse. Oh we have reprints of Enid Blyton and all the "Tree house" type books but somewhere along the way we have lost other books, those "good adventure stories" which are rooted in the world and not in fantasy.  We have lost the sort of books where a child can believe "this is real. It could have happened to me."  

If you doubt me then what about the child who told me, "There are no real adventure stories any more, not the sort that might happen to me. It's all dragons and magic and stuff and I like it but all the stories about kids who are supposed to be like me are about the sort of thing we get told we have to believe." 

The "have to believe" was apparently issues about gender, race and other social issues. If anyone doubts me I glanced at a book while waiting by the table of remainders the newsagent has outside. It was intended for young teens and it is the story of a boy whose mother takes on a surrogacy for a male couple.  Perhaps I should have bought it and read it and educated myself but I actually found myself thinking, "Is this really want teens want to read or is it what adults think they should be reading?" 

I had to give away a very large collection of children's literature when I moved. It has bothered me ever since. I am beginning to realise why the children around me saw me as a lending library. I had found and collected what they wanted to read.  

The "Welcome to Country" protests

have to stop.

I know, I have written about this elsewhere and others will write about it today. They will say it is "disrespectful" and more.

Yes, it is "disrespectful" but it is disrespectful on more than one level. It is disrespectful of the person delivering the address. They have been asked to do something. I may not agree with what they are doing but they have been asked to do it. In the highly unlikely event I was the one delivering the address I would expect people to at least be quiet. No, you don't have to pay attention. You can think about anything else but be polite. Do not interrupt. 

It is disrespectful to people whose ancestors lived here before white settlement. Does that matter? Yes, it does. My ancestors came from Scotland. If someone without Scots ancestry turned up at the Caledonian Society and booed a traditional welcome there I would feel, at very least, uncomfortable especially if it was done on Burns Night or St Andrew's Day or Hogmanay. No, they are not "sacred" but they often mean something special to Scots.

The booing at yesterday's ANZAC ceremonies goes further than that. It was disrespectful to all service personnel everywhere. That is unacceptable. It is the sort of behaviour that would come from the louts who might have done much more serious harm to the little war memorial had my friend's husband not gone and stood quietly there two days ago. 

But I also believe any "welcome" or "acknowledgment" is inappropriate at any time. It is especially inappropriate on this occasion.  It is a political act where no political act should be present. The "welcome" and the "acknowledgment" ceremonies are political acts. They are not welcoming. They are designed to divide us, to remind us of claims about "theft", thefts in which none of us had any part but for which we are told we must be held accountable. All too often they are delivered by people whose own ancestors are among those being welcomed. How do you reconcile that? 

For service personnel this must be particularly difficult. Those few left who served in WWII must find it even more difficult. ANZAC Day should be about the men and women who served this country, nothing more and nothing less. 

Vandalising war memorials

needs to be dealt with in the harshest possible terms. Kicking them is not on either. It will lead to vandalising them later if left unchecked.

There were more than a couple of teenage louts who thought this would be "fun" yesterday. They were in a local "green space". It isn't really a park as such, just an area of grass with a small memorial.  It's usually a quiet space, one where people can sit on the only seat and just take a break or rest on their walk home. I don't often go that way.

I was dropping off some books to a person who lives in a house that looks out on the space. She had come out to greet me and it was then we saw the boys. They must have known the memorial was there because they immediately began kicking it.

The woman I was visiting went to her door and said something to her husband. He came out and, without hesitation, advanced on the boys. They jeered at him and us. They did not scatter as I thought they might. They defied him, telling him "There's nothing you can do Grandpa".

I was seriously worried by then. 

I need not have been. Someone in the next house had heard the shouting and come out. He was filming the entire thing on his phone although the boys were not aware of it. "Grandpa" did nothing. He just stood there. He stared at them. He went on staring at them.  It obviously bothered them. They left.

When they had gone he walked over to the memorial and carefully dusted some grass off. He picked up a can of spray paint by the very edges. His neighbour came over and filmed the rest. I left.

My friend phoned me last night "just to reassure". Yes, the police had been. Photographs had been taken. "They decided they did not need to interview you," she told me, "It's all there on film. L...and M... spent the rest of the morning clearing the mess up. When the men arrived this afternoon it was all cleared away."

There was a small Dawn Service there this morning. My friend's husband kept watch all night. The paint had not been used.

I wonder what the police will do, if they do anything at all. The evidence is there on film but will they find the boys? 

I  hope they do. I hope they do more than simply warn them but I know it is unlikely. It is the sort of thing the boys will probably boast about. I would like to sit them down, one at a time, and have them listen to the men I have known over my lifetime - the men who made it possible for those louts to be there yesterday.    

Living in a "hall of residence"

at a university is not for the faint hearted now. There was a dance at one recently. It began at eight in the evening and officially ended at midnight. Yes, shock! Horror! 

Apparently twenty-seven residents who live across the street from the venue complained about the noise. Really?

When I was at teacher training college there was no residence for the students. You lived at home, with relatives, in rental accommodation or - in my case - you lived in a boarding school. (I was "earning" my board and lodging as a very junior housemistress.) I therefore did not see a "hall of residence" until I went to university on the other side of the world. 

It was not your typical student hall of residence. It was a "post-graduate" residence. I was one of the youngest, if not the youngest, student there. There were "students" in their forties and fifties. There was someone writing a book about aged care who was close to retirement, another doing some research who was about the same age. Most of the residents came from other parts of the world. The place was, as such places go, very quiet. In the evenings we retired to our rooms and worked. It is what we were there for. 

I eventually moved from there to a similar establishment that was self-catering. I occasionally saw other students in the communal kitchen. Once in a while someone would suggest a visit to whatever free entertainment was available. None of us had any money for frivolities. Very occasionally we would spend 65p on a ticket to a concert or the theatre.

Back in Downunder I had no intention of returning to university but it became increasingly obvious I needed to know much more about the law, international law, tort law, law and medicine, law and the social sciences. I sighed. I put in an application. I applied to a hall of residence too. Accepted into these places I found myself a little older, but not that much older, and a little less happy with the noise. I solved the problem by spending long hours in the Law library. Right around me the youngest students, mostly straight out of school, were enjoying life. 

At least it seemed that way. It did not take long to discover all the problems they were facing. There were students who were happy and working hard. There were students who were not happy and still working hard. There were students who discovered the courses they had chosen were not right for them, who discovered alcohol and drugs. I was not really surprised by any of this. There was enough in the media to tell me it would be going on.  I expected social activities. The law had changed and there was now a student "bar" on the premises and in the university grounds. I never visited the former and I still do not know where the latter is! I wasn't being a prude. I don't drink alcohol and even someone just a few years older would not have been welcome in the residence bar. I suspect it was also where the cannabis was exchanged. Hard drugs were not in evidence but cannabis was rife. I would come back from a Saturday in the library and find someone had opened my bedroom window from the outside so I would not have a foul smelling room. They were pretty good about that. I knew to keep my mouth shut - and to listen when someone banged on the door looking for help.

I did some more post-grad work at another university and was asked to live in a small self-catering unit of fourteen students. It was quieter but there were still issues. The Asian girls tended to be very quiet and tidy. The boys were less so but still quieter and tidier than the more local students. Those students would leave a mess in the kitchen and the "music" would be full blast occasionally. I did not like it because I am a "quiet" person but I recognised it was part of life in residence. The only thing complaining would have done was isolate me. 

I am not sure I could do it now. I think I am too old for noisy, communal living. I dread the thought of being bundled into a nursing home and living communally again. I like my own space, my own quiet. 

If the student who lives next door to me now wants a party though what would I do? 

I would not complain about a one off on a Saturday night the way those other residents in the area did. I would try to remember what it was like being away from parental supervision and control and how we damn well needed to do it. It was part of growing up. It is only when you go on doing it to excess it becomes a real problem.   

That NDIS announcement

has been made. 

As I expected the first thing which happened was an alarmed call to me. "What's this going to mean for K...'s package?"

My answer to that was, "Nobody is going to take K...'s package away. It might be reviewed at some point but even without the NDIS you would have been getting extra help."

The NDIS was designed to provide help for people like K...  She is so severely physically disabled she cannot do anything for herself. She cannot speak. She is fed through a tube because she cannot swallow. She has the intellectual understanding of, at most, a two year old child.  Her parents did an amazing job of caring for her. Her father is no longer alive but her mother, now in her eighties, goes to see her daughter in the "group house" every day. She worries about what will happen to K... when she is no longer there to help.

"I would miss her dreadfully but I wish she would go before me so I would know she was safe," her mother tells me. What a think to have to wish!

The NDIS was supposed to be for people like K. It was not intended to provide football boots and a carer to take a boy with behavioural issues to after school sport. Yes, they are behavioural issues. He is not "autistic". He has some learning issues but they are not severe. He has extra tutorial sessions. They require extra effort on his part, an effort he is not making. He is the only child and life revolves around what he demands. He is a bully at school and has been suspended for his behaviour more than once. He has been "assessed" more than once and each time his "package" has been increased. His mother told me, quite proudly, that he is now getting more than $30,000 a year in funding. He loves the extra attention but is it doing any good? That is highly debatable. It is not what the NDIS was intended to cover. 

The NDIS is doing the job it was intended to do for another child I know. She is now five and this year is being "home-schooled". It is not by choice but because she is physically too frail to go to school. She is a very intelligent child who wants to go to school. Her package includes funding for attending a "gym class" - actually a highly specialised exercise session. The sessions are designed to try and build up enough strength to handle at least a half day at school next year. If she can handle that then she will attend school full time the following year but there will still need to be someone available to give her some help to handle her medical needs.  Her father told me, "We are hoping we can cut back on the funding as she learns to handle more herself. " 

I had her here for a couple of ours recently when her grandmother could not help as she usually does. We did some craft together and at one point I asked, "Do you want me to do it or would you like to try doing it yourself?" Her immediate response was, "I want to do it."  It has taken time and training and an expectation that she will try to do what she can to get to that response. It made me think that the NDIS needs to be about more than funding. It needs to be about an expectation of effort as well. Yes, it is "not fair" this child will have a life long physical issue but her parents are teaching her that this means she will always have to make the effort to cope.

Perhaps this is where we have gone wrong with the NDIS. It should not be about "services" or "money" but about assistance only where assistance is really needed.  For the K..s of this world it should be about dignity and the occasional treat because she can do nothing for herself. For the other two it should be about making them as independent as possible but making sure they are putting the effort in so funding is doing the job it was intended to do. 

Building a house is

something I have observed but never done. To me it looks complicated and expensive. I am sure those who do it welcome anything that makes it less complicated and less expensive.

The first place I called home was a tin shed on the top of a small hill on the edge of a small country town. It was the only accommodation available for my parents. The Senior Cat was teaching in the primary school. My mother filled in for the teachers of both the primary and secondary school if they were away ill. This went on happening until I arrived and Mum had to deal with caring for a baby in a tin shed where there was linoleum placed directly over the ground. Water was pumped via the windmill which, if the wind blew strongly enough, provided a weak and intermittent supply of electricity.

My parents must have been watching the building of the two rows of "Housing Trust" houses down the hill. This was post-war government accommodation. It was intended for the teachers and similar government workers. The houses were the cheapest to build fibro-asbestos houses with their "Metters no.5" wood burning stoves and their "chip heater" hot water in the bathroom. My parents thought it was luxury after the shed.

Now there would be outrage if that sort of new housing was offered to young people. They want something much more substantial and they want air-conditioning to cater for "climate change". They want an instant hot water service and much more.

This is part of the problem with the housing supply of course. People want far more now and they want it from the start. My parents were retired before they built their own home. It was only possible because they saved and commuted some of their superannuation to do it. Prior to that, out in "the country", they were forced to rent the sub-standard accommodation supplied. There was no other accommodation available. On their return to the city they had no choice but to move in to the house my mother's parents had lived in, a house which held many unhappy memories. Yes, they could have stayed there but the Senior Cat was determined Mum should have her "own" home. 

They built a house on a rare vacant block of land not too far from where I now live. It is like many other houses built by the same company. The rooms are not large and it did not come with air-conditioning or landscaping but it did have hot water and electricity. My parents did the rest. Even in retirement they did it gradually. They did it as they could afford it and by deciding their priorities. It is not how things are done now. It is apparently acceptable to go deeper into debt and have it all from the start.

I may be wrong but I suspect it is something which adds greatly to the cost of housing. "Oh, it will be cheaper to do it now while we are building" is something I have heard more than once. Is it? 

Perhaps we need to rethink expectations and rethink priorities. I know I am fortunate I have what I have. It is not perfect but I have something which is actually far better than what my parents started out in. When I said this to a young girl who is about to get married she was shocked. She and her husband to be already have plans for a house with a patio and a pool and "proper air-conditioning" provided by solar panels and more. They are both earning very good money and I give them credit for their determination to save but they still want more. "It's what everyone needs now," I was told. Is it? Would the "housing crisis" be less if people wanted less to start with? 

The NDIS is not working

and it is time for a complete overhaul or an even more drastic complete scrapping.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme started out with the best of intentions. It was meant to be certainty that the basic needs of people with disabilities would be met. It no longer does that.

I know a woman with Down Syndrome. Her sister is her legal guardian and has Power of Attorney over this woman's affairs. The woman herself gets a pension for which she "works" at a centre for people with disabilities. This woman can read and write at a basic level. She lives in a tiny unit which she keeps spotlessly neat and clean. Yes, she is a "success" story but she is still vulnerable and someone, in this case her sister, needs to keep an eye on her affairs. Recently the centre management tried to take over this woman's affairs. She was called in to the office and asked to sign some forms which would have given the centre control over her financial affairs. One of the consequences was to be told she would need to move into a "group" house "because we (management) will be paying all your bills now". This is what alerted her sister to what was going on.

The resultant mess has taken some time to sort out. It has taken her sister many hours to do with some help from me.The centre made all sorts of excuses but the reality is they wanted control because there is money to be made out of having control. I made some inquiries of other people who are "working" there and yes, they have all been asked to effectively sign over their financial affairs so the centre has control. Those who have guardians or interested family or friends now have someone looking into the situation. The centre is running at a loss but those running it are getting and excellent income. 

There is too much of this sort of thing going on. It will always go on but not enough is being done to investigate it. The entire scheme has been seen as a means of making money by some. However much it is denied the fraud element is high.

There are far too many people receiving benefits for things which are not needed. The Down Syndrome woman was paying for a "cleaning service". She does her own cleaning. She is paying rent and the rent is reasonable. Her landlord is happy with her, indeed told me he wished the other tenants were as good as she is. The idea she might move into a group house and share a bedroom left him shaking his head.  "Making money out of that," was his comment.

The matter is now resolved after a fashion. There may or may not be consequences for those in charge of the centre. They will almost certainly argue "mistakes with paper work" and "this is what she said she wanted" and "we have to do what we believe is best for the client" if the matter goes any further. My guess is they will be given a warning and nothing will be done. It is much easier not to do anything.

This is why it is also easier to allow people to go on receiving benefits for services they do not need, perhaps should never have received. Arguing with them and cutting their benefits is just too much effort. It is all being paid for by other people's taxes.

The entire system needs to be rethought. I suspect I could go in and that my friend S... could go in and cut expenditure by half. It would leave some unhappy people who believe they have a "right" to some services but it might leave money for people who need help and are not getting it.  

 

Just 7.6% of students

in their final year of school are studying a foreign language according to a report in today's paper. It also says the most "popular" languages are Japanese, Chinese and Spanish while Indonesian has a very low 3.7% retention rate. This is not like Europe where 96% of students are still studying one or more foreign languages in their final year at school.

I can go a little further and say that many of those who are studying a foreign language here are students who speak that language at home. The vast majority of them will be Chinese.  That is why they are studying Chinese.

Language learning is not seen as important here. We are too far away from Europe for European languages to be seen as important. Migrants from Europe have integrated by learning English. Their children spoke the language of their parents at home and sometimes went to "Greek school" or Italian classes but the language was almost lost by the next generation. They did not see it as necessary.

There are desultory attempts to teach a second language to primary school students in some schools but what is taught depends on a teacher being available, how enthusiastic they are and whether they have the support of the school and the parents. My observations suggest that there is very little language actually taught. I find children cannot even respond to a basic greeting.

Asian languages are very different from Indo-European languages and I have always been of the opinion that teaching them in school is a waste of time unless you are prepared to dedicate many more hours than is usual. The amount a child can learn in the time devoted is simply not worth the time or the effort unless the child is exposed to the language at home. 

I was talking to a friend recently. She was born in Holland and admits "I only speak three languages". Only three? I can speak only one. Oh I can try and make myself understood in more than one, understood at a very simple level. I can read more than one but it is because my job demands it. I am entirely self taught and native speakers of any language other than English would be tearing their hair out at my attempts to say anything. Still I can do that much and I am aware it is far more than most people around me. It has not been easy but it has been essential. 

I think this is where the problem lies. Another language is not essential in this country. If someone does not speak English then the attitude is "well learn English". I myself believe permanent residents of this country should learn English but I look on it as essential for their independence, well being and safety. I am happy for them to retain their first language as well but not for them to expect special consideration if they make no effort to learn English. It is what I would see as being expected of me if I went to live in another country where the first language was not English. 

Right across Asia English is the common language. Business is conducted in English. There is no expectation that you will speak Chinese, Thai, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese or anything else. If you have taken the trouble to learn some polite phrases that will be well received but speakers of those languages know they are seen as "difficult".  The only problem with all this is that it does mean we are lazy about language learning - and arrogant too.

There is also the intense concentration on science and maths and technology. Students are not even studying English. It shows.

Learning a second language also requires learning another way of thinking. For that reason alone I believe all children should learn at least one other language. If you come from a family where a second language is spoken at home then make it that language if you can but make learning a second language as important as learning the language of mathematics or coding.  We will have better scientists if they can speak another language as well.  

"I have no more earth to cling to"

 are the words of Yosef Wiener. He was a Holocaust survivor. He must have thought he had seen the worst only to lose more members of his family in the equally brutal events of October 7th in Israel. "I am at the end of my strength" he wrote, "I have no more earth to cling to." 

He died without seeing peace between Israel and its neighbours.

I know too many people who lump all Israelis together and blame all of them indiscriminately for what is happening between them and their neighbours. I know people who tell me, "Well, they have no right to be there. They have stolen the land from...."  

I do not agree with the way some Israelis have taken over yet more territory and displaced other people who also have the need of a home and a homeland. It might surprise some people to know there are many Israelis who feel the same way.

It might surprise some people to know that I know Israelis and Palestinians who are friends, whose children and grandchildren are friends. They visit each other. They have shared meals together. They support one another. 

It might surprise some people to know that Hamas and Hezbollah do not have the universal support or approval of people in Gaza and Lebanon. The support and approval of these groups is actually low. These terrorists are feared  not just by Israelis but inside Gaza and Lebanon as well. People forget that Lebanon was a majority Christian country not that long ago. It was a wealthy, stable country too. Islam has done Lebanon no favours. Extreme Islam has done the region no favours. Ultra-orthodoxy has done Israel no favours.

 As someone else recently put it, "Just because you are offended does not make you right". It just leaves old men with no more earth to cling to when they die. 

 

Fly there - if you can

because it is a long journey by road.

Those of you who live Elsewhere will be largely unaware of how big this country is. We take visitors into the "rural" areas close to the city and they think "aren't the farms a long way apart". We think "aren't they close together". For us "a long way apart" can mean hundreds of kilometres not five or six.

The looming fuel shortage is making people who live in those areas very conscious of their isolation. For them, and those of us who once lived there, it is seen as a very real problem. At the best of times you do not simply "hop in the car" to go shopping or get to the doctor or dentist or drop the kids at school. Going somewhere means using fuel and fuel is expensive. Working the farm which will give you the income to buy the fuel also means using the vehicles which use fuel. 

Yesterday morning I was waiting at the pedestrian lights near the library and I watched the cars going along the road which leads to the CBD.  Car after car after car had just one person in it. There they were cosily tucked into their transport. One person was drinking from a takeaway container - his breakfast perhaps? Another was - illegally - on his phone. They were ignoring the fact that at least four different bus routes use sections of that road. They were ignoring the fact there is a train line that, even stopping at five more stops after the local station, takes just thirteen minutes to get into the city.  No, they would be paying for fuel (and all the other expenses) and parking...and they would be using the fuel which we should be keeping for people in rural areas. 

It is unlikely those driving their cars would even think of this. They would be intent on getting home easily when work finished for the day or telling themselves that the walk at the other end was too much. They would be "picking up the kids" and "going to the gym" or any number of other things.

Out in the country all this gets infinitely more difficult and there are even more problems if you are ill. Rural areas do not have all the services the city has. People need to get to the city for consultations with specialists, for treatment. It is an expensive business and it is time consuming. The plane flights from the most distant points of the state are an essential part of the service. Cut the flights out and some people will have no access to essential health services. Cut the flights down and you might still be able to access the services but it will be even more inconvenient (and possibly more expensive) than before. The airlines do not want to provide the services because, even using small planes, they are running at a loss. Yes, you may be ill and feeling dreadful but it is not the role of the airline to see you get to your appointment.  

Food is more expensive out there. The variety in the (much smaller) supermarket is not as great. Quite likely there is nowhere to buy the shoes your child needs for school. That has to wait until you visit the nearest "big" town. When we lived in remote areas my mother would buy things in bulk and they had to last until the next trip back to the city.

The government is trying to tell us that our fuel supplies are adequate, that there is no need for rationing. As someone said to me yesterday, "That's enough for me to believe we are running short and the government should bring rationing in." I hope he is wrong.

I am thankful I can still use pedal power.  

  

There will be a bail hearing today

where an attempt to have this country's most decorated soldier released from custody. It should succeed but it may not. If it does not then we can be even more certain than before that this case is politically motivated.  

Yes, someone who is accused of murder must face court. It is the manner in which the case against that person is handled which is of concern here. Somewhere out there a journalist is probably congratulating themselves on what they have managed to achieve. They have brought down a hero. They have succeeded in having a defamation case thrown out. They have caused endless time and trouble to be devoted to the alleged actions of someone who has faced more life and death situations than the journalist can even dream about.  The journalist no doubt sees themselves as the "hero" now.

The media has gone headlong into reporting all this. There have been claims of "innocence" and "guilt" and all sorts of conspiracy theories flying through the ether and on the air.

There are some things which can be said. The first of these is that the bail hearing should bring about a release from custody. It may not but it should. It should because this person is not a flight risk. If bail is not granted then he could remain incarcerated for years before the matter comes before the court again. The prosecution may argue that the evidence against him is too strong for that. It will be interesting to see which way that goes.

The defence may also try and argue that, if he remains in custody, he needs to be transferred to his home state. That is where it could get very interesting. 

There are politics involved in this case. The manner of this man's arrest was highly political. The media was tipped off. He was arrested outside his home state even though multiple reports suggest he offered to attend a police station on more than one occasion. That the offer was not taken up by the prosecution and that he was not arrested in his home state strongly suggest there are other factors at play here.

When this matter goes to trial the charges do not allow him to elect to be tried by judge alone. It must be a jury trial. When the jury is being chosen only three potential jurors can be dismissed. The questions which can be asked of jurors are also limited. While the jury is supposed to be chosen randomly from the electoral roll there is, simply because of the population mix, a much higher chance of a jury who will not be sympathetic. Add that to the very high media coverage which has already occurred and finding a neutral jury is almost certainly impossible. Both prosecution and defence will be aware of this. 

People have asked why this has not been tried by "court martial". The answer to that is that a court martial does not try criminal cases and the charges are criminal charges. 

I am not a potential juror. I live in another state. I can and will say that a "fair" trial may not be possible here. It may not be possible for a number of reasons. The most important of these is that nobody can remember clearly anything which happened so far back. Unless there is physical evidence and witnesses to that evidence are available then a case can fail. The "but all the other men are saying..." argument fails here.  It fails because people do not remember. They make believe they do. They will not be "lying" as such. They simply will not be telling the truth because their memory is not reality.

Would I grant bail? Yes, I would.  

Learning English

is essential if you are to become part of the community in this country. Like it or not English is the official language. 

Yes, English is a difficult language to learn. If you come from another country and you have not had the opportunity to get much of an education it might be very difficult. It still needs to be done.

There was criticism in the media and elsewhere when the leader of the current Opposition said policy would be to require people to learn English if they wanted to become citizens of this country. They would need to do this along with accepting the "values" of this country and doing that by formally signing a document. 

Apparently this is not seen as acceptable. One of my neighbours actually considers it to be "racist" and "Islamophobic". When I tried to point out that learning English actually increases the safety and well being of individuals he responded with the well worn "this country is multicultural and people have the right to use their own language". 

No, they do not have that right. The first language of this country is English. It is the language which allows us to function as a society. Yes it is possible to do what my sister's late mother-in-law did. P...learned very little English. She relied on her husband and her children to deal with many things. She shopped in the supermarket where there were Greek speaking check out assistants. She was a dressmaker by profession - and a very, very good one - but it did not mean she needed to speak English. Most of her clients were Greek speakers. With Middle Cat she spoke a mixture of Greek and English. She did the same with me. Middle Cat went to Greek classes and understood far more than I did. I did not go to Greek classes and would guess what she was trying to tell me from the context. That is changing now. My nephews understand some Greek but last Christmas nobody was speaking Greek. The next generation will probably not understand any at all. 

I have a smattering of this language and that language and I understand more than I can say in more than one language but I do not speak a second language. Had I moved to a country where English was not the first language I would have made every effort to learn the other languages. It would have been something I saw (and still see) as essential. It is a safety issue. It is a mental health essential.  I consider myself very fortunate my own first language is one which is so widely spoken and understood. 

I am concerned, very concerned, when people come up with phrases like "diversity, equity and inclusion" and suggest people should not need to learn English when they come here. It is divisive. It is not equal. It excludes. 

"I'm frightened she's going to die!"

I was on the train yesterday and the child opposite me, a girl of about fourteen, was having a conversation with someone on the phone. It was impossible not to hear it. She knew I could hear it.

She was relating a story to someone of how she had come back from school one afternoon last week and found her mother collapsed on the floor, bleeding and only semi-conscious. It would be a terrifying situation for anyone to be in, let alone a girl of that age. She kept her head sufficiently well to call an ambulance and her mother is apparently currently in intensive care.

The police took over at that point and she is currently in the care of people she does not know. This is not working well. It rarely does. She was close to tears as she spoke.

When the conversation was finished she glared at me, obviously furious that I had been able to hear it. I was almost going to say nothing at all but then I decided to say something,

"If you want to swear at me go ahead."

She swore, fiercely and fluently but quietly. She told me what an awful person I was to listen in on a private conversation and how I could not possibly understand how she was feeling. 

Then, suddenly, she stopped.  

"It's my station," she told me and then, "Thank you so much for letting me do that. Thank you. Thank you."

She actually managed a lopsided attempt at a smile and rushed off the train.

All I can do now is hope that she will be able to cope with whatever comes next. 

I suppose someone will ask, "Why didn't you just ask, "Are you okay?" The answer to that is that it was perfectly obvious she was not okay. I didn't think that question would have been right at all. I didn't really think about what I told her but now I know I was giving her permission to be rude to a stranger who dared to think she was not okay. In a way I am glad her station came when it did because I have no idea what I would have said or done next.  

Did I do the right thing? Should I just have "shut up"? Phone calls used to be conducted in the privacy of our own homes. I was reminded of the old "party line" calls that were possible when we lived in remote areas. The Senior Cat had to "book a call" if he needed to talk to someone in the Education Department in the city. (This was so nobody else could listen in to the conversation.) It all seems so strange now when people conduct their business quite openly.

I just hope that young girl's mother recovers and they can be together again. 

Twenty million dollars being spent

on advertising the fuel issues facing this country is apparently seen as justified by the government. The fact they also managed to get a major advertising campaign underway so quickly is also a curiosity.

It will of course have nothing to do with the fact that the initial report on anti-Semitism is due out shortly and there is also a judgment being brought down on a gender issue. It will have nothing to do with the arrest of a person of interest.

Mmm... perhaps I should start again. The initial report on anti-Semitism will quite possibly not contain much at all. The terms were written in a way which is supposed to keep much of what perhaps should be discussed from being discussed at all. It would lead into some very dangerous territory for the government. I hold no great hopes for the final report either. There are areas where the government, any government, will not dare to go - and certainly not go if they do not want to lose votes.

Gender issues are also tricky. How do you keep those who are so good at getting media attention happy? Give them what they want even when it means denying others theirs? Do you follow science or belief? An advertising campaign relating to fuel just might help to deflect attention.

And the arrest of that person of interest? Make it as public as possible. Look at the wonderful job we are doing of bringing criminals to face court. 

My Jewish friends feel nothing will come of the report into anti-Semitism. I hope they are wrong but worry they are right. My gay and lesbian friends are concerned about the way gender is being treated. They would like to get on with their lives without having to worry about "gender transition" issues and being treated as if they are the ones at fault here.

And it would be good if all the "lawyers" out there would actually study the law. Yes, there are some very real concerns at the way the matter is being conducted. There should be a bail hearing on Friday and we may actually know more then. At some point I will also state some facts. 

As one of those men told me a couple of days ago we need "support, not suppression". The advertising campaign is being served to us as support when it is actually suppression.   

Joining the armed services

used to be a "thing" for some families. There was a "proud tradition". At one time wealthy families saw it as their "duty" to have at least one member of their family seen to do active service.

In my own extended family there is a history of naval service. The Senior Cat would have joined the navy if he had passed the medical. That they did not even want him during war time perhaps says something about his eyesight and his very flat feet. I am grateful he did not get accepted. My mother might not have had his love and support. My siblings and I might not be here. He would not have been the same person. 

No, we did not go the route of one in the services, one in the legal profession, one in the church. I do know families like that but they are less common now.

I had one of those casual conversations about it yesterday. I was on a train going into the city when the people opposite me had been discussing this. One of them turned to me and asked what I thought. I suppose it was perfectly obvious that I had been listening. It was the sort of conversation you cannot avoid hearing.

We talked for a bit. These two men were "returned" men. They had seen active service. Would they recommend it as a career path now? Their answer was "no". 

"Up until last week," one of them told me, "I might have suggested it, especially for some young one who was not sure what to do with their life. Now I would tell them to stay away. If the government can't support their military men then don't (...) near it."

The other man agreed.

They were of course referring to the arrest of our most decorated war hero. We discussed the psychology of the battle field and the way those on active duty react. We discussed the aftermath. I told them of my experiences living in a "soldier settler" area. (We discovered people we all knew.) 

One of them helped me get the trike off the train and we parted company but the other said, "Spread the word - support, not suppression." 

It's an interesting thought, one that is being discussed elsewhere. I know, from personal experience, if your employer does not support you or the people you work with, then loyalty and a willingness to stay goes out the door with you.