"I am not sending her back to school

next year," I heard someone say.

She was talking on her phone as we waited in the queue in the supermarket. Anyone could hear the conversation - whether we wanted to or not.

I admit I was interested. Was she planning on "home-schooling" her child? It seems she was.

I wondered if the child was being bullied. Apparently not. Over the next minute I discovered that the child was "bored", "not getting enough to do", "fed up with all the woke garbage" and more. It was interesting. I wondered how the parent planned to handle all this.

She went on her way. I paid for Middle Cat's shopping and was on my way out when I was hailed by a couple I know.  They were talking to the parent who was not sending her child back to school.

I stopped out of curiosity as well as politeness. I was introduced and the subject of school attendance was brought up. Did I know the school "somewhere near the tram line" which took in students on ability rather than age? 

They did not know much more. All they had was a vague memory of someone knowing someone who had a child who went to the school. I do know of the school. I have never been there but I researched it when it seemed a possible choice for the granddaughter of former neighbours. Was this what the mother wanted to know about? 

She looked at me in amazement and immediately looked at the school's website on her phone. How much did I know about the place? I really know very little.  

"Would you like to tell me something about your daughter?" I asked. I know all too well that some parents think their child is a genius when they are really simply intelligent. Why would someone pull their child out of school unless there really was evidence of very high intelligence...and why do it even then?

I did not have as much time as I would have liked to spend with this woman. It was an all too familiar story of a child who obviously is intelligent, very intelligent. She began school this year with excitement and now "hates" going. Her psychological test results indicate she really is at or near the top of the scale. If what her mother told me is correct (and I sensed restraint rather than exaggeration) then yes, she needs much more stimulation than she is getting at school. 

I left the mother saying she would be talking to her partner and, if he agreed, they would be contacting the school we had talked about. I also left wondering what I would have done to stimulate the child if she had been in my classroom. Would I have been able to give her the extra she so obviously seems to need? I hope so...but I also know how difficult it is for a teacher to find that time. Hopefully things might be different for this child next year.

There is yet another land agent

coming to look at the property today. 

I am growing increasingly disturbed at the way the company responsible for the execution of the Senior Cat's will is handling all this. Whatever their "processes" need to be this is bordering on the ridiculous.

Part of the problem is undoubtedly that they use a business of some sort in another state to advise them who to engage to sell the property. Oh yes, they assure me that this is done in the best interests of the estate. The problems however are obvious. Interstate companies do not know local areas.

I was supposed to be contacted earlier in the week. I was "advised" to make myself available. Wanting to get things moving I made myself available. There was no contact made by the agents who were supposed to be contacting me. It delayed other things I needed to get on with but I gritted my teeth and kept my claws retracted. 

At the end of the business day I advised the contact at the executor company that no contact had been made. I suggested they go with one or the other of those who had made contact. No, that would not do. They need at least one more "appraisal". They would advise someone else to come and "advised" me to be "available". I went to do some shopping for Middle Cat who is home but unable to leave the house. The agent called me and was at least reasonable enough to suggest the following day. It matters not to such people that this is the weekend. I agreed.

But why? The house has now been "appraised" seven times - this will be the eighth - and "valued" twice. I am under pressure to keep the place ultra-clean and ultra-tidy. Our land agent of choice (the one Middle Cat knows well) has of course seen the house in a state of chaos. It did not bother him. It is what he expected to see when packing was taking place.

On top of all that a friend dropped off some new cleaning materials which she had to remove from a house belonging to an aunt who has gone into a nursing home. There were bags of these - seven garbage bags in all. S... went off on holiday for the next eight weeks leaving a note to say, "Can you pass them on to that church...?" I knew what she meant but I could not rely on Middle Cat to drop them off this time so I sent frantic messages to the lovely person in the office there. An hour later I had a call from D..., the priest. He would come and collect it all for me. 

He arrived and stacked it all in the boot of his car. He told me how pleased everyone was that I was staying in the district. It made me feel a bit better. Now if my BIL and N...have worked out how to get the two big armchairs I don't use to the charity N... works for...  I am taking a deep breath and hoping the executor company will just get on with the job as well. 

We have just taken a step backwards

or perhaps it is a leap?

The ban on under 16s using social media passed the Senate of federal parliament last night. The arguments for the ban were along the lines of "this is what all parents want", "this is how we stop bullying" and "this is how we improve the mental health of adolescents" and much more.

It is not "what all parents want" by any means. Some parents will welcome it - and rightly so. A small minority may not care and will possibly allow their children to access it under their own names. (Interesting question is who will then be responsible if their little darlings are caught.) 

It will not stop bullying. It may be less difficult to broadcast it but bullying will continue - and may become more physically violent or theft related. 

It will probably not improve the mental health of adolescents. The research to date suggests there is a very weak link, if any, between mental health and the use of social media. We will have to wait and see if there is any change in research outcomes but that sort of research is fraught with difficulties.

The other issues which arise such as "age verification" are not matters for social media organisations to become involved in. The responsibility for this has to come from parents in the first instance - and they are the people who should be fined if they knowingly allow their under sixteen to use banned social media. Schools can play a part in this but the primary responsibility has to lie with parents. 

And then there are the teens who will tech-savvy enough to get around the bans. Can the government really believe they can ban every citizen of this country from using a VPN in order to try an implement this ban? That raises all sorts of security issues. Can you really prevent them from doing it anywhere in the world?

There is also a real social and safety issue here - communication between families and friends, migrants and refugees will be hindered by this ban. Children may never get to know grandparents and other relatives who live elsewhere. It was that way once - at most a three minute call on one day of the year. Do we want that to happen now when people are moving around more and more? How does a child communicate with a parent abroad for work? Do they go back to a supervised phone call on an old fashioned phone? Will it be easier for warring divorced parents to deny their children access to their absent parent?

Those things are just a start. Yes, of course social media can harm. It has been one contributing factor to the suicide of some young people and that is something no family should go through. especially loving parents. All that said though this is not something that has actually been thoroughly investigated and worked out. It won't work in its current form and there is a need to start again.

 

"Guilloutining" a Bill in the Senate

suggests that there is more than some disquiet about it.

Today is the last sitting day of our Federal parliament for this year and they have at least twenty items to push through and vote on. Some will be relatively uncontroversial. They will pass without difficulty. Others require support from people who may be wavering or who need "sweeteners" for their own purposes.

Then there are the bills which are controversial but have enough support to get through but where debate is being deliberately curtailed. One of those bills is the one relating to banning under-16s from social media. 

There was a brief window of opportunity to comment on this Bill at the committee stage. By brief I mean a week. There was very little notice given and almost nobody had a chance to appear in front of the committee - not even the "big tech" people most affected by the implementation of this. 

In addition to this some sections of the media, those in no way affected by the ban, have come out so strongly in support of the legislation. This is so much so we are being led to believe there is almost no opposition to it. 

The reality is different. There is disquiet - perhaps it is fair to say extreme disquiet - among people I know. It is seen as a step towards monitoring everyone and monitoring them all the time.  It raises questions about privacy (and the use of VPNs), about free speech, about healthy debate, about political power and influence...and much more. The failure to allow time, a lot of time, for extensive information collecting and a proper debate in the Senate suggests there are more problems in the legislation than have already been raised.

Yesterday I was asked if the government actually has the power to pass the legislation under the powers granted in the Constitution. My answer to that was, "I am not sure but it is possible that, at least in its present form, it does not." Yes, it is possible that this legislation goes too far. It is too intrusive. It is in contradiction to some international obligations to which we are signatories and more. The government obviously feels the claimed intent of the Bill protects them from being subject to these obligations but I doubt this is actually the case. 

It appears this Bill is being rushed through for political purposes and not in the best interests of those it claims to protect. Attempts to administer it are likely to result in challenges in the High Court. This may make the legal profession happy - but I doubt anyone else will be. 

Coming out of hospital

is something I fear Middle Cat should not have done. My BIL collected her yesterday but one look at her suggested she would have been better off staying there.

Yes, they were prepared to keep her there or let her go home. It was her choice and I can understand her wish to be home after four weeks but she has to be able to look after herself at least somewhat. I need to be here because of issues to deal with the sale of the house. Yes, she can call me and I can head off in the current rainy and slightly stormy conditions but only after rearranging other things and delaying matters even more. 

At this hour I imagine she is still in bed and likely to be there for some time. There will no doubt be at least one of her two cats keeping her company. That's something I suppose. Still, it is disturbing. 

My very good friend S... was here when my BIL came to finish one small job on their way home. Middle Cat did not have the energy to do more than walk inside (out of the heat) and sit on a chair to wait. I will be forever grateful to S... for the amount of help she has given me in the past few weeks. My thoughts are now turning towards what I can make for her. She loves snuggly scarves and cowls and I have something in mind for the yarn, a mohair and silk mix, but I want the design to be special. It is giving me considerable pleasure to think about it in between all the problems yet to be faced. Yes, I will get to work on it with equal pleasure in the making.

The executor company is continuing to make problems. While the price we get for the house may be higher the "valuation" of this property has come in far lower than it should have. Realistically it is nothing more than the land value. They are arguing the market value will be higher but, realistically, the valuation does affect the price. It suggests again that they are acting in their interests rather than ours but in such a way that we will have no means of challenging it. I just want all of this to be over now.  

Buying insurance

on any property seems to be fraught with difficulties.

This house is insured. It was a task I left to Middle Cat because she was doing their own property at the same time. She discussed it with me of course but the final clicks were left to her after much searching for the most reasonable deal.

Notice I did not say the "best" deal. No, that would be even more complicated. We wanted something that would work if we needed it because we had the legal responsibility to the estate.

Now I have a responsibility to ensure my own abode, or what will shortly be my own abode, is covered.  It was hard work and I am still not sure I have done all that needs to be done.

There is communal insurance of course. This is a legal imperative for any block of dwellings on a strata title. I can do little about this, indeed nothing at all while I still only have a deposit on the property. My feeling is that the insurance is on the low side but perhaps not. It needs further investigation.

But I needed "contents" insurance even if it is for nothing more than everyday items. So, the search began. I looked at website after website. I made some phone calls. Not everyone was prepared to offer insurance because it is not a "detached" dwelling. Those that were had more questions for me than I had for them. 

My age? Where was I living now? Why was I leaving? Why am I moving to that address? How much is the property worth? Do I own anything of value? Is anything worth more than....? Who else will be living there? Have I ever claimed anything on insurance before? Have I ever been convicted of a criminal offence? What is my income? Do I conduct a business from the premises? Will I have visitors? Do I smoke...take illicit drugs...drink alcohol? Will I be living there? Will it be unoccupied at any time? Why had there been no property insurance in my name for the last.....years?

I found the questions obtrusive and largely unnecessary. Many of the "representatives" tried to sell me very expensive and unnecessary cover.  Eventually I found something I could afford, enough to satisfy the conveyancer and estate agent and at least some of what I wanted. Adding anything at all to that and the price starts to almost triple and it is just so hedged around with "conditions" I wonder what value I am getting - if I am getting any at all. 

The "Misinformation" Bill

is, rightly, not going ahead.

It would never have worked - unless the government could also control the internet and the news media. Yes, it was an attempt to censor information.

I could say the same thing about the proposed ban on social media for under sixteens. It won't work unless everyone has a digital ID. The government has actually admitted this. 

For all they are trying to suggest they are doing it in the best interests of children and young people the reality is that those supporting it also see it as a way of controlling what goes on. If everyone has a digital ID then we can be tracked even more than we are already tracked. I know this blog is "monitored". If I use certain words then it is quite possible someone, somewhere will read the post. I expect that. It is the way of the world now.

There seems to be a belief that bringing in the social media ban will somehow reduce the level of "bullying" that occurs, or is said to occur. If the media is reporting this correctly then bullying has become a major problem in schools...or has it?

Much has been made of the way social media is being used to bully and harass young people. Yes, it is a problem. It is certainly easier to bully at a distance than it is face-to-face and the death of even one child or young person as a result of such bullying is one death too much. At the same time is the situation really as it is portrayed in the media and, if so, why?

Is the widespread policy of "say you are sorry and make friends" really working? It starts down in the day care centres, the pre-school centres and the kindergartens. If it really worked then it would work there and the attitude would surely carry through to older children.

It does not work of course. Human beings are not like that. We vary too much for that. We all have different levels of tolerance. We have many and varied interests and likes and dislikes. Most people manage to mask their dislike or impatience or some other negative emotion without showing other people what they are thinking. It is a learned behaviour. We are, or should be, taught this. There are things you don't do in a civilised society.

It is not the whole answer to the problem of bullying but I suspect that the apparent increase in the bullying problem may also be related to the failure to discipline from earliest childhood. This is about more than "good manners". It is about how we behave at all times in the presence of others...and perhaps even in private.

Is it time to rethink how we teach children to live together rather than expect them to be "friends" with everyone? Do we need to teach tolerance of differences without expecting children to "like" others they would not tolerate as adults?

Children get thrown together in groups. Adults can pick and choose their friends much more readily than children can. We need to recognise that and understand not everyone wants to be "friends" with everyone else.