It has been an iconic Australian custom since Federation. Men and women emerging from their morning shower dust their bodies with Johnsons Baby Powder. There is something refreshing in the smooth feel it imparts and the delicate aroma announces that "just showered " message to the world. As the name implies, this "baby powder "was liberally applied to all infants after their bath - and after the numerous "clean-ups " that littered their day.
Now it seems that the firm of Johnson and Johnson and even the huge mining company that actually produces the raw material for talcum powder is under siege in American courts. Johnson and Johnson and Rio Tinto are being sued because it is claimed that when women apply talcum powder to their genital area it has the propensity to develop ovarian cancer.
A clear message is emerging. Two US women have been successful in a Missouri court in gaining a $ 172 million ruling that talcum powder caused their ovarian cancer. Their case was supported by fifteen separate studies from such respected bodies as the World Health Organization ( WHO ) and the US Health Department. In Australia, the jury is still "out " on accepting this claim.
There seems no clear cut cause and affect beyond the theory that because talcum powder is composed of tiny particles it has similar properties to asbestos. If it gains entrance to the female body this theory supposes it can activate whatever induces ovarian cancer.
The wise will probably heed this warning and impose strict limitations on how talcum powder is used in future, but the message will probably be ignored by many unless Australian health decides to issue a national warning. Perhaps talcum powder is just the first of many new dangers arising from new industries based on what are called "nano particles " !
In recent years, industry has learned how to grind matter ever smaller and we now have these nano particles as the integral base of cosmetics, sun screen and an ever widening range of products and little thought has been given to their disposal.
The after effect of nano particles in toothpaste sees the waste flushed down the drain and a similar fate awaits most cosmetics. Eventually, these particles arrive in the ocean - with unknown effects on other living matter. At present, the use of nano particles in manufacturing is not subjected to any form of control law.
This furore over talcum powder should be ringing alarm bells. It is a product that has been used for over a century with no known effects, although ovarian cancer has also cut a swathe through women for that same period. It would be interesting to know if the product has been refined to include nano particles because of the cost savings involved - and if the raw product mined has been further modified before passing into general use.
What seems to be lacking is a filter through which new discoveries need to pass before they go into general manufacturing use. Without that, we may face some very unpleasant surprises when ingenuity comes back to bite us on the bum !
Wednesday, 7 September 2016
Tuesday, 6 September 2016
The Safety Enigma !
It is an all too familiar news item heading the news reports. A stolen car being driven at more than three times the posted speed limit and totally ignoring red lights crashes headlong into another innocent motorist. The other driver - often a woman accompanied by a child - is killed or seriously injured. The errant driver - usually a young male - sustains some injuries but jumps from the wreck and makes his escape.
The vast majority of these criminals eventually end up in police custody. Either their injuries force them to seek treatment or they leave finger prints and DNA in the wreck. Sometimes they even abandon injured companions. We often see supporting family demonstrating outside courts when they face charges and money is forthcoming for the best lawyers. Alcohol or drugs are usually blamed for their actions.
What is astonishing in this electronic age is that the average car is still capable of being stolen by those with average intelligence and little better equipment than a coat hangar and a screw driver. Not just cars at the bottom end of the price range, but cars right across the price spectrum. In an age when we have visited the moon and put Rovers on Mars we are yet incapable of securing a common means of transport from thieves.
There have been many failures. Remember when steering locks became mandatory ? When the key was removed from the ignition and the steering wheel was rotated kerbside locking pins slid into place and immobilised steering. This innovation was overcome in days and no attempt was made to strengthen the assembly to make it a viable option. The inference was that the car industry was ambivalent about car theft. After all, a stolen car simply presented an opportunity for a new car sale as a replacement.
More recently we had the age of the " immobilizer ". In Australia this form of protection became mandatory and it was claimed that it made simple crossing a few wires to get an electrical contact impossible. For more than a decade all new cars sold in Australia have this device factory fitted - and theft figures speak for themselves.
It is probably impossible to design a modern car that can not be entered by a committed criminal. There are just too many points of entry and as a last resort smashing a window will avoid all other forms of protection. The ultimate form of protection is creating a barrier between starting the engine other than at the instigation of the owner - and that is sadly missing.
The car industry spends trillions of dollars in research and development and every new model is a repository of whiz bang electronics. Fuel economics constantly improve and all sorts of safety devices become standard. The modern car is a marvel of safety to its occupants by way of air bags and crumple zones - but it is little better protected from theft than the cars of the 1950's.
The motoring public deserve better. Stolen cars are over represented in fatal crashes and even with insurance the loss of a cherished family car to theft usually means a heavy financial loss. Perhaps it is time to lean on the car industry and force them to improve car theft safety or suffer a price penalty in the market place.
Right now we test all cars for a crash safety rating, with five stars being the optimum. It is hard to sell a model with less than five stars and should new cars be subjected to a similar theft rating with a financial impost graded to the stars awarded this would certainly get the manufacturers attention.
The car industry will not take theft seriously until it has a financial reason to undertake the R and D that will make car security a reality. That will never happen - until it becomes required by legislation!
The vast majority of these criminals eventually end up in police custody. Either their injuries force them to seek treatment or they leave finger prints and DNA in the wreck. Sometimes they even abandon injured companions. We often see supporting family demonstrating outside courts when they face charges and money is forthcoming for the best lawyers. Alcohol or drugs are usually blamed for their actions.
What is astonishing in this electronic age is that the average car is still capable of being stolen by those with average intelligence and little better equipment than a coat hangar and a screw driver. Not just cars at the bottom end of the price range, but cars right across the price spectrum. In an age when we have visited the moon and put Rovers on Mars we are yet incapable of securing a common means of transport from thieves.
There have been many failures. Remember when steering locks became mandatory ? When the key was removed from the ignition and the steering wheel was rotated kerbside locking pins slid into place and immobilised steering. This innovation was overcome in days and no attempt was made to strengthen the assembly to make it a viable option. The inference was that the car industry was ambivalent about car theft. After all, a stolen car simply presented an opportunity for a new car sale as a replacement.
More recently we had the age of the " immobilizer ". In Australia this form of protection became mandatory and it was claimed that it made simple crossing a few wires to get an electrical contact impossible. For more than a decade all new cars sold in Australia have this device factory fitted - and theft figures speak for themselves.
It is probably impossible to design a modern car that can not be entered by a committed criminal. There are just too many points of entry and as a last resort smashing a window will avoid all other forms of protection. The ultimate form of protection is creating a barrier between starting the engine other than at the instigation of the owner - and that is sadly missing.
The car industry spends trillions of dollars in research and development and every new model is a repository of whiz bang electronics. Fuel economics constantly improve and all sorts of safety devices become standard. The modern car is a marvel of safety to its occupants by way of air bags and crumple zones - but it is little better protected from theft than the cars of the 1950's.
The motoring public deserve better. Stolen cars are over represented in fatal crashes and even with insurance the loss of a cherished family car to theft usually means a heavy financial loss. Perhaps it is time to lean on the car industry and force them to improve car theft safety or suffer a price penalty in the market place.
Right now we test all cars for a crash safety rating, with five stars being the optimum. It is hard to sell a model with less than five stars and should new cars be subjected to a similar theft rating with a financial impost graded to the stars awarded this would certainly get the manufacturers attention.
The car industry will not take theft seriously until it has a financial reason to undertake the R and D that will make car security a reality. That will never happen - until it becomes required by legislation!
Monday, 5 September 2016
Justice Delayed !
It is a very old adage, but it is certainly true ! Justice delayed - is justice denied ! When we are accused of a crime we have an expectation that we will be promptly put before a judge or a Magistrate to have the matter settled. In reality, we may spend years sitting in a prison cell on remand, waiting our turn to get a place on a court docket, or at best being granted bail and allowed to live at home in the limbo between "prisoner "and "freedom ".
Those on bail are usually required to regularly attend a police station and "sign the book " to prove that they have not " escaped". Even in low level cases they are publicly shamed and their case may get regular media attention. Children of the accused share this shame.
In New South Wales the delay between charge and trial is ever lengthening. At the start of July there were 3042 criminal trials awaiting a hearing and 1195 sentencing matters to be decided. This compares with 2010 when the numbers were 977 and 722 in comparison.
Clearly, we do not have enough judges nor available courts to diminish the backlog. Since last year just five new judges have been appointed and this is part of a $ 59 million funding package. We are building new prisons and extending the bed numbers, but the availability of judges to clear cases is facing a growing backlog.
One of the problems is the propensity of the accused to enter a not guilty plea when charged and wait hopefully for the forensic case to fall apart. If that fails to happen, the accused will most likely change to a guilty plea on the eve of the trial to gain concessions for avoiding trial, but completely wrecking the courts trial docket procedure.Both prosecution and defence need adequate notice to go to trial. Either may call for an adjournment if a case is brought forward.
It seems that when the government needs more judges it treats the matter like any other form of employment - and advertises that is has vacancies. Obviously these jobs are only open to those from a legal background and many in the legal profession face a dilemma. Tenure of office is attractive for some and judges salary is considered generous, but it pales into significance when compared what the top silks earn for a day in court. In some legal circles, elevation to the bench is seen as the graceful exit from an unsuccessful legal career.
It is very much a ranking comparison. When an admired legal entity is elevated to sit as a judge on a higher court the move attracts plaudits. Unfortunately, judges bring with them personal likes and dislikes and as a result some are constantly challenged on appeal. We have in the past had a litany of judges with very strange verdicts which fall way outside normal parameters. In fact, one judge sat and heard cases for years without ever delivering an actual finding.
Appointing new judges is a step into the unknown. We might be wise to consider new judges on a short tenure. The whole law/courts/prison system needs revision if we are to break the cycle of repeat offenders recycling without meaningful rehabilitation. At present, once a judge attains tenure it is virtually for life. We need new legal minds that "think outside the nine dots " to explore the divide between crime and punishment.
What is absolutely clear - is that the present regime is not delivering what the government needs and what it is promising to achieve !
Those on bail are usually required to regularly attend a police station and "sign the book " to prove that they have not " escaped". Even in low level cases they are publicly shamed and their case may get regular media attention. Children of the accused share this shame.
In New South Wales the delay between charge and trial is ever lengthening. At the start of July there were 3042 criminal trials awaiting a hearing and 1195 sentencing matters to be decided. This compares with 2010 when the numbers were 977 and 722 in comparison.
Clearly, we do not have enough judges nor available courts to diminish the backlog. Since last year just five new judges have been appointed and this is part of a $ 59 million funding package. We are building new prisons and extending the bed numbers, but the availability of judges to clear cases is facing a growing backlog.
One of the problems is the propensity of the accused to enter a not guilty plea when charged and wait hopefully for the forensic case to fall apart. If that fails to happen, the accused will most likely change to a guilty plea on the eve of the trial to gain concessions for avoiding trial, but completely wrecking the courts trial docket procedure.Both prosecution and defence need adequate notice to go to trial. Either may call for an adjournment if a case is brought forward.
It seems that when the government needs more judges it treats the matter like any other form of employment - and advertises that is has vacancies. Obviously these jobs are only open to those from a legal background and many in the legal profession face a dilemma. Tenure of office is attractive for some and judges salary is considered generous, but it pales into significance when compared what the top silks earn for a day in court. In some legal circles, elevation to the bench is seen as the graceful exit from an unsuccessful legal career.
It is very much a ranking comparison. When an admired legal entity is elevated to sit as a judge on a higher court the move attracts plaudits. Unfortunately, judges bring with them personal likes and dislikes and as a result some are constantly challenged on appeal. We have in the past had a litany of judges with very strange verdicts which fall way outside normal parameters. In fact, one judge sat and heard cases for years without ever delivering an actual finding.
Appointing new judges is a step into the unknown. We might be wise to consider new judges on a short tenure. The whole law/courts/prison system needs revision if we are to break the cycle of repeat offenders recycling without meaningful rehabilitation. At present, once a judge attains tenure it is virtually for life. We need new legal minds that "think outside the nine dots " to explore the divide between crime and punishment.
What is absolutely clear - is that the present regime is not delivering what the government needs and what it is promising to achieve !
Sunday, 4 September 2016
The " Fear Factor " !
This week a curious thing happened in the Australian Parliament. It was a closing session and the routine was being settled on the voices when an astute member of the Opposition noticed the numbers on the government benches were thin - and called for a division.
The government lacked the numbers to prevail and it was defeated on the floor of a chamber in which it held government. It was not a political disaster, but it was a major embarrassment and it threw the spotlight on leader Malcolm Turnbull's leadership. Some compared it to a fractious schoolroom under the control of an incompetent new teacher when the bell signals class end.
It seems that senior ministers took an early mark and obviously the party whips who must ensure that the numbers are correct at all times did not do their jobs properly. This breach of party discipline had the wise heads of party elders seeking a solution.
Politics and business share a common leadership need. Whoever sits at the top of the management pyramid needs to exercise a "fear factor ".This certainly manifested itself during the years that the Liberal party held power in Australia. During his long years in office Robert Gordon Menzies was referred to as "Ming the Merciless " and his grip on power was absolute. Any form of revolt against his policies was almost a death sentence and many a promising minister found himself on the back bench. On retirement, his successors - Harold Holt and Billy McMahon lacked that "fear factor "- and governed accordingly.
Then came the John Howard years. It took time for Howard to accumulate that "fear factor " but he ran a disciplined party that was constantly reelected The rank and file moved in lockstep with the leader. The leader was astute at discerning the mood of the voting public and so the party enjoyede a long term in office.
Then Kevin Rudd burst onto the scene and offered completely new thinking. It was a phenomenon that caught the public mood ans he swept into office only to lose focus and be replaced by Julia Gillard. Tony Abbott took up the reigns of the Opposition and eventually wrested back government, but proved better as an "attack dog "than a prime minister. In despair, the party replaced him as leader with Malcolm Turnbull.
Malcolm Turnbull is an enigma. His school years were brilliantly successful and he became a Rhodes Scholar. He achieved business success and became a billionaire at a young age, before scaling the heights as a barrister in a legal action that defeated the best legal minds of the United Kingdom government. Turnbull came to politics as one of the richest men in Australia, a public figure that simply defined success in every venture he had chosen.
The question many people ask - is what does he hope to achieve as a politician ? It seems obvious that he has no intention of offering anything other than government by consensus. He shows no indications of using his authority as leader to instill a "fear factor " to instill immediate compliance from subordinates. Policy now seems to be the play thing of the factions.
Unfortunately, the time factor is not moving in Australia's favour. We live in a fractious world of changing military alliances and our economy is in urgent need of a re-set. The recent election indicated that the voters are disenchanted with both the major political, parties and we may see the "Balkinization " of splinter parties emerging to create endless divisions.
Malcolm Turnbull needs to take the reigns and assert his authority as prime minister and implement sound policies - or step aside and make way for a new leader prepared to us the "fear factor " to implement the hard decisions that are so clearly needed !
The government lacked the numbers to prevail and it was defeated on the floor of a chamber in which it held government. It was not a political disaster, but it was a major embarrassment and it threw the spotlight on leader Malcolm Turnbull's leadership. Some compared it to a fractious schoolroom under the control of an incompetent new teacher when the bell signals class end.
It seems that senior ministers took an early mark and obviously the party whips who must ensure that the numbers are correct at all times did not do their jobs properly. This breach of party discipline had the wise heads of party elders seeking a solution.
Politics and business share a common leadership need. Whoever sits at the top of the management pyramid needs to exercise a "fear factor ".This certainly manifested itself during the years that the Liberal party held power in Australia. During his long years in office Robert Gordon Menzies was referred to as "Ming the Merciless " and his grip on power was absolute. Any form of revolt against his policies was almost a death sentence and many a promising minister found himself on the back bench. On retirement, his successors - Harold Holt and Billy McMahon lacked that "fear factor "- and governed accordingly.
Then came the John Howard years. It took time for Howard to accumulate that "fear factor " but he ran a disciplined party that was constantly reelected The rank and file moved in lockstep with the leader. The leader was astute at discerning the mood of the voting public and so the party enjoyede a long term in office.
Then Kevin Rudd burst onto the scene and offered completely new thinking. It was a phenomenon that caught the public mood ans he swept into office only to lose focus and be replaced by Julia Gillard. Tony Abbott took up the reigns of the Opposition and eventually wrested back government, but proved better as an "attack dog "than a prime minister. In despair, the party replaced him as leader with Malcolm Turnbull.
Malcolm Turnbull is an enigma. His school years were brilliantly successful and he became a Rhodes Scholar. He achieved business success and became a billionaire at a young age, before scaling the heights as a barrister in a legal action that defeated the best legal minds of the United Kingdom government. Turnbull came to politics as one of the richest men in Australia, a public figure that simply defined success in every venture he had chosen.
The question many people ask - is what does he hope to achieve as a politician ? It seems obvious that he has no intention of offering anything other than government by consensus. He shows no indications of using his authority as leader to instill a "fear factor " to instill immediate compliance from subordinates. Policy now seems to be the play thing of the factions.
Unfortunately, the time factor is not moving in Australia's favour. We live in a fractious world of changing military alliances and our economy is in urgent need of a re-set. The recent election indicated that the voters are disenchanted with both the major political, parties and we may see the "Balkinization " of splinter parties emerging to create endless divisions.
Malcolm Turnbull needs to take the reigns and assert his authority as prime minister and implement sound policies - or step aside and make way for a new leader prepared to us the "fear factor " to implement the hard decisions that are so clearly needed !
The " Fear Factor " !
This week a curious thing happened in the Australian Parliament. It was a closing session and the routine was being settled on the voices when an astute member of the Opposition noticed the numbers on the government benches were thin - and called for a division.
The government lacked the numbers to prevail and it was defeated on the floor of a chamber in which it held government. It was not a political disaster, but it was a major embarrassment and it threw the spotlight on leader Malcolm Turnbull's leadership. Some compared it to a fractious schoolroom under the control of an incompetent new teacher when the bell signals class end.
It seems that senior ministers took an early mark and obviously the party whips who must ensure that the numbers are correct at all times did not do their jobs properly. This breach of party discipline had the wise heads of party elders seeking a solution.
Politics and business share a common leadership need. Whoever sits at the top of the management pyramid needs to exercise a "fear factor ".This certainly manifested itself during the years that the Liberal party held power in Australia. During his long years in office Robert Gordon Menzies was referred to as "Ming the Merciless " and his grip on power was absolute. Any form of revolt against his policies was almost a death sentence and many a promising minister found himself on the back bench. On retirement, his successors - Harold Holt and Billy McMahon lacked that "fear factor "- and governed accordingly.
Then came the John Howard years. It took time for Howard to accumulate that "fear factor " but he ran a disciplined party that was constantly reelected The rank and file moved in lockstep with the leader. The leader was astute at discerning the mood of the voting public and so the party enjoyede a long term in office.
Then Kevin Rudd burst onto the scene and offered completely new thinking. It was a phenomenon that caught the public mood ans he swept into office only to lose focus and be replaced by Julia Gillard. Tony Abbott took up the reigns of the Opposition and eventually wrested back government, but proved better as an "attack dog "than a prime minister. In despair, the party replaced him as leader with Malcolm Turnbull.
Malcolm Turnbull is an enigma. His school years were brilliantly successful and he became a Rhodes Scholar. He achieved business success and became a billionaire at a young age, before scaling the heights as a barrister in a legal action that defeated the best legal minds of the United Kingdom government. Turnbull came to politics as one of the richest men in Australia, a public figure that simply defined success in every venture he had chosen.
The question many people ask - is what does he hope to achieve as a politician ? It seems obvious that he has no intention of offering anything other than government by consensus. He shows no indications of using his authority as leader to instill a "fear factor " to instill immediate compliance from subordinates. Policy now seems to be the play thing of the factions.
Unfortunately, the time factor is not moving in Australia's favour. We live in a fractious world of changing military alliances and our economy is in urgent need of a re-set. The recent election indicated that the voters are disenchanted with both the major political, parties and we may see the "Balkinization |" of splinter parties emerging to create endless divisions.
Malcolm Turnbull needs to take the reigns and assert his authority as prime minister and implement sound policies - or step aside and make way for a new leader prepared to us the "fear factor " to implement the hard decisions that are so clearly needed !
The government lacked the numbers to prevail and it was defeated on the floor of a chamber in which it held government. It was not a political disaster, but it was a major embarrassment and it threw the spotlight on leader Malcolm Turnbull's leadership. Some compared it to a fractious schoolroom under the control of an incompetent new teacher when the bell signals class end.
It seems that senior ministers took an early mark and obviously the party whips who must ensure that the numbers are correct at all times did not do their jobs properly. This breach of party discipline had the wise heads of party elders seeking a solution.
Politics and business share a common leadership need. Whoever sits at the top of the management pyramid needs to exercise a "fear factor ".This certainly manifested itself during the years that the Liberal party held power in Australia. During his long years in office Robert Gordon Menzies was referred to as "Ming the Merciless " and his grip on power was absolute. Any form of revolt against his policies was almost a death sentence and many a promising minister found himself on the back bench. On retirement, his successors - Harold Holt and Billy McMahon lacked that "fear factor "- and governed accordingly.
Then came the John Howard years. It took time for Howard to accumulate that "fear factor " but he ran a disciplined party that was constantly reelected The rank and file moved in lockstep with the leader. The leader was astute at discerning the mood of the voting public and so the party enjoyede a long term in office.
Then Kevin Rudd burst onto the scene and offered completely new thinking. It was a phenomenon that caught the public mood ans he swept into office only to lose focus and be replaced by Julia Gillard. Tony Abbott took up the reigns of the Opposition and eventually wrested back government, but proved better as an "attack dog "than a prime minister. In despair, the party replaced him as leader with Malcolm Turnbull.
Malcolm Turnbull is an enigma. His school years were brilliantly successful and he became a Rhodes Scholar. He achieved business success and became a billionaire at a young age, before scaling the heights as a barrister in a legal action that defeated the best legal minds of the United Kingdom government. Turnbull came to politics as one of the richest men in Australia, a public figure that simply defined success in every venture he had chosen.
The question many people ask - is what does he hope to achieve as a politician ? It seems obvious that he has no intention of offering anything other than government by consensus. He shows no indications of using his authority as leader to instill a "fear factor " to instill immediate compliance from subordinates. Policy now seems to be the play thing of the factions.
Unfortunately, the time factor is not moving in Australia's favour. We live in a fractious world of changing military alliances and our economy is in urgent need of a re-set. The recent election indicated that the voters are disenchanted with both the major political, parties and we may see the "Balkinization |" of splinter parties emerging to create endless divisions.
Malcolm Turnbull needs to take the reigns and assert his authority as prime minister and implement sound policies - or step aside and make way for a new leader prepared to us the "fear factor " to implement the hard decisions that are so clearly needed !
Wednesday, 24 August 2016
Rape - The Crime We Seek To Hide !
Whether it is the anal rape of young boys or the vaginal rape of young girls, when a rape accusation surfaces in the media it immediately generates headlines. What is surprising is how few such prosecutions go to trial and those that do usually receive far less punishment than the public expects.
At the moment, the "Girl X "case is ruffling feathers in New South Wales. Back in 2012 this fourteen year old was a resident in a care home because she had "needs ". She worked part time for a local cafe owner and she told her boss of being regularly raped by a twenty-six year old care attendant, who regularly stayed overnight on "sleepover "shifts. Her boss phoned the Care home and reported this claim to management, but it seems that no action was taken and the matter lapsed.
Sadly,when her increasing age removed her from the protection of a care home she gravitated to the use of illicit drugs, and she has subsequently died of a drug overdose. However the DPP have DNA evidence that links one of two care workers to the alleged rapes and it seems that this offence may be wider spread. The police also recovered explicit photos of other girls in the care home. The scientists claim that this DNA proves guilt on the basis of a hundred billion to one - and yet the DPP has refused to take the matter to court.
What is unclear is whether this rape was forced upon this young girl or whether a twenty-six year old male in a position of authority groomed the girl for sex and ran something of a harem in the care home. What is important is that a ward of the state below the age of consent was subject to illicit sex by an employee tasked with her protection.
We have seen a litany of those in authority choosing to look the other way when sex is concerned. All the churches have a shameful record and it is still not positively clear that future offences will be automatically referred to the police. It is quite probable that many sex offenders take the risk of satisfying their sexual needs on those under their care simply because the odds of getting away with it are in their favour.
That is why it is important that the DPP take all and every opportunity to bring these cases to court. Sex is one of the prime motivators of the human race and we will never totally stop sexual abuse, but the knowledge that offenders will face the full force of the law and receive consistent punishment may cause many to have second thoughts.
It is quite probable that the DPP is receiving pressure from the government to hold back on prosecutions. We have a vastly overcrowded prison system and sex offenders usually need separation from the general milieu. In many cases prosecutions now involve very old men who have offended in their youth and housing them creates problems. Sentencing is evolving towards short time in prison followed by a lengthy rehabilitation curve.
In this lurid rape of "Girl X "in a care home the lack of a prosecution despite ample evidence is not delivering the hoped for message to other young men who find they have compliant young girls at their mercy as part of their job procedure.
At the moment, the "Girl X "case is ruffling feathers in New South Wales. Back in 2012 this fourteen year old was a resident in a care home because she had "needs ". She worked part time for a local cafe owner and she told her boss of being regularly raped by a twenty-six year old care attendant, who regularly stayed overnight on "sleepover "shifts. Her boss phoned the Care home and reported this claim to management, but it seems that no action was taken and the matter lapsed.
Sadly,when her increasing age removed her from the protection of a care home she gravitated to the use of illicit drugs, and she has subsequently died of a drug overdose. However the DPP have DNA evidence that links one of two care workers to the alleged rapes and it seems that this offence may be wider spread. The police also recovered explicit photos of other girls in the care home. The scientists claim that this DNA proves guilt on the basis of a hundred billion to one - and yet the DPP has refused to take the matter to court.
What is unclear is whether this rape was forced upon this young girl or whether a twenty-six year old male in a position of authority groomed the girl for sex and ran something of a harem in the care home. What is important is that a ward of the state below the age of consent was subject to illicit sex by an employee tasked with her protection.
We have seen a litany of those in authority choosing to look the other way when sex is concerned. All the churches have a shameful record and it is still not positively clear that future offences will be automatically referred to the police. It is quite probable that many sex offenders take the risk of satisfying their sexual needs on those under their care simply because the odds of getting away with it are in their favour.
That is why it is important that the DPP take all and every opportunity to bring these cases to court. Sex is one of the prime motivators of the human race and we will never totally stop sexual abuse, but the knowledge that offenders will face the full force of the law and receive consistent punishment may cause many to have second thoughts.
It is quite probable that the DPP is receiving pressure from the government to hold back on prosecutions. We have a vastly overcrowded prison system and sex offenders usually need separation from the general milieu. In many cases prosecutions now involve very old men who have offended in their youth and housing them creates problems. Sentencing is evolving towards short time in prison followed by a lengthy rehabilitation curve.
In this lurid rape of "Girl X "in a care home the lack of a prosecution despite ample evidence is not delivering the hoped for message to other young men who find they have compliant young girls at their mercy as part of their job procedure.
Tuesday, 23 August 2016
Sexism In The Dress Code !
One Sydney school insists that its summer dress code for girls is a dress and in winter they may choose a tunic, but trousers and shorts are barred all year. This throwback to an earlier age seems to have missed the attention of the feminist movement. It seems that this edict is the wish of the schools P & C decision making body.
The mother protesting for change took the matter to the Education Department, and they ducked for cover. They declined to intervene on the grounds that the school had granted an exemption to the ruling and this individual pupil was free to wear trousers or shorts.
That sounds like a victory for common sense, but a lot depends on what attitude is forthcoming from the school teaching staff and how the decision is treated by conservative parents. Those who pioneer change and consequently stand out from the crowd are not always welcomed by their peers. This decision could result in a host of others seeking similar exemptions, or a closing of ranks and trousers seen as a breach of the uniform code.
Perhaps that schools P & C are imposing their dress code as a subtle way of warning that dress codes still exist in the wider business community. The female "business suit " is widely accepted across a range of professional disciplines but there are a surprising number of offices where all the female staff are attired in a dress. Often, these have what is unofficially termed a "glass ceiling ". No women attain executive rank.
The feminist movement has been agitating for an equal mix of the genders in parliament and for more women to sit on the boards of leading companies and this is achieving success, but there are a surprising number of holdouts who cloak their sexism by appointing what is often termed the "token " female executive.
A company with a male heavy executive staff which fears to attract media attention will often decide to rectify the situation by creating a high profile position and filling it with promotion from within. The title appended to this position will be indicative of seniority but in fact the tasks required will have little relevance to actual management. The main objective will be to prove that this company is following the dictates of gender equality as demanded by society.
It is surprising the number of big name public companies which still require a dress code in their head office. This is usually subtly put in place. It does not appear in the interview to select a new applicant and usually it is the task of the most senior woman in the office to gain attire acceptance before the offer of employment is confirmed.
Unfortunately, many school leavers fail to understand the importance of dressing accordingly to the type of job interview they are about to attend. It is not a good idea to front in clothing more appropriate for the beach, nor to be heavily adorned with pop culture icons. Where possible, tattoos should be kept out of sight and an applicant would do well to observe the attire of the other workers in the place where they are seeking employment.
Dress codes may seem a relic of an earlier age, but they do exist in many workplaces and quite a few of these are under the control of a female boss. The applicant who demands the right to wear what they choose and to exhibit the freedom to represent the current fad culture is likely to remain in the ranks of the long term unemployed !
The mother protesting for change took the matter to the Education Department, and they ducked for cover. They declined to intervene on the grounds that the school had granted an exemption to the ruling and this individual pupil was free to wear trousers or shorts.
That sounds like a victory for common sense, but a lot depends on what attitude is forthcoming from the school teaching staff and how the decision is treated by conservative parents. Those who pioneer change and consequently stand out from the crowd are not always welcomed by their peers. This decision could result in a host of others seeking similar exemptions, or a closing of ranks and trousers seen as a breach of the uniform code.
Perhaps that schools P & C are imposing their dress code as a subtle way of warning that dress codes still exist in the wider business community. The female "business suit " is widely accepted across a range of professional disciplines but there are a surprising number of offices where all the female staff are attired in a dress. Often, these have what is unofficially termed a "glass ceiling ". No women attain executive rank.
The feminist movement has been agitating for an equal mix of the genders in parliament and for more women to sit on the boards of leading companies and this is achieving success, but there are a surprising number of holdouts who cloak their sexism by appointing what is often termed the "token " female executive.
A company with a male heavy executive staff which fears to attract media attention will often decide to rectify the situation by creating a high profile position and filling it with promotion from within. The title appended to this position will be indicative of seniority but in fact the tasks required will have little relevance to actual management. The main objective will be to prove that this company is following the dictates of gender equality as demanded by society.
It is surprising the number of big name public companies which still require a dress code in their head office. This is usually subtly put in place. It does not appear in the interview to select a new applicant and usually it is the task of the most senior woman in the office to gain attire acceptance before the offer of employment is confirmed.
Unfortunately, many school leavers fail to understand the importance of dressing accordingly to the type of job interview they are about to attend. It is not a good idea to front in clothing more appropriate for the beach, nor to be heavily adorned with pop culture icons. Where possible, tattoos should be kept out of sight and an applicant would do well to observe the attire of the other workers in the place where they are seeking employment.
Dress codes may seem a relic of an earlier age, but they do exist in many workplaces and quite a few of these are under the control of a female boss. The applicant who demands the right to wear what they choose and to exhibit the freedom to represent the current fad culture is likely to remain in the ranks of the long term unemployed !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)