TELL IT LIKE IT IS

I'd like to share a story with you which I heard the other day. It's a sad story from which there is much to learn.

It concerns a little boy who we'll call Bobby. He was about 5 years old and was an only child. He was very well cared for and his parents loved him dearly. In fact they loved him so much that when his Daddy became gravely ill, they decided to shield Bobby from the dreadful facts of his father's condition.

He was just told that his father was poorly and had had to take to his bed (he and his wife had separate rooms because his coughing kept her awake). The months passed and his Daddy became more and more ill. When the doctor called to see his father, Bobby was ushered out of the room 'for his own good'. Bobby tried to ask about his poorly father but was just told not to worry - everything will be alright.

Then one night, around 2 a.m. , Bobby was awakened by the sound of his Daddy calling for help. He nervously went into the bedroom to find his weak and feeble father asking for a glass of water. Glad to be able to help in some way, Bobby went downstairs and brought him a refreshing tumbler of water which his Daddy gratefully quaffed. Bobby went back to bed, happy that he had been able to help his poor father even in such a simple way.

Tragically, the next morning, Bobby's mother discovered that her husband had died in the early hours. The doctor was called for and although his Mum did tell Bobby that his Daddy had died, he was asked to stay in his room to save him from the sad facts.

Bobby couldn't help himself. He listened at the bedroom door. All he managed to hear was the Doctor saying 'Of course, it was the drink that killed him'.

Bobby told no-one about his guilty knowledge that he had killed his father by getting him that glass of water. It was a very long time before he finally learned that his father had died of cirrhosis of the liver caused by chronic alcoholism.

The moral of the story is that we best protect our children by giving them knowledge.

CHANGING TIMES

I was recently on a Child Protection course and we were asked to consider various scenarios and state whether or not we considered them to be child abuse. One example was of a father undressing his 14 year-old daughter. We all agreed that this was inappropriate and therefore abusive. We were then told that the father was a single parent and his daughter had cerebral palsy.

The point, which was well made, was that we shouldn't rush to make judgements until we have all the facts.

This got me thinking how society's views on things have changed during my many years. In the 1970's when I started out as a fledging special needs teacher, it was not only accepted that a male would change a teenage girl's nappy, it was expected. I did so, in a totally open situation. The changing area had three tables and the three staff busy changing, would commonly exchange banter as they removed soiled nappies, wiped the children clean and put on fresh incontinence pads etc.

I recall one occasion when I had them 'rolling in the aisles' when one teenage girl I was changing, had an exceptionally large bowel motion during the process. For the benefit of my two colleagues, I provided her with verbal encouragement with 'Keep going Susan, I can see the head!'

I remember that sometime in the 1980's, it was decided that each changing table should have screens 'to preserve the children's dignity'. The problem was, that in preserving their dignity, staff were then screened from view as they provided what is now called 'intimate personal care'. A debate ensued and I began to ask a female member of my team to assist me when I changed a girl (but not when I changed a boy). A few years later, it was formally agreed that it was not appropriate, for males to change females - something I had been doing for many years. However, females could continue to change males.

Given the recent case of the female nursery school worker who abused the children in her care, it seems to me that the only solution is to stipulate that two staff must always be present during intimate care situations but sadly, even this arrangement would be open to abuse.

WHO CARES?

I really shouldn't be complaining about this government and its laws. They have been so ridiculous lately, that I have had plenty of content for these posts. There was the idea of letting cyclists get a new bike from me by shoving their bikes in front of my car which I covered in 'The lunacy of the law', then there was the case of the school meals assistant who was sacked for letting a father know that his daughter had been the victim of a bullying attack not a skipping accident as the school had told him. That one was dealt with under 'Bully for her'.

The latest example is a beauty. Two female police officers who worked at the same station (so were colleagues and friends), have been looking after each others children - which worked really well since they work different shifts. You are probably waiting for me to go on to reveal something which they did wrong. I already did!

The government agency responsible for governing childcare (Ofsted), have declared their arrangement illegal. This is apparently because
1. They are not registered child minders.
2. They look after the children for longer than a 2-hour stretch.
3. They are remunerated for their time when looking after the children by receiving free childcare.

They are policewomen for heaven's sake! All they are doing is helping each other out and it should have nothing whatsoever to do with the law. To say that the law is an ass in this case is an insult to asses.

Rant over.