Anyone for tennis?

Anyone For Tennis.      Well, who would not be for tennis?               The winners of this years’ Australian Open, Elena Rybakina and Carlos Alacarz (at right and left ) each took home $4.15 million dollars. In a resounding rebuke to the fellow who said, “There is no prize for second,” the Runners Up, Novak Djokovic and Aryna Sabalenka each took home $2.15 million. These four brilliant tennis players collectively walked away with $12.6 million after each had played  seven games of tennis spread over two weeks. Actually, Djokovic only played five and a half games as he won on a forfeit in round four and in Round Five,  his opponent retired injured while leading by two sets to love.                           

Kimberley Inglis, (pictured left) the Western Australian who surprise everyone with her court craft, won $450 000 for making it to the 4^th Round. She also picked up $22 000 as her share of losing the First Round of the Ladies’ Doubles. Her fiancée, Mark Polmans  collected $242 000 as his share for Runner Up in the Men’s Doubles. Polmans also collected $40 000 for losing the First Qualifying Round in the week prior to the Australian Open. So, this young couple walked away  from the Rod Laver Arena with  a combined bankroll of $824 000. This should ensure the couple can spend the next 12 months playing on the international circuit and at Wimbledon, Roland Garros and Flushing Meadows.

Millions of tennis lovers around the world enjoyed watching the Australian Tennis Open earlier this year. The Australian Open pays about a $1 million  less to the ultimate winners than the English/Wimbledon and US Open. However, it is certainly much more generous and supportive of the lower ranked players. For instance, if you were one of the 64 players who lost the first-round match at  Rod Laver  Arena this year you would have collected $150 000. If you made it into the second round and lost, you would have been one of the 32 players who each collected $225 000. These figures are on a par with the US Open but are about 10% higher than what was paid in 2025 at Wimbledon (England)  or Roland Garros (France).

The Australian Open has rapidly increased its overall total prize pool in recent years. In 2002 the total prize pool was $16.5 million. In 2020 it had grown by 23% to $71 million. Since then, it has increased by a whopping 64% and the total prize pool for 2026 was $111.5 million.

The England and US Opens will always be richer than the Australian Open because they attract much larger crowds, collect  huge television revenues and have many more and far richer commercial sponsors. However, The Australia Open, in true blue Aussie style, has made a conscious decision to not pay the major winners as much as the other Grand Slam countries in order  to support the lower ranked players. It does this by  awarding attractive payouts to the losers  in the early rounds.

This is similar to what happened in Australian cricket in the player pay negotiations in the early 2000s. Though the top Australia cricketers still received  very high remuneration, the underlying philosophy of the negotiations between Cricket Australia and the Players’ Association was of supporting the broader playing base rather than maximising the very top. This provided more money for week-end  grade cricketers and for developing junior cricket Australia wide. 

It makes you proud to be an Aussie. And it makes sense. You cannot win a Wimbledon final unless there are competitors for the champion to beast. Champions need a variety of opponents who can afford to travel with their manager, coach, physiotherapist  to  compete for the title. Similarly, you cannot play winning test cricket if the supply of talented youngsters has dried up because their junior associations all withered  on the vine of poverty.

Hmmm. $150 grand for losing the in the first round of the Open . I might go and dig out my battered old tennis racquet and hit the practice courts.                                                                                                     I can lose with the best of them! 

Nuremburg speaks to the present day about the rise of a totalitarian dictatorship

Nuremburg speaks to the present day about the rise of a totalitarian dictatorship

Totalitarianism, if not fought against could triumph anywhere. George Orwell

History shows us that when powerful men control the media and the justice system, democratic values are eroded and sometimes are extinguished completely. Tragically, as the philosopher, George Santayana pointed out, “Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it”. In 2026, as we view world events, an excellent motion picture, “Nuremberg” forces us to view the horrific past. Hopefully, we will learn from it.

Nuremberg speaks to the present day by dramatizing how ordinary institutions, charismatic leaders, and public inactivity can allow a totalitarian dictatorship to commit vast crimes while telling everyone it is legal and justified. It shows how atrocities grow not from monsters but from ordinary people who try to ignore it or else dress it up in patriotism and flag waving. Lots of flag waving.                                                                                                                                         

It warns us that no society is automatically “immune” from the terrible descent into evil and it  tells us that accountability, law, and individual moral courage are the only real safeguards.              Its courtroom setting also reminds us that even those employing totalitarian powers must eventually be held accountable; that no evil transgressor can be immune forever.

The film shows that while some powerful people can  appear as charismatic, intelligent, even likeable and charming, they are responsible for egregious crimes against individual citizens and against humanity. Hermann Göring (Russell Crowe) is portrayed as intelligent, charming and able to dominate the courtroom and manipulate professionals like his official US Army psychiatrist, Major David Kelley (Rami Malek).  We see how rhetoric and charisma can seduce people into supporting or excusing authoritarian politics in any era.

The film also demonstrates how the powerful and their obedient underlings rationalise their inherently evil actions by claiming they were  “Only following orders”. Defendants repeatedly used patriotism, duty, obedience, and bureaucracy (“we just carrying  out our orders,” “it was legal”) to rationalise their abhorrent actions. This speaks directly to modern situations where officials or citizens co-operate with abusive policies while distancing themselves from responsibility by claiming they are only  following the orders of their superiors. In Minneapolis on February 4^th, Thomas Homan, described as President Trump’s Border Czar, on several occasions stated that his ICE agents, who had recently shot and killed two unarmed and non-resisting American citizens, were carrying out the direct wishes of the President. Presumably, at present in the USA, that makes everything OK.

The context of the Nuremberg trials shows how the Nazis used legal changes through the government and the courts, state generated propaganda, emergency powers, and violence (for example, the Reichstag fire, concentration camps,  The Nuremberg Laws) to dismantle democracy. The message is that democratic systems erode gradually, through many “small” choices, rather than in a single dramatic coup. Today, in the USA we see on our television screens large groups of federally funded, masked men moving in large groups, apprehending American citizens in the streets and asking them for their identification. US citizens have never before been required to carry identification papers and the penalty for not doing so has never been abduction and incarceration …or death!   At present though, this is becoming more a common expectation rather than a rare exception.

Universal Human Rights: The Nuremberg Trials helped to articulate the idea that certain crimes, genocide, systematic persecution, armed and aggressive invasion of another country,  are heinous crimes against humanity, not just violations of any one country’s laws. The United Nations was formed to prevent armed aggression by one nation against another. The film’s focus on charges violating Human Rights resonates with current debates about war crimes, international incursions, ethnic cleansing, and state violence.  

The film emphasises that even strong and powerful leaders can be held personally accountable: By putting top Nazi officials on trial, Nuremberg insists that political and military leaders cannot hide behind the state or the excuse of war. There is no such thing as “Full Immunity”.  This principle underpins modern international courts and serves as a warning to contemporary leaders who use dehumanising policies or encourage mass violence.

Seduction of fascism and relevance to the present.                                                    There is an  allure of “strongmen”: Critics note that the film uses the dynamic between Goring and the  psychiatrist Kelley, to show how clever, ruthless figures gain power by playing on fear, pride, and prejudice. That dynamic mirrors how modern demagogues can attract followers who think they are too intelligent  to be fooled. However, no country is exempt: In one scene, Kelley suggests that the United States itself is not immune to fascism, and this has been highlighted as especially resonant for today’s audiences. Recent commentary connects Nuremberg to present day concerns about human rights abuses, demonisation of minorities and the erosion of democratic norms in contemporary governments.

Lessons about resisting totalitarianism                                                                                         It is impossible to overstress the importance of democratic institutions and civil courage. It is acknowledged  by all who cherish freedom that the price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilan                    The film implies that honest courts, a free media, and independent public officials matter. However, this  only works if individuals choose to uphold justice rather than careerism or obedience to a powerful or charismatic leader. A whole cohort of FOX News journalist steadfastly tow the "Party line" when any evert goes beyond the bounds of what were once regarded as acceptable behaviour.  It invites viewers to ask what they themselves would do if ordered to carry out inhumane policies under a regime that rewarded such acts.                             

Remembering as prevention: Finally, Nuremberg shows concentration camp footage and the testimony of extermination camps to confront viewers with the brutal fact that dehumanisation leads to Mass Murder. The continuing relevance of these horrific scenes lies in remembering that these crimes are not just about the past but, also about recognising early warning signs of dictatorship and genocide today.           

At present, the US government is abducting alleged “aliens” off the streets and deporting them to gaols in foreign countries. They are doing this without any Due Process, yet the Republican majority in the US Congress and the Murdoch dominated mainstream media are not holding the President or the federal government to account. The tide comes in little by little.

The role of the media. In a free society the Right of Dissent is the hallmark of a democracy. That is why free speech is so prized by free people. It is enshrined in the Constitution of the USA. The media should be a bastion of free and independent thought. Sadly, much of the modern media is now controlled by multi billionaires, such as the Murdoch Family and billionaire, Jeff Bezos. These men are not journalists. They are business men who are  concerned with their power to influence and their ever-bulging bank balances. They use their media outlets to curry favour with powerful leaders. They view their media assets, not as a means of presenting the truth, but as vehicles for printing untruths that will make them richer and more powerful.

The Present. This year we have seen tragic video scenes of unarmed American citizens gunned down by masked agents of the federal government. The immediate reaction to these murders by US government leaders and by Murdoch’s Fox News, was to tell the nation  that the two people had been killed because they were “Urban Terrorists” who were a lethal danger to federal agents going about their lawful business of identifying “Aliens” and deporting them to foreign lands. People all over nhe world saw with our own eyes that those charges were completely false.          Within minutes of the killings, President Trump and his obedient subordinates had all decided that the victims were highly dangerous terrorist and deserved to be killed.  Our own eyes revealed the shameful deceit of the President, his Chief of Staff, Stephen Miller, plus the US Attorney General and the Director of Homeland Security. Our eyes told us that both of the murdered victims were unarmed, posed no threat to anybody and  were shot dead by untrained, undisciplined (though very highly paid) masked federal agents.

Goring’s psychiatrist wrote a book about his experiences in Nuremberg, warning that Totalitarianism could  even  rise in America. Nobody believed him and his book was a financial flop. Today we are witnessing an American President who has control of the Supreme Court, The Justice Department and most of the Media. He has acted without the authority of the Congress where Republicans, in awe of, or cowed by a dominating President, seem reluctant to provide the constitutional checks and balances that the Founding Fathers of the USA deliberately wrote into the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Both of these documents make it very clear that the government is the servant of “We, The People” not vice versa.

Nuremberg, the movie, is not only a commemoration of the past. It suggests that to avoid what Hannah Arendt called "The banality of evil" requires vigilance and moral courage against unconstitutional behaviour, the corruption of the courts and the justice system, dehumanising language against minorities, the muzzling of free media. It requires the courage and fortitude of individual citizens to resist carrying out unconstitutional and unjust orders.

In Minneapolis recently, the Attorney General of the United States, Pam Bondi, borrowing from the extortionate tactics of Al Capone, told the state governor that she would reduce the activities of ICE agents rounding up “Aliens” in that city if he handed over to her the state electoral rolls. The US constitution mandates that elections are the province of the states. For what reason would the President want electoral data about every US voter?  Is it an  ominous harbinger of electoral interference in order to manufacture electoral success for one party only? That is the sort of thing that happens in totalitarian states where elections are a sham and the result is known before a single vote is cast. Although Nuremberg did not labour the point, when the German people voted for Adolf Hitler in March 1933 it was the last time they voted in an election for a very long time.  Their next vote came sixteen years later, after the devastation of World War 2, in August 1949.

President Trump frequently labels news he does not like as “Fake News”. A significant section of the media, controlled by the Murdoch family, writes lies to support Trump’s views and actions. Trump uses social media to spread his own versions of the truth and denigrate anybody who dissents from his views. It is chilling that the President and his underlings are telling us not to believe what we have seen with  our eyes, We saw two US citizens murdered by federal agents acting with the due process criteria of the Ku Klux Klan. The President and others, on national news media, almot immediatelytold us that what we saw were two “urban terrorists” threating the life and limb of customs agents going about their lawful duty. That really was Fake News. Nuremberg is asking us to remove the scales from our eyes and believe what we see, not what government spokespersons or a biased media  tell us we saw in order to promote and protect themselves. George Orwell, who understood how totalitarian regimes gain power over people, wrote in his monumental novel about a dystopian society, “1984”, that “The party told you to reject the evidence of your own eyes and ears. It was their final and most essential command.”

Nuremberg provides a stark  warning that all lovers of Liberty and Justice must heed and act upon as required, if the important  qualities of life in a democracy are to be preserved. Otherwise, those who want to know who was responsible for the rise of the dictatorship, will only need to look in their bathroom mirrors to find out who the culprit is!

Finally, a quote from two other men who loved Freedom and Justice For All,  in the hope that every freedom loving person will step up, speak out and be accountable.                                            Edmund Burke. It is sufficient for the triumph of Evil that good men do nothing.
John F. Kennedy. Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.

My apologies that the Blog text is not configured exactly as the draft is configured. NB

         Shingles Vaccine Shows Surprise Dementia Benefit.                                                                                                                            Stanford University researchers discover viral infections may be a cause of dementia.                                                                                                                                                                                              A major Welsh study found that older adults receiving the shingles vaccine were 20% less like to be diagnosed with dementia. In 2013,  the Welsh government started giving free shingles vaccines to people reaching 80 years of age by a certain date . Over 280 000 people were involved and scientists studied them over seven years, compared to other 80 year olds outside the cut-off date.                      Shingles virus is a by-product of Chicken Pox and never leaves the human body. Shingles often strikes someone later in life when they are stressed or their immune system is compromised

Stanford University became involved in this research and found that not only were vaccinated people  20% less like to get dementia but the shingles vaccinations slowed the rate of progress of dementia.      This was a startling discovery. For many years scientist and doctors  believed that dementia had two main causes:- 

A. Build up of protein on the brain’s circuitry which prevented messages/memory being processed and 

B. Vascular problems, where poor blood flow into the brain affected abilities such as thinking, speaking and memory recall.                                                                                       

The Stanford University researchers' study of the Welsh data led to them saying there may also be viral causes of dementia.                    While revealing there is very strong evidence that a vaccine can impede or even reduce dementia, the Stanford scientists emphasised the urgent need for detailed clinical trials to prove that infection, inflammation and the body’s failing immune system may be curable causes of dementia. 

References.                                                                                                                                Stanford Medicine. www med.stanford.edu 2/4/2025; www.racgp.org.au 8/4/2025.         

 

Should You Avoid Drinking Water at Mealtimes?   

Separating Myth from Science on Hydration and Digestion.                                            Recently, a woman on ABC Radio was insisting that we should  not drink water for half an hour before or after meals. She said water dilutes the gastric juices. I thought the idea sounded plausible but wondered if it was supported by scientific research.  She sounded very knowledgeable and very adamant. Her main argument was that water, when consumed close to mealtime, dilutes the stomach’s gastric juices—primarily hydrochloric acid and enzymes. This, in theory, could make it harder for the stomach to break down food, leading to poorer digestion or discomfort.                                                                                                                                                                           What Does the Science Say? Scientific research does not support the notion that drinking water before, during, or after meals, is harmful or disrupts digestion. In fact, the Science says water plays a helpful role in the digestive process. The stomach is far more sophisticated than the radio lady’s claim.      It automatically adjusts the stomach’s acidity, even if you drink water with meals. The stomach’s cells constantly monitor acidity and maintain the ideal ph levels at around 1.5 to 2.5 to promote good digestion. How clever!                                                                                                                                                                              Does drinking water slow digestion? No, it does not! Liquids empty from the stomach much faster than solids and research does not show that adding water slows the digestive process. The research shows that drinking water 30 minutes before a meal helps regulate appetite so that you eat less and it supports digestion. Water during a meal helps moisten the food and aids digestion.                                                                                                                                                                                                                          The Bottom Line. Be very wary of unverified expert opinions! Even when they are expressed confidently by an “expert”. Remember, someone once described an Expert as “A drip under pressure”.

 Drinking water before and after meals is safe and normal. It does not dilute the gastric juices and it is   actually beneficial to digestion.   

 So, drink up. Drinking water is good at any time.                                                                                         The really good news is that further  research revealed   that 85% to 95% of wine and beer is…WATER   A glass of Gin and Tonic is 90% WATER.                                                                                                     As they say… Bottoms Up… and Good Health!

                       

Living the good life in your eighties has consequences!

My wife Lesley are both 87. We are very, very grateful that we are still mobile, we are still driving, enjoy reading, music and watching sport, have most of our mental faculties, keep in touch with a wide circle of friends and enjoy many social occasions with friends and family. 

I would like to say that we are pain free. However, by the time your reach 87 years, aches and pains have been your constant companions on the journey for several years. The only 87 year olds who are pain free have already embraced the Great Alternative to Life.

 During the year, we happily met up with family and friends, went to musical concerts and movie theatres, dined in restaurants and cafes on a regular basis. These activities were spaced out so that we could recover our strength and stamina between social occasions

A month ago, however, we  overdid the social interaction bit. It ended quite badly. It was the weekend of November 15-17. At 12 -30pm on Friday, November 15th we attended a Test Match Luncheon at the Celtic Club. We felt this was a great way to get into the swing of things for the upcoming Ashes Test Match at Optus Stadium starting the following Friday. The luncheon was especially enjoyable because the guest speaker was former Australian cricket captain and outstanding batsman, Kim Hughes. Kim   was a  student of mine at Graylands Teachers College when I lectured there in Maths and Science Education  in 1972/3. Kim did a wonderful job in his role as guest speaker and we had a very pleasant catch up with him after the lunch, which finished at about 3-00pm.

At 5-00pm Lesley and I returned to the Celtic Club for a special family event. It weas to celebrate the lives of David and Jacqui Pougher who had both died of brain cancer within the last year or so. David was the youngest son of our late brother in law, Dr John Pougher. David and Jacqui had been living and working in Santa Barbara when they both became ill. David's older brother, Bill and wife Catherine, live in England. They were in Perth for the Test Match and so the Pougher family took the opportunity of their visit to hold this celebration to the memory of a much loved couple. It was a wonderful evening which concluded at about 10-00pm.

Early on Saturday morning, Lesley and I set off for Donnybrook. We had been invited to attend the official opening of the newly refurbished Donnybrook Tennis Clubrooms and the opening o the 2025/6 tennis season. Lesley is a former Ladies Champion of the club and we were both members and involved in the building of the original tennis clubrooms 45 years earlier, in 1980.

We still have many friends in Donnybrook and the opening  was a wonderful opportunity to meet up with many people we had not seen in years. Naturally there as a lot of hugging and kissing, as old friends tend to do when meeting after a long time. On Saturday evening we dined out with five very dear friends and then  stayed overnight  with two of those very good friends. .

Sunday morning we visited some more Donnybrook friends and set off back for Perth at about 1-00pm. On the following Monday, Lesley and I both felt very tired and carried a few extra aches in our shoulders and back. We put all of this down to our very hectic three days of standing, socialising and driving.

We both had COVID!

Special Needs Children in Mainstream Classes?

The West Australian newspaper in Perth reported recently that Professor Whitehouse, an expert in Autistic studies, addressing a public meeting, said that every child with special needs had the right to be enrolled in a mainstream classroom. 

It is sadly ironic that Professor Whitehouse's speech coincided with the release in mid August 2025 of a University of NSW  survey of 5,000 primary and secondary educators that found  90% of teachers reported moderate to extreme levels of stress. They believed their workloads were unmanageable. Two thirds of the teachers reported cases of depression or anxiety.  That is double the national average.          Lead researcher, Dr Helena Ganziera, said it was not just a wellbeing issue, but a workforce issue.        "Our findings show that teachers are experiencing mental health symptoms at rates far above the general population, and that these symptoms are closely linked to their workload and intentions to leave the profession.”                                                                                                                                               The UNSW survey supports a similar study carried out by Monash University in 2022 which found 59% of those surveyed wanted to leave teaching because of their overwhelming workload.                      Deakin University and the University of Melbourne conducted similar studies which found that a significant  number of teachers are resigning or taking early retirement due to what they feel are excessive work pressures.                                                                                                                            In Western Australia, a Curtin University study found that some policies designed to improve teacher well being had not taken into account existing teacher workloads and were in fact increasing their workload.                                                                                                                                                        There are many reasons for these seriously increased levels of teacher stress and anxiety found in the UNSW study. One of the reasons, for some teachers, is their need to fully cater for one or more children with special needs while trying to adequately educate the other 24 children in their classroom

It should also be remembered that mainstream classes that do not include any special needs children are not all plain sailing for class teachers. In 2000, I heard Professor Fiona Stanley inform a group of principals and early childhood teachers that 20% of children have learning problems related to mental health issues. That is one in five children in each class have mental health issues. Dr Stanley expressed her admiration to the early childhood teachers that were present.  She told those Early Childhood teachers that, on a daily basis and with limited resources, they dealt with five or more children with mental health issues affecting their learning, while at the same time delivering an education programme to their mainstream classes. Now of course they also have one or more children who have special needs. Some years ago, I wrote a story in the WA Principals' quarterly magazine, WAPPA WORDS, that our teachers were like soldiers, whose commanding officers had given them inferior weapons and insufficient ammunition while constantly berating them for not winning the battle. 

There are many good arguments for placing children with special needs in mainstream classrooms, as Professor Whitehouse urges. However, unless that mainstream classroom is fully resourced (aides, nurses, psychologists, social workers) to provide a suitable education for that special needs child, then it is really child abuse. What is more it is an abuse of the whole teaching process.

That child’s special needs will not be fully met, the other children in the classroom will receive less of their teacher’s attention and guidance than they deserve and the under resourced and under pressure teacher will be frustrated and stressed trying to cope with what is sometimes an impossible situation. They will have a nervous breakdown, take stress leave or resign. Our society needs these quality teachers. It cannot afford to lose them because of system failure.

Having a “feel good” policy of Inclusion is one thing. However, making it work for the benefit of the special needs child and not to the detriment of the other children in the class and their class teacher, requires that the official policy be adequately funded and resourced. I firmly believe that it is beneficial for children with special needs and mainstream children to interact. However, it does not necessarily mean the special needs child has to be in a mainstream class for the entire day. 

I can speak with personal experience about this. When I was teaching at Mt Lawley Primary School in 1971, Supernumerary Teachers were introduced into Western Australia for the first time.  As a result, I became a full time specialist science teacher, teaching science to all grades. By doing so, it enabled the other  primary teachers to enjoy a free period for the first time. These free periods were for Duties Other Than teaching, DOTT. Which was whole rationale for having Supernumerary Teachers.

 At that time, special needs children at Mt Lawley PS were put into a "Ducks' Class". There were about ten children in it, varying in age from 8 to 12.  (How I became a specialist science teacher in a primary school is another long story which you can read about in, “Gough Whitlam And How He Led Me To The Principalship”, written in September, 2012. The link is: -http://noelswriting.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/how-gough-whitlam-led-me-to.html .

One day, the kindly teacher who taught this special class asked if I could take her children for science. This would have given her some respite, or DOTT.  At first, I was quite reluctant to take on this teacher's special needs children because my science lessons were child centred, activity based, problem solving sessions which involved a lot of manipulating, measuring, controlling variables and recording. I did not think her children would be up to it, in fact, I feared that they could quite possibly injure themselves or others.

However, I knew that she had a point. She was entitled to DOTT time, too. So, I agreed to take her children in with my very best Year 7 class. The year seven children were given a few pointers in peer tutoring and then buddied up with a special needs child. My lessons generally consisted of six different activities around the room, with a group of five or six children working at each activity. Each week the group would move on to a new activity. It was a six-week programme developing science concepts and skills of inquiry. I spread the special needs children into each of these activity groups.

Well, it was just terrific. Not only did these intellectually deprived, cognitively, physically and emotionally challenged children participate with enthusiasm and delight in the activities, but the year seven students, for the first time in their school days, became aware that these much maligned, indeed shunned and ridiculed members of The Ducks' Class, were actually human beings who had feelings, who could express delight, wonder and appreciation at the interesting experiences in which they were all  sharing.

In my movements around the playground on Yard Duty , I noticed that some of the year sevens were now including some of their "Ducks’ class" science buddies in their play activities. I felt gratified by the whole experience and realised that including these children with special needs had improved their social skills. Perhaps, more importantly, it had also had a socially beneficial impact on the years sevens. 

The policy to introduce special needs children into mainstream classes in W.A. came into effect in the mid 1980s. As a principal at that time, I soon  realised that many parents were keen to have their child placed in the mainstream because they believed that their child would then achieve mainstream syllabus outcomes. Of course, that did not always occur.

Of paramount importance is the interest of the child with special needs. In some cases, their needs are brilliantly met in mainstream classrooms. In other cases, because of the specific special needs and the lack of adequate  resources, their needs are not met. Nor are the needs of the rest of the class.

Interaction between mainstream and special needs children is very important, for both groups, but it should not be at the risk of failing to meet the special needs of a child. Some children can have their special needs met in the mainstream. Others cannot. Their  placement in the mainstream will not adequately address their special needs, will be  detrimental to the education outcomes of the mainstream class and to the health and wellbeing of their teacher as many university research studies are showing. We have a duty of care to the child with special needs. We also have a duty of care to the mainstream children and their overworked, under resourced teachers.

As a parent, if your child had a serious medical condition such as  brain cancer or  liver, kidney or heart problems, would you be stamping your feet to have your child treated by your local GP and placed in a general hospital ward of the local hospital or would you be seeking a referral to a medical specialist and placement in a hospital that had the qualified staff and the special equipment necessary to treat your child’s special medical needs? 

Palestinians long search for justice. A short history about a very long struggle.

This is a very short history of a very long and ongoing  problem.

The current humanitarian crisis in Gaza is the result of many questionable and often deceitful actions by individuals and western governments over many years. In fact, it all started nearly four thousand years ago when Moses led the Israelites out of their captivity in Egypt. After forty years wandering in the wilderness, Moses finally arrived in the land of Canaan and told his people that God had given them this land. It was their “Promised Land.” Over several  Milenia Canaan became Palestine.

There was no Jewish invasion or dispossession of the indigenous people of Canaan. The Israelis just set up homes in that area and tended their farm animals and crops and mingled with the people already living there. They flourished. In time the Israelis became a dominant social and religious force in that area.

Then the Romans came and ruled over their land, leading to much unrest and finally revolt. Eventually, in 70 AD, the Romans destroyed the Temple and Jerusalem became a Roman city. The great Jewish diaspora began, spreading the Jewish people throughout Europe.

The first World War of 1914-18 had a huge influence on subsequent Jewish/Palestinian history. Three different actions bear dramatically on the current tragic situation. In 1916, Britain and France signed the secret Sykes-Picoult Treaty (with Russian approval). This treaty was a mutual agreement to divide the Arab lands between Britain and France when the war ended. At the same time, Britain wanted to defeat the Ottoman Empire, centred in Turkey, that had joined Germany in the Great War. In an effort to get Arab leaders to join the allies in fighting the Ottoman Empire, Britain told them that after the war they would be given national sovereignty. T.E. Lawrence of Arabia galvanised the Arabs to help defeat the Ottomans. In 1917, to get British banks to support the war effort, Foreign Secretary, Lord Balfour, wrote to powerful British Banker, Lord Rothschild, telling him, among other things, that when the war was over Palestine could be “a national home for the Jewish people.”

Did someone say, “Perfidious Albion?”

Between the WW1 and WW2 efforts continued to find a Jewish homeland. In 1939 there was even an attempt to purchase 7 million acres of land in the Kimberley region of Western Australia. The state premier, John Willcock, was keen. So was the Durack family which had huge land holdings in the Kimberley region. Discussions were conducted before newly appointed Prime Minister, John Curtin, skittled the idea by saying Australia was one country on one continent and no foreign country would ever be established on its soil.

In the Holocaust of World War 2, the Jewish people suffered unspeakable misery and death as the Nazis attempted to exterminate them. People in many countries were sympathetic to Jewish refugees as long as they did nor settle in their country. In 1946, Jewish refugees throughout Europe were seeking a new homeland. Palestine seemed the most likely place. After all, according to their Bible, God had given them their "Promised land" over four thousand years ago. They flooded in to Palestine through the Palestinian port of Haifa. 

 Aneurin Bevan was the British Foreign Minister charged with the administration of  British mandated Palestine. Two years after the end of WW2, Bevan, along with the British people, Bevan was frustrated and angry that British soldiers were being killed in Palestine by Jewish activists and terrorist organisations such as the Stern Gang. 

Frustrated,  Bevan eventually said he would not allow any more Jewish refugees to land at Haifa. At the same time, US President, Harry Truman, said that a Jewish homeland in Palestine seemed like a good idea. Far away in the Kremlin, Josef Stalin noted this apparent rift between his two implacable enemies. Stalin had previously not allowed anyone, including Jews, to migrate out of Russia. Stalin's view was that you worked for Mother Russia or you died. However, Stalin saw a great opportunity to force a wedge between  his two enemies, the UK and the USA. He allowed over 700 000 Jews to migrate to Palestine. Not only that, through communist Czechoslovakia, he provided arms and ammunition to these refugees. Israelis successfully used these weapons  in fighting to establish an Israeli state and in the subsequent 1948-49 Arab-Israeli war.

After two thousand years, Jews from all over Europe flooded back to their “promised land.” With huge numbers of Jewish refugees now pouring in to Palestine, the UK told the United Nations that it could use a part Palestine to establish a Jewish Free State. (The Balfour Declaration). This was very generous of the Britain, considering Palestine was not Britain's to give. However, western governments   deemed it  to be a very satisfactory situation  because it gave the homeless Jews a homeland, but not in their land. Naturally, Palestinians were not happy because this new Jewish homeland had been their homeland for many millenia.

In 1948, the United Nations partitioned Palestine, giving 56% of it to the Jews to form the free state of Irael, populated by people from all around the globe. The ancestors of these Jewish refugees had not lived on that land since biblical times but the refugees were happy to claim it as their own land. The State of Israel gave civil rights to Jews. Unfortunately, there were no such civil rights given to the Palestinians, who now found themselves  living in their homeland which had suddenly become a foreign country. Palestinians protested but their land was given away. A fundamental mistake was made 80 years ago when  the United Nations did not establish  a Palestinian Free State at the same time as Israel was founded.

In 1948, 750 000 Palestinians were forced to leave their former homeland, leaving their property and possessions behind.  The 1948/9 Arab/Israeli war enabled Israel to acquire 78% of Palestine. In the war of 1967 Israel increased it share of Palestine when it acquired the West Bank, The Gaza StripThe Golan Heights and the Sinai Peninsula. It gave the Sinai Peninsula back to Egypt in 1979. Today, Israel  controls just about 98% of what was once Palestine and, in contravention of United Nations rulings, has established Jewish settlements on these occupied lands.

Naturally, the Palestinian people who, over the last 100 years, have been lied to, tricked, cheated and dispossessed of their stolen homeland, are angry at the way they have been treated. Quite Understanadble, as  they now have no rights to the land they have always lived on. Naturally, they do not place much trust in western powers in their quest for Justice. 

At present,Israel is attacking Hamas because of the atrocities it commited in October 2024 and because Hamas still holds Jewish hostages. In waging war on Hamas, Israel has almost obliterated Gaza, the last Palestinian territory which is now a heaving sea of human despair. There are some who believe the Israeli government would be quite happy if all the Palestinians left Gaza and went to live somewhere else. Indeed, two Israeli government ministers have stated that is their chief objective for the present conflict.                                      

This would be a tragic and unjust outcome for Palestinians who had more than half of their homeland taken from them and then suffered the loss of the rest of it from one sided battles against Israel that were heavily subsidised by the United States of America. Justice is not delivered by the philosophy of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." As somebody once said, that philosophy will only lead to a land of blind and toothless people.

The past is the past and cannot easily be undone.  There must be justice for the Palestinians who have been treated shamefully. Because of that shameful treatment, some Palestinians  have also behaved shamefully. The retaliation must cease on both sides and Justice must be given to the Palestinians.

 Justice will only come if the Palestinians and the Arab states recognise Israel as a fait accompli, despite its unnatural birth and the displacement of the indigenous Palestinians. Justice will only come if Israel surrenders the occupied territories  on which it has built many illegal settlements.. Perhaps the Israelis could remember that the Palestinians lost  56% of their land in 1948. It may give Israelis a greater understanding as to why most Palestinians are still aggrieved at the loss of their homeland. The illegal Jewish settlements on this currently occupied land will be a huge obstacle. But it could be solved if the State of Israel and a new State of  Palestine had constitutions not based on religious beliefs but on the premise that all citizens are equal. It's not a new concept!