Prev
Next

Disability education mess a throwback to Victorian times

Angry Cripple

by Angry Cripple

14 Sep 05:35am

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: Angry Cripple, Disability, Education, Society

28 comments

There has been a fair bit of media coverage in the last few weeks around the education of children with disabilities. The latest round concerned the reporting of another discrimination case against the Victorian Department of Education (DoE) by a young woman with a learning disability and a language disorder.

The Victorian DoE proudly displays its latest acquisition to facilitate cutting-edge disability education

Fifty years ago, there was little expectation that people with disabilities would gain functional literacy and numeracy skills.

However, these days, with what we know, all that is required is best practice programs, the attention of the relevant professionals, and intensive structured teaching. All apparently beyond the abilities of the DoE.

What is it like to be a child with a disability in the Victorian education system? The answer lies in a few places - the number of children self harming, requiring counselling, being bullied and leaving school without being able to read and write.

The numbers of calls to parent advocacy agencies, the numbers of mothers developing psychological problems due to the pain and stress of watching their child suffer at school. The number of children being home-schooled, receiving Distance Education (despite living close to their local school), or not attending school at all.

Well, at least we have the Disability Standards for Education, part of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), right? These Standards were developed in order that schools might have a better understanding of what their obligations are under the DDA.

Upon reading the Standards, most regular people can form expectations of what support children with disabilities should receive.

Unfortunately, those Standards have not taken into account bad faith and lawyers. The DoE have no intention of reading the Standards and understanding it the way the rest of us do, and with the help of their lawyers, have mangled the definitions of words and terms we all thought we understood.

In 2010, W vs State of Victoria, a claim of discrimination by a boy who had Aspergers, Learning Disability, and Severe Pragmatic Language Disorder, it was decided by the judge at the urging of that DoE that “consultation” could actually mean a chat at the bus stop, or over the school fence rather than anything formal. And to you students with disabilities and/or your parents, don’t think that “consultation” means that anyone has to take any notice of what you actually say.

“Consultation” now means that there can be no proof of the “consultation” and if there is any proof, DoE staff have no compulsion other than to do exactly what they wish to do, regardless of what your opinions are.

Take another term: “Individual Education Plan”. Those of us who have taken the time and trouble to read DoE policies and guidelines, or even typed up the term into Google, understood that such a plan is a written document, capable of being monitored, reviewed and evaluated for success and altered accordingly.

In W vs State of Victoria and S vs State of Victoria the DoE have made it clear that they have a different view, and Individual Education Plans for students with disabilities can be in teachers “heads”. Conveniently, when they are in someone’s “head”, no one knows what the plan is.

The Standards talk about adjustments to be made for students which are “reasonable”. Apparently, “reasonable” means anything that doesn’t cost any money (unless you are one of the very few lucky students who attract funding), doesn’t require any expertise, and doesn’t require much out of the norm - in order that other students with disabilities can take advantage of what you’re doing, whether that is appropriate for them or not.  After all - they’re all the same aren’t they?

“Professional development” would be another example.  This now means any generic two-hour staff training session that instantly, according to the DoE, makes the teacher an expert in Little Johnny’s high functioning Autism Spectrum Disorder - making the necessity for an actual expert, completely redundant.

However there is absolutely no need to get depressed and disheartened about the fact that the Standards are fairly meaningless.

Firstly, the constitutional challenge that the DoE are mounting against the child with multiple disabilities in S vs State of Victoria reported on in the papers may succeed, and if so, according to the DoE, no one can tell them what to do in the education of children with disabilities. All that waffle in about bringing in sign language interpreters, speech pathologists, communication support workers etc may be nothing for us to worry our pretty little heads about in the future.

Secondly, how many people with disabilities and their families can access the DDA anyway? Hands up who can afford to pay a lawyer and barrister to represent them at the Federal Court! Hands up who wants to take the risk of losing a court case and owing the DoE or the local university hundreds of thousands of dollars! Hellooo??? Strangely, I can’t see you.

The community legal service that is able to represent you for free consists of 2.6 staff. Enough said.

Let’s look at the American Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to confirm the backwater Victorian students with disabilities live in.

The point of this table:Being disabled in Victoria sucks

I have a dream. That all young people with disabilities receive the supports they require to reach their educational potential. That children with ADHD and Autism are not regarded by teachers as belligerent troublemakers.

That teachers are given every resource they need to do what they want to do - ensure the successful learning of ALL their students. That children with disabilities have a school life free of bullying, depression, self harm and ostracism by other students and staff. I have a dream.

Julie Phillips is a Disability Advocate and manages the Disability Discrimination Legal Service in Victoria.

Most commented

28 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • stephen says:

      07:36am | 14/09/11

      Why aren’t there schools only for the disabled ?
      And teachers ?
      Disabled students need specific learning skills and individual mentoring and this cannot be done whilst they are in the general school population.

      Reply

    • TChong says:

      07:59am | 14/09/11

      During 1980s-90s the group think by many- clients, families and health professionals was to deinstitutionalisation.
      Many an advocate made cases as to how unfair and ostracising it was to dump all “disabled” people in one school.
      Intergration is now the aim.
      The trouble with championing the rights of the “disabled” , or any other special interest group is does the offered solution meet the needs of the clients?
      Some would excell in “special schools”, others thrive on interaction with non disabled.
      The variety of solutions needed would probaly need to equal the number of clients- everyone has special needs and circumstances,

    • marley says:

      08:22am | 14/09/11

      I have a “special needs” niece - she has mental development issues along with serious speech issues.  She went to school in Canada, had a speech pathologist working with her from the age of 2, went to school in the normal school system, and participated in some normal classes with non-disabled kids, but mostly in classes for special needs kids like herself. 

      She went through the entire school system, was never bullied, and was even able to get a part-time work experience job. 

      She is now an adult, still has speech issues but can communicate.  She can’t read or write, but that is not the fault of the school.  She’s well socialized, oh, and she’s still working at that part time work-experience job.  She got her 15 year pin recently. 

      In the end, I think the socialization she got in a normal school was more important than the education, which was never going to go far because of her disabilities.  So, I guess I’d say, just on that one personal experience, I think it’s better to have specialized classes within a regular school, rather than separate schools for the disabled.

    • ts says:

      09:05am | 14/09/11

      cant agree more with marley. my daughter is s special needs student with mental development , speech and fine motor skills issues.

      she spends most of her time with her mainstream class participating as much as possible in the curriculum and is taken out of class with special ed teachers for specialised work such as maths where she completes work at a lower grade level than her peers.

      she has learnt to read and write, has basic numeracy skills but more importantly she has developed the skills to make friends with the “normal” kids, is popular with them, plays sport with them, cops the good and the bad that they all cop - all the really essential skills for participating in life after school. and for those mainstream kids close to her - they have mentored and protected her and quite noticeably developed empathy for those less able.

      Personally I much prefer the present integrated system to segregation for these and many more reasons and also for the practicality.

      I cant imagine a school trying to cater to each and every child at each and every level of special needs and managing to do it inclusively for each child. at my daughters school there are a handful of children designated as special needs and its far easier for the special ed teachers to cater to her unique circumstances and abilities given that the numbers are small and they deal with them on an exclusive one to one basis.

    • Jolanda says:

      08:12am | 14/09/11

      Of course one must not forget that if you should happen to make a complaint the term “investigation’ now means that they will send your complaint to the persons about whom you complain and accept whatever response they provide as the facts and deem the matter investigated and closed.  And yes a chat over the fence is presented as a consultation, a IEP is in a teachers head, maybe.  No questions asked, no probing, no actual looking into allegations no concern as to the appropriateness of what is said to be provided for children with special educational needs.  Of course complain again about the fairness of how the matter has been dealt with and you get presented as ‘vexatious’ and your name placed on a ‘do not reply’ list.  It is a process designed to protect the Education System and by extension the Government from being held to account for their failures.

      Pity the poor children who have to suffer due to the neglect of our education system and in particular the disabled.  They deserve better.

      Education – Keeping them Honest
      http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/

      Reply

    • TChong says:

      08:45am | 14/09/11

      Jolanda
      No doubt unintentionally, you seem to be confusing an “investigation"of a complaint with “consultation” with a client.
      2 totally different things.
      As far as any investigation of a complaint, - when you state that the complaint is referred to the person in question, and thts the end of the matter, are you quoting a policy? or is that your opinion of what happens?
      “Consultation” in the context of the story is very different, and doesnt appear to be related to complaints resolution.
      Keeping them honest - can be greatly assisted by clear communication , in this case not confusing 2 unrelated topics.
      Agree?

    • Jolanda says:

      10:36am | 14/09/11

      @TChongNot sure why you are focusing on the word consultation, my point was that the words that they use do not mean what most people expect them to mean and that includes investigation, consultation, IEP and the list could go on.

    • ts says:

      11:08am | 14/09/11

      @Jolanda

      “the words that they use do not mean what most people expect them to mean”

      spoken like a true conspiracy theorist.

      my daughter has been exceptionally well treated by the “system”. is that in spite of their collective aim to discriminate, neglect, show bias, victimise, bully and manipulate as your blog purports.

      or is it a result of our family working together with the department to achieve the outcomes we wanted for our daughter?

    • Jolanda says:

      02:41pm | 14/09/11

      @ts.  And of course conspiracies do not exist, bullying and victimization in education just doesn’t happen and since your child is well served then there is nothing wrong in the system no matter what anybody else says.

      I get the mindset and that mindset is the reason that the Education system is in the state it is in today.

    • ts says:

      06:26am | 15/09/11

      @jolanda

      well what can I say. the old conspiracy argument. if you argue against it you’re naive. if you show examples of where the argument falls down, you’re “part of the problem” (probably part of the conspiracy in fact)

      just check deeper - you may find this whole education conspiracy is linked to the death of JFK, the faked moon landings and the templars plan to rule the world.

      and please remember to apply logic to your arguments. something = wrong does not mean something = conspiracy


      have fun..

    • KS says:

      09:07am | 14/09/11

      You will find that a great deal of legislation has become non-specific resulting in a downward slide of standards and even less accountability for those in power. It isn’t just limited to disability services or education. It is merely a way of eroding your rights as a citizen whilst strengthening those of the state. Unless people start realising that an erosion of rights for one group such as the disabled, even if you aren’t disabled personally, means an erosion of rights for ALL then they will continue to negate their responsibility.

      Reply

    • Went to both sorts says:

      09:11am | 14/09/11

      There are children who are not able to cope in the mainstream school system but are dumped there anyway. It is, as Marley has said, supposed to be good for their socialisation - but note the Marley’s niece was not just dumped in a mainstream classroom. There was a lot of help given.
      That help is lacking here - and even with it some children do not cope.
      Closing special schools was given positive social spin about equality and rights etc etc.
      The reality is quite different. It was about saving money. There was no need for specialist facilities. Specially trained teachers were no longer needed (all teachers were seen as being able to teach all kids as long as they had “support” services).  Speech therapy, occupational therapy and physiotherapy were the sole responsibility of the family. Children do not get specialist assistance in all sorts of ways. Add in the children with behavioural problems (who get the most attention) and the others get even further behind.
      The overall result has been a lowering of the standard of care in state schools. Other parents have scrimped and saved and put their kids into fee-paying schools where there are slightly smaller classes and more pastoral care.
      The whole thing has been a disaster for many children but schools and parents continue to tell you otherwise. Good special education facilities had much going for them. Interestingly they are being re-introduced in some places but, of course, nobody here would dare to acknowledge that!

      Reply

    • A different Rosie says:

      09:46am | 14/09/11

      I taught in state school for twenty-five years and in my experience Departments of Education have absolutely no idea about what happens in schools.

      Reply

    • Sam Paior says:

      10:07am | 14/09/11

      I think we need to think about the “Least Dangerous Assumption” when it comes to kids with disabilities (and *all* kids for that matter!)
      I’ll pop the link at the end, but here it is in a few paras (worth the read if you’re interested)

      ““Least dangerous assumption” states that in the absence of absolute evidence, it is essential to make the assumption that, if proven to be false, would be least dangerous to the individual. She continues by explaining that the “absence of evidence can never be absolute evidence of absence,” and as such, it is always safest and most respectful to make the “least dangerous assumption.”

      Consider it this way. If I were to go fishing for a week and not catch anyfish, there would be two assumptions that could be made. First, I could say “there are no fish in the lake since I did not catch any, and I know what I am doing.” Or, second, I could say simply that “I did not catch any fish that week, and I will keep on trying.” The first assumption seems rather arrogant, while the second one is more realistic and respectful. (There is a third assumption that I could make which would be that I am not a good fisherman, but we won’t go there).The same holds true for students with disabilities. Imagine a child who does not talk with the spoken word and moves around using a wheelchair. Her teachers have worked with her for a month and have not yet seen any evidence of what she understands. In fact, they wonder if she knows or is aware of anything at all. These teachers can make one of two assumptions. They can assume that “what you see is what you get” and that this child does not know anything, that her brain is as empty as that lake. As such, they can educate her in a way that reflects those assumptions (perhaps segregated classes or regular classes with low or no expectations). Now imagine her as she graduates and uses a communication device to say, “Why did you treat me so poorly?”. I am smart and you wasted twelve years of my life!” A very dangerous assumption was made, with results that none of us would desire.

      Now, consider the second assumption. These same teachers can recognize that her movement differences are differences and not deficiencies. They can assume that she knows lots and just isn’t currently able to show what she knows. Her brain is as full of knowledge and potential as that lake is of fish, but they just have not been able to reel anything in yet. As such, her schooling would reflect these high expectations and she would be considered and respected as a valued member of her school and classes. Now again, imagine her twelve years later at graduation, using her communication device to say, “Thank you from the bottom of my heart to all of my teachers who believed in me and made me feel as if I truly belonged and treated me like all of my classmates.” This is the least dangerous assumption, one that results in a young woman who can celebrate her full and fulfilling life.

      But consider a third scenario as well. What if we never come up with a way for this young woman to communicate her intelligence? What if, after twelve years as a valued and respected student in all general education classes, we still do not know exactly what she has learned and knows? What harm was done? What was lost? Nothing. And that truly is the least dangerous assumption.”

      http://www.inclusive-solutions.com/leastdangerousassumption.asp

      As for the whole special school vs mainstream thing…. Most kids with disabilities can and should be included in mainstream education settings. Some will learn much better in a special school setting. It’s not that hard. And parents and kids deserve to be able to make the choice - not be bullied into a setting because it better suits the local education department. People may bitch and moan about the behaviour issues of kids with disabilities, but I can assure you that the kids at my sons’ school who threw chairs across the schoolroom are *not* the kids with disabilities (in the traditional sense of the sense of the word).

      Reply

    • jade (the other one) says:

      10:18am | 14/09/11

      The problem with blaming teachers is that most already have to deal with far too much as it is, from supposedly normal kids. Then you have the disabled kids, who are supposed to receive intensive in class support from various people.

      The reality is very different.

      For instance in one country school in QLD, there was a child who attended the mainstream school. She was supposed to be attending half of the time with a “normal” class, and spending half the time in the special education unit. However, the special education teacher, was the special education teacher for the high school, and 3 primary schools within a 200 k radius, including the School of Distance Education. When in normal classes, she was supposed to have a full-time teacher aide exclusively for her, with another aide for the rest of the children with learning or behavioural difficulties.

      However, in the town, there were not sufficient teacher aides to provide for the school’s needs. So the one teacher aide that was designated for this special needs child was used for every special needs child within the grade.

      Through no fault of the school or the teachers.

      I think the biggest problem is that many are too quick to blame individual teachers, and schools, rather than blaming a system which fails our disabled students.

      I also think some parents are a little blind. For instance I taught at a school with a mentally disabled girl. She wanted desperately to fit in with the other students, and caused several problems for one of the boys who she developed a crush on. He ended up being bullied, and to “prove himself” bullied her to assert that he wanted no part of her, in an attempt to stop her from, in his view, harrassing him.

      It is difficult to get children to understand, when there is no apparent physical limitation, that someone is not able to understand repeated rebuffs for instance. Had the situation occurred between two students of equal capability, the girl would have been in serious trouble for sexual harrassment. The boy failed to understand why it wasn’t occurring in this case. Had there been appropriate support so that the girl could have had a staff member with her at all times on lunch breaks and when interacting socially, to help both her, and the other students understand and communicate, I doubt the situation would have occurred.

      I think that mainstreaming and socialisation can be a good thing, when correctly supported. I think that the government needs to be forced to support it adequately. Currently, too much is placed on already overwhelmed teachers and schools.

      Further, your comments about the way that ADHD and Autistic students are perceived by teachers shows your bias against teachers in general, and wins you no points with those who would otherwise support your cause. They are not seen as trouble makers by most teachers, but are seen as difficult students to manage, and many teachers are concerned about their welfare and achievement, and meeting their specialised needs in overburdened mainstream classes.

      Reply

    • Jasmine says:

      01:06pm | 14/09/11

      My four year old nephew has been excluded from kindergarten all year for hyperactivity. He’s a happy little boy but as yet has no idea of conforming to a group situation. The family was advised that he would only be re-enrolled after he’d been examined by a paediatrician. Getting an appointment took 4 months and resulted in being given a list of foods to be eaten or avoided, and told to return in another 3 months. Meanwhile the year ticks by.

    • Jade (the other one) says:

      04:23pm | 14/09/11

      Well Jasmine, I guess your family is in one of many situations. Either your nephew is not ready for the challenges of kindergarten (and this can be for a variety of reasons, including that for many, kindergarten is their first formal group interaction), the kindergarten is deliberately and wilfully targeting a four year old child, the staff are not appropriately trained to deal with your nephew, the staff are concerned about his cognitive development and ability to handle the rigours of kindergarten, or he is indeed too hyperactive and uncontrollable to be around little children.

      I would suggest that it is likely that the little boy is a little slower in maturing than other children, and that there may be staff who are either untrained or unwilling to deal with his hyperactivity. It could also be that the boy unwittingly injured another child, and the centre is afraid of a lawsuit.

      It is also possible that this centre is not a good match for your nephew. Not every centre is a good match for every child, since there are differences in teaching philosophy, scheduling, emphasis on structured vs unstructured play, and a myriad of other areas. It doesn’t necessarily follow that it is a bad centre, just not one that is right for your nephew.

      I’m also trying not to suggest that the centre’s response was the most appropriate one, as that cannot be determined from the information given, and I am not privy to the details of the situation.

      The information that he has no idea of conforming to a group situation can be as mild as not understanding how to take turns, not sharing, through to very destructive behaviours such as violence towards other children or property, refusal to follow safety instructions such as not climbing trees etc, or running off.

    • Jasmine says:

      05:15pm | 14/09/11

      Jade, I appreciate your thoughtful reply. My nephew is not aggressive to other children but does tend to want to do his own thing and that has included running off. I can understand the staff concerns, particularly if there are not enough of them, or they are not appropriately trained. Our worry is that we don’t know what has to happen before he can be admitted to any educational institution. A magic wand, anyone?

    • KT says:

      12:12pm | 14/09/11

      I was told by a doctor that my daughter had some kind of learning disability (I wasn’t really listening so I can’t tell you which one he said as they’re so many of them) and she needed specialist care, special classes and medication. I replied ah no she’s has no disability, she’s just stupid and lazy. not everyone can be above average otherwise where would the bar be set

      Reply

    • marley says:

      07:45pm | 14/09/11

      “She’s just stupid and lazy.”  Based on that comment, I’d say her biggest handicap in life is you.

    • KT says:

      09:30am | 15/09/11

      Oh please, she doesn’t have any kind of handicap, just because she’s not top of the class the teachers want to label her slow and the doctor wants me to believe there’s a mental problem, there’s no problem, i am so sick of ‘ADHD” ADD’ ‘autism spectrum’ please! why are there so many more kids with ‘behavioural’ and ‘mental’ problems no than in earlier years, if the teachers can’t grab her interest and have her learn anything who’s fault is that? certainly not mine, she has the attention span of a goldfish

    • Vanessa says:

      03:40pm | 15/09/11

      KT, I really hope this is some kind of a wind up and that you seriously did not call your child stupid!  What I am hoping is that you, like every other parent when first told their child has special needs, is frightened for the future, feeling in over your head and your first response is to deny it and find another reason.  But just in case you actually do believe the awful things you have written then the reason Learning Difficulties are more common now is the same reason that people no longer die from consumption but from cancer…because science has made a new discovery, found a new link.  When my sister died they called her a Mongoloid now days they know it is Spina bifida Anencephaly. 
      You call your daughter lazy and stupid but you did not even bother to pay attention to a Dr who tried to help you and you are not willing to put yourself out to visit some specialists who may be able to help your child.  Your daughter doesn’t have to grow up being the top in her class or even in the middle but she has the right to reach her full potential and be happy and healthy.  Please reconsider

    • ts says:

      07:05am | 16/09/11

      “i wasnt really listening’

      who’s stupid and lazy ?

    • Vanessa says:

      03:55pm | 14/09/11

      As a mum of a child with Austim I originally sent my child to an International School with a private full time aid (we were living overseas at the time, hence the International School).  When the school decided they no longer wanted to try with my son, I had to home school.  It has been the best decision I could have made for my son.  I have continued to home school since coming home to Australia.  There are many reasons for this, bullying is one of them but also educational content.  My son struggles with handwriting due to his co-morbid dysbraxia, making Victoria Cursive a nightmare for him HS allowed me to go outside the Ed dept and I found an amazing program for him, the same with his maths. I use his Autistic traits to his learning advantage (studying his hyper focus subjects). For socialization I take him with me everywhere and have him interact with the people around him, he also attends socialization skill lessons. I believe that most teachers do the best that they can with the resources and time limits they have but I can do it better for my son, I make myself do it better for him. The auditors (former principals) have commended my work.  It is not easy and there are those who think he should be mainstreamed but he hated school and thrives in this environment.  Indeed my child’s progress and happiness has even made believers out of some of my biggest critics.

      Reply

    • Cat says:

      07:53pm | 14/09/11

      the problem I have with this is that too many schools decide they “no longer want to try” with students without having really tried to begin with. Homeschooling is great if that is your choice - but it should be a CHOICE not a last resort because the education departments and individual schools can’t be bothered to take basic steps to successfully include students with a disability.

    • Stone age liberal says:

      03:50pm | 02/11/11

      I am a Queenslander and usually I fell like we are behind the rest of the nation, however in this instance, judging by the comments that perhaps we do not have it so bad. My younger brother has some intellectual disablities, learaning and speech, one of thos were the signals just do not get through to the brain correctly. We moved from north America while we were still young (about 25 years ago) and the state schools had Special education units where learning disabled students spent part or all of their day depending on the stidents ability. Post priimary school he attended an incredibly good school (private but I would recommend it to anyone) called Glenlieghdon which helped a great deal. Perhaps the available education options are better here, but in my experience Australia (well queensland at least) does pretty well in providing options for special need students.

      Reply

    • TinaFletcher says:

      05:10am | 03/01/12

      I think that to get the personal loans from banks you should have a great reason. But, once I’ve got a financial loan, because I was willing to buy a house.

      Reply

    • Paige Myers says:

      08:28am | 01/03/12

      Hey folks, Will likely be the U.S. far better off sticking to Syria’s Assad?

      Reply
 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 13 05:27PM

MT @RaidersCanberra "Congrats to Blake Ferguson on his selection for NSW. LIKE to show your support!" Um guys, you can't "like" a Tweet

Paul Colgan

Colgo 26 May 13 05:16PM

@stilgherrian said Australia

Paul Colgan

Colgo 26 May 13 04:32PM

RT @TheEconomist: Google is coming under intense scrutiny from regulators http://t.co/4bfvNp5oyEhttp://t.co/NLV9yRSIKr

Paul Colgan

Colgo 26 May 13 04:31PM

@mpesce make sure you let us know when you take the covers off it

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter