Sparkling Adventures in Child Neglect - "Gayby" is Born!

[ViolaSebastian]

For those interested, the Confest FB page is a good old read - if you like soap opera in-fighting with nudist tints.

You know I do! Thanks for the links. It really makes me worry even more for those girls, mostly because I suspect that Lauren herself was probably not the most attentive mother, going by her history of substance use at these sorts of shindigs and her general lackadaisical attitude towards her children's safety.

And I'm not so much bothered by the nudity (although I have to admit, I am a slave to the man and do find a fully clothed child surrounded by, to put in Happy Atheist's terms, muddy penises, to be unsettling) as much as the fact that she's at an event that focuses on sex and substances freedom--I just don't think that's a healthy, safe place for four little girls. But again, I'm just a slave to the man. :wink-kitty: I think that it's fine for adults to enjoy this sort of thing, if that's their bag, but keep the kiddos at home.

Welcome to FJ!

[snarkelle]

I was member of a nudist swimming club I nearly spent every day of my summers there. Not everybody naked is a pedophile. (the swimming club had about 1000 members)

Yeah, but this isn't a nudist event, which from what I understand are usually pretty wholesome and involve plenty of agreed-upon normative behavioural rules. This is an event with 7x as many people attending as your swimming club, with loads of drugs, and people from all over the country who reject social norms & conventions, most of whom are basically there to party even if it's dressed up as 'being conscious' and spiritual and communing and back to nature and better than the mainstream blah blah blah.

Partying naked is pretty different from classic nudist activities isn't it?

Of course everyone naked isn't a paedophile. It's not really even about the nakedness (although I think the many photos which show a lone, clothed child gazing bewildered at mud-painted naked adult dancers swinging their goolies around make the child look like they're deliberately being confronted and isolated, which makes them look awfully vulnerable and unprotected).

It's about children wandering around unsupervised at confest in the presence of quite a lot of men who go there because it's easy pickings for sexual predators (see all the comments on the confest fb page from women who've been sexually assaulted in this safe, spiritual, community environment).

[snarkelle]

e.g. this one. Doesn't look as if that kid really wants to see that.

http://www.patricksterlin.com/#!/zoom/c6ra/image1z3q

& this boy just wants to be taken to a school to be taught useful things by sober clothed adults.

http://www.patricksterlin.com/#!/zoom/c6ra/image1kt5

[DaffyDill]

Is the night sky there filled with an abundance of stars like the pics, or are the photos enhanced? Whatever the case, I've never seen anything like it. It is truly magnificent!

If you are out far enough into country Australia, Central Australia in particular, there is very little light pollution and the night sky is indeed clear and full of stars. Really, really beautiful and makes you feel very, very small.

[ViolaSebastian]

e.g. this one. Doesn't look as if that kid really wants to see that.

http://www.patricksterlin.com/#!/zoom/c6ra/image1z3q

& this boy just wants to be taken to a school to be taught useful things by sober clothed adults.

http://www.patricksterlin.com/#!/zoom/c6ra/image1kt5

Phew, those photographs really bring out the Maude Flanders in me.

[Mango]

Did you guys hear/read this?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 ... t=20150412

Australia's halting centrelink (I think?) payments to failies that don't vaccinate!

[Miggy]

Did you guys hear/read this?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 ... t=20150412

Australia's halting centrelink (I think?) payments to failies that don't vaccinate!

It hasn't gone through parliament yet - just an announcement of what Abbott wants to do. I can't see it going through. If he was just saying conscious objectors he might have a chance but the articles I have read included "medical, religious or consciously object". As idiotic as our government sometimes is, they aren't going to force people with medical issues to immunise or punish them if they don't.

[snarkelle]

No it's just conscientious objectors. There's no religion that opposes vaccination anyway as far as I know.

Also, it's not all centrelink payments: only family tax benefit B (up to $700 a year) and child care rebate/benefit (substantial, but it's not income). I hate this govt, but I support these measures.

[Blahblah]

It hasn't gone through parliament yet - just an announcement of what Abbott wants to do. I can't see it going through. If he was just saying conscious objectors he might have a chance but the articles I have read included "medical, religious or consciously object". As idiotic as our government sometimes is, they aren't going to force people with medical issues to immunise or punish them if they don't.

This wouldn't affect Sparkles too much. The older girls were definitely vaccinated. It was only Elijah who was "pure" and vaccine-free.

Also the bulk of the payment is for child-care rebate (if you put your kid in formal child care the Government reimburses a huge chunk of the cost if you meet their financial criteria). And obviously Sparkles doesn't pay for child-care.

[Mango]

Ahh, I see. (Which is why I posted it - didn't know if it'd impact things or not, as I have very little clue how the Australian system works.)

[Miggy]

No it's just conscientious objectors. There's no religion that opposes vaccination anyway as far as I know.

Also, it's not all centrelink payments: only family tax benefit B (up to $700 a year) and child care rebate/benefit (substantial, but it's not income). I hate this govt, but I support these measures.

All our news sources are providing different info ago. I read Parenting A not B, plus Child Care. Last night ABC & SBS both just said Centrelink payments then focused on not wanting unvaccinated kids in care.

There are people who object on religious grounds - my in-laws for a start. They use a couple of bible passages to justify this, for example; treat the body as a temple and don't put bad things into it, vaccines are poisons and so are bad things. They were happy enough to use all the drugs available to treat their kids when they got whooping cough. Anyone spot the hypocrisy there?

[Miggy]

Sydney Morning Herald says conscientious objectors which includes those who have a "personnal, philosophical, religious or medical objection to immunisation". I presume some news sources have confused medical objection with medically necessary. Ahh my precious child is going "catch autism" is not the same as my child has a suppressed immune system due to chemo. All MrMiggys nieces and nephews and the children of his cousins are going to be caught by the religious part though.

SMH says Family Tax Benefit Part A (up to $2100) & Child Care.

For the record, I hate this government too. I don't think this is a good way to increase immunisation rates either. It only affects those who need Centrelink. Read any scientific paper on immunisation rates and you will see that objectors tend to be middle class and up. The middle class may be receiving these payments but they probably aren't dependent on them. I know in the case of our family, religion will win out every time over money. (The articles I read yesterday and the SMH article I have just read all mention how much money this will save the government so I don't know that raising immunisation rates is actually their goal anyway. I think it's just part of the whole "we've got to cut Centrelink" thing that has been going on since Abbott was elected.)

[snarkelle]

Sydney Morning Herald says conscientious objectors which includes those who have a "personnal, philosophical, religious or medical objection to immunisation". I presume some news sources have confused medical objection with medically necessary. Ahh my precious child is going "catch autism" is not the same as my child has a suppressed immune system due to chemo. All MrMiggys nieces and nephews and the children of his cousins are going to be caught by the religious part though.

SMH says Family Tax Benefit Part A (up to $2100) & Child Care.

For the record, I hate this government too. I don't think this is a good way to increase immunisation rates either. It only affects those who need Centrelink. Read any scientific paper on immunisation rates and you will see that objectors tend to be middle class and up. The middle class may be receiving these payments but they probably aren't dependent on them. I know in the case of our family, religion will win out every time over money. (The articles I read yesterday and the SMH article I have just read all mention how much money this will save the government so I don't know that raising immunisation rates is actually their goal anyway. I think it's just part of the whole "we've got to cut Centrelink" thing that has been going on since Abbott was elected.)

Sounds like the info is all over the place!

I know, I was unsure at first. I thought it was a bit punitive, and the motivations of this govt are undoubtedly cynical - it is easy pickings, as most people are pro vaccination. But I've come around to supporting it.

There is a stereotype of non vaccers being wealthy 'doctors wives' types, which is reflected in some postcodes being right up there in low rates. These people might not depend on FTB, but you can be sure they love getting it (and how many people get it who don't need it, through minimising their income very creatively). John Howard handed out so much money to people who don't really need it (myself included) that it really has given people a sense that government payments are our reward for just being Australian (urgh). Many also use child care, which is bloody expensive even with the rebate/payment, and prohibitive without. I am more than happy for these people to lose FTB and child care subsidies (losing the latter would hurt a lot, even for someone well off); and if it prompts them to vaccinate - great.

I'm also pretty sure there are just as many people who just don't get around to vaccinating for logistical reasons (busy with work, overrun, single parents, etc), and this will prompt them to do it. Everyone wins: nobody loses payments, nobody feels coerced, nobody gets autism, babies don't die of preventable diseases.

For the relatively few people who are mainstream enough to work and use child care, and aren't well off, and don't vaccinate because their children are too precious to be vaccinated, and there is no risk to their children of diptheria/whooping cough/measles because everybody else's children AREN'T too precious to be vaccinated? Well I am glad if this makes them vaccinate, because child care is one of the main places that kids SHOULD be vaccinated. If they have enough of an irrational objection to vaccination that they're prepared to lose that much money over it, that is their problem. I am just over anti-vaccination, I actually believe it needs to be stamped out, not carefully tiptoed around because someone has irrational fears about it. I don't see it as any different from laws about seat belts and child seats in cars. Both pose a minimal risk of harm to children, but the benefits far outweigh the risks. This is one case where Scott Morrison can go around with a big stick and I"ll cheer.

[lilith]

It's only Family Tax Benefit A and childcare benefits. Lauren's FTB A, however, would be about $8000 per year, a substantial sum. And they are starting to check on boosters too, not just on immunisations for under 5s, so even though the older girls had their infant and toddler vaccinations she would have to get them their chicken pox booster and eventually their rubella shot to keep qualifying.

A lot of the people I know living alternative lifestyles are flipping out about this. I do think it will pass parliament though - there's a lot of sympathy here at the moment for the family of a newborn who died of whooping cough after being exposed to an unvaccinated adult.

[snarkelle]

Thanks Lilith. Stupidly, I forgot about how much payments add up to for multiple children. I also think it will pass - the timing is right. I think most people believe it is not too much to ask that people take this infinitesmally risky, socially responsible step in order to qualify for benefits funded by public money.

[August]

The online discourse here as dertainly aken on a way more agressive tone since the latest measles outbreak.

It's awesome :dance: people are actually coming out and calling antivaxxers selfish twats when they used to just say it was a personal choice.

[Miggy]

Just for the record, laws are already in place to force you to do something, either immunise or get a conscientious objectors form. If you just "don't get around to it" you already loose FTB, child care rebate and you can't enrol in school. To get a conscientious objectors form you have to have it signed by a doctor or nurse after they have been through all the issues with you.

[August]

Just for the record, laws are already in place to force you to do something, either immunise or get a conscientious objectors form. If you just "don't get around to it" you already loose FTB, child care rebate and you can't enrol in school. To get a conscientious objectors form you have to have it signed by a doctor or nurse after they have been through all the issues with you.

That's great. Here, all they could take would be the up to $1000 (and phased out over $100,000 income) child tax credit, which wouldn't make that much of a dent. Very low income get a bit more, I think, but I also think they're not generally the ones who are anti vax.

[jaelh]

For the record, I hate this government too. I don't think this is a good way to increase immunisation rates either. It only affects those who need Centrelink. Read any scientific paper on immunisation rates and you will see that objectors tend to be middle class and up. The middle class may be receiving these payments but they probably aren't dependent on them. I know in the case of our family, religion will win out every time over money. (The articles I read yesterday and the SMH article I have just read all mention how much money this will save the government so I don't know that raising immunisation rates is actually their goal anyway. I think it's just part of the whole "we've got to cut Centrelink" thing that has been going on since Abbott was elected.)

The childcare rebate is a pretty solidly middle class benefit.

[Miggy]

Not necessarily. In my town all child care centres have preschool units. When my kids were that age, it was $30 a day to send them to a regular preschool or $10 a day if I sent them to a preschool within a childcare centre as I could claim the child care rebate. Guess which option I chose? There is no requirement that you have to be working. I'm guessing that a lot of poorer people who want preschool would take up this option.

[snarkelle]

Not necessarily. In my town all child care centres have preschool units. When my kids were that age, it was $30 a day to send them to a regular preschool or $10 a day if I sent them to a preschool within a childcare centre as I could claim the child care rebate. Guess which option I chose? There is no requirement that you have to be working. I'm guessing that a lot of poorer people who want preschool would take up this option.

But child care benefit isn't intended to help parents with the cost of private preschool. It's intended to help with the cost of child care, so that parents can work. If someone who refused to vax lost their child care benefit because of it, but they weren't working, they totally have the option to drop out of preschool. They're not really being penalised as someone who needs child care benefit to pay for child care so they can work would be. My only concern would be for working parents who couldn't afford full child care fees without the benefit, but I doubt there are many who wouldn't vax if push came to shove.

I mean respite care is good, and needed, but in high demand areas, centres tend to prioritise parents who work, which makes sense. I had my son in child care, and when I took maternity leave to have my second child, we had our place suspended for the period.

[snarkelle]

I meant to add, working doesn't = middle class. Many, many, many low-income people work (especially women), and need child care benefit.

[jaelh]

Not necessarily. In my town all child care centres have preschool units. When my kids were that age, it was $30 a day to send them to a regular preschool or $10 a day if I sent them to a preschool within a childcare centre as I could claim the child care rebate. Guess which option I chose? There is no requirement that you have to be working. I'm guessing that a lot of poorer people who want preschool would take up this option.

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you mean by the above. You chose the cheaper option? Middle class families use private providers, not child care centres?

FWIW; when I say it's a middle class benefit, I mean that it's accessible to people on middle incomes, as well as poorer families; both white collar and blue collar workers. It's not like a pension payment, which plateaus out really quickly if you have any other income.

[snarkelle]

Ah I see what you mean, thanks for clarifying :)

[Milly-Molly-Mandy]

I work in a very low socio-economic area and a lot of my clients wouldn't vax their kids because they just wouldn't remember, it's not important etc. There's no moral objection, it's just low priority in their lives. But if you threaten to take away some of their money, they'll be first in line to get it done!

So I don't think this will impact on the conscientious objectors with their bizarre ideas about big pharma and government conspiracies (the latest - flu vax is government controlled genocide. It must be true, Food Babe said it!!).

But if it means that some people prioritise their kids vax a bit higher, then it's all good in my books!!