The Record (
R.C. Perth, W. Australia, weekly), Extract from article "Requiem for the handwritten letter," by Tony Evans, p 17, Wednesday, February 9, 2011
And another example, this from the letters of Hilaire Belloc, an unguarded moment which could only come from a private letter and would prove a pot of gold for a biographer: 'To me, the chief irritant is the stupidity of the hierarchy. They throw away chances with both hands and they so often quite misunderstand problems they have to deal with. Their failure to wreck the Church is a proof of her divinity.'
Disassociated.com , (the website and online notepad of Sydney based blogger John Lampard),
<
http://www.disassociated.com/2011/06/10/oranges-and-sunshine/>,
posted by
John Lampard at 11:04 am on Friday, 10 June, 2011
The premise
Oranges and Sunshine (
trailer), a drama set in 1986, is the debut feature of British TV producer Jim Loach, and is based on the book
Empty Cradles by British social worker Margaret Humphreys, which chronicles her efforts to expose the British government’s child migrants program of the 1950s and 60s, where over 130,000 children were forcibly sent overseas.
Many of these children – who came from struggling, or single-parent families, and were sent to Australia, and other former British colonies – were under the impression their parents were dead, and that a happier life awaited them elsewhere. The reality was usually far harsher, many were abused by their new carers, or became child labourers.
The play
Humphreys (Emily Watson) is a Nottingham social worker caring for orphaned children. She first becomes aware British children were sent overseas when a woman from Australia [in 1986] asks for help tracing her mother. During this investigation though Humphreys uncovers numerous instances of children being sent overseas.
After learning that Nicky (Lorraine Ashbourne), a woman in a support group she convenes, has a brother Jack (Hugo Weaving), who was sent overseas as a child, Humphreys travels to Australia where she soon meets many hundreds of others who were taken from their families, including Len (David Wenham), who is trying to find his mother.
It soon becomes apparent that it wasn’t just the children who were lied to, and as Humphreys continues to reunite now adult children with their families, she learns the parents, whose children were often forcibly removed from their custody, were also lied to, often being told they had been adopted locally, not sent overseas.
Humphreys’ work however is an uphill battle that takes a physical and emotional toll on her. The British and Australian governments are unhelpful, while the charity and church groups who took the children in are angered by the allegations of abuse levelled at them, resulting in threats against her from their supporters.
The wrap
“Oranges and Sunshine” is an intimate and personal portrayal of an historical episode that culminated with the 2009 apology by then Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, to the British child migrants, or Forgotten Australians as they are also known, an action that was followed by his British counterpart, Gordon Brown, in 2010.
A compassionately made film that is neither sentimental or sensationalistic, “Oranges and Sunshine” is a moving, harrowing, and emotional drama that lifts the lid on a government policy that aimed simply to save money – care for children was cheaper in Australia than Britain – and one that had no regard at all for those it purported to be helping. #
Untruths in Record editorial
The Record
(
R.C. Perth, W. Australia, weekly),
Letter to The Editor, from William M. Morris, D.D., Emeritus Bishop of Toowoomba (Queensland, Australia), p 8, Wednesday, June 15, 2011
After reading the editorial (p 80)[sic] and article (p 6) of the 18 May 2011 edition of The Record, I would make the following comments.
I believe Catholic publications and the journalists who write for them must be held to the highest standards of ethics, one of which is ensuring that what is reported is the truth. There are a number of untruths in the article and editorial.
At no time was the "Third Rite" of Reconciliation used in the diocese. What was used was a Second Rite with a full set of readings, homily, and an examination of conscience and, on occasions, according to the Liturgical and Canonical Guidelines laid down by the diocese, general absolution was given.
These guidelines changed after the diocesan submission was examined by the Dicastery for Liturgy at a meeting in March 2004. These celebrations were prayerful and dignified.
The article says, "in his 2006 Advent Pastoral Letter, Bishop Morris stated that, 'if Rome would allow it,' he would be prepared to ordain married priests and women priests. He also said that, due to an ageing clergy, the Church should be open to recognising the validity of Anglican, Lutheran, and Uniting Church Orders."
At no time in my Pastoral letter of 2006 did I make such statements. I acknowledged that there are discussions of these issues in places around the world which is not saying that I actively support them or promote them but simply a statement of fact. The editorial said that I had canvassed these ideas which is also wrong.
The editorial says that I was "on the side of changing Church teaching." I have served the Church and taught faithfully its beliefs since I was ordained. I have never promoted explicitly or implicitly the changing of Church teaching.
After my 2006 Pastoral Letter was misquoted and, I believe, misinterpreted deliberately in certain circumstances, I publicly said I would not ordain women or married men while these actions were forbidden by the Church.
Beyond its errors of fact the editorial steps over the line in that in many places it is a personal attack rather than a reflection on the story. I firmly believe that such tabloid journalism has no place in a Catholic publication.
It seems to me that a retraction of the errors needs to be published with an apology for the personal attack undertaken by the editor. I thank you in anticipation for your attention to these matters.
William M Morris, DD, Emeritus Bishop of Toowoomba
Ed. - No further correspondence on the issue will be published. #
Coastal Times,
54 Mount St., PO Box 63, Burnie, Tasmania, 7230, Australia;
Phone: 03 6440 7325, Fax: 03 6440 7470;
<
mail § coastaltimes com au>,
<
http://www.coastaltimes.com.au/news/national/national/general/service-exploited-job-seekers-success/2388860.aspx?storypage=0>,
by LINTON BESSER, 03:00 AM, December 12, 2011
TWENTY years ago, Denise Harrison, then 25, replied to an advertisement seeking a dental assistant at a surgery.
Since then, Dr Stephen Chin has been a constant, employing her in between life's biggest moments – the birth of her three children and her moving between the central coast and Sydney. He even supported her while she trained for a trade certificate.
"I was his back-up nurse each time he needed {someone}," she said. "I was always there to give him a helping hand."
Early last year, Ms Harrison was back at Mount Pritchard and looking for work. She was receiving Centrelink payments and had been sent to Local Employment and Training Solutions at Liverpool, a welfare-to-work provider owned by the Catholic Church, for help finding a job. In late April or early May, Dr Chin was back on the phone to her after finding himself short of staff.
"He asked me how I was going and asked me if I was working and the rest of it and if I wanted to come in and do some fill-in work," Ms Harrison said.
She took up the job at his Berala surgery, working 4½ days a week. She notified LETS she had found work, as she was required to do.
But what happened next is typical of what LETS has been doing for years – it took advantage of the situation to falsely claim extra fees from the $4.7 billion federal scheme under which it operates.
Documents seen by the Herald [sic] show LETS filed a claim with the Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations that it had found the job for Ms Harrison.
Worse, to ensure it got away with the scam, LETS contacted Dr Chin and offered him a wage subsidy – thousands of taxpayer dollars designed for employers who need to train the candidate or who otherwise need convincing of their suitability.
"{They} said to me he {Dr Chin} could get some kind of grant for having you for six months and {they} sent some paperwork to Dr Chin to fill in and then the rest of it," Ms Harrison said. "We had to type up the dates I was there and send my taxable income to them."
Dr Chin was not fussed about it either way, she said, and actually got annoyed with the paperwork.
"He needed staff … We didn't know anything about this grant. It was put to us. The grant was not an issue to him. He needs staff there to be able to practise."
Bernadette Bain, a spokeswoman for CatholicCare, said yesterday the organisation was undertaking a "thorough, independent review" of the conduct of its employment agency.
"We don't consider it appropriate to publicly comment on individual persons, which could infringe on client confidentiality. CatholicCare has commissioned a full independent investigation which is currently under way."
Ms Harrison was disappointed by her interactions with LETS, saying it sent her on irrelevant courses, such as responsible service of alcohol and gambling courses, and was otherwise unable to find her a job.
"I have done internet searches and paper searches for my own jobs and followed the career I wanted to do. They put me in courses I didn't need.
"These job network providers are on a commission basis … They don't have the interests of the job seeker at heart." #
