Guest Blog - @Clareyh - "Bring Back the Nit Nurse"

We are delighted to introduce you to our guest blogger, Clare ( @clareyh ), who kindly agreed to write a blogpost on any subject of her choosing.  Well, as we sit here scratching, we can only really blame ourselves, but she raises an important point that we certainly weren't aware was a current problem in our nation's schools.  Do follow her on Twitter for sage, sharp, witty, veritable hugs of tweets! Anyway, over to Clare:

There can be nothing more certain to make our skin crawl than the dawning realisation that your child is sitting there scratching his head for a reason, that reason being that he has “Nits”.

Just the thought of those nasty little critters crawling over your scalp while having a wee nibble and gaily laying eggs is guaranteed to get even the toughest of us surreptitiously scratching along with a shudder or two.

When your children are young and attending Primary School, it is pretty much a sure-fire bet that they will bring home a head-full at least once; once is lucky actually - it's more likely that it will be a continual battle throughout the time they attend.

There are many factors that contribute to this.  The main one is, yes you guessed it, “Blame the parents”. There is no doubt that parents are and should be responsible for the state of their children’s health and with regards to head lice the first line of offence is defence.  Yes, we have to defend ourselves from these creepy crawlies that are growing in numbers at an alarming rate, literally and figuratively. Many parents now are just not bothering to check their children's hair and are happily sending them to school, ignorantly or carelessly, to share the joy with your little angel.

Now, there will always be and always have been “bad parents”.  Some just don't seem to have a clue and are just ignorant as to what should and what shouldn't be done, while some just appear not to give a damn.  In both cases, with regard to head lice, education is the most important weapon we have in battling this problem which appears to be of epidemic proportions.

In recent years, medical shampoos and preparations have offered a welcome “quick fix” solution to fighting head lice and initially offered an easy, reliable method of complete removal but, as with other medicines, they have rules of usage which have to be adhered to, and they have to be used together with the age old remedy of combing as these lotions find it difficult to penetrate the eggs that are laid onto the hair shaft with a fixative having almost cement-like properties. This means that a few days later the eggs hatch and the cycle of re-infestation resumes. Now, if the combing is not done on a regular basis (i.e. every 2-3 days) and little beasts not removed as they hatch they will eventually, and have apparently, become immune to these topical treatments.  In fact, many manufacturers recommend a second application a week later.  I'm sure this is because they are well aware that parents are not being thorough in ridding the hair of all the lice.

So we return to the subject of education which, coupled with early detection, is a very effective way of keeping infestations from becoming an epidemic within the school.

Those of us old enough will remember the bustling, sometimes stern lady in a white outfit coming to visit the school on a regular basis, 'The Nit Nurse' was a name she wore with pride, you may have known her as 'Nitty Nora the Bug Explorer'. Visiting her was a class affair and we all lined up outside the room going in to be examined one by one; she had a little rummage and a comb, made a few notes and off you went. If any hint of beasties were discovered, a letter was sent to your parents with a handy step-by-step guide, and often a comb, explaining how to combat head lice. I have heard of some children being told not to come back into school until they were clear, and in other areas a second letter was sent home with one of your child's very own lice Sellotaped to the letter. A bit extreme you might think, but I'm sure most parents would definitely get the message after opening that envelope over toast and coffee one morning.

While I was at school during the 70s and early 80s, head lice was a rare occurrence and I can only assume that the demise of the Nit Nurse has to be a deciding factor in the near epidemic levels that we see today. My youngest has head lice. There - I've said it.  I'm not embarrassed to say it because as soon as I noticed I spent three hours treating him, his elder brother and myself; stripping bed linen and changing the towels in the bathroom. What I am annoyed at is that he is 14 years old! Which means that those parents who don't care, who don't know better, have yet to get the message.  And what better way to get the message over to them than to bring back Nora?

But why did she disappear in the first place? It's easy to point at cost savings and cutbacks when she was phased out during the 80s and 90s, but one of the main reasons given was that it was a humiliating experience and the responsibility should be with the parents. There was nothing humiliating about Nora's visit - it's not as though you were paraded around the playground with a bell hanging off your belt and forced to carry a sign reading “Unclean”. It was simple ‘looky-loo‘ and a letter to your parents informing and educating them on how to deal with the little blighters.

The cry for the return of The Nit Nurse is gaining momentum.  One only has enter “Nit Nurse” into a search engine to see that many communities and parent groups are lobbying their local authorities and MPs to bring Nora back.

The schools can't be blamed apparently, although the change in teaching methods has definitely contributed; the children do not sit at their own desk any more but rather all huddle in a circle around one table, it's so much easier for the lice to be transferred when the heads are touching as they all peer at a project in the middle of the table.  I read one article where a trainee teacher was aghast at the state of one child's infestation as she could actually see lice running up and down the girl's parting. Now, speaking as a professional hairdresser of 30 odd years, I can tell you that that is astounding and something that I have never encountered, the poor child must have been so uncomfortable. This trainee teacher was told by her mentor that she was not allowed to broach the subject with the parent as it would affect her human rights or some such nonsense. They were only allowed to send out a generic letter to all the parents saying there were reports of head lice in the class. I have received these letters and they contain not one iota of advice or instruction.

The world has gone mad but let's not get mad ourselves, let's get Nora back.

Now then Jimmy, what did you do?

What do you believe?

I was torn a couple of days ago.  Really torn. 

On the one hand, I regularly despair for our society and the inherent implications for trial by jury when I see people jump to conclusions about a person's guilt or innocence of a serious crime without knowing any of the facts of a case themselves.  "He looks just the sort!", or, "Hang the bastard!", are comments often seen on Twitter before someone has even been charged of an offence. 

On the other hand, I've seen too many tearful press conferences on television myself where I KNOW the stepfather did it, and why can't anyone else see this obvious fact?!  And as for that bloke who looks like a right paedo in that mugshot? - yeah, he's DEFINATELY guilty.  (And Chris Huhne is CERTAINLY guilty of perverting the course of justice!*) ... *For the avoidance of doubt for any CPS lawyers reading, this is satire.

So, I guess we're all human - we all make snap judgements sometimes.  Particularly if the person we're judging is eccentric or looks different or odd.

All of which perfectly describe Jimmy Savile.

I was actually disappointed to hear Esther Rantzen all over the news pretty much saying that all the accusations publically levelled on Jimmy Savile over the past few days were unequivocally true, based merely on her watching of a documentary preview.  And, almost immediately afterwards, came out Savile's friends and family, saying that it was impossible that the man they knew could be capable of such heinous things.

It seemed unfair that a dead man's entire reputation could be ruined by rumours and a couple of statements made decades after the events they alleged.

But then I watched the programme.

The verbal evidence supplied was overwhelming, particularly that from Sue Thompson, who worked for the BBC in Leeds.  She told of opening Savile's dressing room door and finding him with a girl, who looked about 14, on his knee.  "It was his tongue, that was just sort of coming out of her mouth, that stuck in my head," she said.  It was this horrendous mental image that stuck in mine, too.

The statement of the woman who was a young girl at Duncroft Approved School, describing how she was sent to the school's isolation unit after complaining about Savile's wandering hands broke my heart.

Top QC Ian Glen confirmed that, in his opinion, were Savile still alive, there would be more than enough evidence to have him arrested.  This was key for me.

And then came Esther Rantzen, who days earlier I had somewhat dismissed.  Visibly upset, she conceded that "The jury isn't out any more ... We all blocked our ears to the gossip.  There was gossip, and there were rumours".

At the end of the day, sadly, there is often little more than verbal evidence in these kind of situations.  Even if Savile were not dead, it would still essentially boil down to a "he said; she said" matter.  And there are plenty of cases where lives have been ruined and people imprisoned over false accusations.

But when the pile of circumstantial or oral evidence becomes so great; when you see the whites of the victims' eyes, and hear the damage done to them in their voices, there can only be one conclusion.

As I write this, it has just been announced that Scotland Yard is to launch a full investigation.  This is, of course, to be welcomed, although I have no idea what good it will do - you can't prosecute a dead man.  But why ... WHY did it take so long, given that the rumours seem to have been so abundant, and around for so long?  Some people have been saying that times have changed and young women would find it much easier to come forward these days, but sadly the facts simply don't support this rose-tinted view - there are disturbing parallels with today.  One girl bravely came forward years ago about Savile, only to be told by the CPS that there wasn't sufficient evidence to prosecute.  The very same thing happened to at least one of the poor victims of the Asian paedophile ring in Rochdale.  There was undoubtedly an overwhelming view in the 1970s and 80s that post-pubescent girls were perfectly capable of "asking for it" by the way they dressed or bahaved, despite being legally underage.  The poor girls' social workers in Rochdale had written them off as "promiscuous", too.  Little has changed.

The burden of criminal proof is, of course, 'beyond reasonable doubt'.  It's one thing to make a snap judgement on a person's guilt or innocence, but to see in this programme what would essentially be the full prosecution evidence placed before a court, and then make an informed decision is quite another.  It's why it is absolutely vital that trial by jury is protected above anything else in our legal system. 

I've now seen the evidence.  I think I'm reasonable.  And I have no doubt.  

Simon

For more from I Like Being Right follow us on twitter, @ilikebeingright or our Facebook page