The article does raise concerns. In an ideal world there would be no need for ‘second chance learning’ because ‘life long learning’ would be central to an education system designed to fit the demands of a flexible population updating existing skills to keep abreast of rapid change in their areas of competence and reskilling completely to acquire the means to switch competencies.
We need a Victorian style Royal Commission to determine what an education system fit for purpose in the twenty-first and into the twenty-second century should look like; and how it should then be brought into existence.

By definition, many pensioners live on reduced means when compared to their disposable income throughout their working lives. Likewise those with reduced mobility who rely on Ring and Ride are often less able to command an average living wage. Subsidy of such services is therefore a critical factor in maintaining the access to the world beyond ones four walls which is believed necessary for the maintenance of an independent life and the presumed benefits to ones mental health, and general well being, accrued from contact with friends and family, not to mention the opportunity to form new friendships and associations.
Restriction of mobility, by pricing, selectively, certain demographic groups out of service use would seem to presage two major knock-on effects: first, more in these demographics will be pushed into need for social care services adding to the cost burden to an already critically underfunded and understaffed area; second, insidiously, the bean-counters will use the empirical data of reduced service uptake to argue that the subsidy is unnecessary.

The film is whimsy: part amusing, part disturbing. Ultimately a satirical piece which addresses the idea that the display of power is often unpleasant. The gender role reversal theme is an interesting, though hardly novel, plot device. Gender discrimination is, possibly, the oldest form of discrimination; hence deeply ingrained and, perhaps, the most difficult to overcome. As enlightening as the film is the discussion responses to it on YouTube. That such anger and such violent responses have been made – and made publicly – is an eye-opening confirmation that criticism of such a deeply held, almost cherished, distribution of power is too disturbing and too threatening for some to consider. Thanks for this thought-provoking post.