I was stunned a few days ago when suzyg commented on here, saying;
“ You don't strike me as a campaigning type of man Simon, so it's quite likely you haven't. Though you must have gone round with your eyes shut in the 60s and 70s."
It only goes to show how difficult it is to make an accurate estimate of a person's character on the Internet without actually meeting them. In fact I was involved in many campaigns in the sixties and seventies. Anti-War demonstrations in Grosvener Square in 1968, CND in the early seventies before it became a fashionable cause during the Thatcher years, the Springbok Tour of 1970 in the days when Peter Hain was a young Liberal and not a government minister, joining Friends of the Earth in 1971, the year it started in this country; you name it and I was there. While you were dreaming your life away in the groves of Academe suzyg, gassing away to Max Coltheart about cognitive psychology, some of us were on the streets, fighting to change the world. Going through the sixties and seventies with my eyes shut indeed!
The point which I was trying to make when I said that I had never encountered a campaign like this, was not that people had not in the past fought fiercely for things in which they believed. Of course they have done that. The difference which I have noticed about this particular campaign is that it seems to be conducted in a less open truthful manner than the ones which I remember participating in myself. I have seen quite a few lies being passed round and many attempts to distort the truth and mislead people. Now I remember in the days that we were fighting against the war in Vietnam and protesting about Rhodesia and South Africa , we faced some world class liars; governments and intelligence agencies who would not think twice about smearing anybody in their way and telling any sort of lie to achieve their ends. I can remember discussions as to whether it might be justified to use the same tactics when fighting these people. The decision was always that it would be disastrous to descend to their level and that it would besmirch our own cause if we were to adopt the same methods as the American government or BOSS, the South African intelligence service.
What I have noticed is that many of those fighting for home education seem to have no such scruples. They seem to believe that because the DCSF, NSPCC and local authorities are using questionable methods and dodgy statistics, then it is alright for those opposing them to resort to similar tactics. Hence the efforts to smear Graham Badman and his family, the dissemination of untruthful accounts of the Children, Schools and Families Bill to newspapers and so on. The lies come as readily from many of these people as the truth. After I had a couple of pieces published in the papers last Summer, several people wrote to the papers in question claiming that I had lied in order to gain access to HE lists and used a false identity. This was not true of course; I had joined under my own name and made no secret of the fact that I wrote occasionally for the papers. Writing to the editors was done by people who knew that they were lying, but justified it to themselves because they felt their cause was right. The same logic has been used to justify smears against members of Graham Badman’s family and also a number of other sleazy activities.
Baroness Deech, who was silly enough to wonder whether it was possible to teach chemistry and physics at home, has become the latest hate figure for this campaign. Instead of writing to her, as I did, and pointing out the mistakes in her opinions, she is being demonised and insulted. On a number of lists now, it is being said that she will, "have blood on her hands". This is a fairly typical example of how far some home educating parents are prepared to go to attack anybody who expresses scepticism about their pet cause.
I dare say that this is how political campaigns are routinely fought these days. It is after all many years since I was involved in this sort of thing and times change. But drawing attention to the changes which I have noticed definitely does not mean that I have never been a campaigning sort of man, let alone that I went through the sixties and seventies with my eyes shut! It just means that the campaigns which I supported and fought for used rather different methods.
Do you think that it is the rise of the internet which has changed things? Back in the 70's presumably you were kept up to date by paper newsletters of what was happening. Now, someone says something in the Lords and everyone knows in a few minutes and are pulling it apart and responding whilst they are still angry. There is no time for considered reflection - people are angry and act accordingly.
ReplyDeleteHence the efforts to smear Graham Badman and his family
ReplyDeleteWhat smears? Does badman need ballsDCSF to hold his hand? poor soul LOL!
We do what ever it takes to block this bill! they started it Balls/ Morgan?DCSF/Badman and now they dont like what they have sowed and want it to go away but of course it wont!
Julie says-Hence the efforts to smear Graham Badman and his family
ReplyDeleteyou dam right people are angry! and will act accordingly!
Thank goodness for the internet now every one can seee the iformation not just a few like in the 1970's!
or does Julie want to ban the internet? you can only have internet if you pass a set test? all for your own good of course!
I think that you are right, Julie. By the time that we had our next meeting and brought along newspaper cuttings and so on, people had had a chance to reflect a little and plan out a collective response. These days, so much of what happens is done in the heat of the moment. The Internet means that things happen very quickly and also that people can wind each other up and this encourages foolish and ill considered actions. If we all had to wait a few weeks or so before we took any action, it might not be a bad thing. As well as that, at one time one would have written a letter to the person concerned, as I did recently, which would be for that persons eyes alone. These days, we are all playing to the gallery, aware that our posts will be read by hundreds of people. This must affect how we conduct ourselves.
ReplyDeleteJulie says-Hence the efforts to smear Graham Badman and his family
ReplyDeleteEr - not me ! I never said anything of the sort!
do you want internet banned Julie? you can have internet if you pass test?
ReplyDeleteSilly man!
ReplyDeleteSimon says if we all had to wait a few weeks or so before we took any action, it might not be a bad thing.
ReplyDeleteit be to late then! the government does not want people to find out certain things it would like to stop internet if it could!
A lot of teachers and DCSF do not like the fact that working people can use internet to find out information. you dont have to go running to teacher to get answers anymore! you can find the truth on internet not half truths that Balls?DCSF tell us
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, you can also find many lies and half truths there as well!
ReplyDeleteSimon's view of what happened in past protest campaigns appears naive. One-sided propaganda and even violence have always characterised such disputes. It doesn't follow that the use of those means is right, just that unscrupulous behaviour on the part of the powers that be sets the agenda for the interaction.
ReplyDeleteyou got take the fight to the enemy Balls/DCSF/LA's/Badman use any method you like! they do! all we want to do is win! and i belive bill will not get though and that is because of the fight many home educators have put up over last year! Balls wanted us to go away! but he picked on wrong group!
ReplyDeleteOne of us may certainly be naive, suzyg. Whether it is the one who spent a good deal of time in his youth demonstrating and in political activism, or whether it is the one who pursued a somewhat more sheltered, academic path, is of course open to question.
ReplyDeleteI don't doubt that you and your associates acted as the voice of reason in your engagement in the protest movement, Simon. But what you appear to be saying is that even though many protests in the 60s & 70s, and at other times, led to violence and the destruction of property, and even though most protest groups have a tendency to see only one side of the argument, home educators are less scrupulous than people who have occupied public buildings, charged police cordons and smashed windows? The logic of this argument defeats me.
ReplyDeleteIn my experience, protesters range from those who worry that they might have been a bit outspoken because they wrote a strongly worded letter to the local newspaper, to those who get involved only because they see the opportunity for a bit of aggro. I don't see why home educators should be any different. In fact, they seem to have been a remarkably restrained lot, compared to other groups.
Are you sure you haven't been over-generous with the egg in this particular pudding?
Not a bit of it! I have certainly broken the law and been involved in violent demonstrations. Let me give a specific example to explain what I mean. In december 1971, I was arrested in Oxford Street during an anti-pollution protest mounted by a group called Committment. We considered that the actions were took were justified in drawing attention to the harm called by private vehicles. What nobody would have done though was knowingly tell lies about those whose policies we opposed. There was no personal vilification and we made scrupulously sure that everything we said and published was true, as far as we could be sure. Charging police cordons, which I have also done in the past, is therefore somewhat of a red herring.
ReplyDeleteSo you think it's more moral to risk physically injuring someone (or worse) than to lie about them?
ReplyDeleteAnd what lies are being referred to, exactly?
ReplyDeleteYes, I didn't intent my comment to imply that I thought lying had happened, I was just surprised that someone would view someone choosing to risk physical harm to another as OK but lying about them to be some terrible sin. I've seen misunderstandings and over-reactions, fear and hurt often being the root cause, but I've seen no intentional lies. Obviously it would be 'better' if people could keep control of their emotions and think before they speak, but this is more easily said than done when your whole lifestyle and the happiness of your children are potentially at stake.
ReplyDeleteI didn't think you were implying that lying had happened Anonymous. I would agree with your last post as to what has happened.
ReplyDeleteHere's the sort of thing I meant, suzyg. Not precisely a lie, but certainly designed to mislead the average citizen;
ReplyDelete"local authority officers be given powers to enter family homes and to interview children alone – without the need to show evidence that the child might be at risk, without a warrant, and without a police officer being present. ....
The law in the UK has long protected individuals against unjustified intrusion into private homes; this protection is about to be removed in the case of’ home-educating families"
I think it a fair guess that the readers of the Market Drayton Advertise are not likely to be aware that that when this letter was published in December, all the stuff about entering homes without a warrant had been dropped and did not appear in the Children, Schools and Families Bill. The writer is trying to whip up a fear and persuade other people that they are at risk if the bill is passed. I have seen many other letters of this sort, as well as information given directly to newspaper reporters, who quote it in good faith. This angle, hinting darkly that if they don't support home educators then they will also be at hazard, was developed and promoterd on several lists. As I say, not quite a lie, but very close. It is this sort of tricksy stuff to which I allude.
By the by, suzyg, and I hope you don't take this in the wrong way, but your use of idiomatic English is ast least a generation out of date. it gives some of your comments a rather quaint air! "A bit of aggro"? This expression has not been used in the demotic for many years.
The thing is, Simon, it's you that's being misleading here. I'm sure you must know this, because people keep telling you this over and over again.
ReplyDeleteThe (moribund) legislation does indeed given them those powers. They can request to enter family homes and interview children alone. Non-cooperation with this (or indeed *anything* else the clipboard-monkeys request, is explicitly defined in the legislation as warranting the issue of a school attendance order. Either you comply, or you get a criminal conviction. That is a power, whether you and Ed Balls (everybody else seems to understand) say it is or not.
On top of this, there are many local authority officers that attempt to deceive families into thinking the already have such powers.
Ciaran is right if you refuse a meeting at your home it can be see nas Non-cooperation and School attendance order can then be issued.It will take no account of the education you are giving to your child!i like the clipboard monkey as a way of refering to LA officer! you like that Simon Julie? i mgoing to use that if they ever dare contact us! hello clip board monkey LOL
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid that it is simply not true to say that a local authority officer will have the power to enter homes without a warrant. It is quite true that people have said this again and again, but it remains untrue for all that. You say Ciaran, " They can request to enter family homes" You must know perfectly well that there is not a single mention of homes, family or otherwise.
ReplyDeleteIt says at least one (that means one or more) of the places where education (that's home education) normally takes place. Yes, you might well say you could insist on meeting them at the local library. They could see this as being suspicious (what are you trying to hide) and insist on meeting at your home instead. *They do this already*. Any kind of non-cooperation would lead the same result, under the legislation-that-is-not-to-be.
ReplyDeleteSimon if you refuse a meeting in home it is seen as non cooperation and school attendance order will be issued by LA officer you think that is right Simon?
ReplyDeleteThe DCSF accepted the Badman recommendations to allow LA officers to see the child, alone if necessary, in the 'education setting', which for most families is the home. As far as I know there has been no retraction of this statement of intent. The letter you cite makes no mention of the CSF Bill; the Bill being but the first step towards the implementation of the Badman proposals.
ReplyDeleteBadman wanted LA officers to have powers to enter the home and see children alone if deemed necessary, as a matter of course; not, as is currently the case, only if they could show reasonable cause to believe that the child was at risk of significant harm. This is a considerable change to the current legal position and is one that everyone needs to be aware of because of the precedent it would set.
Suzyg, I do not know how you can continue to say such things! You say above, "The letter you cite makes no mention of the CSF Bill". This really is a whopper. Here is the full text as it was published in the Market Drayton Advertiser;
ReplyDelete"What the government is proposing instead in the Children, Schools and Families Bill is that local authority officers be given powers to enter family homes and to interview children alone – without the need to show evidence that the child might be at risk, without a warrant, and without a police officer being present. If the parent does not comply, they can be refused permission to home-educate their child.
With all due respect to the hard work done by local authorities, as education providers themselves their judgment cannot be considered impartial, their officers can make mistakes, and indeed local authorities themselves – cannot always ensure that their educational services are of exemplary quality. This of course is one of the reasons why some parents choose to educate their children at home – they are often unable to find suitable educational provision in schools.
The law in the UK has long protected individuals against unjustified intrusion into private homes; this protection is about to be removed in the case of’ home-educating families. There is no guarantee that these powers, if granted, will not be extended to include other families. I have serious concerns about the implications of these measures for our democracy."
You know this as well as I do. You are one of the classic cases about whom I talk above. You feel that if you slip these things in, nobody will notice.
If a parent refuses to allow a home visit or the opportunity to interview the child alone the LA can decide that this is non-cooperation and refuse registration or revoke registration. This is in the Bill and this is what the letter says.
ReplyDeleteDoes the Bill require them to gain a warrant or a police officer to accompany them on these 'requested' visits? No.
Does the Bill require them to have reasonable cause before 'requesting' a visit or access? No.
Does the Bill give them the ability to refuse or revoke registration on the grounds of non-cooperation? Yes.
Which of these is a lie?
I concede, having checked it, that the final version of the letter did mention the Bill. Does that in any way change the fact that the Bill allows LA officers to see the place of education, and the child without the person doing the educating? In most cases this will mean the home and the child without the parent. If anyone objects, the registration can be revoked. No mention is made of 'reasonable cause', warrants, or police officers.
ReplyDeleteI have no doubt that other people will be at risk if the legislation is passed, because it will remove the protection of the law for individuals against unwarranted intrusion by a public agency. Far from whipping up fear, I think it's important that people are alerted to this possibility.
Did you campaign to keep Disability, Education and Play open Simon? Great shame that it had to close.
ReplyDeleteIt hasn't closed at all Carole; We have found a funder for the next year. I hope that's not a touch of Schadenfreude I detect there!
ReplyDeleteI resent that comment Simon. Having spent the last 10 years working as a volunteer myself helping families who live with disabled children the last thing that I would ever want to see is any group or association that helps these families having to close because of lack of funding. I am actually delighted to hear that you managed to find a funder, and I really do mean that.
ReplyDeleteI'm shocked at your response to Carole's comment. Unless you know nothing of Carole and have not spoken to her before, I fail to understand how you could misinterpret her comment so badly.
ReplyDeleteActually, I sat next to her at the select committee.
ReplyDeleteAnd you really thought she would take pleasure in there being less help for disabled children? You must be a very poor judge of character.
ReplyDeleteWell it is very difficult to know what to make of a comment like Carole's. Obviously I cannot take it at face value. She begins by asking, "Did you campaign to keep Disability, Education and Play open Simon?"
ReplyDeleteNow this is not a real question. Carole knows perfectly well that I have been campaigning about this: she has read the newspaper article. So to begin with, I must try and work out her motive for the question. If she already knows that I have been campaigning to keep this project open, why is she asking me this? The very fact that she has started by asking me a non-question of this sort, suggests that I should not take the next sentence at face value either. She says, " Great shame that it had to close." Now since we know that the first sentence is not meant to be taken literally, perhaps the same could be true of the second? Could she really mean the oppostie of what the words would suggest? This is interesting. I am not going to go into this in great detail, except to point out that when people ask questions in this way, the answers to which are already known to them, it does rather provoke speculation as to their reasons for asking the question in the first place. The fact that I expressed a hope that this was not Schadenfreude, shows that I am only tentatively inclined towards that hypothesis. That I ended the statement with an exclamation mark shows that I am really speaking tongue in cheek myself and that this statement, like Carole's should not be taken at face value.
I am not as deep a personality Simon as you obviously think I am. My first sentence was meant to be taken literally because it was not, as you appear to think, a non-question.
ReplyDeleteWhen you have lived with autism as long as I have, 22 years, you tend to say what you think and I certainly do not follow hidden agendas nor do I infer things because if I do not make myself crystal clear when I speak at home it usually leads to huge misunderstandings. I guess I have just gotten into that way of doing things all of the time.
I read your personal reminiscence with great interest, it made me smile and this comment caught my eye.
'Not a bit of it! I have certainly broken the law and been involved in violent demonstrations. Let me give a specific example to explain what I mean. In december 1971, I was arrested in Oxford Street during an anti-pollution protest mounted by a group called Committment. We considered that the actions were took were justified in drawing attention to the harm called by private vehicles. What nobody would have done though was knowingly tell lies about those whose policies we opposed. There was no personal vilification and we made scrupulously sure that everything we said and published was true, as far as we could be sure. Charging police cordons, which I have also done in the past, is therefore somewhat of a red herring.'
So given that you are not afraid to stand up and fight for what you believe in I asked a question about the charity that you either support or work for wrapped around the scant information that I actually had. I have read nothing (read very little in total) to suggest that you actively campaigned to keep the charity open, which does not mean that you had not, and so I asked a question out of real interest. I had wrongly assumed that the charity had been closed due to lack of funding.
I have also stood up and fought for what I believe in, long before my home ed days, and have been physically removed from the scene of more than one protest.
So based on the activities that we both appear to have been involved with in our younger days I asked what I thought was a relevant question.
I do not spend my days trying to catch people out because I have lots of other things to fill my days with. I support not only home educators but also parents who have autistic children and now also parents who have children with other disabilities in the system.
Today I have spoken to four parents on the phone only one of those parents was someone who is 'thinking' about home educating the other 4 were all parents who have children in school with not thoughts of removing them.
On Netmums today I asked Ed Balls several questions and not one of those questions was about home ed. The transcript is there if you wish to read it. I never go on to any groups or lists as anyone other than myself. I am easy to spot. My questions were all about issues that parents have in school or with child care. I am not a one trip pony and I am not even sure why I am trying to explain myself to someone who clearly thinks that we all have hidden agendas and motives :(
I can see why Simon might have thought that comment was a dig- after all he is master of the digs and may well have chosen to make morose delectations himself-it takes one to suspect one. Paranoia on his part possibly but to be expected from someone who has consistently done unto others..... I did read his question and detected a hint of tongue in cheek when he asked whether the poster took some pleasure in the 'failing' of his charity to receive funding... how on earth though did Simon know that 'ONEVOICE' is the one and only Carol Rutherford of A.I.M?...well maybe he did not know who he was trying to apply schadenfreude to- if this is the case, quelle faux pas, Simon- or should that be 'quel' faux pas?
ReplyDeleteToo much erudition for me, Tania. Am I really given to making morose delectations? One must hope not!
ReplyDeleteAnd since you seem to be such a whale at French Tania, you might consider, in the light of Ms. Rutherford's long post above, the old proverb; Qui s'Excuse, s'Accuse!
ReplyDeleteDon't worry Simon-I'm not too erudite for you Simon- I had to look up schadenfreude! I do know it in Hebrew though- (Tsar ayin- narrow eye)
ReplyDeleteI am genuinely curious as to whether you knew that 'Onevoice' was Carol Rutherford before you made the comment. I did not know it was Carole and I think that puts an entirely different light on the original question which I interpreted to begin with, much as you did.
You mean, did I just randomly call her Carole, presumably on the offchance that that might be her name? Now that really would be weird! Actually, the fact that she herslef is involved in a project working with children with disabilities makes my comment more explicable, rather than less. I won't go into all the ins and outs of it, but there is a deal of jealousy and intrigue among the various organisations of this sort. They are actually more prone to this sort of thing that other voluntary groups, for reasons which I can only guess at. It would not have been the least surprising had Carole shown a certain degree of pleasure about this. However, I doubt that was her motive. She was really referring to my posts about campaigning and saying, in effect, "Ha ha, you smart Alec. All very well to slag off other people campaigning for causes, but you do it yourself. And a shit it helped you in your case, you loser!"
ReplyDeleteI dare say though, that she would not have dreamed of putting the case so vulgarly!
ah yes sorry missed that-you knew it was Carole- and here was me defending your schadenfreude accusation as a faux pas.
ReplyDeleteIf you actually thought Carole was merely trying to insinuate ' fat lot of good it did you' why bother to mention that it may be for other motives.
It is sad to hear that amongst any charities there may be jealousy and intrigue- why do you feel that this is more prevalent in Childrens disability charities?
So am I understanding correctly? You think it is morally better to risk injuring people (charging police cordons) than to lie about them and you are happy to take part in the intrigue and jealousy between charities for children with disabilities (judging by your supposed response in kind when you misunderstood Carole's original comment)? You don't paint a very pretty picture of yourself.
ReplyDeletesorry Simon I realise I did not answer your question..
ReplyDelete'''Am I really given to making morose delectations? One must hope not!''
I do think you have a hint of what could be called 'schadenfreude' in many of your posts although I cannot work out if you are using poetic license, irony, playing devils advocate or truly do wring your hands in glee when in your opinion someone does something that you think makes them come across in a negative light.
I am leaning heavily on the Devils Advocate theory- it works for me to think of you as someone who is using this process which can also be used to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure.
As far as I know, Anonymous, I have never injured anybody by charging at a police cordon. Why shoul I paint a pretty picture of myself? I find it easier by far to portray myself as I am.
ReplyDeleteI said nothing about you injuring someone, I said that your were happy to take the risk. So unless you were absolutely sure that nobody would be injured as a result of your actions you knowingly took the risk of injuring someone (and possibly causing a death) when you charged your police cordons. You trumpet this as though it is something to be proud of ("some of us were on the streets, fighting to change the world") whilst demonising others because they may have lied about someone who is attacking their way of life (even though it is more likely to have been a misunderstanding and/or over reaction in the heat of the moment than an outright lie).
ReplyDeleteDemonised? I have observed that this is becoming the latest buzz word on the home education lists. It will soon overtake "conflate", which has been enjoying a huge run of popularity. I believe it possible to draw attention to things without demonising folk!
ReplyDeleteWe must read different lists as I've not seen it used on the list I read. I notice you've taken a liking to it yourself and have used it in this blog article. Maybe that's what suggested the word to me today?
ReplyDeleteYou suggested that home educators intentionally lied about people in order to mislead others but, as I doubt that is what happened, it appears that you are smearing or demonising them in much the way you accuse them of doing to others.
Ah, very sharp Anonymous! Are you on the BRAG or HE-UK lists, I wonder?
ReplyDeleteNeither.
ReplyDeleteWhich would conceivably account for the matter.
ReplyDeleteWell I did say, "we must read different lists." Nice to agree on something!
ReplyDeleteThe above exchange is likely to prove incomprehensible to anybody unaware that Anonymous is actually Ali Edgley, an old friend of mine. Since it is some years since she has been a home educator, it is curious that she is still so concerned about this matter. Almost suggests that she has a personal dislike of me, but that would be absurd!
ReplyDeleteLOL! Sorry, wrong guess.
ReplyDeleteBTW, what was it about our exchange that made you think I'm Ali Edgley? I don't think I've ever even 'spoken' to her via email lists, she's not even on the HE list I'm on (unless she's silent there, of course). Her name is familiar but I think that's from comments here or possibly replies to articles in newspapers, etc.
ReplyDeleteI was wondering Simon if you had a way of knowing who was posting ....some people are obvious.. but I can assure you this is not Ali ..I am on the phone to her right now and am asking her..as she is one of my closest friends I see no reason why she would not tell me if it were her writing above! If she had told me it was her, I wold not be writing this...you'll just have to trust me o this one ;>)
ReplyDelete