I really cannot resist drawing the attention of readers to a recent exchange on the HE-UK list. A mother posted the following;
hi, can anyone please give me some advice, i have a 15 year old who i am suppose to be HE but he has done hardly any written work, and i have the lea coming out on the 1st july and i will have nothing to show them, my son say that there are children that just leave school early and they don't have anything to do with the lea, does anyone have any views to what i should do please.
thanks
What this woman is saying, in as far as I am able to decipher it is as follows; my teenage son is no longer at school, I am not providing him with any education at all, he thinks that he has left school and ended his education, I am afraid that the local authority will catch wind of this and I shall get into trouble. This has all the hallmarks to me, not of home education but the condoning of truancy. A regular contributor on this list offers helpful advice. She says;
You can refuse a visit for starters. You do not by law have to have a visit.
You can tell them what you have been doing with a 'report' (called an
educational philosophy) which will tell them the hows and wherefores of your
educational provision (it is the provision that is being 'judged' not the
childs take up of that education). So you can state in the report that DS
does a lot of work online and therefore won't have any workbooks, you can
give examples of the visits and experiences done and tell them about the
different subjects covered in whatever way you have done them. There are
examples of Educational philosophies in the files section of this group
What's wrong with this picture, boys and girls? Well in the first place, this does not look in the least like a question about home education. The person asking this question is not at all interested in education; she is only concerned with avoiding trouble with the authorities. Secondly, it is plain that the person offering her the advice realises this and is also only concerned with helping this mother to dodge her legal and moral duties towards her son. If this were a rare and atypical case, it would hardly be worth mentioning. It is not. One local authority with which I have dealings has a collection of 'educational philosophies' , all nearly identical apart from the child's name and all downloaded from HE-UK. It is little short of scandalous that people should encourage parents to operate scams of this sort. And some people who comment here still cannot understand why local authority officers are not satisfied with an 'educational philosophy' and suspect that in many cases these are used to mask the complete absence of any sort of education........
Let me spell out the nature of the problem clearly. Many parents whose children are lively and inquisitive, although receiving little or no formal teaching, prefer not to receive visits from the local authority. Instead, they send an educational philosophy and things like a diary or photographs. In many cases, these children are pursuing their own interests and, in effect, educating themselves. Others, like the mother quoted above, simply feel that their children have finished both school and education. Their only concern is to get the authorities off their back. With a little help from HE-UK, they are able to furnish their local authority with precisely similar evidence to the families whose children are genuinely receiving an autonomous education. The question is very simple. How, without visiting and speaking to the child and his parents, is the local authority able to distinguish between these two very different cases, given that the evidence is identical?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Anonymous said "did something happen to you when you were younger that has affected you to make you mistrust every one? "
ReplyDeleteMost probably so. He recently wrote that parents have no rights, only duties. Any human being, particularly a parent, that could make such an evil and unnatural statement is clearly damaged.
So often we find Simon's type seeking positions of 'importance' or power. Generally, they are the very worst type to be in that position because they are damaged. We see this frequently in politicians, social workers, policemen. Simon is such a man, a statist; he 'knows best' and his way is the only way. He believes he has the right to inflict his views (sickness) on to others. These types project their own flaws onto other people, seeing perversion, abuse and danger where there is none. They are egotistical and highly insecure and they fear anything that appears 'unregulated'.
Fortunately, Simon has no power and, now, never will have. He was angling for a government HE consultancy position, but all that is over. He continues to write this silly blog, seeking negative attention, because it makes him feel important, but really he's scraping the bottom of the barrel.
I suggest Simon finds another hobby.
"I really cannot resist drawing the attention of readers to a recent exchange on the HE-UK list."
ReplyDeleteThis post is clearly not intended for public viewing, Simon, HE-UK it was on a private list. People post on private lists in the confidence that their words will not be seen by anyone other than list members.
You are an immoral, dishonest and dishonourable man. You should be ashamed.
Like all attention whores, you clearly will do ANYTHING for attention. You are a danger to the integrity of any private list.
Really? Commenters can only attack the person, rather than the content of the blog posts? So many comments throughout this blog reflect very badly on the HE community. No wonder HErs who donot follow the autonomous style seem under-represented in the HE blogs, lists, etc.
ReplyDeleteDear me, AM really does not seem to be at all enamoured of me! I observe that this individual carefully avoids tackling the points which I raised and instead wishes to launch a personal attack. That's OK, I'm a grown up and am quite easy about that. To take some of the points which are made, in no particular order. I have seen before that it has been supposed by some that I wanted to work for the government as a home education advisor. This is really wierd; I already have two jobs and am certainly not looking for a third! The point about the HE-UK list being private would be a good one, except for the fact that the list owner, Mike Fortune-Wood, put some of my posts up on the comments section of a national newspaper in an attempt tp discredit me. Posts which I had made on the list in the belief that they would be regarded as private. After that, various individuals began taking posts that I had made on this list and sending them to MP's, newspapers and various other places. I rather assumed after that the any posts made on HE-UK were to be regarded as public property rather than private communications.
ReplyDeleteAs for this gem;
'He recently wrote that parents have no rights, only duties. Any human being, particularly a parent, that could make such an evil and unnatural statement is clearly damaged.'
This is really wonderful. I could reccommend various books on ethics for this person to read; beginning with Baroness Warnock might not be a bad idea. I have a suspicion though that it might be a waste of time. Anybody, parent or not, who believes that anybody has 'rights' over a child, instead of duties towards her, is probably speaking a different language to me anyway. As Wittgenstein said, 'Even if a lion could talk, we would not be able to understand what it said'. I think that AM is moving in a different spehere from me ethically and philosophically, one with which I have no desire to become familiar.
Oh crumbs - disappear for a few hours (to invigilate a very boring English exam) and another war breaks out.
ReplyDeleteI read the same post with interest - although I am generally well behaved and don't cross post, so didn't comment - although I notice a previous post has also been posted below by someone else....
I am not happy with the thought of covering up anyones lack of an education by pretending otherwise. However also being inclined to see the other point of view, we know nothing about the boy in question (as to why he was removed from school and also whether he is a year 11 or year 10 student). One may assume that he is doing nothing useful at all but actually the mother only claims he hasn't done any written work - he may have done all sorts of useful and educational things. If I was pushed to ask for advice, I would hope that the mother could truthfully stress all that he had done, rather than dwell on what he hadn't. Realistically the LA wouldn't want to take too a drastic action (if he is year 11 he will be out of their hair in 3 weeks, if he is year 10 no school would want him mid GCSES,) and even if they live in a difficult LA there is unlikely to be the risk of legal action this late in the day. In an ideal world, I would hope that the LA would have something positive to suggest (work experience perhaps)- given that otherwise in a years time the same boy may be destined to unemployment and no benefits. All a bit late in the day though!
Nothing to do with HCC, Peter - I am pretty sure that no school ever wants a child at the end of year 10 because they have missed too much coursework/exam modules.
ReplyDeleteNo unemployment benefits for under 18's any more Peter (or income support- unless you nave been in care).
"One may assume that he is doing nothing useful at all but actually the mother only claims he hasn't done any written work - he may have done all sorts of useful and educational things."
ReplyDeleteYes, exactly, though she actually says, "i have a 15 year old who i am suppose to be HE but he has done hardly any written work", so he has done some written work. He sounds like an ideal candidate for early college entry on a practical course. Not everyone is academically minded.
I have no idea about the boy in question - after all he may have a job lined up; but given the general job situation it is difficult times for young people. I am right about the no benefit thing though; that has been the law for a while.
ReplyDeleteSimon, I think you've got too much time on your hands. It might be more constructive to take up a new hobby - perhaps an evening class?
ReplyDeleteGet back in the knife box Ms Sharp! Seriously Allie, that's a very shrewd observation. Mind you, you seem to have plenty of time on your hands yourself, or time enough at least to visit my blog regularly and make catty remarks about it. Has it perhaps struck you that we could both do with spending a little less time slumped in front of computer screens and a bit more time out in the real world?
ReplyDeleteHa! Perhaps so. But, honestly, what is it that means you are drawn back (over and again) to a space on the internet where you're not welcome? Wouldn't it be better to let it go? I guess you're not the letting it go type. It is something you seem to have in common with one of your chief commenters, by the way. I think it's a shame because I think your writing is punchy and interesting and deserves better than re-hashing old battles.
ReplyDeleteYou raise quite an interesting point, Allie. There are actually quite a few home educators who cannot seem to drag themselves away from the whole scene once their kids hit sixteen. I am thinking about people like Fiona Nicholson of Education Otherwise and also Christine Waterman. Perhaps home education is somehow addictive, once you have been heavily involved with it, it is hard to stop. You have to bear in mind that for sixteen years it was a very large part of my life and so I am reluctant to let it go entirely.
ReplyDeleteHowever, this blog is a fairly small part of my life, I simply don't write about the rest. For instance I have two books coming out in the next few months, one of which is about home education. maybe I'll post the details about it here, so that my fans can buy it; although at £18.999 it is a little pricy. Then again, why would anyone bother when they can read my views and opinions on the subject here for nothing?
I don't understand the age 16 cut off. Can you no longer call yourself a home educator if you are teaching your child A Levels instead of sending them to college or 6th Form for eg? This is becoming more common, looking at what people are up to on the HE exams list.
ReplyDeleteOf course you are still home educating if your child passes 16 and they are still learning at home. I can't speak for FN, but Christine is a good friend and I know her circumstances. She is still home-educating.
Mrs Anon
Ah, I mentioned 16 Mrs. Anon because there was absolute fury when I gave evidnece to the select committee. The generally expressed view seemed then to be that since compulsory education ends at 16, that's when one becomes an ex-home educator!
ReplyDeleteJulie said...
ReplyDeleteI have no idea about the boy in question - after all he may have a job lined up; but given the general job situation it is difficult times for young people. I am right about the no benefit thing though; that has been the law for a while.
he have to get a job as a burger fliper then!
'Ah, I mentioned 16 Mrs. Anon because there was absolute fury when I gave evidnece to the select committee. The generally expressed view seemed then to be that since compulsory education ends at 16, that's when one becomes an ex-home educator!'
ReplyDeleteWell, yes. If you STOP HE'ing then you become an ex-HE'er. Which I will be as of Friday afternoon and the last of my younger child's exams! He's going to FE to do A Levels.
However, (I was going to write But then, but gosh, I didn't want you to ignore my post on the grounds of it being poor grammar) if you continue home educating when your child hits 16, surely you are still a home educator?
Mrs Anon
It's a good point and I agree with you. Although my daughter is at college, I still have a good deal of input. But there it is, most people in the run-up to the select committee hearing thought that I was an ex-home educator because my daughter had turned sixteen. Apropos of Christine Waterman, I don't know her personally but we exchanged emails last year. I am sure that she told me that she was an ex-home educator and ran the Essex & Herts. List as a kind of hobby and a way of remaining in touch with HE once she had finished with it. I might have got hold of the wrong end of the stick though.
ReplyDeletePerhaps it was because your daughter had already finished her exams by then?
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to discuss CW's personal situation, but your stick is the wrong way round.
And it's the Herts list, though some Essex people join it.
I own 2 local lists and still moderate one. I will probably hang around for a bit though, since some people there have asked me to.
There's nothing to stop people being INTERESTED in home education after they are finished, however. This is the position you, possibly Julie and I are in. And why shouldn't we blog, comment, write, discuss etc? I wouldn't represent myself as a home educator after Friday though.
Mrs Anon
A few points spring to mind.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, local authorities do not usually accept an educational philosophy alone as evidence of suitable education. HE-UK and EO both advise that other evidence such as a report is required as well, to show that the education is achieving what it sets out to achieve.
Secondly, it is a little unrealistic to insist that every HE family should have a completely different philosophy. All users of the ACE curriculum, for example, have much ed phil in common, as do all autonomous educators. The important thing is how that philosophy is put into practice.
And thirdly, I think Allie's comment about the space on the internet where you are not welcome was referring not to your ongoing interest in HE in general (nothing strange about that) but to your continuing presence on the HE-UK list, where you are not welcome for very good reasons.
Another anon.
Let me just remind you of the situation. I was a member of the HE-UK list for several years. I naturally assumed that all posts made there were completely private and would not be used anywhere else. After I wrote a couple of articles for two national newspapers on the subject of home education, I was thrown off the list. This is fair enough, although I had neither quoted any posts from this list nort used any information in my articles which I had obtained there. Mike Fortune-Wood, the site owner, then took one of my posts there and used it in the comments section of the online edition of one of the papers for which I had written. Ali Edgely also used a post of mine from the list in a letter to the editor of the Times Educational Supplement. After that, people began digging up posts which I had made and using them all over the place. The list also became a place where people openly discussed tactics to damage me and try to discredit my views on home education. Before the select committee hearing in October, Wendy Crickard then posted this;
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone have copy of the email to this site in which S.W. boasted of
misrepresenting himself in order to further his journalistic career? I’ll
happily wave it at Linda Waltho on Friday. WendyC
Janet Ford and various others then began to help her by posting more of my posts, knowing that Wendy Crickard intended to publicise them all over the place. It was when I got wind of that, that I thought that I should start keeping an eye on the list, despite being unwelcome.
Get a grip, Another Anon. When it is clear that the members of this list do not themselves regard mesages posted there as private, but instead material to be put up on other sites, sent to MPs or published in newspapers, any feeling that I should myself respect this list's desire for privacy vanish. When Wendy Crickard asked for details of my posts, not one person on the list said, "Oh hang on, aren't these messages private?" Instead, there was enthusiastic discussion of how they could be used to harm me.
"Does anyone have copy of the email to this site in which *S.W. boasted of
ReplyDeletemisrepresenting himself in order to further his journalistic career?* I’ll
happily wave it at Linda Waltho on Friday. WendyC"
Quite.
"I had neither quoted any posts from this list nort used any information in my articles which I had obtained there."
Any information about the efficiency of autonomous education, that is, which is what you asked for, and what you were given.
Another Anon
If you had actually read the articles in question, you would know that every single piece of information contained in them was actually taken from either the Education Otherwise public website or books published on the subject of home education. As I say, I assumed that posts on the HE-UK list were confidential and was surprised to see them being sent all over the place by members there. Once that was done, I considered that i had no obligation to respect anybody elses privacy there. I might mention though, when I do quote posts, I remove the names. This is not the case when people quote my posts there. I was also taken aback when this list was used to coordinate various rumours and lies about me, such as the ludicrous one about my being a colleague of Graham Badman.
ReplyDeleteI am actually looking at those articles which I wrote right now. the one from the Independent is centred around an account from the EO public site. The one in the TES was based upon stuff from Deborah Durbin and Ross Mountney's books. there was nothing at all even vaguely connected with HE-UK.I ought to know; I actually wrote the things.
There's a little phrase that applies, Simon. Something about two wrongs not making a right.
ReplyDeleteI am not attempting to justify myself, Allie. I am simply pointing out that when a group of individuals set out to conduct a vicious smear campaign against me, I find it a little rich if these same people reproach me for breaching their privacy. Presumably, the reason that they did not want me on the list was so that they could be free to spread all these lies about me without my discovering the fact? An interesting idea.
ReplyDeleteBut don't you see that it weakens your case to go on breaching other people's privacy willy nilly? Is it wrong to put messages in a public space if the author thought they were sending them to a private space? Presumably you think it is. If that is the case then why are you doing it? What are you hoping to achieve? I think you're just showing off that you can still get access to that place and you don't seem to care who gets hurt in the process.
ReplyDeleteI cannot imagine who could possibly get hurt by my quoting a message from a private Internet list with no name attached. I can think of a good deal of harm on the other hand when somebody takes a message and says to the world at large, 'Oh look, this is what Jane Smith says'
ReplyDeleteIf I were to use one of your comments here to illustrate a point, that would be one thing. Provided that I did not identify you, then it would probably harm nobody. If on the other hand I contacted a newspaper or MP and said, 'Look at what Allie so an so of Brighton says about this'. If I then started to mention other details of your life and personality, you would perhaps think it a bit much. Do you see the difference? There is also the fact that I find the advice given in the subject of the original post absolutely scandalous and feel more strongly than I can say about the welfare and education of children. Sometimes, I will break rules and conventions in such a case.
"I am simply pointing out that when a group of individuals set out to conduct a vicious smear campaign against me, I find it a little rich if these same people reproach me for breaching their privacy."
ReplyDeleteSo was the mother you quote above one of those involved in the "vicious smear campaign" against you, or is she an innocent bystander caught in the crossfire?
Since we don't even know her name, where she lives or anything else about her, I don't see what crossfire she is caught in. What possible harm could befall her by being mentioned here?
ReplyDelete"Vicious smear campaign"? You were the one who said you lied for money. You were the one who boasted about having a signed copy of the Badman Report. Don't you think you might have started it yourself?
ReplyDeleteDon't be fool. The post which I made about inventing names and identities was taken from humourous piece I wrote for a magazine on creative writing. I could hardly have known that anybody would take it seriously. I am referring to the claims that were made to newspapers by Mike fortune-Wood, Ali Edgeley and others that I had infiltrated the HE-UK list under a false identity. This was a deliberate lie dreamed up because Mike Fortune-Wood told people that it might harm my standing with newspaper editors if they thought that I was using such tactics. This is what I mean by 'vicious smear tactics'. I am also talking about the story invented and then pedalled, again to newspapers and MPs, that I was a colleague of Graham Badman and therefore not impartial.
ReplyDelete"What possible harm could befall her by being mentioned here?"
ReplyDeleteIt depends on how you define harm. If it were my posts about my child I would be upset that the information I have given in good faith was being twisted to mean something totally different. At no point does she say that she is not providing an education as you suggest, she merely states that he doesn't produce much written work, a huge difference.
"that I had infiltrated the HE-UK list under a false identity. This was a deliberate lie dreamed up..."
So are you subscribed to the list under your true identity now? Are you subscribed under a false identity or accept copies from someone else (which is effectively the same, or worse in some ways as you will not have seen other posts by this mother that show she is providing an education).
"The post which I made about inventing names and identities was taken from humourous piece I wrote for a magazine on creative writing. I could hardly have known that anybody would take it seriously."
ReplyDeleteWhy wouldn't they? How are people to know when to take you seriously and when not to? Or is nothing you write to be taken seriously?
"I am referring to the claims that were made to newspapers by Mike fortune-Wood, Ali Edgeley and others that I had infiltrated the HE-UK list under a false identity. This was a deliberate lie dreamed up because Mike Fortune-Wood told people that it might harm my standing with newspaper editors if they thought that I was using such tactics."
Absolute rubbish. You had already said that you lie for money. Can you really blame anyone for believing that you were lying for money?
"I am also talking about the story invented and then pedalled, again to newspapers and MPs, that I was a colleague of Graham Badman and therefore not impartial."
OK, so they got that wrong. Again, can you really blame them? Someone called Simon Webb was a colleague of Badman's. Why wouldn't they think that was you, especially when you had been boasting about your signed copy of the Report, and about how you assume false identities for financial gain? If someone tells you they are a liar, do you believe them? Tough call.
And by the way, it's "peddled", not "pedalled".
"I am referring to the claims that were made to newspapers by Mike fortune-Wood, Ali Edgeley and others that I had infiltrated the HE-UK list under a false identity. This was a deliberate lie dreamed up because Mike Fortune-Wood told people that it might harm my standing with newspaper editors if they thought that I was using such tactics."
ReplyDeleteAbsolute rubbish. You had already said that you lie for money. Can you really blame anyone for believing that you were lying for money?
No, I'm afraid you are still not getting it. I joined the list openly under my own name. After I wrote a couple of newspaper articles, Mike Fortune-Wood told people that if it was pretended that I had joined the HE-UK list under a false name, then that would be damaging. This was a deliberate lie which was cooked up to harm me.
"If someone tells you they are a liar, do you believe them? Tough call.
And by the way, it's "peddled", not "pedalled"."
True, if a little pedantic about the incorrect spelling. Unfortunately, the effect is spoiled somewhat by the glaring grammatical error of the illicit concordance of pronouns!
"If someone tells you they are a liar" Do you see what you have done there? You have begun with a singular pronoun, "Someone" and then in the same sentence used a plural form, "they". It is always a good idea if you are planning to be pedantic about somebody else's spelling and grammar to make sure that your own is faultless!
"After I wrote a couple of newspaper articles, Mike Fortune-Wood told people that if it was pretended that I had joined the HE-UK list under a false name, then that would be damaging. This was a deliberate lie which was cooked up to harm me."
ReplyDeleteNo. The above is a deliberate lie. No surprise there, then. It's always a good idea if you are accusing someone of lying to make sure that your own reputation for honesty is spotless.
So are you subscribed to HE-UK under your real name now?
ReplyDelete"No. The above is a deliberate lie."
ReplyDeleteHere is a comment whch Mike Fortune-Wood posted on the comments section of the article I wrote for the Independent;
" I am the owner of one of the mailing lists Mr Webb lied to gain access to."
This is of course a bare face lie. I did not lie to gain access to the list at all. This is an example of what I am talking about. Mike Fortune-Wood told this lie because he had a discussion with a few other people about the best way of harming me with newspaper editors. Ali Edgeley then followed it up with an untruthful letter to the editor of the TES, using the same tactics which Mike Fortune-Wood had suggested.
Oooh, look! Here's Tania Berlow encouraging Mike Fortune-Wood to spread his original lie elsewhere;
ReplyDeleteFrom: tania berlow
Subject: [HE-UK] to mike
To: he-uk@yahoogroups. com
Date: Friday, 31 July, 2009, 5:41 PM
Mikecould you post your comments form the independent to TES please?
also i found the online independent article and it has no comments but it is the 'ndependent minds' part that doe shave the coments - thought for a moment that they ahd bene taken down but i am wrong.
blessings
Tania
+|+|+|+|+|+| +|+|+||+| +|+|+|+|+ |+|+|+|+| +|+|+|+|| +|+|+|+|+ |+|+|+|+| +|+|+Show your support please sign our petition on Home Education http://petitions. number10. gov.uk/EHEreview /+|+|+|+|+|+ |+ |+|+||+|+ |+|+|+|+| +|+|+|+|+ |+|+|+||+ |+|+|+|+| +|+|+|+|+ |+|+
____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
Celebrate a decade of Messenger with free winks, emoticons, display pics, and more.
http://clk.atdmt. com/UKM/go
And here's Ali Edgeley, also spreading Mike Fortune-Wood's lie;
ReplyDeleteTo: newseditor@independ ent.co.uk
Cc: "GailRobinson"
Date: Saturday, 1 August, 2009, 2:39 AM
Dear Sir
Please take a look at the comments on Independent Minds about this article.
A pattern seems to be emerging here, of Mike Fortune-Wood telling a lie and then a helpful bunch of people seeing how much mischief they can make by using his original lie.
So you were mistaken (or lying) when you said that Mike claimed you had joined the list with a false identity. Mike claimed you lied in order to join the list - not the same at all. If I recall correctly the list rules stated that the members of the press should not join the list. I believe this is why Mike believed you had lied to join the list - you write for newspapers and journalists were not supposed to join the list. By joining the list after reading the rules you were effectively agreeing that you were not a journalist, but you were (if only occasionally in a very minor way).
ReplyDelete"" I am the owner of one of the mailing lists Mr Webb lied to gain access to."
ReplyDeleteThis is of course a bare face lie. I did not lie to gain access to the list at all."
As I said, when someone tells you they are a liar (or should I say, when someone tells you he is a liar) do you believe him?
Are you now subscribed to the HE-UK list under your real name?
I made no secret of the fact that I write occasional articles for the papers. Several other people on the list also do so. I actually discussed this in a good natured way on the HE-UK list and nobody objected at all. I joined as a home educating parent.Are you really say that all the people on that list who do the odd piece for home education magazines should be chucked off and denounced as liars? Don't be such an idiot. If it comes to that, there are several psychologists on the list whom Mike Fortune-Wood has invited to join without telling a soul. I am pretty sure that all those people posting there are not aware that Paula Rothermel is reading every message. Nor is she the only professional lurking there. true, it is Mike Fortune-wood's list, but I have an idea that some people might feel a little surprised to realise that a number of psychologists and social workers are reading every word they write!
ReplyDelete"Are you really say that all the people on that list who do the odd piece for home education magazines should be chucked off and denounced as liars?"
ReplyDeleteIs that all you did? And there was me thinking you wrote defamatory articles about autonomous educators in newspapers! Sorry for being such and idiot.
Are you now subscribed to the HE-UK list under your real name?
ReplyDelete"Is that all you did? And there was me thinking you wrote defamatory articles about autonomous educators in newspapers! Sorry for being such and idiot."
ReplyDeleteTes, I'm very much afraid that you are indeed an idiot, Anonymous and an idiot who does not have the courtesy even to give her name. For "defamatory" in the above comment, please read "critical".
"Are you now subscribed to the HE-UK list under your real name?"
ReplyDeleteThe answer to this question is no. The reason is that I am not a subscriber to this list at all and have not been seen I was chucked off at the beginning of last August. A couple of members of the list were however shocked to see what was going on and the lies that were being circulated about me. They have sent me regular digests and any individual posts which they think might be of interest. I have been grateful for this, for otherwise I would never have known that this list was being used to coordinate a smear campaign against me, as it was during the run-up to the select commitee hearings. Access to this list is, by the way, so open that it can hardly be described as private at all. In addition to the various professionals and researchers who Mike Fortune-Wood has invited to join it, there are also many local authority officers and so on as well.
Can you really see nothing ironic about this Anonymous? I joined this list under my real name, using my personal email address. I gave out a huge amount of information quite openly about myself, making no attempt to conceal anything at all. In sharp contrast to the behaviour of characters like you and the other Anonymous types, who are, unsurprisingly, too ashamed even to reveal your own names. Most of the people on the HE-UK list do not even allow people to know their own names. Had I adopted this policy, then there would not be all this fuss now! As I have remarked before though, I am always happy to speak openly and sign my own name to what I say. Unlike many others; you for example.
Needless to say, in the last post but one, "Tes" should read "Yes", uless of course your name does in fact happen to be Tess, in which case simply imagine an extra "s"!
ReplyDeleteNo, I think defamatory is the right word.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think it is discourteous to remain anonymous? Isn't that what you're doing on HE-UK, EO and all those "other lists" where you're not welcome?
Are you now subscribed to the lists under your real name?
Sorry, crossed with your last post.
ReplyDeleteHere are a few quotes from your articles:
ReplyDelete"The most popular educational method used by those who withdraw their children from school in this country is known as autonomous education and involves nobody teaching children anything at all! I believe this peculiar technique is causing incalculable damage to the thousands of home educated children upon whom it is used."
"It is high time that LEAs were given the power to check up on the wellbeing and educational attainments of these children. The furious opposition to any change in the law is spearheaded by autonomous educators who are, not surprisingly, anxious to prevent anybody from assessing the efficacy of their educational provision. While fighting for their own "rights", such people are denying their children one of the most important rights that other children in this country enjoy; the right to a proper education."
"strange as it may sound, a very large number of parents who have withdrawn their children from school are opposed on ideological grounds to teaching them anything at all. They are the so-called autonomous educators"
"It is not until their children are 16 that the reality strikes home for many home-educating parents. They have, in effect, blocked their children’s path to careers as engineers, doctors, vets, solicitors, and so on. This restriction of a child’s life chances by the early decision of a parent, sometimes when the child is only four or five, must surely be examined."
On re-reading the articles, I realised that I had forgotten how insulting and misleading they are. I asked you a few days ago for evidence to support your opinion of autonomous education (ie that autonomous educators are ideologically opposed to teaching their children anything at all, and that AE is causing incalculable damage to thousands of children) and you said you didn't have any. For this reason I think "defamatory" is a better description of your articles than "critical", and I'm not surprised that the autonomous educators on HE-UK and elsewhere felt angry and betrayed, and that some of them responded by posting your own description of yourself as a liar in the comments on these articles, and by alerting the editors of the newspapers concerned to the fact that you described yourself thus.
The surprising thing is that you are apparently so upset by their response!
I'm not upset, merely irritated. I have been through all the points in the articles which I wrote many times in this blog and really don't have the energy to do it all again. Look through some of the old posts. As far as the last paragraph you quote, that is the subject of my post today.
ReplyDelete"I gave out a huge amount of information quite openly about myself, making no attempt to conceal anything at all."
ReplyDeleteExcept the fact that you were planning to write defamatory articles about AE in the national press.
Oh, and the fact that you have an older daughter who went to school. You were still lying about that a few days ago, when you said that Simone was particularly precious to you because you had resigned yourself to never being a father by the time she was born, or words to that effect. I asked you at the time how your older daughter felt about you denying her existence in this way, and you didn't give me an answer.
In today's world of blended and reconstituted families, there are many different sorts of family other than the traditional nuclear one to which you apparently belong. I am really not prepared to discuss the precise composition of my family with regard to adoption, step parenting and so on.
ReplyDeleteMy last comment seem to have disappeared. Apologies if I'm repeating myself.
ReplyDelete"I gave out a huge amount of information quite openly about myself, making no attempt to conceal anything at all."
Except the fact that you were planning to write defamatory articles about AE in the national press.
And the fact that you have an older daughter who went to school, which you were still lying about a few days ago. You said that Simone was particularly precious to you because by the time she was born you had given up hope of being a father, or words to that effect. I asked you how your older daughter felt about you denying her existence, and you didn't answer.
There you go, jumping to conclusions again. What makes you think I have a traditional nuclear family? This is the kind of sloppy thinking that informs your newspaper articles.
ReplyDeleteSince you are being so secretive about yourself, I have no choice. What about a little disclosure here? I have been very open. You know my name and that of my child. You have seen my photograph. Perhaps if you respond with similar candour and openess, we will be able to have a proper exchange.
ReplyDeleteMy identity is not relevant to this discussion.
ReplyDeleteHmmmm, and yet you were happy to criticise me for what you saw as my dysfunctional parenting above. So it seems that my identity and personal life is relevant to this discussion, but yours is not.
ReplyDeleteWell yes. Because you have admitted that you lie about your identity and personal life in a context which is relevant to this discussion.
ReplyDeleteAware though I am of all the usual warnings about feeding trolls, how have I admitted lying about my identity and personal life in the context of home education? Answers on a postcard please; there is a limit to how much time I wish to spend with you on this subject.
ReplyDeleteWe were discussing the vicious smear campaign conducted against you by the members of HE-UK, which consisted mostly of x-posting your admission that you lie about your identity and personal life for financial gain to the comments sections of your defamatory articles on home education.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think I have in the past dealt with this particular aspect comprehensively on more than one occasion. I have the feeling that we are going round in circles and am content to leave it at that.
ReplyDelete"For "defamatory" in the above comment, please read "critical"."
ReplyDeleteI'll stick with defamatory if you don't mind, because I know your comments are not true.
You really expect people to use their real name with some of the weird people out there on the internet? You have already lost one regular poster, Mrs Anon, because she risked posting enough information to identify herself. If you want to risk your family's safety by revealing so much information that's your decision. But I'd actually rather take the advice given to children and not give out personal information on the internet. I'd rather model safe internet behaviour to my children and not say to them, "do as I say, not as I do."
ReplyDeleteI think the levels Simon will sink to to discredit other people are quite clear, when someone posts to a group asking for help and advise *most* members would do just that, but not Simon, Simon prefers to publish said request on his own blog in an attempt to cause humiliation and discredit other home educators. Thats not something a nice person would do. Enough said!
ReplyDelete