I have watched with interest as the main representative of the home educating community in this country, at least as far as the Department for Education are concerned, has changed from being Education Otherwise to the so-called 'secret group' led by Alison Sauer. I am sure that we are all aware that EO has been in a somewhat chaotic state lately, but even so this is a remarkable change in perspective.
I was at first a little puzzled when I read the document which Alison Sauer circulated. It had the appearance of something put together a little hastily and rushed out in a hurry. I think that in this case, appearances were not deceptive. Her stock may have been rising very high with the Department for Education, various MPs and Lords and quite a few local authorities; it had however plummeted with many home educating parents themselves, some of whom were viewing her as little better than a Quisling. This was not good. If she wishes to persuade those in the government like Nick Gibb, the schools Minister, that she is their vital link with the home educators, she cannot afford to become too unpopular with the very people she claims to represent. When the business with Suffolk blew up, she saw the chance to rehabilitate herself with some of those parents who were beginning to doubt her motives. As well as rushing out the document denouncing the ultra vires practices of local authorities, she also joined the HE-UK list under her real name. Her posts are a little smug and evasive; she reminds me of an infuriating child chanting, 'I know something you don't know, I know something you don't know!' By an odd coincidence, Ruth O'Hare also joined the HE-UK list under her real name at precisely the same time. For years she has posted as Firebird2110 and now she too is using her own name.
One of the problems with Alison Sauer being accepted as the authentic face of elective home education in this country is that she is actually in opposition to much of what many parents in this country believe in. Let us look at one particular aspect of these differences and see where Alison Sauer's views might be leading her in her negotiations with the administration at Westminster. Many home educating parents are opposed to regular monitoring. When their local authority contacts them after a year or two and asks for further information and to see how the education is progressing, the standard response by many is that nothing has changed and that the LA are only justified in making further enquiries if they think that something has changed. In other words, many home educators believe that the local authority should simply assume that the education is still suitable unless new evidence emerges to the contrary. This is in sharp opposition to what Alison Sauer is teaching local authorities and saying to people as varied as Graham Badman and Graham Stuart. She says;
' Periodic review of provision is allowed for in law (time being a change in circumstance).'
In other words, she believes that it is quite OK for local authorities to come back regularly year after year for new information about the nature of the educational provision being provided. This is because, contray to what is often warmly asserted on the various Internet lists, there has been a change in circumstances after a year or two. For many, this is indistinguishable from regular monitoring.
Actually, Alison Sauer agrees with me on many points and a lot of the things which I have said here and been savagely denounced for are actually identical with her views. Take this:
'Mr Badman confuses rights with duties with regard to education. There is frequent reference to balancing the rights of the child against those of the parent. However there is no conflict. Home education is not a right of parents per se, in fact the child has a right to education in both English, European and International law. In England that right gives rise to a duty on behalf of the parent to provide an education.'
There now, I could not have put it better myself! I am intrigued by what is currently taking place in the world of home education and the shift from Education Otherwise to the 'secret group'. I broadly agree with a lot of what is being planned, but my objection is that it is not being done democratically. If this group of individuals would now declare themselves and state their aims clearly, then I have an idea that although many would oppose what they are doing, others would support them. The problem is that we are not being given the opportunity to do this, because we do not even know who these people are and what they stand for. This makes me profoundly uneasy when their actions may affect so many others. I am certainly not against a change in the legal arrangements for home education, but I would like to see in detail just what is being proposed and who is involved in proposing it.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"When their local authority contacts them after a year or two and asks for further information and to see how the education is progressing, the standard response by many is that nothing has changed and that the LA are only justified in making further enquiries if they think that something has changed."
Do you really think that this is the standard response of many to their LA? This is certainly not the case with my local group, the majority of whom are happy to have visits and others write copious and detailed reports. Nobody responds in the way you suggest. This has been the case in several groups I have belonged to over the years.
I would guess you are basing this impression of *many* on the responses of the vocal minority on email lists you so often claim do not represent the majority of home educators when discussing other issues, yet here it suits your current point to ignore this. I suppose it depends on what you mean by many. If 'many' is 5-10, you may be right. But when you are talking about a group that runs into tens of thousands, I would expect 'many' to represent a considerably higher figure.
I suppose more may actually believe that the LA should accept that they are still providing a suitable education once they have proved this is so once (who likes to be distrusted and believed to be possibly failing their children on an annual basis and it takes time away from your children's education), but in my experience, this is not the response they give to the LA.
"This makes me profoundly uneasy when their actions may affect so many others. I am certainly not against a change in the legal arrangements for home education, but I would like to see in detail just what is being proposed and who is involved in proposing it."
ReplyDeleteYou have already been told that any guidelines produced by the group will be made available for consultation. It's an entirely normal part of democracy for initial documents to be drawn up by a small group (or even a single person) before being put to a larger group for change and refinement. Why should a HE document be any different?
'It's an entirely normal part of democracy for initial documents to be drawn up by a small group (or even a single person) before being put to a larger group for change and refinement. Why should a HE document be any different? '
ReplyDeleteIt is usual for something to be known about the reasons for a particular group or individual to be chosen. Even if the thing is not put out to tender, one might expect to be told the name of the group or individual doing the work and why they have been chosen.
Really? One of the past guideline documents was drawn up by an anonymous member or members of DFES staff as far as I recall. We only found out about it by accident when the contents were leaked. It's hardly significant enough to be put out to tender!
ReplyDeleteIt is certainly the case that civil servants are often used to prepare briefing papers and opinions. When outside bodies are used, it is customary to decalre the fact. Before the 2007 guidelines for local authorities were drawn up, for example, York Consulting were engaged in some work. No secret was made of this. Here, we do not know even the names or status of those who are working upon the new guidelines. This is the difference. When York Consulting produced its report, we knew the names of the authors, Hopwood et al. Will this be the case with the report currently being prepared? It is the secrecy of this process which makes me uneasy. I am in broad agreement with the aims.
ReplyDelete'You have already been told that any guidelines produced by the group will be made available for consultation. '
ReplyDeleteBut not by those who are actually producing the guidelines. We have not even had their names confirmed.
Before drawing up the 2007 guidelines for local authorities, advising them on how to deal with home education, the Department for Education and Skills commissioned a small scale feasibility study. This was conducted by York Consulting and the authors of the report were Vicky Hopwood, Louise O'Neill, Gabriela Castro and Beth Hodgson. The question is; why is the present preliminary work not being conducted as openly as this? Why are the authors of the current research determined not to reveal their names? This is not common practice. Has the Department for Education actually commissioned this work? If not, who has? These are all simple and reasonable questions and the fact that nobody seems keen to answer them is making some people feel that the whole thing is a little odd.
ReplyDelete"Before the 2007 guidelines for local authorities were drawn up, for example, York Consulting were engaged in some work."
ReplyDeleteWhat did an study attempting to find out how many home educators there are have to do with the 2007 guidelines? Who produced the draft 2007 guidelines?
or even 'a study'
ReplyDelete'What did an study attempting to find out how many home educators there are have to do with the 2007 guidelines? '
ReplyDeleteThe York Consulting study was not just about counting home educated children.The aim of the study was certainly to assess the viability of determining the prevalence of home education in England, but it was also intended that the study would yield information on the numbers and characteristics of home educated children, the reasons why parents elect to home educate, the methods they use and perceptions of achievement.
The aim was for the government to see whether the arrangements at that time were sufficient.
You are sidetracking again, Simon. We still don't know who drew up the 2007 guidelines draft. For all we know it could have been a group made up of DFES and LA staff. At least this time we know that it's a group of home educators, I know which I prefer.
ReplyDeleteThe democratic element enters the equation when the initial draft is put out for consultation to stakeholders. Hopefully this will include all home educators and not specifically exclude home educating families as happened during the 2005 consultation.
"One of the problems with Alison Sauer being accepted as the authentic face of elective home education in this country is that she is actually in opposition to much of what many parents in this country believe in."
ReplyDeleteLuckily Alison is not accepted as the face of elective HE in this country. She is just one member of a group of home educators who are producing a draft revised guidelines document that will be put out for consultation with all home educators. Also, at least one other member of the group and Graham Stuart have both state that LAs do not have a duty to monitor.
'We still don't know who drew up the 2007 guidelines draft. For all we know it could have been a group made up of DFES and LA staff.'
ReplyDeleteThere's no sidetracking here; merely a misunderstanding of how things work. I don't doubt for a moment that the 2007 guidelines as published were drawn up by civil servants. It would be surprising if they were not. Precisely the same will happen if these guidelines are revised. The same applies to bills as they are drafted.
There are two different stages to look at. Let us examine as a case, Schedule 1 of the 2009 Children, Schools and Families Bill. There was a public consultation which we all knew about, the Badman review. We knew when it was launched, we knew who was doing it, the names of the expert reference group and so on. Badman then drew up his own ideas of what should happen. Some of these were a bit loopy; for example the idea of local authority officers having a right of access to people's homes. Those who had to draw up the law based on these ideas examined the whole process, including the responses made during the review and then drafted laws. This is quite right and proper, even though we don't know the individual names of the lawyers and civil servants who carried out this stage of things.
In the case of the proposed new guidelines, we are missing the first stage. We do not know who is working on the research or what their terms of reference are. If their ideas become adopted, then civil servants will draw up the actual wording. What we have not been told is anything at all to do with the first stage, the gathering of information, who was chosen to conduct the exercise and why they were chosen. Do you see the difference here? Civil servants from the DfE will actually write the guidelines, but we are being denied the opportunity to know anything about the first stage in the process. With the 2007 guidleines, part of the first stage was the York Consulting work. With the Children, Schools and Families Bill, part of the first stage was Graham Badman's review. With the proposed new guidelines the first stage is.....what exactly? This is the nature of the problem.
Luckily Alison is not accepted as the face of elective HE in this country. She is just one member of a group of home educators who are producing a draft revised guidelines document that will be put out for consultation with all home educators.'
ReplyDeleteHow do you know this? What are the names of the others in the group? Are they all home educators, in the sense that they have children aged between five and sixteen who are being educated at home? More information, please.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"I don't doubt for a moment that the 2007 guidelines as published were drawn up by civil servants."
You are sidetracking again. I talk about the initial draft version and you switch to the published version. Last time the draft was possibly (but we don't really know) drawn up by civil servants, this time it is being drawn up by home educators. As I said before, I know which I prefer! There is a big difference between civil servants designing the guidelines and them just tidying up the language after others have designed them.
You then switch from the directly comparable compilation of past guidelines (seeing as we are discussing the production of guidelines now) to the production of a Bill, a completely different process.
"With the 2007 guidleines, part of the first stage was the York Consulting work."
But a part not comparable with the work the group of home educators are currently doing. We have no idea at all who carried out that task in 2007.
"With the proposed new guidelines the first stage is.....what exactly? This is the nature of the problem."
As I say, we know more about this stage now than equivalent comparable processes in the past. I fail to see your problem. If they were producing the final guidelines with no plans for consultation I might agree, but until we see how the consultation pans out, you do not have a point.
"Are they all home educators, in the sense that they have children aged between five and sixteen who are being educated at home?"
Why limit them to home educators of school age children? I'm perfectly happy for home educators outside of this narrow definition to take part in the production of a draft that will be put out for general consultation. They have more time than I do and at least as much experience in many cases.
'As I say, we know more about this stage now than equivalent comparable processes in the past. '
ReplyDeleteYou may; most do not. Who is actually working on the guidelines? What are the terms of reference? By whom was the work commissioned? Is the company which Alison Sauer runs with her husband involved in the process? Is any money changing hands? Tell us a little more about this business.
I know only what I've read on lists and according to this information, no money is changing hands, we know that Tania is working on the guidelines, that there are several others, and that Graham Stuart is involved and both Tania and Graham have said that monitoring is not a LA duty. The rest is guesswork, at least for me, I've probably forgotten other details given out on lists. Do we even know for sure that Alison is involved?
ReplyDeleteWe knew none of this information by this stage of the 2007 guidelines revision process. I don't think we even knew it was happening at all at this point in the process!
“It is usual for something to be known about the reasons for a particular group or individual to be chosen. Even if the thing is not put out to tender, one might expect to be told the name of the group or individual doing the work and why they have been chosen.”
ReplyDeleteWrong again Webb, just because you think it, say it you believe that you have a right to assert that it is true.
Nothing has gone out to tender, nothing is funded; nothing is being paid for (even expenses). It is the overwhelming opinion of our group that you are just a spiteful person consumed with jealously because you are not a contributor.
The reality is that, neither home educators nor government o or local government would accept having a duplicitous person involved. They could not and would not accept the risk.
webb 1582
Webb says:-
ReplyDelete“It is certainly the case that civil servants are often used to prepare briefing papers and opinions. When outside bodies are used, it is customary to decalre the fact. Before the 2007 guidelines for local authorities were drawn up, for example, York Consulting were engaged in some work. No secret was made of this. Here, we do not know even the names or status of those who are working upon the new guidelines. This is the difference. When York Consulting produced its report, we knew the names of the authors, Hopwood et al. Will this be the case with the report currently being prepared? It is the secrecy of this process which makes me uneasy. I am in broad agreement with the aims.”
You entirely miss the point Webb: no ‘body’ has been solicited, selected or procured to provide the a government with evidence to support a dogma like it was with Badman.
The current government have asked for help and received it, voluntarily and without funding. Are you just peaked that you missed it?
So unlawful Webb has no regard for intellectual property rights (IPR) and even less regard for Defamation laws.
ReplyDeleteHope you have deep pockets Webb, by the way indemnity insurance cover for writers does not extend to unlawful activities.
Many of us know the identity of firebird2010 and you have personally and wrongly stated that it is Alison Sauer. If you had but a fraction of the support that this woman has rightly earned, you would not need a blog soap box to stand and shout from when very few listen.
ReplyDeleteG
Webb thinks:
ReplyDelete“The York Consulting study was not just about counting home educated children. The aim of the study was certainly to assess the viability of determining the prevalence of home education in England, but it was also intended that the study would yield information on the numbers and characteristics of home educated children, the reasons why parents elect to home educate, the methods they use and perceptions of achievement.
The aim was for the government to see whether the arrangements at that time were sufficient.”
Poor information sources Mr. Webb resulting in utter rubbish again. The Civil Service insisted upon a pilot study as a method of stopping proposed wasteful expenditure upon a large scale investigation. It worked which is why they ended up with only spending c. 110k on the discredited Badman report. It worked the proposed legislation that they hoped to find evidence was kicked out.
You need to get downstairs to the strangers bar in the lower house more often if you want to pretend to know what is happening.
SW
ReplyDelete[How do you know this? What are the names of the others in the group? Are they all home educators, in the sense that they have children aged between five and sixteen who are being educated at home? More information, please.]
What makes you think that anyone with any integrity and sensibility would tell you anything? You will be last to know Simon.
webb 1583
It smells of rancid jealously to me too.
ReplyDeleteThe gist of the above comments seems to be that nobody is prepared to say who commissioned this project or what the terms of reference were. I am also once again getting a very strong impression that these comments are made by somebody whose first language is not English. For instance;
ReplyDelete' What makes you think that anyone with any integrity and sensibility would tell you anything?'
Using 'sensibility' in this way has not been common since the days of Jane Austen! There is also the use of expressions like IPR. We saw this in the document which Alison Sauer circulated, where the author dropped in abreviations like LOC and G & A costs. This suggests somebody in business. Again, points towards Ralph Sauer, who both uses this sort of jargon in his work and also does not have English as his first language.
Webb,
ReplyDeleteI am one of the contributors above, born in Royal Berkshire with more than a thousand years of traceable antecedents. English stock throughout, dear boy and proud of it!.
Stop throwing mud in the direction of the Sauer family: Alison Sauer has deservedly earned the very considerable and widespread admiration of more people than you probably even know. Her husband has better things to do than pay any attention to scurrilous fools like you. Alison Sauer certainly does not need him or anyone else to speak up for her.
The best way for you to answer your various critics seems to be nothing other than insulting innocent people as a paranoid distraction.
It seems that a court of law rather than the court of public opinion is the only way to drive any sensibility into your head.
Every week you choose a new person to blames and become the victim of you lack of rational thinking ability.
ReplyDeleteLook in the mirror Simon.
He cries
ReplyDelete"The gist of the above comments seems to be that nobody is prepared to say who commissioned this project or what the terms of reference were."
Yet again.
Stop bleating and raise a FOI request.
1584
"The gist of the above comments seems to be that nobody is prepared to say who commissioned this project or what the terms of reference were."
ReplyDeleteYou've read the same email list messages as everyone else, Simon. Graham Stuart appears to be organising the project (can it be called 'commissioned' if no money is changing hands?) and the plan is to re-write the so that they are easier for LAs to understand in the hope that more of them will follow them. Since they cannot change the law using guidelines, the intention must be to describe the current legal situation. What else do you want to know? Why not ask Graham Stuart yourself if you are so interested? You're not usually this slow in coming forward, Simon.
Whoops, missed a word there. It should read, 'the plan is to re-write the guidelines'.
ReplyDelete'It seems that a court of law rather than the court of public opinion is the only way to drive any sensibility into your head.'
ReplyDeleteOnce again, the odd use of the word 'sensibility'. Also, the either archaic or self consciously affected use of the expression 'dear boy' to reinforce the claim of being English. I wonder which court of law this person has in mind?
' Why not ask Graham Stuart yourself if you are so interested? '
ReplyDeleteGraham Stuart is strangely shy about answering questions about this project. He will not say when he arranged it or what Nick Gibb's role in the matter is.
'You need to get downstairs to the strangers bar in the lower house more often '
ReplyDeleteHow often does one hear the commons being referred to as 'the lower house'? This makes it a racing certainty that this person is not from this country. European, I suspect, but definitely not raised in Britain. Good idiomatic use of Englsih alternates with the sort of language one could only learn at college. I would hazard a guess and say either German or Scandinavian.
"Graham Stuart is strangely shy about answering questions about this project."
ReplyDeleteHave you asked him directly? What question did you ask and how did he reply?
"Good idiomatic use of Englsih alternates with the sort of language one could only learn at college. I would hazard a guess and say either German or Scandinavian."
That, or someone just loves winding you up by using language as differently as possible.
That, or someone just loves winding you up by using language as differently as possible.
ReplyDeleteNeat!
Webb’s vulnerability lies in his disdain for the truth. He demonstrates a proclivity to’ appear hurt’ by remarks which he considers to unkind. People that that are insensitive to the feelings of others yet unable to confront the less than favourable truth about themselves, are often driven by a lonely insecurity complex, for which they oft-times overcompensate by exhibiting a clamour for attention.
ReplyDeleteA modern device for achieving this, is the self congratulatory past-time of writing a blogg in which to denounce everyone except there one or two friends. This feeds the need not for public consummation of their output but moreover their delusional desire to see themselves as a guru hopeful of gaining some kind of cult status to appease hungry insecurities.
It is a recipe for incorrigibility, so no adverse opinions expressed here will really upset him. The real harm is to ignore him; methinks it is a distorted sensibility worth probing.
Combine the compulsion of an insecurity complex in overdrive mode with a superiority mania and you have identified a person to be avoided.
"Graham Stuart is strangely shy about answering questions about this project."
ReplyDeleteThis is code for Webb being too lazy to raise a FOI act request.
'That, or someone just loves winding you up by using language as differently as possible.'
ReplyDeleteThe use of 'dear boy' could very well be an example of this. Writing of the 'lower house' is less likely. Nietzsche said; 'Even when the mouth lies, the direction it points can often tell the truth'!
"Using 'sensibility' in this way has not been common since the days of Jane Austen!"
ReplyDeleteYou just don't move in the right circles webb
'Combine the compulsion of an insecurity complex in overdrive mode with a superiority mania and you have identified a person to be avoided.'
ReplyDeleteA fair point, but the obvious question then to be asked is why you do not simply avoid me? All that is needed is not to come onto this blog and your object is accomplished!
'Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"Using 'sensibility' in this way has not been common since the days of Jane Austen!"
You just don't move in the right circles webb'
Possibly. I wonder when readers last heard somebody described as, 'a man of sensibility' in real life. It is of course technically correct, but only somebody unfamilar with ordinary, colloquial English would use such a phrase.
'You just don't move in the right circles webb'
ReplyDeleteIn order to understand why this person is so touchy about his English, readers should know that he prides homself on being something of a linguist. In addition to the three languages in which he is supposedly fluent, he also claims a working knowledge of half a dozen more including Czech and Norwegian. He uses English in a way which is perfect technically, but gives an odd and slightly old fashioned impression.
'This is code for Webb being too lazy to raise a FOI act request.'
ReplyDeleteNot really. This is code for Webb knowing that none of this has been done as part of the official work of either Graham Stuart or Nick Gibb and will therefore not show up through a Freedom of Information request. One cannot make an FoI request about private conversations. Well, one can, but it would pointless. Who can forget Mike Fortune-Wood making a Freedom of Information request to a magazine?
"The use of 'dear boy' could very well be an example of this. Writing of the 'lower house' is less likely."
ReplyDeleteYou are forgetting to factor in the tendency for home educators (and no doubt others) to zone in on novel words and phrases and start using them. You've actually mentioned this tendency on your blog before, I think 'ultra vires' was one of your examples.
Also, their current reading might be historical fiction. I know that my current reading material influences my written language (probably more so than my spoken language) and even spelling. For instance, I noticed at one point that I had started to spell 'reflection' as 'reflexion' and traced the change to a particular book. Both are correct, but I think reflexion was used more often in the past than today.
"This is code for Webb knowing that none of this has been done as part of the official work of either Graham Stuart or Nick Gibb"
ReplyDeleteHow do you know this? And why not just ask him? You usually do, as in the magazine example.
"You need to get downstairs to the strangers bar in the lower house more often if you want to pretend to know what is happening."
ReplyDeleteThe entire HE community would not fit in the strangers bar, if having coffee and smooching with MPs and Lords is the only way for mortals to know what's going on this is far less a democracy than it pretends to be. Those HEers who are engaging secretly in this behaviour clearly prefer to play weird games than engage in honest open discussions.
' oft-times '
ReplyDeleteWhat the heck does that mean? And why are you talking to Simon in the 3rd person?
' It is the overwhelming opinion of our group that you are just a spiteful person consumed with jealously because you are not a contributor.'
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, it is the overwhelming opinion of the majority of home educators that secret groups working without general consent are a BIG mistake.
'Alison Sauer has deservedly earned the very considerable and widespread admiration of more people than you probably even know.'
ReplyDeleteReally? How?
Curious that somew very vociferous people have fallen silent and are seemingly unwilling to address the last four comments here!
ReplyDelete'It is the overwhelming opinion of our group that you are just a spiteful person consumed with jealously because you are not a contributor'
ReplyDeleteSo it is a closed group? At one time it was being suggested by Tania Berlow that anybody could contribute, but this comment, apparently by a member of the group, seems to be saying that only those chosen by the group are able to contribute.
"Unfortunately, it is the overwhelming opinion of the majority of home educators that secret groups working without general consent are a BIG mistake."
ReplyDeleteIt may be the case that roughly 20 people who have spoken up about this issue on email lists feel this way. However, there were also many who said they were willing to wait and see. We also we know little about how the majority feel.
I am happy to suspend judgement and wait to see what is produced and have not mentioned this on email lists so there's another tick in the 'wait and see' box if you bother to take a survey and actually find out what people do think.
At least this time the revision of guidelines is being carried out by home educators. On previous occasions it has been carried out by unknowns, probably civil servants, before we have even been told that it is happening.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"Curious that somew very vociferous people have fallen silent and are seemingly unwilling to address the last four comments here!"
Either that, or they are having a lie in or are otherwise engaged.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"So it is a closed group? At one time it was being suggested by Tania Berlow that anybody could contribute, but this comment, apparently by a member of the group, seems to be saying that only those chosen by the group are able to contribute."
So you would prefer to believe the comment of a random, anonymous person who may or may not be a member of the group in question (they may well be talking about another group) than publicly made comments by a known individual? I suppose the fact that they appear to be helping your argument has nothing to do with this? Aren't you the person that has written blog articles railing against home educators who believe rumour without research? Shame on you, Simon!
'So you would prefer to believe the comment of a random, anonymous person who may or may not be a member of the group in question (they may well be talking about another group) than publicly made comments by a known individual?'
ReplyDeleteSince all the members bar one of this group are determined to remain anonymous, it is hard to know who is and who is not a member of the group. Even Alison Sauer will not admit that she is a member. The obvious remedy is for the members of the group to declare themselves openly. I suppose that the person who posted here anonymously is as liekly to be a member of the group as anybody else. Why not stop playing silly beggars and provide a list of names?
'At one time it was being suggested by Tania Berlow that anybody could contribute, but this comment, apparently by a member of the group, seems to be saying that only those chosen by the group are able to contribute. '
ReplyDeleteI was most definately having a lie in . However, responding to certain comments is not always the best choice. depending on the comment, silence oft times is the better option.
One the idea of guidelines being reframed was formed and made public, people chose whether or not they wished to contribute , have a say or understand a bit more by making contact. People chose to do that hence the 'group' is made up of these people. These people chose the group not the group who chose the people.
going back to bed now.
>>>>'Alison Sauer has deservedly earned the very considerable and widespread admiration of more people than you probably even know.'
ReplyDeleteReally? How? <<<<<
Anyone have any information on this?