Yesterday morning I noticed on one of the lists to which I belong that a journalist from the Sunday Express was trying to get in touch with women who had been home educated, with a particular view to seeing if they would consider home educating their own children. I immediately thought of C who comes on here pretty regularly and so simply posted the request here so that she could read it for herself. She, after all, was home educated and also chose as a mother herself to home educate.
I thought no more about this, it was an innocuous enough post, nothing surely to which even the most irritable and aggressive home educator could take exception. Imagine my surprise on looking at the comments that evening! 'Self-deluded prick', 'despicable little man'; all for reposting a request from somebody to get in touch with home educators.
This set me thinking about something which I have been mulling over quite a lot recently. Now by any standard, it is plain that the two people whom I quote above are singularly unpleasant individuals. This is notwithstanding the fact that they are home educators. It is of course only to be expected that any large group should contain some awful people of this sort. It would be the same if our reference group were to be composed of Liberal Democrats, electricians, Freemasons, footballers or aroma-therapists. Some members of these groups will be pleasant and engaging, while others will be nasty pieces of work. After all, I have met people who described themselves as Socialists who were nevertheless greedy and selfish and I have also met others who call themselves Conservatives who are open-hearted and generous. It is not what a person calls himself that matters, but what sort of a character he really has.
One frequently sees home educating parents posting on forums and lists, who are having trouble with their local authorities. What never ceases to amaze me is the unconditional and quite unreasoning belief expressed by others on the list that simply by virtue of being home educators, these people must be right and their local authority wrong in any dispute between them. Common sense would suggest that in many cases where a problem arises between somebody and their local authority, it is the fault of the individual rather than the council. This never seems to occur to home educators. Because these people claim to belong to the same reference group as everybody else, this is at once enough to make them right. In a worst case scenario, this can lead home educating parents to endorse mad and dangerous cult leaders. Have a look at the Free Sweden Net site run by Christopher Warren, widely supposed to have an unhealthy interest in underage girls, and you will find an endorsement from Karen Rodgers, a home educating mother in this country. Why does she recommend this madman? Simple; it is because he says he is a home educator!
Whenever I read about somebody having a row with their council, I assume that one party or the other and quite possibly both, are at fault. This radical idea does not occur to home educators, who seem naturally to jump to the conclusion that if somebody calling herself a home educator is having trouble with her local authority, then the LA is in the wrong and the parent is automatically in the right. In some cases, this is no doubt true, but in others it is manifestly not the case; at least judging by the information being given. This blind loyalty to individuals based only on their membership of the same group as us can be a very dangerous thing. We should bear in mind that not all home educators are really good natured, pleasant individuals who are fit to teach their own children. Neither are all local authority officers double-dyed villains whose only motive is to force reluctant children back into school. We should take the time to look at each situation on a case by case basis and not be too hasty to support this person or condemn that, purely on their membership of one group or another.
I think it depends on whether you come from a position of agreement with the principle of local authority monitoring of home educators, or not. A person who agreed with that to begin with would agree with you completely. A person who didn't probably wouldn't. It's fairly safe to guess that the 'others on the list' mostly don't.
ReplyDeleteI see MFW is putting the feelers out for a journalist on HEUK.
ReplyDeleteDoes that make him a 'despicable little man' too, I wonder?
ReplyDeleteAlready was...
ReplyDelete"Does that make him a 'despicable little man' too, I wonder?"
ReplyDeleteThe person who called Simon a despicable little man thought this because of Simon's past actions, not because he forwarded a request from a journalist. You need to work on your reading comprehension anonymous.
"Imagine my surprise on looking at the comments that evening! 'Self-deluded prick', 'despicable little man'; all for reposting a request from somebody to get in touch with home educators."
ReplyDeleteIt was clear that the first reaction was because they thought you were the journalist in question and, given your history, the reaction is not unexpected (not that I condone bad language). I'm sure you knew they had misunderstood who had written this message, so it seems strange that in this blog post you write as though you were unaware of this misunderstanding.
It was a strange way to present the request, copying and pasting it into your blog without any explanation beforehand. It beings, "I am writing a feature for S magazine," so, given the fact that you also write articles, it's an easy mistake to make. The authorship only becomes clear right at the end.
As to it being clear that home educators are sometimes at fault, I suppose that depends on what you use as an indicator of this. For instance, if a parent objects to annual LA enquiries, someone who agrees that it's acceptable for LAs to make annual enquiries will view this parent as at fault. Others will have a different opinion and will offer support based on that opinion. I have seen it suggested in advice messages that the parent has made mistakes in their dealings with LAs so the advice is not invariably one way. Maybe you could give some examples of the type of indication you see as suggesting a parent is at fault?
'The person who called Simon a despicable little man thought this because of Simon's past actions, not because he forwarded a request from a journalist. You need to work on your reading comprehension anonymous. '
ReplyDeleteSo, people reading here are supposed to know the background of everyone writing? So, what's Darren's background? And yours?
'I'm sure you knew they had misunderstood who had written this message, so it seems strange that in this blog post you write as though you were unaware of this misunderstanding.'
ReplyDeleteWell no, not being psychic, I could not possibly have predicted that some readers would assume that this post referred to me! It was headed 'Journalist looking for home educated women' and signed by a woman working for the Sunday Express. Since I am not a journalist, do not work for the Sunday Express and am not called Suzey Barber, I am at a loss to know how this misunderstanding has arisen. If I wanted to interview home educated parents for an article, I would simply ask if anybody here was interested in contributing. I did this before I wrote my first book on the subject of home edcuation. The only reason I reblogged that appeal was, as I said, because I thought that it might interest C.
"So, people reading here are supposed to know the background of everyone writing?"
ReplyDeleteOh, so you didn't read the original comment? You just believed Simon's interpretation of it? Then sorry, you don't lack reading comprehension, you're just maybe a little too trusting and believe everything you read. The whole comment is copied below:
"However trustworthy, ethical or well-intentioned the journalist may be, all credibility is lost for choosing to associate herself with this despicable little man that has wrecked havoc and ill-repute upon the goodly cause of HE for many years.
S. L."
Clearly the writer doesn't think that Simon is a despicable little man because he forwarding the message, so it makes no sense to suggest that the writer will think that about other people. It's an understandable mistake on your part I suppose, because Simon seems to have misread or misrepresented the original comment in the same way.
Simon said,
ReplyDelete"Well no, not being psychic, I could not possibly have predicted that some readers would assume that this post referred to me!"
So when the person said, "The thought of anyone trusting you to write a piece about them, its hilarious.", you didn't understand that to mean they thought you were writing the piece?
"Since I am not a journalist"
What's the difference between a journalist and someone who writes articles for newspapers? As I said in my original comment, the only mention of who wrote it came at the end. The original commenter obviously didn't get that far. It's your blog and the blog article began with, "I am writing a feature for S magazine", without quote marks or any indication that you had not written the message (until the end).
"I am at a loss to know how this misunderstanding has arisen."
It's far easier to see how their misunderstanding of your original post happened than your failure to spot their misunderstanding.
"If I wanted to interview home educated parents for an article, I would simply ask if anybody here was interested in contributing."
If you ignore the last couple of lines, that's how the blog post reads. You could easily have written it. I suspect it's not uncommon for people to stop reading before the end of a message.
'So, people reading here are supposed to know the background of everyone writing'
ReplyDelete'It's an understandable mistake on your part I suppose, because Simon seems to have misread or misrepresented the original comment in the same way.'
Well of course, understanding this is still dependent upon knowing the backgrounds of all those involved. I may have 'wrecked' havoc and ill repute, but one would be unwise to take this statement at face value without knowing a good deal more both about me and the person who feels that I have harmed the 'goodly' cause of HE.
"I may have 'wrecked' havoc and ill repute, but one would be unwise to take this statement at face value without knowing a good deal more both about me and the person who feels that I have harmed the 'goodly' cause of HE."
ReplyDeleteOf course. The point is though, the original commenter did not think you were a despicable little man because you forward the request which is how you represent the comment in this blog article and in the process, misleading the current commenter. We don't need to know anything about you or the original commenter (S.L.) to understand what they wrote. Whether you believe what they say is another matter entirely.
Simon said,
ReplyDelete"Well no, not being psychic, I could not possibly have predicted that some readers would assume that this post referred to me!"
So when the person said, "The thought of anyone trusting you to write a piece about them, its hilarious.", you didn't understand that to mean they thought you were writing the piece?
"Since I am not a journalist"
What's the difference between a journalist and someone who writes articles for newspapers? As I said in my original comment, the only mention of who wrote it came at the end. The original commenter obviously didn't get that far. It's your blog and the blog article began with, "I am writing a feature for S magazine", without quote marks or any indication that you had not written the message (until the end).
"I am at a loss to know how this misunderstanding has arisen."
It's far easier to see how their misunderstanding of your original post happened than your failure to spot their misunderstanding.
"If I wanted to interview home educated parents for an article, I would simply ask if anybody here was interested in contributing."
If you ignore the last couple of lines, that's how the blog post reads. You could easily have written it. I suspect it's not uncommon for people to stop reading before the end of a message.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"Well no, not being psychic, I could not possibly have predicted that some readers would assume that this post referred to me!"
So when the person said, "The thought of anyone trusting you to write a piece about them, its hilarious.", you didn't understand that to mean they thought you were writing the piece?
"Since I am not a journalist"
What's the difference between a journalist and someone who writes articles for newspapers? As I said in my original comment, the only mention of who wrote it came at the end. The original commenter obviously didn't get that far. It's your blog and the blog article began with, "I am writing a feature for S magazine", without quote marks or any indication that you had not written the message (until the end).
"I am at a loss to know how this misunderstanding has arisen."
It's far easier to see how their misunderstanding of your original post happened than your failure to spot their misunderstanding.
"If I wanted to interview home educated parents for an article, I would simply ask if anybody here was interested in contributing."
If you ignore the last couple of lines, that's how the blog post reads. You could easily have written it. I suspect it's not uncommon for people to stop reading before the end of a message.
For some reason Blogger doesn't like a post I'm trying to make and keeps deleting it. I'll try splitting it up into pieces to see which bit it doesn't like:
ReplyDeleteSimon wrote,
"Well no, not being psychic, I could not possibly have predicted that some readers would assume that this post referred to me!"
So when the person said, "The thought of anyone trusting you to write a piece about them, its hilarious.", you didn't understand that to mean they thought you were writing the piece?
Well that piece seems to be sticking. Here's the second instalment:
ReplyDeleteSimon wrote,
"Since I am not a journalist"
What's the difference between a journalist and someone who writes articles for newspapers? As I said in my original comment, the only mention of who wrote it came at the end. The original commenter obviously didn't get that far. It's your blog and the blog article began with, "I am writing a feature for S magazine", without quote marks or any indication that you had not written the message (until the end).
So far so good. Here's the third and hopefully last instalment:
ReplyDeleteSimon wrote,
"I am at a loss to know how this misunderstanding has arisen."
It's far easier to see how their misunderstanding of your original post happened than your failure to spot their misunderstanding.
"If I wanted to interview home educated parents for an article, I would simply ask if anybody here was interested in contributing."
If you ignore the last couple of lines, that's how the blog post reads. You could easily have written it. I suspect it's not uncommon for people to stop reading before the end of a message.
"Now by any standard, it is plain that the two people whom I quote above are singularly unpleasant individuals."
ReplyDeleteBut at least you cannot claim they are assessing you on how you define yourself!
I didn't realise I was part of a 'goodly cause'. Where can I read the mandate of this 'goodly cause'?
ReplyDeleteBlogger's going mad, either that or it's me. The full posts were definitely not there after I'd posted it in three parts. At least, I don't think they were...
ReplyDeleteIt is clear Anonymous, that this is far more important to you than it is to me. I still think that it was needlessly unpleasant to call me a self-deluded prick for drawing attention to a journalist who wished to interview home edcautors. You do not find this unpleasant and we must simply agree to differ.
ReplyDelete"You do not find this unpleasant and we must simply agree to differ."
ReplyDeleteWell I've already said that I don't condone bad language, but just to be clear, this is one of the few points we do not differ on. I do find that kind of language unpleasant. I also dislike the way you twist people's words to make a point or scrabble together enough 'conflict' to justify a blog post.
And once again for the record, they didn't call you names for drawing attention to a journalist who wished to interview home educators. They called you names because they thought you wanted to carry out the interviews yourself. Repeating a misunderstanding or lie often enough doesn't make it true, Simon.
'And once again for the record, they didn't call you names for drawing attention to a journalist who wished to interview home educators. They called you names because they thought you wanted to carry out the interviews yourself. '
ReplyDeleteYes, but you see if I thought that somebody wished to conduct an interview I would either volunteer to take part or not. I would not call anybody a self-deluded prick for wishing to interview anybody. As I say, you celarly cannot see this point and so I think we should just leave it.
'I also dislike the way you twist people's words to make a point or scrabble together enough 'conflict' to justify a blog post.'
ReplyDeleteI do like this! I repost a request for an interview and when I am called a self-deluded prick as a consequence; it is I who am 'scrabbling together conflict'. I have a suspicion that the conflict and animosity were not of my making, although of course I may be wrong about this!
Simon, you do twist peoples words. And you lie, and lie and lie. This much has been shown often enough through your postings on this blog, there is no doubt about this, it is there in black and white.
ReplyDeleteYes, I did think it was you requesting people to come forward for a piece that you were writing, no I didn't read to the end of the post.
So the idea that you, a proven liar, who regularly twists peoples words on this blog, would be trusted by anyone to write an article, I found hilarious.
I think you are self deluded. I take back the word prick, if it offends anyone, you are a pompous idiot though.
Darren
'scrabbling together conflict'
ReplyDeleteThis is the home ed community, you don't have to scrabble together conflict, the nutters like it that way. Some of them have bought it with them....from school and some of them join lists like HEUK and think it's obligatory...
The ones to watch out for are heavily involved in home ed politics, that's because they've got serious personality disorders.
That 'conflict' all started back in the early days of EO... some weird ritual with a conch shell allowing you the right to speak.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, the early pioneers of home education would get into a state of near homicide and cannibalism to take possession of the shell.
To think we're over 40 years on and nowt has changed.
I blame t'interweb and all them home ed forums..
ReplyDeletewe can't even be civil face to face.
And there's a new forum everytime some 'self deluded prick' takes his sprog out of school.
It don't get no better than when the personal abuse kicks off.
ReplyDelete'And there's a new forum everytime some 'self deluded prick' takes his sprog out of school.'
ReplyDeleteThat's funny.
Free speech? The right for people to be supported and offer support in the way they find most useful irritates some people, who'd rather all comments and questions about HE went through his own little fiefdom of a list.
Oh yeah 'support', that's not high up on the list of priorities for EO volunteers. Not that important to some listowners.
ReplyDeleteAnd completely bypassed by 95% of those involved in HE politics.
'Oh yeah 'support', that's not high up on the list of priorities for EO volunteers. Not that important to some listowners.
ReplyDeleteAnd completely bypassed by 95% of those involved in HE politics.'
I'm afraid I don't know much about EO volunteers or those involved in HE politics. I am a listowner in my own small way and work HARD to ensure people get support.
Perhaps you could offer your assistance to your own local county yahoogroup moderator who may be feeling, as I know I am, over-worked and regularly criticised for the work she attempts to do.
"This is the home ed community, you don't have to scrabble together conflict, the nutters like it that way."
ReplyDeleteSo why the need for Simon to invent conflict by 'misunderstanding' people's comments?
'So why the need for Simon to invent conflict by 'misunderstanding' people's comments?'
ReplyDeleteThis is not true. I headed a post 'Journalist looking for home educated women'. I am not in the habit of referring to myself in the third person in this way and so it was clear that I was referring to somebody else. Lest there should have been any misunderstanding, the journalist's name was included; Suzey Barber. I do not for a moment believe that anybody reading this post would have thught that I was the journalist involved. If there has been any misunderstanding, it is not of my making.
Somebody then called me a self-deluded prick. I am not at all sure how I could be said to have invented conflict here! Forwarding a request for an interview by a journalist is hardly starting a conflict; calling somebody a self-deluded prick, on the other hand, is very likely to create conflict.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"I headed a post 'Journalist looking for home educated women'. I am not in the habit of referring to myself in the third person in this way and so it was clear that I was referring to somebody else."
So now everyone must be psychic and know that you never refer to yourself in the third person?
"Lest there should have been any misunderstanding, the journalist's name was included; Suzey Barber."
Right at the end. The person who insulted you obviously had not read that far because it was clear that they thought you were writing the article. You then invented conflict by deciding that they insulted you because you passed on the request. If there's so much conflict (and I'm not disputing that), why the need to twist the commenter's obvious meaning? Or did you just misread or misunderstand their comment?
As I say, forwarding a request for an interview from a journalist is not likely to provoke conflict. Calling somebody a prick is.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, though I suspect the commenter would say that your past actions initiated the conflict - that their name calling was a response to your past provocative actions.
ReplyDeleteBut did you just misread or misunderstand their comment, or did you purposely misrepresent it?
'But did you just misread or misunderstand their comment, or did you purposely misrepresent it?'
ReplyDeleteI posted the request from a journalist and somebody called me a prick in consequence. I thought this unpleasant. There is little more to say about this.
You really, really, really don't like admitting mistakes, do you Simon?
ReplyDeleteIt's not even as though it's an important mistake.
ReplyDeleteHere is what I said;
ReplyDelete'I thought no more about this, it was an innocuous enough post, nothing surely to which even the most irritable and aggressive home educator could take exception. Imagine my surprise on looking at the comments that evening! 'Self-deluded prick', 'despicable little man'; all for reposting a request from somebody to get in touch with home educators.'
As I have said, the abuse was a direct consequence of my posting the request from a journalist.I posted the request; I received abuse. If anybody wishes to believe that I am mistaken about the sequence of events, that is fine. I am not sure what the nature of my supposed mistake is here, but I think that I have spent enough of my life responding courteously to others about this relatively minor matter.
Life isn't lived in a vacuum with automatic fresh starts every day. Your past actions influence other people's responses to future actions. I'm not sure why you would be surprised that someone would react negatively to the idea of you writing another article about home educators.
ReplyDeleteYes, I know that was a misunderstanding on the commenter's part and you had no intention of writing the article, but given that misunderstanding (and it was obvious that they had made that mistake) why would you be surprised at a negative response? Your surprise at the negative response is much stranger than the response itself.